Does THINNER Work?



I'm loving James Smythe's "re-reading Stephen King" series. His most recent entry is the Bachman novel, Thinner.  Smythe subtitles the article, "The last time Richard Bachman and Stephen King were thought to be different writers, and King's signature is becoming ever clearer in its story."  That is quite true.
Smythe's article can be found www.guardian.co.uk
Smythe writes,
What made a book Bachman rather than King? Was erring closer to King's usual output here some deep-level subconscious version of self-sabotage? Of wanting to be found out? Of wanting to be able to claim these books as his own again?
Smythe notes that King had previously done a nice job with unlikeable protagonists, including Carrie and Jack Torrance, but Smythe can't find anything redeemable about that Halleck --and that "makes reading the novel relatively tough."

Is it tough for the main character in a story to be truly rotten?  I don't know.  I'm watching House of Cards on netflix, and there's not much redeemable about the main character!  Thinner is dark for other reasons.  Smythe discusses the supernatural elements of Thinner as being more King than Bachman.

What breaks the book for me?  Plotting.  It doesn't work.  Thinner twists and turns with plot twists that aren't always logical.  More bluntly, Thinner feels forced to me.  The ending in particular feels like an end that King wanted to get us to.  Twilight Zoneish as it may be, it didn't feel natural to the flow of the story.  King is forcing the plot, not letting the story itself take its natural turns.

That said, I might ask: What would a more plausible ending to Thinner be?

13 comments:

  1. Does it work? Well, I could somehow never get into it, personally, despite the fact that the setting and characters should have made it right up my alley (it's always fun to tackle (read: mess with) the thoroughly modern, materialistic jet set). George Beahm says that the book is supposed to be a satire of the Eighties like Needful Things, and technically because of character and setting, the theme is more easier to grasp.

    As for how it could have been better? Well, I started thinking, what if instead of taking away, the curse gives something to Halleck, a particular kind of second sight.

    At first, it's almost like a gift, he can read thoughts (sometimes) and everything stands out more brighter somehow and for a time his life seems to pick up because of it.

    Then one day he looks in a mirror and a Lovecraftian monstrosity stairs back. Pretty soon, the very people he's known all his life, including his parents all start to appear like giant bug like creatures with malicious intent.

    I know we're edging into Insomnia territory here, yet i liked the idea of being able to see reality as "thin" (King's words) and what that might mean to different people, or whether or not it's all psychological and Hackle is just going slowly insane (maybe driven by guilt, or maybe just the power of suggestion) or maybe it's all happening and the character now finds himself inhabiting strange nightmare world.

    It would still end with the character going down, however everyone else survives, including his wife and daughter. At first it looks like everything is normal and it was all in his head.

    Then, just before everyone is about to move on, something which up till then had only been seen by Halleck appears (maybe a tentacle where a hand should be?) and we're left wondering.

    ChrisC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Technically, in this scenario, the phrase "Thinner" takes on a whole new meaning.

      ChrisC

      Delete
  2. I really enjoyed this one while reading it, but as the buzz faded, so alas did my esteem. It's still a lot of satirical fun. A country with the collective body dysmorphia that the United States has deserves a satirical masterpiece about gluttony and weight-loss. Thinner isn't it.

    But, as an indictment of privilege and racism, it has its moments. I kind of like this one. Special Agent Stoner is a fun character. The ending actually works for me. The 80s yuppie gets his humble pie. I dunno - I fully see / cede all criticism of it, it's just one of those things that clicks enough with me to be forgiving.

    I agree, though, 100% that the plotting is a bit tv movie of the week-ish.

    re: James Smythe. What a SLOWPOKE! jk, but sheesh, man, pick up the pace.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read a lot of years ago, i just remember the ending. Not the best work of SK in his Bachman fase. A lot better than Roadwork although

    ReplyDelete
  4. I struggle with Bachman.
    The best,Runing Man
    The Worst. . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Running Man is underrated. That needs a true-to-text film adaptation. Of course, it would be... controversial, if done that way.

      Delete
  5. What's funny is -- no matter who is in power, people will think Running Man is a social commentary on them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The worst Bachman book by far was THE REGULATORS.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I didn't read Regulators. Couldn't make it through Roadwork. But I did like both Rage and Running Man. Misery would ahve been a great Bachman -- way beyond the Bachman name!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually liked Regs as it turns out.

      Something tells me however, that the best Bachman might be Blaze

      ChrisC

      Delete
  8. YIKES! I couldn't get into Blaze. Probably why i say so little about it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I liked BLAZE well enough. I'd rank THE REGULATORS just above LISEY'S STORY, GERALD'S GAME, AND ROSE MADDER as his worst work ever.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm creating a blog post for monday. . . worst ever. I've already done one (or more). . . but it seems to be a fun topic. But tell me, why do we enjoy talking about books we didn't like? HUH!

    ReplyDelete