Planning A Conspiricy Theory

I really feel quite left out.  Now that Room 217 is out, the book The Shining Revealed and the documentary The Shining Code – I’m starting to wish I was a conspiracy nut.  I want to see Jesus in pancakes, believe the pyramids were built by ancient aliens and be convinced the moon landing was a hoax directed by Stanley Kubrick.

I’m so bad at the conspiricy angle that even when Stephen King confirms he was really talking about another subject – I still don’t see it.  For instance, he said Needful Things was really about the eighties.  About Ronald Reagan.  Really?  Needful Things was actually about Ronald Regan and the eighties?  I would disagree wholeheartedly – if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s the author himself saying this.  So I guess if Kubrick said, “Hey, the Shining is actually about the moon landing,” I still wouldn’t believe!

You know, surely there are other King movies that I could dig a conspiracy out of.  The best prospects are: Pet Sematary, IT and Richard Bachman.  I know Richard Bachman is not a movie --  but the prospects for conspiracy theories are ripe.

So here's some thoughts:
1. It is really about how McDonald's is destroying the world, eating little kids alive.
2. Christine is actually a tale about the power of self help.  Thus the car, though beaten down, is able to restore itself.
3. Cujo is about spiritual warfare.  The mother and son take refuge in the sanctuary of the car, while the demons seek to attack from all around.

And, I offer this from


On Writing contains Stephen King's most complete autobiography to date. It is an outstanding look at himself, his growth as a writer, and the things that influenced him.

I found myself wondering recently, "Will anyone ever write Richard Bachman's biography?" Will the real story every get told?
But wasn't Bachman just a pseudonym?

Well, if you believe Mr. King he was. But can we be sure? Really? The story we were given by Mr. King was that he wrote under the name Bachman because he desired to write genre's other than horror -- and the publishing world was already full of Stephen King books. But that tale has holes in it.

First, If "Richard Bachman" is just a pseudonym, then who is the man in the photo on the back of Thinner?

Second, If Bachman didn't exist, why was it necessary to give him a wife and a death date?

Don't laugh at that first one. Really, wasn't this photo taken before computers were the rage? Before faces could be generated? So. . . who is that man? Does he walk in stores and people say, "Hey! You're Richard Bachman, aren't you?"

No! No one ever sees this fellow! No one points to him on the street. He doesn't have to hide is face in public or sneak into the movies. People don't point and say, "Hey, that's the guy who wrote The Running Man."

Why not? Why has only one picture of this man appeared? I ask this delecatly, but could Richard Bachman have existed outside the mind of Stephen King?

What if. . .

What if Richard Bachman really was the author of The Long Walk, Running Man and other paperback novels. But they didn't sell very well. He had trouble breaking through.

Dickie wasn't only a writer, he was an avid Stephen King fan. Bachman carefully hid little hints about King in his books. Not direct links, but unnerving things. Things that only King would notice.

Perhaps he even stalked Mr. King. One of those fans who gets a little too close for comfort. But Bachman was the type who just wouldn't go away! Who knows all the details. Who knows what Dickie did to make the author miserable, but we can all be sure of this: Stephen King himself told the world that Bachman was "not a very nice guy."

But as Bachman added more and more links between his work and the world of Stephen King, people began to wonder if perhaps Stephen King was actually Richard Bachman. Bachman was, after-all, a recluse. At first King denied it. How irritating to have someone elses work put out as your own. But then someone saw the way to kill two birds with one stone. They could get rid of pesky Richard Bachman, make Bachman a load of money -- enough to disappear for the rest of his life --, and add a new chapter to the Stephen King phenoma. (Okay, that was three birds with one stone).

So a deal was struck. Bachman disappeared, King took credit for the work and the money began to roll in. What had been little paperback throw away's became best sellers. Richard Bachman got a heafty monthly check, and Stephen King got rid of that pesky writer who kept creeping in on his world. Bachman demanded one more thing: Credit on the movie The Running Man. He didn't want Mr. King to suck up all his fame.

Benefits For Bachman:

Why would Richard Bachman agree to attributing his work to S.K.? Just a few thoughts:

1. To raise interest in his work. What author doesn't want to be read?

2. To raise the value of his books. His novels went from being worth a few dollars to worth hundreds of dollars each!

3. To sell even more copies. What were the chances of Bachman appearing over-seas? Or of his work even getting a second printing? Slim! But with King's name attached, the world took notice. And Bachman could cash the check and smile wide. . . on whatever island he chose to hide on.

4. To give his work a lasting impact. The paperback novels would not simply slip into obscurity, but would now live on. Of course, they must be attached to the famous author.

5. To attach himself directly to the world of Stephen King. If I am correct, Bachman was a fan of King. He slipped references of people they both knew into his work. In fact, he went all out in his novel the Regulators. Probably annoying to the famous author, Bachman would leap at the chance to have his work identified as the work of Stephen King. Soon Bachman's own name would drop into smaller print, and Stephen King's own name would appear above his.

The Problem:

There is a problem, isn't there? Bachman just wouldn't go away! Once his name was out there, he knew he could do better. In 1995 he did the unacceptable: He wrote another book! And he was back to his old ways. Spying on Mr. King, snooping through his things, and worse. How shocked was King when he got a manuscript from Bachman that contained characters and tie ins with King's own work Desperation. What had Dickie been up to?!

A decision had to be made. Would they publish the Regulators, or expose the big secret? King and publisher agreed to print one last novel. But, King had his own slice of revenge waiting for Dickie. Are you ready? This was brilliant!

In 1997 King expressed his concern that Bachman's book Rage could inspire violence in our culture -- so he asked that the book be pulled. There was truth to the concern, but it was "one for one." Bachman wrote a book . . . so Bachman would lose a book. And bam! On the word of Stephen King, Bachman saw his novel disappear from book stores.

The message was clear as day: No more novel's, Dickie, or I'll make your already published stuff go bye bye. And with it. . . those nice checks from the publisher.

Bachman must have brewed over this. What could he do? King had him over a barrell. He couldn't come out and reveal the secret. The best revenge on King woudl be. . . another novel. One King couldn't deny. One that King had already mentioned the existance of.

So Richard threw himself into writing his next novel. A retarded man kidnaps a baby and falls in love with it. He worked slowly, editing his own work and rewriting several drafts. Ten years later, in 2006, another disturbing call was placed to the famous author: "I've been at work again. Do you think you can help me out, or should I seek my own publisher?"

The decision was made to keep up the pretense.

Can We Really Trust The King?

Some of you are saying, "But I trust Stephen King's version of events." Well, when it comes to biography, King has been known to admit to fibbing. King cites John Irving and says, "never believe a writer when he he seems to be offering you autobiography, because we all lie." (Stephen King goes to Hollywood, Jeff Conner, 1987)

For those of you who want to believe the King story and accept that Mr. Bachman never existed, I say: FINE. I understand your doubts. But someone's picture is on the back of Thinner. . . and they've never come forward. The only proof needed to show Bachman never existed is for the man in the photo to step in front of a camera. But he'll never do that. Why? Because it WAS Richard Bachman!  (You try to find that insurance agent)

No comments:

Post a Comment