Jim Carrey Flees Room 217

photo: Olivia Lewis | UCD Advocate

This was the most read article at talkstephenking.com this year, with almost 70,000 views.  Thanks Dumb and Dumber To.

$15 will buy you a tour of the Stanley Hotel, the inspiration behind Stephen King's novel The Shining.  Kubrick didn't use the hotel as his filming location, but mini-series director Mick Garris did.  The creepy spooks aren't just the stuff of novels and movies, seems some people actually believe the old place is haunted.

Advocate "In Focus" editor, Lindsay Maynard, took the tour and wrote a very nice article.  It seems this time of year there are always a pile of stories about the Stanley Hotel.  Maynard's is a lot more fun than most!  She wholeheartedly embraces the spooky elements.  In fact, she says the hotel is deemed one of the "most haunted."  Not most haunted in America. . . just "most haunted."  I assume she means in the world!  Yikes.

HERE is the article, titled "Tour Estes Park's most haunted hotel."

Maynard has an interesting story about Jim Carrey, who stayed in room 217 -- but not for an entire night!  Seems a few hours after checking in, he left the room and "never returned."  Why?  Seems he's never said a word about it.  Could it be that the woman in the tub bothered him?  She was so very pretty!  Or perhaps the two dead girls made it hard to settle down.  I dunno. 

About King's visit, Maynard writes, "While stuck in the mountains, King and his wife begged the innkeeper to let them stay for the night. They were the only guests to occupy the hotel and they stayed in Room 217, where they experienced uneasy tension throughout their visit. Seven days later, the outline for The Shining was created."

I'd never heard that they "begged the innkeeper to let them stay for the night."  Sounds familiar, though.

Some interesting facts gleaned from the article:
  • Ghost Hunters has visited the hotel nine times!
  • Travel Chanel's "Ghost Adventures" has also paid their respects.
  • In June 1911, during a power outage, a chambermaid named Mrs. Wilson entered room 217 to light a candle.  A gas leak caused the room to explode!  What's amazing is that she lived, and was given a job at the hotel for life.  Maynard says that she is known to appear from time to time and even put away clothes for guests.  Nice ghosty.
  • On the fourth floor, there is sometimes the sound of unseen children playing.

Rose Madder Journal #1: Brewing Hate

In the 90's King wrote three novels that were distinctly different than his previous work.  All three focused on strong female leads and in two of the stories the theme of revenge.  Gerald's Game was the story of survival, Dolores Claiborne was about a woman who murdered her husband because he was sexually abusing their daughter and Rose Madder (1995) is about a wife who is physically abused by her police officer husband.

At the time both King readers and reviewers wondered where this new direction would take King. The new direction was a good one.  Stronger characters inhabited all three novels.  Dolores Claiborne and Gerald's Game took place in the same time frame, during a solar eclipse, and actually had some connections between the two.

I don't know about Rose Madder because -- this is my first reading.  And I'm loving it!  I may have been slow to come to the novel because I found Gerald's Game to be a frustrating novel.  The writing is strong, but it can be slow going as it is mostly about a woman tied to a bed.  There are frantic moments, but the novel is primarily built around flashbacks.  I found it difficult.

But here I am now --  At Rose Madder; alas!

I Hate Norman:

What's stands out in the opening chapter (the chapters are long) is that King is really good at creating victims and abusers.  In fact, I think Rose's husband, Norman, is one of King's most vile monsters.  I hate him.  He beats Rose daily, causing lots of bodily injury, and the miscarriage of her child.  He's more despicable than Dolores' sweetly pie I think; but that may just be a momentary feeling, since I've just had to spend time with Norman, so my feelings are pretty fresh.

Abusers are overlooked monsters in the Stephen King universe.  The nice thing is, they often get some hardcore payback.  What's scarier than Pennywise or Flagg?  Norman.  Just plain ole Norman.  A dude with a badge who knows how to hit his woman so no one knows what a monster he is.

Norman reminds us of a painful reality; when something bad happens in an abusers life -- maybe at work or driving or even at the store -- he finds a way to blame his pain on his wife and then take out his rage on her.  So a wife in an abusive relationship feels she can't do anything right.  What's more, every problem in life is blamed on her.  It's her fault he's a mess at work; it's her fault the IRS is after him; it's her fault he struggles with depression or suffers with ED or . . . whatever.  What's truly scary is how close to life King gets this character.


Guys like this are often cowards with other men.  One night as I drove my family home, I saw a man and woman on arguing.  Only, they were arguing, she was crying and he was screaming.  I parked my car and started down the street.  "Don't get into that," my wife warned.  But I couldn't leave a woman on the street while her husband went after her.

"Hey there!" I said, in a cheerful - how ya doin' -- voice.  "Whatcha doin'?"
The guy immediately turned red and looked at his wife, "Now see what you've done!"
He quickly began to explain everything was okay.  I thought what a coward this guy was.  He could go after his wife, but was a wimp when another man called him on what he was doing.  I can't tel the rest of the story here -- but it was interesting.

Faith Abusers:

I'll take you a bit deeper into an abusers mind, if you want.  In the world of faith, abusers manage to keep women in terrible relationships by convincing them that if they leave, they are dishonoring God.  So these men convince their battered wives that God hates divorce, which means these women have to stay and continue to suffer at the hands of their abuser.

Once, as part of a marriage series, I discussed Malachi's statement that God hates divorce.  I pointed out that in the same passage, the same verse, God says he hates a man "covering himself with violence."  Somehow that part is always skipped!

Here's the full verse:
"I hate divorce ," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith." Malachi 2:16
So the very verse that is so often used to forbid divorce is actually a verse that also discusses abuse.  And God says more about abuse than divorce in the passage.  Notice the abuser in the passage is male.  That is because the prophet Malachi was addressing men who had broken faith with their wives, abused them and left them destitute.  Thus God hated divorce because of what it did, in particular, to women and children.  It says that some men cover themselves with abuse like a garment.  That is, as easy as it is to slip on a jacket, some men slip into rage.  And as a garment covers your body, some people are covered in anger.

It seems unusually wicked for men to use a woman's faith as a mean's of keeping her trapped in a physically abusive relationship.  And some women really are trapped.  Just as Jess was tied to that bed in Gerald's Game, some women are tied to destructive relationships.


The excitement in Rose Madder begins when Rose has finally had enough and decides to head out.  And she does just that; she just up and leaves.  With the cloths on her back, she turns from the world she knows and just begins walking.  This is AWESOME!  Because I have no idea where this novel will go.  It can take any turn, because the whole world is open to Rose.

Naturally, Norman will follow -- but King gives Rose a head start.

By the way, there's a nice reference to a Paul Sheldon novel.

Eyeing Changes in 2015

Is it polite to talk about blogging?  I’m not sure it is.  Really, a blog should be about the articles.  I weary of blogs that say, “Sorry I haven’t updated in a while, my life is really busy.”  Yeah, so is mine.  I don’t care.

That’s my intro to saying that my plan is to make some changes with talkstephenking in 2015.  I still intend to discuss things in the King universe that interest me; but I do not plan to post daily anymore.  It seems major news announcements are already well covered by big websites, so there’s no need for me to try to keep up.  What do I plan to do? Write as I read.  I still read Stephen King, and I still want to write about what I’m reading.  So that’s what I’m going to do.

What blogging about Stephen King has given me is a whole lot of really great friends with a similar passion.  I love the emails, comments and discussion about King related subjects.

I started Rose Madder last night, and I can’t wait to post the Rose Madder journal.


What if your favorite villain smiled a little more?  That's the idea the folks at saveplans.com ran with.

Cassandra Gold writes, "Have you ever wondered what Gollum would look like with Clooney's smile? Would Pennywise the Clown be as tormenting had he brushed his teeth a little more? My company decided to figure out how the scariest movie villains would look if we gave them a beautiful set of pearly whites! Refer to the link below to view your favorite evil doers with a brand new mouth full of teeth!"

"The best part of horror films isn't the teenagers who run in opposite directions in terror or even the creative ways the main characters slowly fall victim to fate; quite simply, its the villains themselves! We took some of the most notable and scary villains from the horror and action film worlds and placed a nice little smile on their faces."

You Can't Kill Stephen King Interviews and Trailer

The Blood-shed Weighs In On: YCKSK

Check out theblood-shed.com review of You Can't Kill Stephen King.

The review is hard to read because -- are you ready? -- there are no paragraph breaks at all.  It's one big block of text.  BAM!  It's like people who email me (usually women) who don't have any breaks in their thoughts.

That aside, the review is worth reading.

Here are some highlights:

  • The film is B beyond dispute but it has production polish.
  • The horror component isn’t compromised by the humor, a significant risk when mixing and matching fright with funny. 
  • The first kill is both classic and creative. -- its hash of humor and horror is well-balanced and effective. 
  • Even without the attention-snagging title there’s enough panache to make this more than mediocre. 
  • It’s not the Lawrence of Arabia of scary movies but it’s a good time nevertheless. 
  • All the best parts of a corpse-counter. 
  • If you’re paying attention you can hear the brooding opening music of Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining show up briefly in this film’s score. The movie throws bloody obvious fanboy gags at the viewer with one hand while with the other hand deftly slipping in less forward references for the initiated. 

Marvel And Stephen King Announce Dark Tower: The Drawing Of The Three – House Of Cards #1

comicbook.com posted news that Marvel and Stephen King today announced the next installment of the Dark Tower comic book adaptation,  Dark Tower: The Drawing of the Three – House of Cards. It is set for a March, 2015 release date.

From the press release:
The troubled streets of New York City pulse with the beat of desolation and crime. Among the dissidents of the city is Eddie Dean a troubled young man gifted with the ability to open doors to other worlds has smuggled narcotics from Nassau to New York City, but now Eddie has to escape a packed airplane guarded by armed Custom Agents! How will Eddie avoid prison and yet also fulfill his contract with the dangerous mobster Balazar? The answer lies in Mid-World, and with a dying gunslinger named Roland!
I love The Drawing of the Three, so this is exciting.

Comicbook.com notes:
“In the latest chapter of King’s epic tale there are some fascinating connections being made within the Dark Tower mythos, expanding on the histories of the characters and revealing their twisted ‘family tree,’ says series Editor Mark Paniccia, via the release. “Fans will get a real thrill as we discover what kind of role Eddie Dean plays in Roland Deschain's plans to bring the tower down.”

What To Actually Get A Stephen King Fan

First, if you're really a Stephen King fan, you know we're really called "constant readers."  I spotted a short article of suggestions to give various people on a Christmas list.  Of course, of  the Stephen King "fan" the writer suggested Doctor Sleep.  Problem here?  Well, yeah -- see, if you're really into Stephen King, you already have a copy of Doctor Sleep!

The truth is, the latest book by Mr. King may not be the best Christmas gift.  Here are some ideas of cool things for a Stephen King reader:

1. Any first edition of the Doubleday books.  (Carie, The Shining, The Stand)
2. Books published by Cemetery Dance.  Who cares if they already have one -- these books are so cool that you can't really get enough.  I love my copies of IT, Doctor Sleep and FDNS.  What would we do with another copy?  Take if off the shelf  and read it!
3. Odds and ends.  There is a lot of strange Stephen King junk out there that is the perfect stocking stuffer.  How about a Christine matchbox car?

Here is one of the coolest Stephen King Christmas gifts I've gotten:
(From my December 24, 2012 blog  entry talkstephenking.blogspot.com)

Here's something pretty cool I got for Christmas, a paperback edition of The Raft.  According to Amazon, it was actually a pamphlet inserted into Nov. 1982 Gallery.  It looks fuller than it really is -- just 26 pages in a glossy cover.   I like it!

Funny thing, my mother in law got it for me.  "He wants an older paperback book?" she questioned my wife.  "You know, they have that same story in collections."  My wife reassured her that it was the old paperback I wanted.

So I looked up  what "Gallery" was, thinking the entire magazine might be of interest.  It's  porn!  Glad I didn't ask my mother in law for that!

Interesting, huh?  I liked  it.  For a collector, we like anything we don't already have, even if it's cheap!

SO here's my question: What do you think would be a great gift to a Constant Reader?

(Reposted from December, 2013)

12 Ways Reading Stephen King Will Traumatize You

Happy Friday the 12th.  Reading Stephen King can be a lot of fun.  It can also be traumatic.  Psychologically dangerous.  Here are 12 ways reading Stephen King will traumatize you.

1. Clowns aren't fun anymore.

2. You want to give a wide birth to the weird girl at the prom.  Who knows what strange powers she might have.

3. Crows seem ominous.  And rats aren't just nasty -- they're evil!  Dare I mention spiders?  SPIDERS!

4. You avoid mom & pop stores because they might have just what you need; and be run by the devil.

5. It's not so much fun to be alone in a hotel hallway, because you are terrified two dead girls will appear and invite you to come play with them.  The hotel bathtub is another place Mr. King ruined.  Who knows when a dead body will float to the surface.

6. On foggy days, you wonder if maybe it's actually a dark mist headed your way and think that any moment monsters with tentacles will be attacking.

7. You want to ask the waitress at your local cafe if you can check the pantry, secretly wondering if there is a time portal.

8. The law, and your mom, say you have to respect authority.  But when you're traveling long stretches of desert road, you aren't sure you would actually stop for a sheriff.

9. People in your life remind you of people from a Stephen King novel.  I swear I know Mother Abagail and am pretty sure I've met Annie Wilkes.  Also had some contact with Big Jim, Jack Torrance and unfortunately Mother Carmody.

10. There's no way you would own a Saint Bernard.  Or dog sit one.  You also would not name your cat Church.

11. You can't enjoy a movie based on a Stephen King book, but keep irritating your friends and family by saying, "really, the book was better," and, "the book was a lot scarier," and "I can't believe they messed that up."

12. A 1958 Plymouth Fury is a cool car -- from a distance.  A long distance.

And. . . extra credit: In awkward or unnerving situations, you think, "Oh man, this is the way a Stephen King book starts."

Okay, give me your list

Charting New Ground With Apt Pupil

With Revival behind me, and a long drive ahead, I dug through my giant case of Stephen King CD’s to find a book to listen to.  Surprising, there are some I just don’t want to go back to.  Misery was good – once, but it doesn't beckon me for more reads.  Same with Gerald’s Game, Desperation and Roadwork.  Good once, but not hungry to venture into that territory for a long period of time again.

I dug into a novel I knew nothing about, Apt Pupil.  And know what, I love it!  The book is driven by total psychological warfare here.

The basic plot is this: A thirteen year old boy discovers his neighbor is an old SS soldier who worked in the concentration camp.  How he puts the pieces together becomes a little contrived, but it works for the story.  He then uses his knowledge to extort the old man; but not out of money, he wants him to retell stories of the war days.  Only, the boy isn't just interested in stories, he wants gruesome details of how people died.

What’s scary is just how young King makes the main character; thirteen.  Often he responds with a confidence that far exceeds anything most thirteen year olds possess.

It is a crazy novel.  I mean crazy!  A thirteen year old gets the upper-hand on an old Nazi who used to torture people.  What’s amazing is that King makes this pretty believable.  And, King turns the old plot problem, “why don’t they just call the police” into his theme, what if they call the police?  The novel builds into a game of mental chess between the old man and the nasty kid.

In the world of Stephen King, kids can be brutal.  But Todd Bowden is easily one of Stephen King’s scariest characters.  Because he’s young, he’s unflinching and he’s brilliant.  King may have given his lead character too much emotional strength, resulting in a character that’s far more creepy than the likes of Carrie.  Of course, Carrie isn’t evil exactly, she’s persecuted.  Carrie lashes out at her persecutors.  But Todd is the persecutor.

The novel was released in 1982 as part of the larger book, Different Seasons.  I’ve always focused more on Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption and The Body, forgetting the other two novels.

The book takes us back a few years.  Obviously, through story telling, it takes us back to the dark days of World War Two.  But, because King writes in his own time, it also takes us back to the seventies.  Electric typewriters, no cellphones and most important, no internet.  I am curious when the novel itself was actually written.  Was it a trunk novel thrown in to Different Seasons?

One of the delights of going into a King novel I know so little about is that anything can happen.  Usually I have a pretty good idea if a novel is seriously dark, or a few tricks King has up his sleeve.  For instance, when Revival came out, the publisher was so stinking paranoid, they built a website to try and ease everyone into the right mood.  They didn't want anyone surprised that Stephen King could be dark.  GASP!  So I knew going into Revival that it was not going to be fun and games.  But when it comes to Apt Pupil, I'm taking it one blind curve at a time.  I know there's a movie.  But it's not the same as letting Frank Muller read it to me.

Star Trek:
For some reason, reading this book reminds me of that old Star Trek episode where the enterprise comes to a planet that has been fashioned completely after Nazi Germany.  It's not a good episode.  What is fantastic is watching Spock use  a strip of metal from his prison cot to focus light coming from a simple light bulb, turning it into a laser beam that blows the door open.  Yeah, that's how it works.

Pennywise The Elf on a Shelf

Merry Christmas.  Marie Lawton posted this at Stephen King constant reader fan club and gave me permission to post it here.  I LOVE IT!

Top 10 Iconic Horror Movie Moments

Hey, I like anything that gives me two Stephen King films with two Alfred Hitchcock movies.

Revival Journal #5: The Final Stretch

I finished reading Revival tonight, and so I'm going to talk about it.  If you haven't read the book, it goes without saying that you shouldn't read an article about the end of the novel -- right?  Ultimately, I don't care.  I think people who whine about "spoilers" are pretty lame.  But then, I hate surprise parties and always manage to get my wife to tell me my Christmas present early.  Anticipation is better than surprise.  That's why a good novel taste better the second time.

I run in the middle of the night; walk really.  And I listen to Stephen King.  Often I can't listen to King, because I have friends with me.  We have started a route that takes us up a steep hill that looms over our town.  Ont he top of the hill is a water tower and a massive red light -- probably to mark the spot so local aircraft don't hit it.  (?)  It is a military town.  It is awesome to stand atop the hill and look down on the desert city.  29 Palms is a lot like Space Mountain.  Awesome with the lights off.

We usually take the paved road up the mountain; the one that winds back and forth until you suddenly peak in front of a water tower.  But there is another path; a friend and I found it the other night.  It's not easily recognizable  because it's dirt, and it's steep.  Really steep.  It's been smoothed out by rushing water, I think.  I only took it once with a friend, who had to crab walk  to keep from tumbling down.

I did something tonight I don't usually do when I'm out alone.  My wife asked me not to take the dangerous path through the gullies (huge rain ditches that are like canyons in the desert), so instead I decided to try the mountain.  Again, I don't do this alone because -- well, who knows what you'll find atop a hill that overlooks the city late at night.  But, remembering the path that goes straight up the mountain, and the moon beaming down bright -- I decided to go for it.

And here's the cool part.  As I was trudging up the side of that mountain, the final chapters of Revival began to play out.  And what happens?  Pastor Charlie and company take a trip up the mountain.

The setting where the final scenes of Revival play out is great.  A mountain cabin in a great storm; lightening cuts the sky up.  On complaint I might lodge about the mid-portion of the novel is that King spends a lot of time telling us things, but he leaves out interesting settings.  He makes up for that in the final chapters as we go to the mountain cabin to raise the dead.

The dead ladies name is Mary.  Most certainly a nod to Mary Shelly.  When Mary is brought to life, bad things happen.  Very bad things.  And I guess it would be nerve wracking to listen to in any situation; the car, in bed or even on a sunny day.  But at 11:30pm on the side of a mountain, the wind blowing, it was pretty freaky!

A Short Analysis:

I like Revival a lot, because the end pays off.  It is dark, reminding me of the tone of 1922 or Pet Sematary.  There is a healthy dose of Science Fiction

My real complaint is that it takes far too long to get there.  There are so many characters, I lose track of whose who.  Some parts are like reading the phone book -- someone who was mentioned on some other page pops up again, but they aren't that important.

I could have used a lot more of what we got at the end.  Not the tail end, where people start dropping like flies.  I mean up on the mountain.  Mary and Charlie are disposed of quite quickly.  There is no real struggle, no wonder in the readers mind if Jamie is going to make it.  (Well, it is first person.)  But not just that, King doesn't give time to develop the story on through.

Mary Shelly gave the monster in Frankenstein some breathing room.  He got to roam about and cause some mischief  -- but our Mary never gets that opportunity.  So we spend a lot of time building up to the creation of a monster that never goes anywhere.  (Yes, gang, I do understand that Charlie is the real monster, bla bla bla.)

The horror in Revival isn't the Mary-Monster anyway; nor is it Charlie -- it's death.  And that nagging question: What lies beyond?  Jamie sees something terrible, and carries that vision of the afterlife with him.  In that sense, things are carried beyond Pet Sematary, as King dares to lay at least a big toe on the other side of the pond.  What we get a glimpse of is the dark side of Sheol.  King doesn't give us doses of hell and fire and brimstone; but ant overlords.  You know, it seems ridiculous looking back on it, but at the time when I was reading it (on a mountain) it was scary.

So I enjoyed the novel a lot.  King is like a cat chasing a mouse.  The mouse is death and the ugly side of resurrection.  But once King catches his mouse, he kills it too quickly.  I'd be happy if he'd played with his dead -- not dead -- mouse a little longer.


It's been hinted in some corners that maybe King is taking his digs at people of faith in Revival; or that organized religion is going to take a blow.  Well, if Stephen King can knock it down, it wasn't organized from on-high anyway.  I was ready for some heavy handed preaching in Revival -- some uncomfortable digs at faith.  But I found the opposite -- for the subject matter, King is very reserved in his commentary on faith itself.

People of faith are not attacked in Revival; people who have faith in a single preacher -- or prophet -- or evangelist -- or TV personality -- are laid waste to in Revival.  I don't think the reverend in Revival was ever really a preacher.  I realized early in the book, this guy never had real faith.  So when he turns on God, it's not surprise, because he was already there.

Charlie's god, his Golden Calf, is electricity.  "Secret electricity" is what Alfred Hitchcock would call a Mcguffin.  Something added as a plot device to simply make things work.  Charlie might have once had a passing interest in God, but he's a servant of electricity.  He believes electricity can heal the body, and perhaps bring back the dead.  Hey, why mess with a Pet Sematary when there's good ole electricity?

There is a price to pay, Revival would suggest, for chasing after false prophets hoping for a miracle.  As the old preacher, R.G. Lee, would say, "The devil pays in counterfeit money."

What Charlie does is turn from the legitimate work of pastoring and shepherding a Methodist congregation to churning our miracles at revival meetings for profit.  He goes from pastor to showman.  And we've all met preachers who were more showman than man (or woman) of God.

King plays fair because his keeps the commentary from Jamies perspective.   And Jamie is allowed his doubts and opinions -- he's the narrator.  What would be uncomfortably preachy and heavy handed in the third person, works fine in first person narrative.

While the novel is pessimistic, it's not anti-God.  It's anti-fake-preacher. These fakes are the biggest threat to Christianity itself.  Benny Hinn and the whole TBN crew that like to make Jesus a flashy word before they pass the plate and fake miracles are actually the problem.  They aren't advancing the Gospel, they're advancing their bank accounts.  They embarrass those of us who do believe with their carny like shenanigans.  They make many people of deep faith, who do believe in miracles -- without the aid of electricity -- appear foolish.  But King does people of genuine faith a kindness.   He moves Charlie out of the church house before he begins the real crazy stuff.  Better yet, the church has the gumption to remove him.  So what ole Charlie does, he does on his own, not under the authority of a congregation that could fire him, but can't find the will.

I think King's publishers were overly concerned about him offending people.  They put out warnings that this was a dark novel -- like William Castle having doctors in the theater lobby to check your heart before you went in to see his scary movie.  (Check out "William Castle and Stephen King")


WOW!  Those after effects were no pretty, were they?  I don't have much to say, except that I really didn't see that coming.  I know, many of you did, and you're just sooo smart!  But I didn't.  Suicide is nasty business, and to have just about everyone Jacobs healed take their own life was pretty bold on King's part.

I liked the idea of Jamie being a key of sorts that allowed the door to be unlocked.  It was also pretty cool that he was able to shut that door.  But honestly, it just wasn't hard enough for him to get the door shut.

I like those corny parts where King -- Jamie -- says things like, "I would stop writing, but I have to, if only in the hopes that maybe it will turn someone else back from the horrors I've seen. . ." (that's not a quote from the book.)  Moving toward the final events, King uses heavy shadowing that lets the reader know the book is about to get a lot darker.

Revival is a great book.  Best read in the dark.  Alone.

It's one of those books that leaves me anxious for the movie version.  This is the kind of movie (no one would do this) that would be great in black and white.

Stephen King AC/DC

The First Clown That Scared Me

Tim Curry as Pennywise entertained me.  In fact, I can see how he could have been scary.  But he didn't really scare me.

There is a clown that scared me -- big time.  That clown doll in Poltergeist is freaky.

So tell me, what movie or TV show has a clown that you think ranks up there with the scariest?  (Don't say Krusty the Clown)

IT movie to start filming in March 2015

vulture.com has posted an article that says they spoke with IT project producer Dan Lin, who confirmed that IT is getting serious.

Lin told vulture, “The idea is to start official prep in March for a summer shoot.  Cary likes to develop things for a while, and we’ve been with this for about three or four years, so we’re super excited that he stayed with it. You guys are gonna be really excited.”

The current plan, according to Lin, is to break the movie into two parts, much the way the ABC miniseries handled the King book in its 1990 adaptation.
“The book is so epic that we couldn't tell it all in one movie and service the characters with enough depth,” explained Lin; the first film, then, will be a coming-of-age story about the children tormented by It, while the second will skip ahead in time as those same characters band together to continue the fight as adults. Though Fukunaga is only committed to directing the first film, Lin says the in-demand helmer is currently closing a deal to co-write the second.
Lin went on to say that what was really important to them was Stephen King's "blessing."  What did King say after the script was sent to him?  "Go with God, please! This is the version the studio should make."

The idea of two IT movies is good news to me, since the book is so large.  The story could hardly be told in 2 or 3 hours.  I do hope they don't mess with the dates, though.

They Wanted To Do WHAT With The Ending Of THE STAND?

With Devin Faraci's article titled, "How Will The Movie Version Of THE STAND End?" and a subtitle, "Will the film retain Stephen King's finale?" I feel myself getting a little concerned.

He addressed in particular the ending, writing:
I do know how the draft before Boone ended, one written by David Kajganich. It's not great. 
In this version, from last year, the good guy survivors from Boulder get together in an army and march on Las Vegas to kill Randall Flagg. Flagg's headquarters is, of course, the Luxor Pyramid. The Boulderites invade the city while, off to the east, a squad fights at the Boulder Dam - which Trashcan Man explodes, killing Larry Underwood and sending a deadly flood to Vegas. In the city Flagg squares off against hero Stu Redman... who now has the power of God, and they have an Akira-like battle on the Las Vegas Strip, with Flagg trying to take Stu's magic. Cars are thrown, Excalbur's turrets are tossed, the people of Vegas are used by Flagg as disposable cannon-fodder. Meanwhile Nick Andros sacrifices his life taking out a howitzer. The Boulder forces, while armed, try to only take prisoners and rescue people from being under Flagg's evil spell. It all comes down to Flagg and Stu, and whether or not Stu will absorb Flagg's evil magic.
 I actually find this interesting.  But. . .

If they want to film an apocalyptic novel with lots of battles -- why not film Swan Song?  Because it's not "Stephen King's Swan Song" or we would already be talking about remake #4.  

The Stephen King Cinematic Universe!

This is fun: consequenceofsound.net has an article that "flirts" with the work of Stephen King.  In particular, it look at the Stephen King "Cinematic Universe."  From suggested scenes, actors for upcoming movies and soundtracks, this article is great.

The authors explain: "For this installment of the Producer’s Chair, we opted to do all the legwork for the studios and pieced together a proper cinematic universe of King’s bibliography, all based around Boone’s upcoming production of The Stand. We parsed out the release dates, cast its characters, and targeted 19 essential films and/or television properties that would do justice to the man’s reign in modern literature. Sadly, this probably won’t happen, but this was far more enjoyable than it was taxing."

To build this universe, the authors include actors and places that connect from one movie to the next.  What's cool is that this is all possible -- assuming you think Matthew McConaughey is a great Flagg.  (Yep.)

Their discussion brings them right to the upcoming movie version of THE STAND.  They rightly identify the pivotal scene as the Lincoln Tunnel.  And then they tackle the bigger problem: How is that thing going to be broken into four movies?  With a nod to the miniseries, they suggest the theatrical film will be "similar."
However, not only are there aspects of the book that should be expanded upon (e.g., Trashcan Man), but those four sections, especially the first two, could benefit from bleeding details into one another. However, the cliffhangers that the mini-series employed would do wonders on the silver screen, especially the ending of “The Plague”, which sees Stu escape a desolate and corpse-laden CDC facility into the night. There’s no way that doesn’t guarantee sales for the sequel.
After THE STAND,  Dan Caffrey takes a turn discussing THE DARK tower.  I like his cast of characters suggestions: Roland Deschain (Viggo Mortensen), Jake Chambers (Nolan Lyons), Cort (Michael Rooker), Brown (Ray McKinnon), Allie (Esmé Bianco), Young Roland Deschain (Tye Sheridan), Cuthbert Allgood (Michael Zegen), Alain Johns (John Robinson), and The Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey)

For the movie IT, they suggest Crispin Glover.

I know, you're still going, "Who?"  Crispin Hellion Glover (born April 20, 1964) is an American film actor, director and screenwriter, avant-garde musician, publisher and author. Glover is known for portraying eccentric people on screen such as George McFly in Back to the Future, Layne in River's Edge, unfriendly recluse Rubin Farr in Rubin and Ed, the "Creepy Thin Man" in the big screen adaptation of Charlie's Angels and its sequel, Willard Stiles in the Willard remake, and The Knave of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. (osmovies)

I appreciate this comment from the article:
How Do You Replace Tim Curry?: You don’t. All you can do is press ahead. The 1991 adaptation had its flaws, to be sure, but Tim Curry was perfectly cast as the clown Pennywise. His interpretation was as scary to see from across a swamp as he was up close with fangs drawn in the Derry sewers. It’s hard to imagine anyone else saying, “They all float…” with that same detached menace, but I will be mighty curious to see what Crispin Glover could do with that material.
And here's a big question: When we get to Song of Susannah, who would play Stephen King?  Well, there is a brilliant - BRILLIANT -- idea: Joe Hill.  (YES!)

Also sketched is The Eyes of the Dragon, The Stand 2, The Drawing of the Three, IT, The Wastelands, The Stand III, Salem's Lot, The Stand IV, Wizard and Glass, Wind Through the Keyhole, Wolves of the Calla, From a Buick 8 (I want the movie just so I can stop trying to read it), Low Men in Yellow Coats, Song of Susannah, Everything's Eventual, Insomnia, The Dark Tower.

If you want to read the whole article, instead of clicking movie by movie, here's the link: consequenceofsound.net

Compare and Contrast: Stephen King and Arthur C. Clarke

by Brandon Engel

Meet Arthur Charles Clarke and Stephen Edwin King, Jupiter and Venus of the science fiction solar system. In 2005, the government of Sri Lanka designated Clarke Sri Lanka Abhimanyu, meaning “The Pride of Sri Lanka,” the highest civil honor in the country. The year before, the World Fantasy Convention bestowed upon King the Award for Life Achievement. No satellite explored further than the reaches of blackness that Clarke and King dived into with science fiction and fantasy literature.

But, the two had different notions of where the future of humankind led.

Stephen King: Scribe of Horror

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes famously claimed that the state of nature of man was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Stephen King took Hobbes at his word. In King’s 2009 book, Under the Dome, an invisible dome barrier envelopes the small Maine town of Chester’s Mill. Thus isolated, the townsfolk pull a page from Lord of the Flies, with the climax of the story ending in asphyxiation and incineration. “I saw it as a chance to write about the serious ecological problems that we face in the world today,” said King. “The fact is we all live under the dome.”

Like many contemporary authors, King worried that short-term politics would upset the teeter-totter of technological equality. He extrapolated that concept in his 1982 work, The Running Man, the story of a desperate man, living in a state-sanctioned media-saturated dystopia, who wages his life in hopes of a $1 billion grand prize. Yet just as in Orwell’s 1984, the omniscience of technology thwarts Richards’ plans. What can Richards do against the Hunters, who draw from endless resources?

Or what if, suggested King in his 1986 horror film, Maximum Overdrive, machines were themselves malicious? In the movie, King’s only directorial effort and winner of a 1987 Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director, machines come to life and launch a lethal vendetta against homo sapiens. King described his film as a “moron movie,” but nowhere else does he so blatantly suggest that one day, for reasons inexplicable, mankind may regret its first electrical transistor.

Arthur Clarke: Science Fiction Storyteller

Statistically speaking, King is in the minority. According to a Pew and Smithsonian research poll, some 59 percent of Americans believe coming technological changes will improve the future, while 30 percent hold the glass half empty. Those within the 59 percent are in good company with Arthur Clarke. A lifelong proponent and enthusiast of space travel, terraforming and computer networking, Clarke believed in a fundamental goodness of technology that would improve the human condition. “It is not easy to see how the more extreme forms of nationalism can long survive,” he believed, “when men have seen the Earth in its true perspective as a single small globe against the stars.”

Clarke was a pop prophet extraordinaire. He predicted satellite internet coverage that could be accessed from virtually anywhere, cloud computing, and in his seminal film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, he even predicted the iPad – or “newspad.” Most famously, Clarke popularized the concept of geostationary satellites for telecommunication purposes. Some of his more fantastic notions have yet to manifest, though, such as slave chimpanzees, bioengineered whales, suspended animation, and an earth-to-moon space elevator.

But some of Clarke’s most important words, which hint at the same fears King discussed, are rarely quoted. “As our own species is in the process of proving, one cannot have superior science and inferior morals.” In his 1972 essay, for example, “Profiles of the Future,” he was quick to give wasteful transportation a thorough tongue-lashing. “In one lifetime they [automobiles] have consumed more irreplaceable fuel than has been used in the whole previous history of mankind. The roads to support them … cost as much as a small war; the analogy is a good one, for the casualties are on the same scale.”

Perhaps the truth lies between the two authors. The future is without form and void, and it is humans who will author its genesis, for where humans lead, technology follows.

* * * * * * * * * *

"Brandon Engel is a Chicago-based blogger whose favorite Stephen King book is either Hearts in Atlantis or The Shining. Follow him on Twitter: @BrandonEngel2"

Shawshank is epic

I was just looking at IMBD's list of 250 greatest movies.  #2 is Godfather.  #10 is Schindler's List.  #12 is the Empire Strikes back.

So what's #1 ?  The Shawshank Redemption.

Now I like Shawshank a lot.  But, I like the Green Mile better.


For context, The Lord of the Rings is #17.  And the original Star Wars is clear down at #20.  Yikes.

The formula for calculating the Top Rated 250 Titles gives a true Bayesian estimate:
weighted rating (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C
  • R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)
  • v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
  • m = minimum votes required to be listed in the Top 250 (currently 25000)
  • C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 7.0)

Rocky Wood

My favorite Stephen King website posted some sad news today:

Today is a very sad day because a friend and King expert; Rocky Wood has passed away. I think many of us knew he was terminally ill. I have for years but I had no idea that it would happen so soon.

 I never met Rocky in person but we spoke through email and he often sent me news bits for the site, the last one less than a month ago. I will miss him a lot!

 Walk in peace my friend, there are other worlds than these...


Stephen King said about Wood:
Rocky Wood was my go-to guy for all things Shining, providing me with names and dates I had either forgotten or plain got wrong. He also provided reams of info on every recreational vehicle and camper under the sun (the coolest was Rose’s EarthCruiser). The Rock knows my work better than I do myself. Look him up on the web sometime. He’s got it going on.
-Stephen King in the Author’s Note to Doctor Sleep

Wood was author of:
•The Complete Guide to the Works of Stephen King 
•Stephen King: Uncollected, Unpublished 
•Stephen King: The Non-Fiction 
•Stephen King: A Literary Companion 

Check out his website at: www.rockywoodauthor.com

Cemetery Dance Offers UK Limited Edition of REVIVAL

Cemetery Dance has posted news that it is offering the UK Slipcased Limited Edition of REVIVAL for "just" $199.  (That comes with a $50 Cemetery Dance Coupon.)


CD notes:
 We're very pleased to have a few copies of the UK Slipcased Limited Edition of Revival by Stephen King on the way, and we're offering them on a first come, first served basis. We've also arranged for our collectors who buy this book through our online store to receive a $50 Cemetery Dance coupon to spend on any books, magazines, comics, or eBooks you'd like this month -- the perfect way to snag a holiday gift for someone special or for your special collection!

REVIVAL is swinging home runs

Revival is out and doing great!  In fact, seattletimes.com has listed the top 10 bestseller -- and Revival is leading the pack.

Hardcover fiction

1. Revival, Stephen King

2. Gray Mountain, John Grisham

3. Flesh and Blood, Patricia Cornwell

4. The Burning Room, Michael Connelly

5. Havana Storm, Clive Cussler

6. Prince Lestat, Anne Rice

7. Leaving Time, Jodi Picoult

8. Blue Labyrinth, Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child

9. Pegasus, Danielle Steel

10. The World of Ice & Fire, George R.R. Martin

The Mist The Novella Cut

This is what happened. . . 

I'm watching my copy of The Mist, The Novella Cut.  And, of course, I'm liking it a lot.  I haven't seen the end yet, but I'm liking the film more because I'm not dreading the end.  The movie is broken up with headers, much the way the novella was.  There is an opening note that assures us that this is only a fan film, not meant to in any way disparage Mr. Darabont's work.

Another difference; not only am I not dreading the end, I'm watching it with my daughters.  Why is that different?  Because I previously was hesitant to let them see a dad blow his kids brains out.

This movie really does have the feel that the novella had.

Some quick notes:
1. Mother Carmody is no Bible scholar.  She quotes Revelations, which is a common mistake.  But the Biblical book is titled Revelation, no S.  Why?  Because it is the singular Revelation of Jesus, more than it is a series of revelations of end time events.\\

2. I like almost all the scenes with the monsters.  I think they are truly horrifying.  Fromm the attack in the loading dock to the fight in the store with the flying things -- it's great stuff!  What's more, trips to the grocery store are not nearly as boring, as I can now imagine an attack by prehistoric creatures.

3.Few movies (at least in the world of Stephen King) manage to capture the feel of a novel quite as well as The Mist.  Stand By Me, Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile all do a great job bringing the book to screen.  But King's really scary stuff usually remains locked in the pages of his books, because you just can't make it happen on screen.  I think The Mist accomplishes some real scares.  This is no B-movie, as Darabont joked.

4. I don't think there is any way a crazy like Carmody would gete that many people to follow her.  I do understand there are religious nuts who gather a crowd; but she goes from being a total outcast in the community, to gaining complete trust in a few moments of crisis.

5. This is easily my favorite version of The Mist.  I LOVE IT!  I feel like something has been redeemed.  That is, it was good all along, but deeply marred by the ending.

6. The Durabont film brings resolution to two issues: Will the mist go away?  And what happened to David Drayton?  The re-cut. . .

I won't give away the ending to the novella cut, but I will say:

Revival Journal #4: The Mystery

Mr. Mercedes is supposed to be a mystery -- and Revival is supposed to be, well, something else.  It's King's new "dark" novel.  It has the tone of King's novella, 1922.  But it also has a great deal of mystery in it.  What's up with Rev. Jacobs?  That is the mystery.  It's what keeps us coming back, wanting to know more.

After we discover he has the power to heal, the reader wants to know how.  I've always been interested in "faith" healers and how they pull their stunts.  Partly because so many people I know, people I love, are easily taken in by religious shysters and shenanigans.  TV preachers and tent revivals with the big sign out front, "HEALING SERVICE" are of great suspicion to me.  In fact, I'd suggest that one of the great wounds to Christianity is the showman preachers who use the Gospel as a platform for making money.  But more about that in later posts.

They mystery at the mid-point and just beyond of Revival is three fold: How is Jacobs healing all those people, why do things sometimes go "bad" for the healed, and what happened to Jacobs?  I don't know the answer to any of those things at the moment, because I'm still plodding.  And here's the thing, I'm interested in the answer to all those things.

King does a great job ruling out early suspicions on the healing service.  No, he is not just using plants.  And yes, he really does seem to be healing these people.  But is he maybe doing more?  Is he actually experimenting on them?  Is something else going on that the reader has not been let in on?  Well, of course!

It is King's ability to turn a good mystery, to keep enough elements up in the air like a great juggler, that has me fascinated.  Now, here's a small confession.  If this were an author I'd not heard of, I'd be concerned that he'd bit off more than he could chew.  There are too many questions to resolve in the number of pages ahead.  Can he do it?  Will the answers be lame?  But this is Stephen King.  And there is a sense in which I keep reading simply because I know he will work some magic when the curtain is pulled back.

In some ways, Revival is a better mystery than Mr. Mercedes.  In Mr. Mercedes, we got a peak in at the criminal mastermind at work.  In Revival, things are more limited.  We don't get Jacobs perspective, so we are kept in suspense.

There is a slight change in writing style for King in Revival.  In the past King built a book scene by scene, the way a television show would progress.  In Revival, and other recent books, King does a lot of narration that skims over scenes, simply pushing the plot forward.  He's "telling" instead of "showing" a writer friend of mine would say.  And that's pretty easy to do when using first person narration.  I like it, because I don't always want to travel scene my scene.

And where's another confession; while King might identify with Jamie, I don't.  In fact, I find Jamie a pretty unlikable character.  Is it his sleeping with a much younger woman?  Maybe it is.  King works pretty hard to make us, the reader, cool with the older man sleeping with the younger woman.  It's a delightful fling for him, and a educational step into the world for her.  But it feels unreal.  I don't think younger woman just throw themselves at older guys and say, "yeah, I have daddy issues."  Maybe.  But I talk to A LOT of people, and that's not the way that goes down.

The bottomline is, I see Jamie as a user.  He uses women, he sues drugs, he uses opportunity to advance himself.  So it makes me suspicious of his desire to hunt down the old reverend and find out what he's really up to.  I don't think our main character is really all that noble.  King is working to show Jamie as someone who doesn't have the wool pulled over his eyes; but what he gives us is a loser.

I'm secretly rooting for King to pull a Christine on us, move from first person to third person and knock Jamie off.

But here's the deal: It's all enough to keep me interested, and that's what matters in a novel, isn't it?  I'm driven back again and again to Revival because I want to know what's up.

I should note why I'm SO SLOW at reading this book.  I only allow myself to listen to it when I go running at night.  It's my motivation.  Sometimes I can do five miles, I just keep choosing longer routes, because I'm hooked.  So it keeps me from skipping too many nights on the road exercising.  It also slows the pace.

The Mist -- There Is Hope!

I'm excited about this. . .

Kevin Karstens, a graphic illustrator, who shared with me that he also prefers King's version of the Mist and in particular, our strong dislike for the movies ending.  Kevin wrote,
I had looked forward to a film adaption for over 20 years, and was thrilled to hear they were doing one (and by Frank Darabont, no less)...until I started hearing, 'they changed the ending'....and I personally REALLY did NOT care for the 'new version'...so I did something baout it, and you might find it interesting...
What he did was recut  the movie, creating a fan film titled, "The Mist, The Novella Cut."  Great title!

The movie's webpage does a great job explaining exactly what was done:

 'The Mist-The Novella Cut' is a fan edit of the Frank Darabont/Stephen King film 'The Mist' which was released to theaters in 2007. 
It is in no way meant to disparage the wonderful work created by Mr. Darabont and his brilliant team of filmmakers, it is simply a version of the film meant to more closely adhere to the original text from the Stephen King novella upon which the movie was based. As the original story is my all time favorite King tale, I wanted a version that reflected the source material as closely as possible, especially the original, ambiguous finale...so I created this fan edit for fun. 
Certain scenes have been cut, others added from the DELETED SCENES found on the DVD release, as they mirrored actual sequences from the source material. Chapter 'headings' have been added in areas to reflect the feel of a novella, and the ending now pays homage to the 'Hartford/hope' finale originally seen in King's original text. 
This is from a conversation between Kevin Quigley and I.  Kevin is the overseer of charnelhouse, a Stephen King website.
Talk Stephen King: The novella left the story open ended. The movie, however, chose an ending scene that was rather controversial. King said he liked it. I hate it. Which of us is right?
Kevin Quigley: King and I often disagree about movies.  The ending of The Mist is atrocious.  It’s going for shock value and succeeding at that, but it doesn’t do much for the film itself.  It’s a complete shift in tone and intent, one that feels incongruous with the rest of the movie.  (talkstephenking interview with Kevin Quigley
Wait a minute, you may be saying -- is  the ending to the Mist really that bad? Allison Weaver wrote an article earlier this year titled, "Which Movies Have the Most Terrible Endings?"  She wrote, "Did anyone actually enjoy the ending of 'The Mist'? I don't believe it's possible. Who could be happy after watching the main character give up, shoot his own son, and then head off in search of the perfect way to kill himself? Honestly, though, even if it ended there, it would've been more acceptable than what really happened. Instead, he discovered that he and the rest of his family and friends could have survived the entire ordeal if they had just waited a few moments longer. Oops! Tough break."  My heart cries, "YESSSSSSSS!" (in best Darth Vader noooo voice)

Also of interest to this discussion is Blake Hennon's LA Times article, "‘The Mist’: Frank Darabont, Thomas Jane on ‘angry, bleak’ ending."  (herocomplex.latimes.com)  Hennon quoted Darabont,
“I was really getting something off my chest here,” Darabont said. “So if you hated the ending, I apologize for the two hours of your life I took. … This is an angry cry from the heart from a humanist who is really pretty pissed off about the fact that all the reasonable people seem to be marginalized, ground under the heel of the extremists.”
The good news is that I didn't lose two hours of my life.  The movie is great -- until characters  who had been making solid decisions began acting irrationally.

A producer once offered Darabont a 30 million dollar budget for The mist IF he would change the ending.  Darabont asked, “What ending would you like me to have?  What is your suggestion?”  The answer: I don’t know!  Darabont explained, "This is the ending I’ve been thinking about for 30 years now.  He didn’t have a suggestion."

To be clear  -- It’s okay for the main characters to die – just not that way.  Let them drive away and get eaten by a big dino-monster.  That’s fine.  But a father cannot do that to his child – not a good one.  It messes up the movie for re-watch.  To me, the ending makes the David Drayton unlikable.  As you watch again, you are thinking, “I can’t like this guy, he’s got a major character flaw.”  He does what Mother Carmody wanted to do but failed.  He does it with different intentions.  Simply put, a good reason not to blow a kids brains out when a situation looks really really really bad – is because there might be a miracle.  Not only does David Drayton carry out a incredibly painful act, but the movie rubs our face in it by showing the mist getting blown away by the army.

Curious what kind of reviews the recut of The Mist is getting?  Here are a few:

Original Runtime : 126 min
New Runtime : 1 hr 45 min
Amount of time Cut/Added : CUT: Approx 10 min ADDED: Approx 5 min

More about the changes, the website explains:
The added sequences were from the DELETED SCENES which can be found on the DVD release of 'The Mist'. These specific portions mirrored sequences from the book (Mr. Norton speaking with Stephanie before he, David & Billy leave for town, conversations in the store and so on)...also, the entire ending seen in theaters has been dropped and replaced with new scenes that reflect the original, haunting and more ambiguous 'Hartford/hope' angle found in the original text. 
Check out the website at: http://kkarstens.wix.com 

BOOM! So Stephen King is a MASTER!

See, I would never ever want to say, "I told you so."  Or suggest I was ahead of the curve.  But. . . now that Revival is out, people are starting to note that King makes a lot of connections to other masters of the craft.  In particular, H.P. Lovecraft.  Why does this matter to me?  Because I put a book out this Summer (before Revival came out) discussing King and the enduring nature of his work as serious literature.  I also discussed connections between King and Lovecraft.

Note this article posted at oregonlive.com.  Before diving in to King's use of Lovecraft in Revival, the writer says, "He seems to be trying to make sure his own pop fiction lasts by going even darker than he has before, into the realm of earlier horror masters Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker and H.P. Lovecraft."

What Douglas Perry (the author of the article) totally misses is that King didn't just wake up and decide to start shadowing some of these people.  He didn't just decide to get more serious with Revival.  King's work has been consistently serious literature; it's just the critics who have been reading him wrong.  It's time they gave the Stephen King library another read.

Perry nicely summarizes some recent reviews of Revival:
The New Statesman calls "Revival," King's 58th novel, a "serious book by a major writer," insisting that it "reads like a populist sequel to Sinclair Lewis's evangelical satire 'Elmer Gantry.'" 
The New York Times calls it "a well-built book that unfolds on a big canvas." The paper adds, teasingly, scarily, that the novel "winds up with the idea that to be human, you must know what it is to be inhuman." 
That sounds like Shelley's influence, but The Guardian says "it is Lovecraft, and the quote 'That is not dead which can eternal lie, / And with strange aeons, even death may die,' that reverberate throughout the book." 
King, 67, happily admits he's been influenced by "everything" Lovecraft has ever written.
In chapter 1 of Stephen King, A Face Among The Masters, I included a portion titled, "The eyes of H.P. Lovecraft."  I noted not only similarities in their writing, but biography as well.  I also looked at how the two are very different.  

  King’s Lovecraftian stories include such titles as Jerusalem’s Lot, I am the Doorway, Mrs. Todd’s Shortcut, N, and Crouch End. In the documentary, Fear of the Unknown, Peter Straub compared The Mist to Lovecraft. “Tentacle things break in from another dimension, that’s just pure Lovecraft.” 
Gardner, Brighton (2014-05-04). Stephen King A Face Among The Masters 
What I find in Revival  isn't a brand new Stephen King.  This King was with us in Full Dark, No Stars.  He was there in the pages of The Dark Half and especially Desperation.  The depressing tone of the book mirrors very much the narrative style of the novella 1922.  

So to put it simply, I'm excited.  I'm so glad that King's novel, Revival, is being taken as serious literature.  Because I think it will force some others to look back at the work of Stephen King.  All along King has been giving us serious literature; we were just having so much fun reading it, we didn't realize how great it was.  I believe someday, future generations will study Stephen King the way we study Lovecraft, Dickens, Poe, Twin and  Shelly.

William Shatner joins the cast of Haven

Greetings Captain Kirk!  tvbythenumbers is reporting that "William Shatner (Star Trek) is set to guest star in a four-episode arc on the Syfy fan-favorite series in 2015. Shatner will play a pivotal character that has the potential to forever impact the fate of the town of Haven and its troubled residents."

tvline.com puts it this way:
William Shatner will seemingly throw the Prime Directive out the window when he sets foot in Haven later this season. The iconic Star Trek captain recently teased on Twitter his gig on the Syfy series. Now, TVLine can exclusively reveal that Shatner will recur in a four-episode Season 5 arc in “a seminal role,” as a pivotal character that has the potential to forever impact the fate of the town of Haven and its Troubled residents.

(thanks Stephenkingonly)

The Stand to be FOUR movies

Good news on THE STAND.  Previous ideas  floated that it would be done as a single film; which is, of course, insane.  Mike Fleming at Deadline posted  an article  titled, "Josh Boone Says Warner Bros Will Turn Stephen King’s ‘The Stand’ Into Four Films."  

Fleming writes:
 Boone told Kevin Smith in his Babble-On podcast (I heard it on Aint It Cool News) that after he boiled down the tale to a single script for a three-hour movie, Warner Bros actually suggested to him a more ambitious plan for what he calls “The Godfather of post-apocalyptic thrillers.” Said Boone: “They asked, would you do this as multiple films. I said f*ck yes. I think we’re going to do four movies. Do The Stand at the highest level you can do it at, with a cast that’s going to blow peoples’ minds. Production in the spring.” Boone said he’s writing that first installment, based on the script he has happily scrapped.
I like this line, "Do The Stand at the highest level  you can do it at..." YES!

Fleming rightly says, "It all starts with a studio decision maker, one with a spine, saying, yeah, I want to see this."  This series of films will take someone with spine.  He compares the work to  the multi-part adaptation of Tolkien's work.
There are opportunities for visuals from The Stand that rival what Stanley Kubrick put on the screen in King’s The Shining. The depiction of the apocalypse in The Walking Dead, you just know that and other filmed works were informed by some of what King presented in his seminal novel. Stay tuned.
Check out the full article at:  deadline.com

Flashback to 2003

For throw back thursday, King posted this November 19th, 2003 picture of himself and Tabitha at the 54th National Book Awards.

The text of his speech is at nationalbook.org.  The speech is like a public love letter to his wife; it's beautiful.

"Tabby always knew what I was supposed to be doing and she believed that I would succeed at it."
"She's what the Bible calls a pearl beyond price."

Will There Really Be A Running Man 2?

cinemablend.com and digitalspy.com are citing Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent comments that he might be returning to the role of Ben Richards in a new Running Man movie.

Cinemablend writes:
The Austrian-born actor is currently in London, and it was while speaking during a Q&A that he revealed talks of a possible Running Man 2 in the works. According to Digital Spy, Schwarzenegger didn't exactly elaborate on what might be happening with the property or if he is actually attached to a project, but he did say that there have been rumblings about a return to the 1987 sci-fi film. This comment was looped in with a lot of other talk about in-development sequels, including The Legend of Conan (the actor saying. "It's an honor to be asked back after all these years, back to the franchise. This is really wild") and the Twins sequel, Triplets (the script for which Schwarzenegger says he's read the first draft). 
Wait. . . Twins 2?  Or, to put it another way -- Hollywood is now officially out of ideas.  Between sequels and remakes, there aren't a lot of original stories.

Of course, we are also enduring talk of a single movie version of The Stand.  King suggested maybe this would not just be one movie.  And there's the IT remake.

If they're looking for something great to film, here's some ideas:
2. The Talisman
3. Duma Key
4. Rose Madder
5. From a Buick 8

Really need to remake something?  How about getting on that IT project?  I watched the miniseries recently and thought, "This could be a lot better than it is."

Of course, no one is really looking to remake or do anything with the Stephen King property, The Running Man.  The movie had very little to do with the novella.  I loved the novel -- and the movie, not so much. The book had an almost 9/11 type ending.  The movie was actually less suspenseful.

Revival Journal #3: Not Vintage King

Journal entries are my thoughts as I read.  This is not a review.

Revival has the feeling of returning the constant reader to some home turf.  With Castle Rock near by and characters who have a special place in their heart for drugs -- the hard kind -- it has traces of novels offered long ago.  But the story is no rehash.  It's new, and written by a much more cynical man than penned The Green Mile.  Are the dark musings in Revival a phase he is passing through, or a final resting place he's stepped onto?  I don't know.  King does what most people do; he wrestles with the issues of life.  Only, King does it in public while most people work issues through in the privacy of their heart.

It is King's ability to work things through while all eyes are on him that make his stories so engaging.  We enjoy the ride because we're taking it with a man who's not quite sure of the road ahead himself.  Thought he novel is tight and moves quickly, King has said more than once that he does not write with an outline in hand.  That is to say, he doesn't always know where he'll end up when he starts the journey.

After the terrible accident that takes pastor Charles Jacob’s wife and son, and the terrible sermon, the novel follows Jamie Morton as he bounces about as a rock musician and sinks deeper into drugs.  I found this portion of the novel difficult to get into, because I was so interested in what would happen with the preacher.  As with Christine, the story is not told from the position of someone who would always be in the “know.”  This makes some scenes a little awkward, as Jamie drops us in on scenes he had no way of being there for.  How does he know?  Well, he listens a lot.  In Christine, when the narrator broke his leg at a football game, King ran into a problem and switched to third person.  No third person in Revival.  Instead, we continue to travel life’s road with Jamie.

Revival is as much about Jamie’s coming of age as it is the evil preacher.  It seems the older King gets, the better he is at reviving the flavor of first love.  His recent novel Joyland had a wonderful story of first love.  But unlike Joyland, Revival is about two young people coming of age together.  There is no one to guide Jamie in the way of love – he and his girl must explore that path together.  And the scenes are rather tender.

It is amazing how King can take us back there.  Back to another time and era.  More than that, back to young love and young thinking.  For instance, Jamie discusses how easy it is to make a promise about life when your fourteen.  That's true -- but most of us forgot that.

The rock band Jamie joins was originally called the Gunslingers.  They dropped that name, and the new name – I’ll let you find it – combined with the old name is almost a direct nod to Guns n Roses.

It seems obvious that in many ways, King lives through his characters.  Of course, he has had a taste of the rock star life; but that was always overshadowed by the fact he's a famous author.  That is, the question of could he have made it onto the stage just on his music powers, had he not first been the author of some super-duper novels -- is really in doubt.  There is a sense that Jamie is a shadow, an alter ego, of what King might have been.  Not what King was, or was ever in danger of actually becoming -- but in some other dark tower  world, King mixes bits of his own personality and experience with his fictional characters.

It is funny when people ask him if these characters are based on himself.  Of course.  That was true of Devon and Stu and even Jamie Mortion.  But, it's also true of Pennywise and Mr. Mercedes.  GASP!  Because they are all coming out of the same guys head.

I’m reading a lot of people who say this is “vintage” King.  I disagree with that entire line of thought.  Even when it comes from King and his publisher.  There is no vintage King.  Vintage King is Salems’ Lot.  And the author who wrote that has moved on with life.  He can’t dull his skills back to that age.  In other words, while Revival and Joyland might contain themes and flavors of the old dark novels, these are written by a man who has traveled much further in life and has a better grasp of his artwork.  While I don’t enjoy every Stephen King book, I enjoy books from every era.