Doctor Sleep has finally gotten a release date. Unfortunately we won't see it until September 24th next year. Both Scribner and Hodder & Stoughton will release it on that date. (www.liljas-library.com)Lilja notes, "I’m glad it has a release date but disappointed that it’s more than a year until it’s actually released." I agree!
Time for constant readers to either catch up on King books they have not yet read (there are plenty for me) or reread loved King books. . . or catch up with another author. Ken Follett is doing a new series that looks awesome.
Actually, the correct date is September 24, 2013 -- NOT 2014.
ReplyDeleteFor confirmation, click here: http://firewireblog.com/2012/09/18/stephen-kings-shining-sequel-doctor-sleep-gets-a-release-date/
You are correct! my apologies.
ReplyDeleteGlad it's finally been scheduled. Now Chris knows how long he has before doom arrives. ;)
ReplyDeleteI am definitely going to read this and I will do my best to keep an open mind.
ReplyDeleteBut I really feel strongly that The Shining ranks among the great works of modern horror, standing with the likes of Shirley Jackson's Haunting of Hill House and Richard Matheson's I Am Legend.
A great sequel isn't going to enhance that standing and a subpar book will hurt it. I think he should have left Danny Torrance where he put him at the end of The Shining.
A great sequel theoretically COULD enhance the standing of "The Shining," but it would have to be really great ... and the odds of that happening are not particularly good.
DeleteMy guess is that King himself must be fairly pleased with the results, or else he probably wouldn't be publishing the novel. At least, I hope that's the case!
So. . . you don't trust Stephen King, with YEARS more experience now as a writer, to write a sequel to his own book?
DeleteAnd, is it really a "sequel"? It has same characters, brand new situation.
And. . . has anyone considered that The Drawing Of The Three is a stronger novel than The Gunslinger? (In my opinion).
I've considered it. I prefer "The Gunslinger," but not by much. And I think you could also make an argument that Book III is better than Book II.
DeleteFor the record, I trust Stephen King as a storyteller more or less implicitly. Not so on the subject of movies and television, but prose...? Absolutely. I think the odds of "Doctor Sleep" being as good as "The Shining" are minimal; but I also think the odds of it not being good, or somehow wrecking "The Shining," are next to nonexistent.
The one chapter that was included on the audio edition of "The Wind Through the Keyhole" was outstanding; I see no reason why the rest can't follow suit. It might not be AS great as "The Shining," but I don't see how that's a prerequisite for enjoyment.
No, I don't trust him to do it. I'm hoping he does. But I didn't care much for what Black House did for The Talisman.
DeleteStephen King isn't perfect and, frankly, has written some real clunkers that managed to get published. Gerald's Game, Rose Madder, and Lisey's Story come to mind. Even he admitted that Insomnia was not a good novel -- and he is right.
The Gunslinger and Drawing of the Three are not apt comparisons. They were but pieces of a larger story that went beyond the initial books. The Shining stands alone, on its own. It ranks as one of his finest works and one of the finest works of 20th century horror.
See, now, I'm completely the opposite to you on the subject of "Black House": I think it somewhat redeems "The Talisman," which seems to me like a silly mess of a novel. Not that "Black House" is a classic; it isn't. But it's at least decent, whereas "The Talisman" is just an overwritten bore. To me, at least; I'm in the minority with that opinion.
DeleteI would also take exception with the notion that "Gerald's Game" is a clunker; I like that one a lot. Not so much "Rose Madder" and "Lisey's Story," though; those are pretty poor, especially the latter, which is a thoroughly annoying novel.
Real question. . .
ReplyDeletecan an already existing work be wrecked?
I would say no, personally; not unless the work itself is changed in some way.
DeleteCharacters can be wrecked. Danny Torrance was a great character in a great story. Once he's placed someplace else, in some other time, he ceases to be just the Danny Torrance we knew in The Shining and becomes something different. Maybe it's good. I don't know. We'll have to wait a year to find out. But you can't unread a book. Whatever my perceptions of Danny Torrance, they will be changed forever in what is in Doctor Sleep
ReplyDeleteI'd mostly agree with that. However, I have to ask (and with no intended disrespect): if this is something you honestly fear, why on Earth would you even consider reading "Doctor Sleep"? That makes no sense to me.
DeleteI have to read it because it might be great. I have to read it because it's an extension of one of my favorite novels.
DeleteAm I taking a risk that the character Danny Torrance will be wrecked in my own mind? Yes. But I'm willing to take it because I want to see where King goes with it. I wish he weren't going anywhere with it, but if he's taking Danny on to new adventures, I want to be along for the ride.
Fair enough!
DeleteAnd I thought of an instance in which I'd probably feel the same way: if Steven Spielberg were to make a sequel to "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," I'd feel some honest dread over what the likely results would be.
Conversely, I'd be totally fine with him making a sequel to "E.T." I'm not entirely sure why I'd be okay with one, but not okay with the other. But I'd certainly watch 'em both.
I was going to remain silent but this drew me out.
ReplyDeleteTo answer some already asked questions:
Do I trust King's abilities? A writer's abilites are determined by his level skill, culminating at a peak level where individual talent operates best (i.e. King can't write like Bradbury, Bradbury can't write like Dickens and Dickens can't imitate Tom Wolfe).
II think King can still write, however I think the accident has impaired his ability to hold onto the narrative thread of any given story idea. In fact, I'm going tp put this out there and not care what anyone says.
Doctor Sleep to me is an example of creative lashing out, the result of a writer growing frustrated that he can no longer write at his peak level, say 82-1999 -2001, and as a result he composes a work more in frustration than inspiration.
Is it really a sequel? Yes and no. Some characters come with sequels built into them (Huck Finn, Bilbo Baggins) others don't and Dan Torrance is one that doesn't. So while his use makes it a de facto sequel, it doesn't make it an "Official" one.
Can an already existing work be wrecked. Yes. I think even the idea of an unnecessary sequel can ruin a very great book. Look at Lucas and Star Wars. I tried going back to the Shining and while it's still good, knowing the kid has something like Sleep to look forward to made the book ring hollow.
Such books deserve better. I agree with Brian more or less, and definitely in terms of Sleep. I may have more to say.
ChrisC
"a writer growing frustrated that he can no longer write at his peak level"
ReplyDeleteI disagree completely. "From a Buick 8," the final three Dark Tower novels, "Duma Key," "1922," "A Good Marriage," "11/22/63," and numerous short stories (such as "A Very Tight Place," "N.," "The Dune," and the very recent "Batman and Robin Have an Altercation") strike me as being roughly as good as all but the very best of King's works.
And much of the rest of his post-accident output is good enough that that era really doesn't seem appreciably different quality-wise. Not to me.
On the idea of the mere idea of Danny as an adult changing your perception of "The Shining" itself: if your perception of Danny is such that it can be changed by mere knowledge of King's perceptions of the character, then doesn't that mean King's perceptions carry an essential truth to them? Otherwise, it seems to me that your perceptions of Danny ought to remain rock-solid regardless of what King or anyone else has to say on the subject.
I'll give you an example: the television series "Millennium." The character Frank Black is a criminal profiler, and when I watched the series, it seemed as though he had a type of precognition or telepathy or something. Years later, series creator Chris Carter declared that that was not the case, that Black wasn't telepathic at all, but merely extremely intuitive.
When I heard this, I immediately rejected what Carter was saying. My rationale was that the way the series was filmed and edited simply didn't support what Carter was saying. Maybe that was his intent, but if so, he completely failed as a producer to make it happen.
If, however, my perception of Frank Black had been changed by what Carter said, I'd have to admit that his statements carried an undeniable validity. They don't.
But it seems to me that if King deciding to continue Danny Torrance's story is fundamentally changing your thoughts on "The Shining," there must be some underlying validity to it.
Well, if you thought I was giving King's take validity, let me assure you that was not what I meant, and allow me to clarify.
DeleteStar Wars. I don't the prequels should be allowed as official canon (and believe me I'm not the only one on that score). And, infact, I don't regard them as canon. In that sense, I'm no more than any other disgruntled Wars fan when I say that thinking that King would pull a George Lucas on a beloved classic like this just burns me up, and the idea that it might ruin the book for future readers who'll never get to see it in terms of a stand alone classic, but rather as part of something that got ruined.
Unlike Brian, my perceptions can't be changed, because the nature of the character in the Shining is fundamentally different, from Sleep. it's just a major let down for me that king would do this to an archetype (especially one that more or less Made his carreer).
Let me also explain peak period, I didn't mean to imply that his talent has lessened, only that the accident seems to have made it more difficult to tap into said talent and hence sometime, not always, just sometimes his work has suffered for it.
I still think he's a good writer, and a decent enough sort in general, i also take him at his word about his substance abuse, and his personal problems. When I read on Writing, I assumed he'd kicked all those bad habits, i.e. he'd gotten rid of Richard Bachman for good. Seems the accident brought Bachman (i.e. King's bad habits) back. I still think he's got it in him, he just shouldn't let personal frustrations get in the way of his creativity, as I know he can do better than this, and that the Bachman part of himself won't do him any good.
ChrisC
Not to be too argumentative here, but you're contradicting yourself: either what King is doing with Danny has validity or it doesn't. If it doesn't, I honestly don't see how that can possibly change your perceptions of "The Shining" itself.
DeleteConversely, if your perceptions ARE being changed, then it implies an essential truth to what King is doing with Danny. If that's the case, how can "Doctor Sleep" seem anything other than completely valid?
Am I interpreting this incorrectly?
I'd also add that this is hardly the first time King has expanded on an existing character's fate; it's arguably the first time he's done it with that character foregrounded, but what of that?
ReplyDeleteExamples: Ralph Roberts (from "Insomnia") finally dies in "Bag of Bones"; Thad Beaumont from "The Dark Half" is mentioned as having died in the same novel (I think; it might be "Needful Things"); George Bannerman from "The Dead Zone" dies in "Cujo"; and even though the names are not explicitly mentioned, "The Tommyknockers" seemingly includes the revelation that Lily Sawyer from "The Talisman" has died.
There are other examples, but those will do for now.
It seems obvious to me that many of King's characters stay alive in his mind, and occasionally peek their way out. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me that for "The Shining" -- which is maybe his most personal novel -- the characters have been living inside him all this time, and now need to get out. That seems natural to me.
Why shouldn't King follow his muse in that regard? Doesn't that speak to the idea of inspiration versus invention?
Uh, you'd best look up at my earlier reply, it's right above yours.
DeleteAs for Beaumont, his ending was impclicit in the Dark Half, as evidenced by this text:
"You're quite wrong, the owner of this house is dead. Killed his wife and kids then turned the weapon on himself. He had that streak in him, I guess you could say it was quite STARK!"
Again, if you want my full response, its the post above the one I'm answering to now.
You know what. Just hang on.
ChrisC
Okay, here's my full answering to your two part question.
DeleteI hope this clears something's up.
Well, if you thought I was giving King's take validity, let me assure you that was not what I meant, and allow me to clarify.
Star Wars. I don't the prequels should be allowed as official canon (and believe me I'm not the only one on that score). And, infact, I don't regard them as canon. In that sense, I'm no more than any other disgruntled Wars fan when I say that thinking that King would pull a George Lucas on a beloved classic like this just burns me up, and the idea that it might ruin the book for future readers who'll never get to see it in terms of a stand alone classic, but rather as part of something that got ruined.
Unlike Brian, my perceptions can't be changed, because the nature of the character in the Shining is fundamentally different, from Sleep. it's just a major let down for me that king would do this to an archetype (especially one that more or less Made his carreer).
Let me also explain peak period, I didn't mean to imply that his talent has lessened, only that the accident seems to have made it more difficult to tap into said talent and hence sometime, not always, just sometimes his work has suffered for it.
I still think he's a good writer, and a decent enough sort in general, i also take him at his word about his substance abuse, and his personal problems. When I read on Writing, I assumed he'd kicked all those bad habits, i.e. he'd gotten rid of Richard Bachman for good. Seems the accident brought Bachman (i.e. King's bad habits) back. I still think he's got it in him, he just shouldn't let personal frustrations get in the way of his creativity, as I know he can do better than this, and that the Bachman part of himself won't do him any good.
ChrisC
Oh, I'd read what you wrote; I just think you're coming at it from a place of personal bias, as opposed to looking at "The Shining" and "Doctor Sleep" objectively. Don't get me wrong; that's your right, and I'm certainly not immune to viewing things from a biased standpoint.
DeleteI hear what you're saying about Thad's fate being implicit in "The Dark Half" itself. That, in fact, is exactly what I was hinting at.
Looking at it from that standpoint, how is it NOT implicit in the end of "The Shining" that Danny will grow up continue to possess his shine? And, probably, find occasion to have to use it once in a while? And, odds are, become an alcoholic? All of those things seem perfectly consistent with "The Shining," and I've yet to hear anything said that indicates otherwise.
Well, thanks for the understanding, in fact thanks for knowing which post I was reffering to to begin with.
DeleteTell you what, if you can just hold on, I'm busy writing what I hope will be my total summation of why Sleep is a bad idea. Hopefully, I'll be able to explain my thinking as not biased and what i believe this story is and why it's coming from.
Just give me some time and I'll post it up on your Truth inside lie blog and you can make your jusgement there. Any who want can feel free to look in as well,
Thanks.
ChrisC
I look forward to reading it!
DeleteJust give me like, maybe an hour and a half, if it's not done by then, I swear it'll be there by tomorrow for your perusal. Like I say, anyone else who wants there head talked off just to to Bryant's page, The Truth Inside The Lie.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least you kill twelve minutes.
ChrisC
Oh, I'd say go ahead and post 'em here; unless there's naughty language involved or something.
DeleteMaybe David will give me permission to take all these comments and compile them into a post to put up at The Truth Inside The Lie...?
you guys crack me up.
ReplyDeleteBryant is always welcome to anything I have.
And here is the Right answer to original question: You can't mess up a book that's already published! Because nothing can change that book. It is safely on your shelf, you can re-read it. I can even read the Mist and not worry about the crazy ending -- because the movie did not mess up the book.
Very generous, sir! I shall link back to this post, naturally.
DeleteAnd, naturally, I agree with you.
However, I suspect that a LOT of people will probably feel about this more or less the same way that Chris and Brian do. Not a majority, maybe, but a large minority, and a very vocal one, I'd imagine.
Well, you're probably right about the vocal minority.
DeleteBy the way my response is finished, and I painted myself into a corner. There's nothing dirty in it. I just can't fit it into a blog post. I wound up writing a bloody essay of all things. I'm laughing even though it hurts. HAR!