11.22.63 episode 2: I'm Hooked

11.22.63 is quickly becoming one of my favorite Stephen King adaptations.  I’m almost scared to like it as much as I do.  Last time I really fell in love with a Stephen King series, it was Under The Dome – and that went LOST on us.

The required spoiler alert:

Hey, you, before you read this. . .
I talk about stuff on my blog.  Gasp.  So if you haven't seen 11.22.63, you should go watch it before you listen in on me talking about it, because it might "spoil" it for you.  I'm telling you this because some of you are rediculously sensitive about not having the storyline given away.  Hey, I have an idea: Don't read posts about stories you haven't read yet.  Glad I could help.  On with the discussion. .

A few quick observations:

The Trade:
The movie and the book trade slaps.  Track with me. . .
In the book, I was blown away when Jake first sees the “colored” bathroom sign.  You can read about that experience HERE.  But that scene did not have the same impact on me when it happened on screen.  In fact, that scene just kind of flowed by.

However, I still got slapped in the face by the television show.  It’s when the boys pin Harry down and spit on him. Something in me bristled; got angry.  (And anger is what I felt when I first read that scene where Jake encounters colored restrooms.)

Welcome to the 60's:
The Café Harry goes to is incredible.  I mean, it’s so authentic.  Once again, I feel like I’m there.  The counter, the wall paper, the comic book stand; it feels right.  And, Jake sticks out – it’s obvious he doesn’t belong to this world. It speaks volumes that they could recreate the world of 1960, because that world is gone.  Everyone in these scenes, they’re not really from 1960 – they’re from 2016.  (Well, 15) But all of them drop into character so well, that even as Jake tries to look the part, he still doesn’t fit in.  The very fact that Jake sticks out builds our confidence that we really have been taken back to 1960.

Over Religious:

The lady interviewing Jake for a room is way over the top!  Maybe people were really like that back then – but she’s what Solomon was talking about when he said “do not be overrighteous.” (Eccl 7:16)   Bet-ja didn’t know that was in the Bible!  There seems to be one of these in every Stephen King book.

Does anyone like that picture of Jesus she has on her wall?  Apparently it was paramount to his mugshot for many years.

MASH:

Jake show quick thinking when asked what unit he served with in Korea.  MASH, 4077.  BRILLIANT!  I really like the old guys comment, “There’s no such thing as a war hero.”  It’s the kind of thing only a war hero can say.  “The last thing you can say about killing a man is that it’s brave.”  I like that line, not because our troops aren’t brave, but because it so perfectly describes how so many of them feel coming home from war.  Conflicted.  They were sent to do a job, and they did it. And they want to be recognized and honored by their nation for serving and doing a difficult thing.

Up Close And Personal:
I think the scenes with Frank – in fact the entire storyline with Harry – is far superior to the book.  There is a new layer of detail here that wasn’t in the book.  We get a lot more up close and personal with Frank.  There’s much greater tension.  And, Jake’‘s a lot dumber! – and that’s good  It feels more real because Jake is making bonehead mistakes any of us would make.

Repost: Stephen King Slapped My Face

(REPOSTED from my 11.22.63 journal, December 8, 2011.)

Stephen King slapped my face a few days ago.  It hurt a lot.

There I was, happily bopping through the late 1950's with Mr. King narrating away at about 80 miles an hour.  I'm loving 11.22.63, and the blast from the past is a joy.  Root beer, short hair, ties -- we'd all want to go back, right?  Even the cars are something to long for.  And about the time King has you totally off guard, thinking sentimentally about a by-gone era. . . WHAM!  King gives a big, open handed slap to the face.  Not a girly slap; a hard, "WAKE UP, FOOL!" slap.

I grew up in the 80's -- in California.  I was a white in a mostly black high school.  Race relations could be tense at times.  My senior year was the Rodney King riots, and it seemed like everything erupted in the Los Angeles area.  But my best friend was black, and somehow we navigated through some rough waters.  There was bad stuff going on around us, but for the most part we came out untouched.  My mom has said she was glad for my friend, because it protected me from bitterness.

Any tension in 1980's California cannot compare to what was happening in 1959.

As we bop happily along through the novel, King describes a stop at a gas station.  There's a men's and women's restroom, and then a sign for blacks with an arrow.  Follow the arrow around the corner, and you'll discover there are no indoor restrooms for blacks.  I'll not share the exact nature of the indignity, King does it better than I can -- but it made me angry.  Partly because it's not the world I come from.  And partly because it IS the world I come from!  Our entire nation has been touched by generations of racism.  When King describes the bathroom situation at the gas station, it evokes a righteous rage.  "That is SO WRONG!"

We exist in boxes; our eyes covered.  Racism is a thing of the past, it doesn't affect us -- right?  But when I felt that sudden anger at someone being forced to go to the bathroom outside, some things started to make sense.  The anger in the students around me as I grew up.  It didn't make sense at the time.  Why were they angry -- things were better for them than they had been for the last generation, right?  But the arm of injustice has a long reach.

Injustice, racism, hate can't be cut off in just one generation.  We live with the scars.

Out culture and teachers have tried to slap us, but usually it didn't sting as bad as it needed to.  Movies like "Driving Miss. Daisy" are painful, but sweet.  King doesn't give any sweet to his open handed smack.  I remember reading Native Son in high school about a black man who accidentally killed a white girl, burned her body, and went to the electric chair.  That novel provoked the desired uncomfortable discussions in English class, but it did not deliver the sudden, unexpected, slap that 11/22/63 gave me. Even movies that drive the point home, like The Help, don't really slap you.  Because you see it coming!  But King doesn't announce he's gong to slap your face.  Of course, everyone should know at some point he's going to edge up on racism -- but when he catches you off guard and causes emotions to rush, it's both painful and a joy.

Baptist:

King sometimes shows us things from our own culture we don't like so much.  The angry, cussing, racist Baptist landlord we encounter in Dallas disgusted me.  That's outside my experience with Baptist (for the most part.  Anyone who has done ministry for long has encountered some pretty angry people).  I go to a racially mixed church (whites, blacks, Hispanics Asians).  Baptist would be quick to point out that Dr. King was a Baptist, as were many civil rights leaders.  Billy Graham, who publicly took a stand against racism by personally removing the ropes that separated whites and blacks  in his meetings was a Baptist.  But that's not the whole story, is it?

I don't like the cussing, angry, nasty racist landlord being a Baptist. I would rather focus on the positives!  The MLK's, the Graham's and so on.  For a moment I found myself frustrated with King's writing.  It seems he often chooses the Baptist to be the racist (Reverend Rose in Needful things is an example -- only he hated Catholics).  And at least with rose, the character is not well developed.  He just hates.  But in 11.22.63, things feel a little more real.  These feel like people you might actually meet somewhere.  Not just a caricature -- but a true step back in history.  And if I could go back in time, I'd like to take a swing at that landlord!

Thank You

So I'd thank King for the slap in the face.  Thank him for making it hurt.  For stirring emotions I've actually never felt; not very deeply.  Because I don't live in a culture where racism is so openly practiced, but we do live with the scars.  But people respond to one another based on their scars, and we don't always understand why they act the way they do.

11.22.63 Takes Off

I got HULU today for one reason: 11.22.63.  And I love it.  The movie, not HULU.

The movie brings the book to life in brilliant color.  There are some things that can’t really be brought to the screen.  Jack can tell us food tastes better, but King made me taste the root-beer float.  I don’t know how; but he touched my senses beyond just seeing it in my minds eye; I tasted it.  All they can do on TV is tell us that food tastes better.

Whit the television show accomplishes is it takes us back to the 1960's with amazing detail.  Like the novel, I “buy” it because it feels right.  This isn’t a plastic version of the 60's; a cheap set to move actors around on – this actually feels like the world of the 60's.  (Well, late 50's.)

What the movie can do that the book couldn’t is more than just visual No doubt, they have done an outstanding job visually.  But a book can’t really have a sound track.

I am still struck by the unimportance of the “HOW” for Stephen King – or this story.  HOW does a closet send you back in time?  King is interested in the “what if” not one bit in the how.  King, and the writers of the script, seem to say to us, “yeah, yeah, yeah, so what if we don’t know anything about how this closet sends you back in time.  Just suppose it did, then what?”

• But why does it go back to that date?
• What was in that space previously?
• What caused that spot to become a time portal?
• Has it always been a time portal?
• Did it used to go back to a different date?
• Are there other time portals?

None of these questions are of any interest to Stephen King.  But shouldn’t . . . someone . . . be asking this?  Maybe Jake?  Before you go diving a time machine, shouldn’t you ask how it works?  Some basic rules are given to us.  For instance, every time you go through again, you re-set everything you previously changed; suggesting that there is a “true” timeline that everything actually adheres to.  There are not endless timelines.  There is standard time – and it is possible to deviate.  However, things always return to standard time.

My favorite line from episode 1: Time pushes back.  (The book used the word obdurate.)  And, "You don't belong here."

Is it worth a HULU subscription?  Well, for me, yeah.  Absolutely.
Episode 1 is titled: The Rabbit Hole
11.22.63 plays every Monday.

NINETEEN SIXTY THREE: The Day Kennedy Was Shot

One of my favorite books is Jim Bishop's "The Day Lincoln was Shot" by Jim Bishop.  He also has a wonderful book titled "The Day Kennedy Was Shot." 

In honor of the release of 11/22/63 , here is a taste of what that day was like. . .

King Books Worthy Of A Return Visit

I read Gerald's Game a couple of times, but really have no desire to go back again and again.  In fact, many novels are a great read once.  Some books actually lose something on the second read.  The first time through a book, the writer has the ability to surprise the reader.  The second time, the reader is emotionally armed up.

There are a small handful of books that are worth returning to again and again.  No matter how many times I read these books, they maintain their magic.  In fact, I look forward to the little plot twists.

Sometimes rereading a book reminds me of the period of life I first read it in.  So reading the Stand takes me back to High School and those long days I sat in summer school reading the book as a teacher droned on.

These "favorite" books are ones I'm most likely to buy special editions of.

So here are a few King books I've read more times than I can count:

Joyland

This book is absolutely delightful!  I could really care less about the who done it part of the murder mystery, this story is all tone and setting.  We get a behind the scenes look at the old amuse park and a trip back to the 1970's.

King spares the reader the typical "who done it" -- even though that is a central part of the book. There is no running around, room to room trying to put clues together.

The novel focuses on first love -- and next love.  The love we find in the midst of a broken heart.  Can that love be trusted?  Is it real?  Can we really love when we're on the rebound?  This is actually a pretty complex emotional equation King sets up for a short book.  Kings skill at depicting relationships is superb.

Early on, man suggested that Joyland would be "vintage King."  I disagree.   Joyland is not like Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Dead Zone or any other King novel.  It's stronger.  Much stronger.  The characters are deeper and the story is told with a depth of maturity King could not bring to earlier novels.  So it may have elements we saw in King's younger work, this is ultimately the work of a seasoned writer.

Favorite Scene: Mike's visit to the amusement park.

Favorite Character: Mike.

First read: 2013

check out my post about the real corpse in a theme park's house of horror: talkstephenking joyland journal

The Stand.  

I love the entire book and was so happy when it finally came out in audio.  Have read it both as the abridged version and unabridged.  Both are delightful.  There are lots of little sub stories that run through the book that are easily forgotten.  And, I could travel with Larry through that tunnel a hundred times and still be scared.

Favorite scene: I like the final scene in Las Vegas.  The hand of God reached down and took evil out.  That's pretty gutsy writing.

Favorite character: The Walkin' Dude.  Flagg.  I love it that King dared to give us evil personified. And he wasn't a seething dark monster oozing goop -- he was one cool dude.  Of course, if you made him unhappy, he had a few tricks up his sleeve to return the favor.

First read: High School.

Needful Things.  

It's been too long since I've read this book!  Time to come back.  I think Needful Things is not given enough credit as a strong, character driven book.

Favorite character: One complaint sometimes leveled against Needful Things is that it lacks likable characters.  There were certainly people I liked!  How about Sherif Pangborn and his girlfriend, Polly Chalmers.

The book worked, for me, because it was long and had lots of breathing room. King interwove the characters and moved the plot toward a final crescendo that I thought worked on behalf of the town.  The final scene with the Sherif being offered a video of his wife's death was goofy.

Favorite scene: When Wilma and Nettie go crazy and hack each other to death in the middle of the street.  Yuck.

First read: High School.

IT

This book is many people's all time favorite King book.  I like it a lot.  I think I would like it even more if I had grown up in the fifties.  The story is as a much about childhood and friendship as it is monsters.  But King isn't afraid to give us lots of monsters!

Favorite character: Eddie.

Favorite scene: There's so many!  I really like the part where Bev hears the dead children calling to her through the drain.  The book has plenty of scenes that don't work for me.  But the overall narrative and magic of the book simply overwhelms these troubling/dull passages.  I like scenes where the kids are running around town, going to the theater and shops in Derry.  King transports us to another time; not only the 1950's, but to our own childhood.

First read: High School.

11/22/63

The book is absolutely brilliant.  Never mind the awkward means of time travel.  Naturally, we all go to the 1950's via our pantry.  In fact, like IT, there is plenty that doesn't work in this book for me.  When King finally gets down to alternate history, his own mechanisms of time travel distort what might have been.  Because of the earthquakes and other things related to time travel, we never get a clear view of the stories promised theme -- what if Kennedy had lived?

But then, mid or late novel, I realized something; this isn't really about alternate timelines!  King plays with the "white if" for just a while, but the thrust of the novel is really a love story.  A LOVE STORY!

What is so powerful about the book is King's ability to take us back in time.  For people like me, who did not grow up in the late 50's and early 60's, it is a grand tour of a place I've never been.  King starts by giving us the good, and then slowly begins to uncover some of the deeper evils of the era as the novel progresses.

Favorite character: Sadie.  I'm sure I'm supposed to connect  more deeply with Jake Epping, but the guy makes so many bad decisions that it is difficult to actually like him.  There were many times I found myself  going, "really, dude?"  But Sadie is emotionally complex and real.  I didn't start out liking her, because she seemed like a distraction from the plot.  "Why this side stuff about a love story," I asked myself.  But she won me over.

Other favorite Character: TIME.  Yep, time.

King plows new ground in 11.22.63 with the concept of time itself being obdurate. 

What if time wasn't a thing, like a block of wood or even a machine -- what if it was alive?  What if time was insulted when people tried to change it?  And, the biggie -- what if it could fight back?  What if the time line itself was able to protect itself against time-travelers. 

Notice how the past is indeed alive as King writes, "the past is sly as well as obdurate. It fights back. And yes, maybe there was an element of greed involved, too."  Later in the novel, King says, "The past is obdurate for the same reason a turtle’s shell is obdurate: because the living flesh inside is tender and defenseless." (p. 827)  Time protects the people within its shell.

Sadie picks up on the theme and tries to relate to it but she uses the wrong word–malelevolent--instead of obdurate. She hasn't experienced the obdurates of the past the way Jake has!  It has beat him to a pulp!

Favorite scene: When the story passes through the IT narrative.

First Read: 2012

Non-King

1. The Pillars Of The Earth
2. Cold Sassy Tree
3. The Pelican Brief
4. The Grapes Of Wrath
5. The Martian Chronicles
6. Great Expectations
7. A Dangerous Fortune
8. Piercing The Darkness
9. 1984

What Stephen King books are you most likely to come back to?
What non-King books do you read again and again?

Books That Have Stayed With You

image: firewireblog.com

I like METACHAT's "Books That Have Stayed With You," as well as the many responses.  The discussion is framed this way, "Five books that have stayed with you.  They don't have to be best sellers or well known. Just books you read that for one reason or other you never forgot."

One person posted:
1. Watership Down.
2. Brighty of the Grand Canyon by Marguerite Henry.
3. All of the James Herriot books (All Creatures Great and Small, etc.)
4. The Crimson Petal and The White. by Michael Faber
5. The Stand, by Stephen King.

Let's do the same thing, but make two lists.  First books in general, then just 5 King books that will stay with you.

Non-King list:
1. Pillars of the earth
2. Cold Sassy Tree
3. 1984
4. Great Expectations
5. The Martian Chronicles

Five Stephen King Books That Have Stayed With Me:
1. The Stand
2. IT
3. The Shining
4. 11.22.63
5. Dolores Claiborne

That's Not A Good End!

Ending a novel can gave a reader the euphoria of crossing the finish line after a hard run race.  Or it can be like running out of gas in the middle of no where.

Stephen King endings -- the thought alone can cause constant readers a little trauma.  It seems pretty well known that while Stephen King has given us some great stories, the endings sometimes leave the reader a little frustrated.

Sometimes King nails it!  He drives the story home with unusual skill.  He allows the characters and  plot to work together to bring about a breathtaking end.  Dolores Claiborne, The Shining and Salem's Lot all had what I considered  to be pretty satisfying endings.

There have also been times that King declined to really end a story.  The Mist is such an example.  King left the character driving into the mist, for the reader to choose their own adventure from there.  Also, the Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon was a bit unclear at the end. I also liked the endings to the very dark stories in Full Dark No Stars.  The Green Mile played out nicely from beginning to end.  I think the pressure of having to write in serial was good for King.

Did Insomnia have an end?  I never got there.

Here are some endings I found weak:

Needful Things.  It ends with a video that Allan has to decide if he will watch or not.  The battle really isn't as big as we would think.  Polly takes on a pretty awesome spider, but it really doesn't pack the punch the rest of the novel did.  I liked it right up to the very end, it had played out so well, and then it just dropped off.

The Dark Tower.  I've gotten so therapeutic resolution over this from Bev  Vincnt, but the ending still troubles me.  My feelings run pretty deep on this not only because the books were so long -- and there were so many of them -- but they were so long in coming.  A little portion of my life was spent  thinking, "now when is the next Dark Tower book coming out?"  Then for it to end without the deep resolution I was hoping for left me disenchanted with the entire series for a while.  But there were  episodes I really loved!  I thinks some of King's best, and worst, writing appeared  in The Dark Tower  books.  The Wolves of the Calla was particularly delightful.

11/22/63.  Once again, loved the novel, hated the end.  We go a long ways with King waiting for the alternate history to play out -- but it never really does.  By the time King gives us a glimpse of what would have happened if Kennedy had lived, the events are marred by science fiction.  That is, we don't really get to see  the "what if" played out.  We have to put up with a strange world ripped apart by an overdose of time travel.  The giant earthquake changed everything, thus creating major events different from the timeline we are on now.  So the changes in political history really don't matter much, since nothing jives with our own timeline anyway.  Might as well be the history of Mars.

Cujo.  I liked the novel, but I liked the movie better because they changed the end.

Dreamcatcher.  I was really engaged with the first half of the novel, but when we began chasing aliens from point A to point B, I really got weary.

Thinner.  I don't think I should have to say more than that.

Firestarter.  Great book, but a troublesome ending.  I found it, as with others,  hollow  and even a little forced.  It did not have the tension I think King was looking for.

And in regard to the Talisman. . . that was a crazy way to end a book.

What is your favorite and least favorite endings to a Stephen King book?

Thank You Mr. King For The Time Warp

Fifty years ago today president John Kennedy was murdered.  I wasn't alive.  In fact, I wasn't even close to being alive.  The world of John F. Kennedy has always felt very far from me.  A world where men had not walked on the moon; a world where schools were segregated and churches were bombed.  I don't know that world.

Stephen King's novel 11.22.63 does what no history book can do -- it takes the reader on a wild ride back into the early 1960's.  We do not arrive in the past as historians, but on the trail of a story.  Following fictional characters through very real events is an amazing way to tell a story and bring history to life.  I loved it!  Of course, this has been done many times before, but the skilled storytelling from Mr. King is what makes the time travel so real.  I feel like I have indeed been to that era.

Here are some of my notes from my journal as I read 11.22.63

THE TIME MACHINE:

11/22/63 requires a simple leap that isn't very hard for 21st century readers -- time travel is possible.  We've had entire series of novels built on the time travel theory.  Because it is already an established storyline in our culture, King doesn't have to spend forever convincing of the concept.  However, King does some creative rule bending to make his story work -- namely the idea of "re-setting."

A few ways we've gone back in time:
--H.G. Wells novel, "The Time Machine" used a machine.
--Back To The Future, a Delorean.
--Star Trek flew real fast around the sun. (Star Trek 4) Actually, Star Trek often popped through time without a lot of concern for the method used.
--Superman flew real fast around the earth.
--The Gunslinger went through doors.
--In The Time Travelers Wife the traveler manipulated time himself (we think. . .) Of course, the rules of that game involved appearing naked in whatever time he found himself! Glad Jack doesn't have to deal with that little nuance.

Something outside the characters created a time portal.  It's not a machine carefully constructed by mad scientist; it's simply a rabbit hole of some kind.

By not building a time machine, King (brilliantly) fixes several problems.  For one thing, the novel doesn't need to focus on "where will we go?"  The answer is already determined.  The question to be dealt with is instead, "What shall we do when we get there?"  Also, by not constructing a time machine, King avoids the critical question, "Wow, a time machine -- how's that puppy work?"  Doesn't matter how it works!  Don't know.  It is, what Hitchcock would call a kind of "mcGuffin", existing only to propel the plot.

TIME IS ALIVE

King plows new ground in 11.22.63 with the concept of time itself being obdurate. 

What if time wasn't a thing, like a block of wood or even a machine -- what if it was alive?  What if time was insulted when people tried to change it?  And, the biggie -- what if it could fight back?  What if the time line itself was able to protect itself against time-travelers. 

Examine this quote, and notice how the past is indeed alive:

"Because the past is sly as well as obdurate. It fights back. And yes, maybe there was an element of greed involved, too."

King also writes,

"The past is obdurate for the same reason a turtle’s shell is obdurate: because the living flesh inside is tender and defenseless." (p. 827)  Time protects the people within its shell.

Sadie picks up on the theme and tries to relate to it but she uses the wrong word–malelevolent--instead of obdurate. She hasn't experienced the obdurates of the past the way Jake has!  It has beat him to a pulp! 

The addition of time having will is something I suspect future writers will pick up on.

Genre:

11.22.63 is a genre buster.  It is not alternate history!  King spends very little ink discussing the real heart of "what if."  So what is it?

The scenes after the assassination attempt reminded me of a John Grisham novel as the FBI sneaks George out of Dallas.  I enjoyed it, as it is the kind of stuff that King doesn't usually engage in.  Big government agents with their own agenda's out-smarted at points by the ordinary guy.

But 11.22.63 is not a legal thriller.  It may smack at moments of John Grisham; but it's not Grisham!  It's not alternate history.  It's really not sci-fi.  So what is it?  Well, maybe goolosh.  That stuff mom made when she had to clean out the fridges -- little bit of everything.  Maybe a better way to say it is that it transcends genre, and good novels do that, don't they?

As I traveled through the last pages, I realized what this book was.  It swept over me in a wave, and I almost cried out, "OH!"  It was both painful, and obvious.  This sucker is romance!  I'm reading a romance novel!  King isn't interested in time travel, he's interested in characters!  He's not even that interested in the alternate history -- he is laser focused on those people in the book. 

Love is such a messy thing, and gets in the way of good science fiction.  It certainly does in 11.22.63.  I like the love story quite a bit.  That said, I wanted more alternate history.  The love story isn't sappy; this ain't Danielle Steel!  It is engaging because it occurs while you are focused on other things -- and that's the way love is, it happens while other things are going on.  You're supposed to be focused don college classes, graduating, and some girl comes along and -- whoa baby!  How many missions have been messed up by love? 

Time Travel Tricks?

We never really get to learn what the world would be like if Kennedy had not been shot.  Why is that?  Because the science fiction gets in the way.  Yes, the world is changed by Kennedy's escaping assassination, but the future is also changed by other things George does.  So we don't get a "pure" look at the world.  More than that, things are being ripped apart by time travel itself.  I did not see how saving Kennedy would cause a giant earthquake.  The logic escapes me, captain Kirk.

Seriously, now -- which changes history more, 1. JFK escaping death , 2. An earthquake that kills thousands ?  I would say the earthquake!  Thus the alternate history is affected more by the events in California than by anything in Dallas or Washington.

In regards to the alternate history, I really struggled to accept some of the main ideas.  For instance, I think King gives Johnson far too much credit for the Civil rights movement.  I also do not see how Kennedy's living changes anything with Martin Luther King.  (?)  It seems that the civil rights movement had a voice so loud that any American president would eventually be pressed to join in. 

Also, would an American president really use nukes?  I know that's what LBJ warned about. . . but do we want to believe the press offered up in a political ad?  The further away from Kennedy that King got, the more unbelievable I found things. 

He creates mega changes to the flow of history, but then keeps smaller flukes.  He asks us to take a world where there are incredible racial tensions, hate meetings. . . but Hillary is president.  And who calls their meetings "hate" meetings?  Starting to feel like Orwell's 1984 here.  It felt like King just wanted to make Hillary president, so no matter what flow of history he went with, that was the end in sight.

Question Never Answered:
Why does the rabbit hole go to that date.  Is there something they are supposed to do?

What 21st Century King Novel Is A Must Read?

I liked GQ's list, "10 books from the 21st century every man should read" because it did not guilt me about needing to read War and Peace before I die.  

The article says, "Anyone who's been handed a high school diploma can tick off the classic novels from the twentieth century: The Great Gatsby, A Farewell to Arms, The Grapes of Wrath. But cross into this millennium and things are suddenly murkier, Kindle-ier, less classed up with age. Then again, it's been an affirming thirteen years, enough time to breed a whole new body of post-2000 lit we're happy to call the new classics—and we're not afraid to name names." 

So here's their list:

• The Corrections
• The Human Stain
• The Road
• White Teeth
• The History of the Kelly Gang
• 2666
• Tree Of Smoke
• Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned
• Fortress Of Solitude
• Pastoralia

The full GQ article is HERE.

But wait. . . HOLD ON!  No Stephen King?  Nothing since 2000 is a "must read" for guys?

I'll put it to you.  Which novel since Y2K is a must read for guys?

2000, The Green Mile (complete novel)
2001, Dreamcatcher
2002, Blach House
2002, From A Buick 8
2003, The Gunslinger Revised
2003, The Wolves Of The Calla
2003, The Song of Susannah
2004, The Dark Tower
2005, The Colorado Kid
2006, Cell
2006, Lisey's Story
2008, Duma Key
2009, Under The Dome
2010, Full Dark, No Stars
2011, 11/22/63

In my opinion: 11/22/63 is a must read.  King does more than simply give us a good story, he takes us back in time.  He returns us to the Kennedy Years.  He doesn't just shovel a pile of history at us, he takes us by the hand and walks us into an era many of us never experienced.  No kidding, I really do think this is a must read!

JJ Abrams Options 11.22.63

DEADLINE reports that J.J. Abrams‘ Bad Robot is in negotiations for the rights 11/22/63.

Nellie Andreeva says that the plan is to adapt the book as a TV series or miniseries -- possibly for cable.

Andreeva writes, "Bad Robot, which received an early renewal for NBC’s Revolution earlier today, had been looking to expand its TV business to cable. In addition to Revolution, the company has CBS drama Person Of Interest also renewed for next season. The deal for 11/22/63 comes on the heels of CBS’ green light for a drama series based on King’s novel Under The Dome, which will air this summer."

The full article is at DEADLINE.COM

This Guy Is Full of Green Light: Burnette's Review of "Golden Years" Episode 4

This is the FOURTH PART of an article by Bryant Burnette summarizing the Golden Years television show.  

This was originally posted at Burnette's blog, thetruthinsidethelie.blogspot.com

Episode 4 (airdate 08/01/1991)

The fourth episode begins with Dr. Ackerman calling Crewes in a panic, insisting that he needs protection from Andrews, who -- obviously -- will be coming to kill him. Crewes tells Ackerman to get a grip, and the doctor realizes that he's going to have to protect himself, so he decides to steal a bunch of paperwork and make copies of it, presumably so that he can have some leverage against Andrews. In so doing, he turns into a bumbling idiot; he runs into doors, trips over his own feet, stutters, and generally seems like a nincompoop.

All for naught, too; he gets in his car to leave Falco Plains, and the car promptly explodes. Jude, watching from the shadows, has struck again.

His real quarry, meanwhile, has decided to pull into the barn on an apparently deserted farm and give their stolen hearse a paint job. It's now a Christine-esque shade of red that would undoubtedly catch every eye on the road. Remind me to never allow Terry Spann to be in charge of taking me on the lam. She's made more than a few moronic decisions here, but let's not blame her; let's blame Stephen King, who is clearly not cut out to be a rogue government agent.

There is yet another tender scene between Harlan and Gina in which she expresses dismay at the entire situation, not without merit: this time, she's upset because she feels old for the first time. See, because she and Harlan were aging together, she never actually felt the weight of their years, whereas seeing him growing younger by the day is only making her feel more and more decrepit. King is better-suited to the mechanics of an emotional scene like this than he is to the mechanics of evading capture by state-sanctioned killers. That's not to say the scene is perfect; the dialogue is clunky and repetitive, and if not for decent acting, it wouldn't work terribly well at all. Still, there is a core of emotional truth to it that definitely feels like King's skills as a novelist came briefly to the fore.

That is certainly not evident in a horrible scene involving Toddhunter. One of his new assistants approaches the mad doctor to tell him that preparations of some sort -- they are not explained -- are ready. Toddhunter tells him, "Do it now!" The man is about to respond, but Toddhunter cuts him off to tell him how time is tip-tip-tapping away. He starts hollering "Tip-tippy-tap!" and "Do it now!" and so forth, and the actor goes so far over the top that he threatens to enter Bronson-Pinchot-in-The-Langoliers territory. He doesn't quite get there, but it's close. It's an embarrassing scene, and you can bet your life that director Allen Coulter doesn't have it on any of his demo reels.

Later, Toddhunter has a better scene, in which he visits his father's grave. His watch has stopped working, and while he is speaking to his father, he digs up a metal box, which houses a bunch of other dead watches; he puts this new one with the others. This dude is clearly nuts, and thankfully, this scene shows us a bit of that in a useful, non-annoying fashion.

Jude visits Crewes and informs him that, as per the DSA, he is now in charge of the investigation and manhunt surrounding the Williams case. Crewes is not too pleased about this; he's even less pleased when he discovers that he is barred from leaving the base. Andrews packs up his shit and abandons his temporary office at the local police station, which for some reason pisses off the sherriff or the constable or whoever the guy is. In an additional bit of WTF, Andrews is wearing a black t-shirt during this scene that reads "Let Go and Let God." Huh?!?

While they're chilling out at the conveniently abandoned barn, Terry and Harlan have a talk, in which he wonders what their chances are. Terry tells him that when she was at The Shop, everyone told her that John Rainbird was the best; but she thinks Andrews is better, so if he's after them, they don't have much of a chance at all. Yay, a Firestarter connection!

A few scenes later, Terry concocts a plan: if Harlan and Gina can get themselves arrested for shoplifting, and get put in the care of the local law enforcement, they could then use their one phone call to get a lawyer and thereby get some protection of the legal variety. It's not a bad plan, but later, they all come to the realization that if Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't safe in the hands of local police custody, then a small-timer like Harlan Williams definitely wouldn't be safe.

It's interesting to consider how different the implications of this scene are from the novel King published twenty years later, 11/22/63. Here, clearly, King is playing into the paranoia of the times. Golden Years as a whole feeds off of that paranoia; Andrews counsels Ackerman at one point that perfect paranoia is perfect awareness, and this show is so paranoid that it wants us to believe that not even the government can trust the government. Golden Years came only four years after the publication of The Tommyknockers, in which one character constantly thinks of untrustworthy governmental powers under the umbrella "the Dallas Police" (clearly, a Ruby / Oswald reference). Two decades later, in 11/22/63, King had swung all the way around to be convinced that Oswald had acted alone, and, by implication, that Ruby had, too. I'm conflicted, personally; both sides have their persuasions. I'm not taking a stance, and it doesn't bother me the way it apparently bothers some that King's mind on such topics has changed over the years; but it is interesting.

The episode ends with a scene in which our heroes pass a wreck on the side of the road. At Gina's insistence, they stop to see if they can help, and of course, the first cop who stops by recognizes the trio and tries to apprehend them. Terry, always the genius, steals the policeman's cruiser.

I guess we'll find out how that plan works out next week.

This is not a particularly good episode, what with Terry's constant stupidity and Toddhunter's over-the-top insanity.

Oswald Apartment Mentioned In 11.22.63

photo credit dallasnews.com

Randy Johnson surveys the dilapidated apartment building 

that is under a court order to be demolished, 

where Lee Harvey Oswald once lived, at 600 Elsbeth Street in Oak Cliff. 

(Louis DeLuca/Staff photographer)

I found an article by Emily Trube titled "City’s demolition Of Oswald apartment building is underway" interesting.

Trobe writes in part:

The city of Dallas has begun the demolition of an apartment building in the Bishop Arts District that Lee Harvey Oswald used to call home. A crew is removing drywall and the roof this week. Bulldozers are expected to tear the 1920's era building down on January 14th. 

Oswald and his wife Marina moved into a ground floor apartment at 600 Elsbeth Avenue in November 1962 and lived there for a little over a year. Oswald would move two more times before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 1963. 

The building has no historical designation and had been largely forgotten until last year's publication of Stephen King's novel "11/22/63", in which he writes about 600 Elsbeth. It is also referenced in the Warren Commission's report. 

Full article at cbs19.tv

I wonder if the screen adaptation will attempt to use any historical locations.

LINCOLN

I went to see LINCOLN with my wife and our older two daughters this weekend.  WOW!  Absolutely incredible.  I was blown away.  The movie is base in part on Team Of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin.  She is a marvelous historian and writer.   Of course, Stephen King met with Goodwin when he was working on 11.22.63.  He did a lot of “what iffing” with her, discussing what would happen if Kennedy had lived.

The Lincoln movie focuses on the efforts to pass the thirteenth amendment through the House – about three months of time elapses in the movie.  Of course, Team of Rivals has a much larger scope, looking more microscopically at Lincoln’s cabinet.

There was nothing I didn’t like about this film!  There were several times I found myself wondering if that is exactly how various scenes went down; how much artistic license was being taken.

The film is carried by Daniel Day Lewis, who brings Lincoln to life!  This is no wooden performance.  My complaint about Lincoln movies has always been the same as Jesus films!  That is, they always show the main character as kind of aloof.  (Think Disneyland’s “Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln” – cool, but a little wooden.)  Bruce Marchiano brilliantly portrayed Christ in the Visual Bible’s Matthew.  Here, Lincoln is a living being right before our eyes.  He is funny, strong, a man of conviction and able to hold his own with his wife.

Lincoln is portrayed as a man who is able to choose his battles.  He lets Mary Lincoln (Sally Field) get her way . . . most of the time.  When pressed by his son Robert, to allow him to join the Union cause, Lincoln struggles – torn between Robert’s desire and Mary’s demand that her son be spared.  The family had already had too much loss to endure a son giving his life on the battlefield.

Unlike many Lincoln movies, the scope of this movie is big.  What I mean is that often these movies focus only on Lincoln the man – avoiding the battlefield or big speeches because they would require massive budget.  How do you create a crowd of thousands gathered at the capitol building in the 1860's?  Well, when you have Mr. Spielberg then those special effects are possible.

I was deeply moved by this.  There was nothing I had to give the movie a pass on (acting, special effects, history), so I felt free to let the movie carry me.  I takes a few moments when the film starts.  The viewer is a bit nervous when Day Lewis first appears on screen.  Can I trust you to be Lincoln to me?  Quickly, the answer is: YES!  This is Lincoln!

Many familiar scenes are present, lived out much the way I imagined them.  Lee’s surrender to Grant. . . the Second inauguration speech. . . Civil War battles. . . and more.  Everyone felt right.  I don’t know how to explain that – but they didn’t feel like 21st century actors pretending to be 19th century men.  When General Grant was on screen, it seemed like it was really him.

Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens is portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones.  Stevens is a sympathetic character in the movie, pushing with all his might to free the slaves.  Radical Republicans would later push, after the Civil War, to grant blacks full civil rights.  However, without Lincoln, the master politician there to help two sides move forward, the nation became embroiled in a terrible period of Reconstruction. Mr. Steven’s would lead the charge to impeach President Andrew Johnson, who did not posses Lincoln’s ability to shepherd strong willed people.  Lincoln had the ability the show mercy to the defeated south.  Unfortunately, Mr. Johnson did not have the same credibility or leadership Lincoln had displayed.  (Credibility, because only Lincoln could really demand the South be allowed back into the Union with “Malice toward none.”)

Put LINCOLN up there with the kind of movie that comes around rarely.  Strange to me to see lines waiting to see the latest installment of Twilight while Lincoln is showing.  (It was a packed house for Lincoln, too.)  But really. . . Twilight over Lincoln?  Speaking of Twilight, I did see Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter a few weeks ago.  Sigh.

Check out Lincoln while it’s in theaters.  Take your kids.  This is something American’s should see at this point in our history.  This film reminds us of who we are and whose we are.

Billy Joel Sings 11.22.63

You've heard the song, "We Didn't Start The Fire" by Billy Joel -- right?

Matt Selman has posted at entertainment.time.com that he has written a version of the song as it would have been recorded if the events in 11.22.63 had taken place.  Of course, in 11.22.63,  the assassination of president John Kennedy is foiled by George (Jake) Ameberson.


Selman explains:

“A few ‘real’ references have been included because A) I inferred they would have also have occurred in the King Universe, and B) I ran out of new historical information, of which the book does not give much,” Selman says. “Also, for some reason unknowable alternative history reason, alternative history Billy Joel chose to put out this version of ‘We Didn’t Start The Fire’ in 2012.”

The full song  is at the link below.  Here is the part that picks up where serious time changes are established:

J.F.K. NOT BLOWN AWAY, AMBERSON SAVES THE DAY!
We didn’t start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world’s been turning
We didn’t start the fire
No, we didn’t light it
But we tried to fight it
Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, EARTHQUAKE IN LOS ANGELES
MARTIN SHOT, SAIGON ROCKED, CHICAGO BURNS, HANOI DROP
WALLACE DEAD, CURT LEMAY, BYE-BYE BOMBAY
Ayatollah’s in Iran, RONALD REAGAN’S DEADLY PLAN
BLIND BEATLE, JONESTOWN, VERMONT YANKEE MELTDOWN
FORD BREEZE, MORE QUAKES, AIDS, Crack, MIAMI SHAKES
HOKKAIDO IS UNDER SEAS, PRESIDENT HILARY
MAINE LEAVES USA, WHAT ELSE DO I HAVE TO SAY? 

Full article: entertainment.time.com

Wilderness Of Error author interviews Stephen King

I am anxiously awaiting the publication of a book by Errol Morris.  The book is titled, "A Wilderness of Error, the trials of Jeffrey MacDonald."

As I poked around, learning more about Morris, I found he had  done an interview with Stephen King when King published 11.22.63.   (HERE)

Morris points out that King has his hero spy on Oswald in 11.22.63.  King responds, "The guy and his wife spoke Russian the whole time. That was the worst part of writing the book. I hope it’s not too boring."  Interesting, since that is about the point where I found myself wondering when the book would get moving again.

Here's something cool; King says that in a way 11.22.63 is a rethinking premise behind the The Dead Zone.  That is, if you know the future (or the past) and can change it -- then you should.  But in 11.22.63, we get a different answer from King . . . you should not!

This book is, in a way, like a photo negative of my novel “The Dead Zone.” In that book, Johnny Smith is the guy in the high place with the rifle who feels like he’s seen the future. He’s seen this guy, Greg Stillson, and he sees what he’s going to do when he becomes president, because he has this precognitive talent. And he feels like he has to kill him. At the last moment, fate intervenes. I got really uncomfortable with the idea of saying, “Well, under certain circumstances, assassination is a good thing.” And this book is a chance to do it the other way and to take the assassination back.

Morris also wrote a positive -- insightful -- review of the novel.  Morris offered all out relief that King did not worry about the machinery of Time Travel or swim through the depths of philosophy on the subject -- the author stuck to the story and allowed time travel to be little more than a vehicle to carry the story.

About the MacDonald case:

Morris is set to publish a true crime novel on the MacDonald murders.  The book Fatal Vision brought the case worldwide fame, though it was already on the media's radar long before!  And ever since I was a child I have found this one particular case interesting.  It really is a "did he do it?"

One thing that is so interesting about this murder is that the people who confessed are not the one's who are in jail.  People confess often to things they did not do, and the lady in question used a lot (LOT) of drugs.

A while back  there was an interesting book that rebutted Fatal Vision, titled Fatal Justice.  I thought it was well done.  However, there are so many things that leave the reader scratching their head at the end of any of the books about this case.  How could intruders enter the home and not awake the neighbors?  How many people were really in the house?  Why did MacDonald tell his father in law that he hunted down and killed one of the murderers?  Why were only weapons from within the home used? Why wasn't MacDonald more severely injured?  And then Fatal  Justice comes along and raises a whole new set of questions!  (Here is Ted Gunderson's interview with Helena Stoeckley, who claims to have been the woman in the floppy hat.)

I look forward to Morris' verdict, and hope he offers one!  According to the Atlantic, the books (as the title implies) argues for MacDonald's innocence.  The Atlantic's review of the book is HERE.

Morris' book, A Wilderness Of Error, is at Amazon HERE.

A Dozen Movies In 11/22/63

Photo Credit: The Playlist

Jonathan Demme is working on a hosts of projects, including Stephen King’s 11/22/63.  He talked a little about the project with The Playlist.  The entire article is great.  Here is the portion about King:

Finally, Demme is hard at work with Stephen King on an adaptation of the writer’s 2011 novel, “11/22/63,” about a man who travels back in time in an attempt to thwart the assassination of JFK. “Stephen and I are working together on the script right now. After all these years, what I’ve come to understand is don’t plan the script that you’re really thrilled with," he explained. "At the heart of '11/22/63' is this profound, magnificent challenge that our hero is faced with, which is that the past doesn’t want to be changed. Our boy Jake has his work cut out for him if he really wants to change history. He really has to go up against it. And he may or may not succeed."

I really like this quote:

As to whether the film’s storyline will wind up the same as the novel, Demme in non-committal. “You never know. There’s a dozen movies in '11/22/63.' We’re finding the one that we think is kind of the best of all. And Stephen is wide open. The book is the book. The movie will be something different. It’s great fun working with him.”

A dozen movies in 11/22/63 !  That's so true, though I never thought of it that way.  The thing could be an entire series!  It is a sci-fi, romance, political thriller, alternate history, action story.

The article is titled, "Jonathan Demme Says ‘Zeitoun’ Still Need Financing, Talks Adapting Stephen King's ’11/22/63’ by Jeff Otto.  HERE.

Real Places And People in 11.22.63

photo credit: Sun Journal
Frank Anicetti, the third-generation-owner of the Kennebec Fruit Company in Lisbon Falls, is featured in 11.22.63

Michelle Souliere, author of Strange Maine, shared a cool link with me.  The article by Mark LaFlamme (HERE) discusses Maine in relation to King's novels.  A subject I always find interesting!  By the way, the article has one of those titles that goes on for four lines!  It could simply be titled, "Stephen King's Maine."

LaFlamme discusses not only buildings and sites from King's Maine, but people we discover in his novels.  11.22.63 is a mix of fictional, historical and. . . how do I say -- real people.  By real I mean people who are not famous, and thus we would not know they were real unless someone told us. 

LaFlamme discusses a man named Frank Anicetti.  He is in 11.22.63. . . but I didn't know he was anything but another character in King's novel!  LaFlamme reveals that Anicetti appears "as himself" in the novel!

"The proprietor of the Fruit Company," King writes at the start of the book, "an elderly sweet-natured man named Frank Anicetti, had once told me the world's population divided naturally (and probably by genetic inheritance) into two groups: the tiny but blessed elect who prized Moxie above all other potables . . . and everybody else."

I found Frank Anicetti and discovered him to be all of those things. And if he is real, then maybe the time machine is, too. And so I find myself once more prowling the landscape of a Stephen King novel in search of that weird place where fiction and the real world blend so beautifully.

The article is really a lot of fun.  Michelle wrote, "It's a nice slice of life, because LaFlamme actually walks around and traces King's steps via his books in a number of Maine towns -- always cool to see where he gets his ideas, and Mark's a great one for putting these adventures into words."

Souliere is also cited in the article discussing King's blending of places.

Again, the arcle is HERE.

11.22.63 Journal #7: Obdurate

Obdurate & Stephen King: The Use of the Word “Obdurate” in 11/22/63
with notes from reader 19


Dictionary.com : unmoved by persuasion, pity, or tender feelings; stubborn; unyielding. stubbornly resistant to moral influence; persistently impenitent: an obdurate sinner.

"Because the past didn’t like to be changed. It was obdurate." -- 11/22/63 (p. 159).

Obdurate–a fascinating word. Not one we hear in everyday conversation.

King plows new ground in 11.22.63 with the concept of time itself being obdurate. 

What if time wasn't a thing, like a block of wood or even a machine -- what if it was alive?  What if time was insulted when people tried to change it?  And, the biggie -- what if it could fight back?  What if the time line itself was able to protect itself against time-travelers. 

Examine this quote, and notice how the past is indeed alive:

"Because the past is sly as well as obdurate. It fights back. And yes, maybe there was an element of greed involved, too."

King also writes,

"The past is obdurate for the same reason a turtle’s shell is obdurate: because the living flesh inside is tender and defenseless." (p. 827)  Time protects the people within its shell.

Sadie picks up on the theme and tries to relate to it but she uses the wrong word–malelevolent--instead of obdurate. She hasn't experienced the obdurates of the past the way Jake has!  It has beat him to a pulp! 

The addition of time having will is something I suspect future writers will pick up on.  Watch out, Captain Kirk, next time you go back in time, it might not just be the Klingon's on your tail!

And then there is the Yellow Card man. . .

11.22.63 Journal #6: Suspicions

Reading a good book is like eating a good meal -- don't rush!  I'm enjoying 11.22.63 quite a bit.  I'm in the final days, headed quickly toward the BIG day.  So, of course, all the answers are near by, I hope! 

Remember the guy who used to hang around Ed Wood named Criswell ? He was famous for saying, "I PREDICT!" And he would say crazy things. Well, I have a few to offer. and if you don't know who I mean, google Criswell. No, I don't mean the pastor of 1st Baptist Church of Dallas!

It is worth writing down some suspicions I have at this point, before I know the outcome.  So. . . here are some not so educated guesses!  Those of you who have read the whole thing, don't correct me! 

So. . .

1. I suspect this will turn out to be a dry run.  That is, our friend is going to reset history again once he sees the outcome of his efforts.

2. I suspect Sadie will help George carry out his mission.

3. I suspect on his second trip, George will protect Sadie better.  the best face lift would be a reset in the timeline.

4. And if he does do this all again, I think he should do a LOT more study before heading into the past. George jumped too quick!  He needed to spend some time with his friend google and wiki. 

5. I suspect saving Kennedy will do nothing to save MLK. 

6. And for the changes that would happen if Kennedy did live:

--Without LBJ, I suspect the civil rights movement might take more time. 
--I do think Vietnam would be avoided all together if Kennedy lived.
--With no Vietnam, I am left wondering about other wars.  Gulf Wars and various police actions.  No idea on those!  I hope King deals with them.

7. I know the yellow-card man will be back.  He is always lurking near by.  But what kind of wrench he will throw in the mission, I don't know. 

So there you go.  Notes from a guy who actually knows nothing!

Reader 19: A Short Review Of 11.22.63

Dallas in the 1960s

Reader 19 offers this short review of 11.22.63. 
What if you could go back in time and change history? That is the basic premise of 11/22/63. Stephen King’s latest novel has hit a home run, however, about three quarters of the way through we are left wondering where the novel is going. There is a backstory of the “life of “ George Amberson and the changing of the Kennedy assassination and you are often wondering if the two stories will intertwine. But not to worry because of course they did.

Even when it felt like the story was beginning to wander, I was compelled to finish the book–I HAD to know what happened. The main characters had so much depth and emotion. King skillfully draws the reader into the story. He also has the ability to blast us right into the late 50s and early 60s with Jake Epping. It’s a ride worth taking! As a woman in her thirties, I never lived in that era and it was surprising all the things that were so different in society even though it was not all that long ago.

In this book you feel like you know these characters personally and you don’t want the story to end. Even though the reader knows time travel can’t really happen, you are still right there with the characters. As such I often wondered throughout the book why Jake aka “George” does some of the things he does . . . but the end justifies the means once again. Even if he does something I might not have, I read on.

It amazes me how Stephen King can grasp the depth of emotion of the characters in his book–especially with women. He really seems to know a woman’s soul, and how a woman talks and thinks, as seen in this story with Sadie Dunhill.

I found it interesting that King did not feel the need at the beginning of the story to spend pages on time travel and how it is possible and why it works the way it does. He explains enough for us the reader to know and does not explain the why of it at the beginning because he knows that we want to get to the story.

By the way, Dark Tower fans–there is a Dark Tower link in the book but I won’t say where–read it and find it for yourself. It was unexpected and sort of a “ ah ha, of course moment.”

I will not give away any spoilers but suffice it to say there were several surprise twists at the end–and I was not left disappointed. The wandering was actually worth it since it all tied itself up nicely in the end. However, if I had been writing it, I think I would not have ended it in the way King did. King’s alternate version of modern history, is very surprising and well, creative.

King has successfully broken out of the horror genre with this book.