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.
Does a stories ending matter? Sometimes. But if you're a Stephen King fan, you've learned that the landing can sometimes be a bumpy ride.
Hey, sometimes, like in the case of The Mist, he doesn't end the story. He just leaves it for the reader to choose their own adventure. Remember choose your own adventure books? I want a Stephen King choose your own adventure story.
This is pretty random. My six favorite story endings. And some of my least favorite.
Some stories with great endings:
1. Pet Sematary. Would there be another way to end that novel? What happened to Rachel after she killed Louis?
2. The Dead Zone. This book kept me turning pages to the end. I hate saying that because. . . it's so over used.
3. The Green Mile. Yeah, it's sad and all, but I like it. So there.
4. The Shining. King once said that his original idea was to kill them all. A total blood bath. I'm glad he didn't go with that.
5. Joyland. Yes, I do think it worked. In fact, I think Joyland is one of King's strongest books. There's some magic in that little novel that can't quite be described. Maybe it's King's ability to time warp the reader back into the 1970's. He so beautifully describes young love, and old love revived.
6. Mr. Mercedes. But now that I read the novel, I don't have any desire to go back too it. Because once you understand the end, it doesn't seem like a road that needs to be traveled again and again.
And a few that weren't so great. . .
I find that often the larger books are the ones I feel fail to really end with a bang. They build and build and build and then King brings them in for a nice, gentle landing. I think this is the case in both IT and The Stand. I liked both endings. In the case of The Stand, the final battle against evil takes place, and then the story continues with the long journey home. The plot tension is the question: Will Stu survive? Will humanity survive? Will Fran's baby the the flu?
I have begun to come to terms with the ending to The Dark Tower series. Maybe I even like it. Bev Vincent just about convinced me in an interview he did with me and in his wonderful Dark Tower companion book.
Needful things did not end well in my opinion. The whole video tape of Pangborn's wife's death was strange. King did such a good job moving multiple storylines together, and then at the very end it just didn't play out quite right.
Duma Key was a great ride, but it took so long to get to the end that I wasn't sure I was still fully engaged in the story.
Under The Dome has got to be the novel which has, in my opinion, the worst ending -- yet is one of the best stories. the entire cause/purpose of the Dome made little sense in the novel. If the TV show is doing anything, it is redeeming the Dome itself. Giving the giant structure purpose.
Some of the classic books leave me wanting more. Carrie was a great book! I wish there had been more to it at the end.
I was headed running tonight and decided to download a new audible book. I typed into google, "Scariest novel of all time." I came upon Emily Temple's article, "The 50 Scariest Books of All Time." Sounds pretty good, right?
Guess what #1 on her list is -- IT
About IT, Temple writes:
All right, let’s get this out of the way up front: Stephen King is the you-know-what of horror, and if there wasn’t this pesky rule about keeping it to one book per author, this list could almost be wholly populated by his terrifying reads. This book might be the scariest of the lot, and has the added bonus of being about fear itself — the scariest thing of all. There’s also a murderous, shapeshifting clown.
What do you think is the scariest novel of all time?
There's spoilers here, so if you read on, it's your choice.
If finished reading Mr. Mercedes the other day. I liked it a lot. And, I'm ready for the ghosts, vampires, monsters and evil clowns to come back to the Stephen King universe. That is to say, the book is better than most detective stories; but it's not the same as an old car that is possessed by the spirit of her former owner. Mr. Mercedes is a good read, but it's not delicious.
The book held me in suspense all the way to the end. It did not leave me asking for more.
The Clunky Parts:
Sometimes it seems like clues come a little too easily for our main characters. It's a lot of, "oh, how lucky we are -- another clue, right in time to keep both trains ticking along at the right pace to have a big blow out at just the right spot." It feels plotted. Also, the ending, frankly, feels contrived. Hodges walks away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, after endangering the entire city?
King has said you always have to deal with the problem, "Why not just call the police?" Well, Hodges at one point decides to call the police, but they are all so amazingly excited about another turn of events, he chooses not to tell them what he knows because they won't be focused. This comes across as pretty thin, plot wise. Makes police seem cartoonish and single minded. Goodness, they couldn't possibly think of two cases at once, could they?
I also think that King misses just how much respect us common people will give a police badge. Twice in the novel King portrays people arguing with Hodges after he shows them his badge. First it's the nosy neighbor. He forces the group to explain who each of them are and questions them about why they are driving what they are driving and so on. But when you meet a police officer and company, you really don't go about questioning everyone there. You usually play it kind of safe around people who carry a badge.
Further, King has Hodges run in to a custodian at the final countdown. There is an argument that is simply unbelievable; and this isn't the moment things need to get unbelievable! So a custodian is arguing with a man with a police badge? Really?
What Makes The Novel Work:
Characters. I love the characters in Mr. Mercedes. And for them, I'll be back! The trio is a blast. Awkward, feisty -- they have the chemistry of the original Star Wars cast as they banter. Hodges is the most cardboard of the three; a burned out cop who comes back to deal with one last, open case.
King gives his main characters room, space and permission to grow and change as the novel progresses. Once mousy, quiet and timid Holly becomes more engaging as she gets familiar and comfortable with the other characters. By the novel's end, she's changed/progressed dramatically.
Jerome, an intelligent young black man who likes to play with stereotypes falls for Holly. Is this totally believable? Nope. But I like it, and sometimes the nice thing about a novel is the writer gives us what we want, not what would really happen.
But what really works is the killer himself. There is an interesting relationship between Brady and his mommy. Brady could have stepped right out of Psycho. The scary parts of Mr. Mercedes is when King takes us inside Mr. Mercedes head. Not a fun place to be because the reader is able to identify with someone they don't want to identify with!
The letter Mr. Mercedes wrote to detective Hodges was great! I mean, it was totally believable that a crazy guy wrote this. And it gets under your skin.
King has never quite taken us inside the mind of a killer the way he does with Brady Hartsfield’s; but he came close with Annie Wilkes. Annie acted on impulse, while Brady plots and plans his next move. Annie wasn't as self aware as Brady.
My final word: I liked it. Now give us a haunted cruise ship or something.
In general this is not a genre I would read much; so it was a joy to have King introduce me to something new. But I'm ready now for some creepy cats and hungry clowns.
Of course, right after finishing Mr. Mercedes, I read "In The Tall Grass." That fit the bill for something creepy!
So, I was standing at my bookshelf the other day looking at some early printings
of Stephen King paperbacks when I noticed the back cover pictured to the left.
As you can see, rather than having a book description or author photo, the
designers of this edition decided upon a statement from Publishers Weekly, one
that boldly shouted, “The most frightening book Stephen King has ever written.”
Naturally, this got me wondering which books fans found frightening, and whether
or not there is any agreement from everyone upon a single title that stands
above the rest. Personally, I’ve never really been frightened by anything
Stephen King has written. This isn’t due to any fault with his writing; I just
came upon his fiction at a point in my life when reading no longer had the
ability to frighten me. Of course, this wasn’t always the case.
As a pre and
young teen, stories had the ability to produce sleepless nights, my mom and
grandmother often putting this to the test with stories they found scary and
wanted to share -- or wrote themselves. Even at fifteen, I was once startled by
the opening of a Dean Koontz novel titled Tick Tock, but that was the
last time this has really happened, and by the time I started reading Stephen
King at the age of seventeen, my mind was completely desensitized to fear.
Ironically, I can remember a time as a young kid when just the idea or plot
behind a Stephen King novel would terrify me. The Shining was a perfect
example of this. I don’t remember how old I was, but at some point during my
grade school years my Mom told me about the The Shining and how, as a
young girl, while reading it during a train ride to Kansas, suddenly began to
smell oranges. Anyone who has read The Shining will understand the
significance of this and why the moment would startle a young teen reader. As it
turns out, the lady next to my Mom was peeling an orange. Another story element
that chilled me to the core as a kid was the idea of a clown in the sewer, which
a friend told me about after he saw the movie IT on TV. That was
spooky, and, for a while, after hearing about that, I made sure to keep a good
distance between curbside sewers and my walking paths. I also found the idea of
a secret graveyard where pets came back to life mean and angry terrifying, and
hoped to god things like that didn’t really exist because I would have hated to
see my dog Leo return from the grave at some point only to be a darker version
of his former self. The hardcover image of Desperation startled me as
well. I saw that one sitting on the bookshelf at a friend house right after its
release -- his parents were Stephen King fans -- and thought to myself that I
would never be brave enough to start reading such a book. How funny is
that?
Now, if I had to pick a book that I considered the most frightening
even though it didn’t really scare me, that book would have to be
Misery simply because finding oneself in such a situation would be
horrible. It’s also plausible. This isn’t to say I discount the possibility of
supernatural story-lines -- I may be a skeptic, but only in the sense that I
don’t blindly believe everything I hear, and always let the facts and evidence
of each situation determine what is really occurring -- but with
Misery, this is the type of story that can easily move from being a
tale of fiction to one of non-fiction without blinking an eye. Crazy people are
out there. We read about them every day in the paper (well, online news
sources), and hear about them on the news (when they aren’t focusing on some
stupid political or sport sex scandal. Another tale that has frightening
elements would have to be The Stand. The idea of a virus leaving our
current civilization in ruins has almost become a touchstone experience thanks
to Hollywood, but that doesn’t mean it isn't a plausible scenario, one that has
occurred time and time again throughout history. Such events are just a fact of
life, though, thankfully, one that isn’t experienced by every
generation.
With those two titles established as the Stephen King tales
that I find the most frightening what are some of yours? Are their any titles
that completely stand above the rest in your mind? Feel free to comment here
about it, or, if you want, send me a guest post that I can share with readers
(email me at wlmalmborg@gmail.com with
the subject matter being GUEST POST STEPHEN KING). Also, anyone want to venture
a guess as to what book the picture above was taken from?
Alfred Hitchock was the the master of suspense. He had the ability to draw you deep into a story, watching every detail with breathless anticipation. When he was at the top of his game, that is! Like any artist, some of his work does not holdup. Stephen King, when he is swinging home runs, also is a master of suspense. I find that stories like Dolores Claiborne and Joyland give me that same level of frantic anticipation that a good Hitchock film does.
I see online a lot essays comparing the two, asking who is the true master of suspense. That's really subjective, and a little childish. Not that this blog is beyond childish! However, they worked in different story telling mediums. If comparing apples to apples -- King movies verses Hitchcock movies, then the answer is hands down Mr. Hitchcock is the master of suspense. King's art is with words, and in that realm, he is -- well -- king.
Watching a Hitchcock is a real treat. In movie like Rear Window, Psycho, Vertigo and The Birds, each scene is like an incredible painting. Hitchcock didn't like filming on locations because so much was out of his control. However, some of the most awesome outdoor scenes brought to film are from Mr. Hitchcock. He would choose every car, and in what order, that would drive by in a scene. Nothing was left to chance!
It is natural to compare the two. Though using different mediums, they often use similar approaches.
Limitation:
I got The Alfred Hitchcock collection on Blu Ray the other night. On the Rear Window DVD, Peter Bogdanovich notes how Hitchcock really liked to limit himself. In Rear Window, Jimmy Stewart has a broken leg and the entire movie is shot looking out his window! Rope also takes place in one apartment. And Lifeboat also is set completely on the boat. Interesting, as there is little scene change, yet the story is so gripping it holds the viewers interest.
Limitation is an art Stephen King has honed and refined.
Some particular limitations:
1. In Cujo most of the action took place trapped in a car.
2. Gerald's Game cent`ered completely on a woman tied to a bed. Small efforts -- like trying to get water -- become monumental feats in which the reader roots for her.
3. Susannah in the Dark Tower is crippled. So is the boy in Silver Bullet.
4. Of course, in Under The Dome the characters are locked together under a giant Dome. I sure would love it if King went back and finished Cannibals, which was an early attempt at Under The Dome. In Cannibals, the people were trapped inside an apartment building. I LOVED the drafts King released.
5. In The Mist the characters are trapped inside a Grocery store.
Cameos.
Not only did Alfred Hitchcock introduce each Hitchcock was known to appear briefly in his own works. It's kind of fun to spot him! I think the most obvious is in The Birds. Hitchcock did this early because he did not want the audience to spend the entire movie looking for him and miss the other elements of his story telling.
It is unusual for an author to do Cameo's in their own work, but Stephen King has made quite a few. Most of the time, it is simply references to his work. Such is the case in The Library Policeman. But in The Dark Tower, King personally appears as himself in The Song of Suzanna.
Ordinary Dangers
In The Birds, Hitchcock took something very ordinary -- birds -- and terrified America. Before the birds, horror movies usually created monstrosities, such as Frankenstein's monster. Or, Hollywood was known to take ordinary animals and make them huge, like gigantisized ants. With the birds, Hitchcock took an ordinary small animal and made it scary. King does this all the time with rats!
Janet Lea, who took that famous shower in Psycho, said that Hitchcock made it so she could never take a shower again! After all, think how vulnerable you are in a shower. (Ask Travis Alexander how dangerous a shower is) King didn't make the shower dangerous, but he did cause an awful lot of people to hate clowns.
Here are some ordinary things King has made scary: 1. Cars. 2. Rats. 3. Dogs. 4. Libraries. 5. A Prom. 6. Clowns. 7. Blow torch. (Misery)
Marriage
Hitchcock's wife Alma was deeply involved in each film he made. From the work of scripting the story to choosing wardrobe and actors, she had a hand in it. When Hitchcock recieved the AFI Life Achievement Award, he thanked one person: Alma.
King has spoken often of the importance of his wife's support and input. He continues to seek her approval -- even if he might deny it a little. I like the story King tells of driving with his wife as she sat in the passenger seat reading part of a book. He asked how it was, and she told him to stop being so needy!
Hitchcock didn't like to spend the evening on the set, but was always home promptly to be with his wife, with whom he often cooked dinner. King has done his fair share of cooking, and has even contributed to a cookbook titled, "Man with a Pan."
GENRE
Though both deal in the art of suspense, Hitchcock and King actually deal in very different genres. King is quick to use the supernatural as a story telling device. It is fair to expect ghosts, vampires, possessed cars and even a few haunted houses in a Stephen King story. In a Hitchcock film there are not ghosts, there are murders and Natzi spies! But the tension is real in both.
I discussed in my short essay, What King Book Would Hitchcock Film, a list of stories I thought would suit the famous director. One person offered the addition of The Ledge to my list, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Some people, my family included, have seen the use of supernatural as a weakness in King's writing. I love it! From Bag of Bones to IT, the creepy stuff is the best when Stephen King is narrating.
Prolific
Hitchock hosted multiple series, as well as making over fifty feature films. In fact, as I read The Art of Alfred Hitchock, I'm surprised by just how many of Hitch's films I haven't seen. There are several I'd like to see. The Lodger is one, and Under Capricorn is another. Hitchcock started in the silent era in 1925.
King, likewise, has amassed quite a body of work, and he shows no signs of slowing.
Did you know that there is one film that Alfred Hitchcock filmed twice? It's The Man Who Knew Too Much. 1934 and then in 1956. Hitchcock said, "Let's say that the first version was the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional." Of course, King hasn't produced the same book twice -- exactly. There was a first attempt at Under The Dome, called Cannibals. But they are essentially different stories. But when you look at The Gunslinger and the revision, I think you see two very different stories. I prefer the revised version. The same can be true of The Stand, which exists in two distinct versions. Again, I like the one that was recut and retold. The storyteller gets better at his craft with each telling.
Though King has never gone back and rewritten a book quite the way Hitchcock returned to The Man Who Knew Too Much, there is a book I wish he would rewrite -- The Tommyknockers. I find parts of the novel difficult to read, yet the story itself quite engaging.
Years ago, my wife and I went out on a rainy night and watched the remake of Psycho. As rain poured outside, and the well known story of murder played out on screen, my wife leaned in and said, "This is really scary!" And it was. But no one could reproduce what Hitchcock had done, even when trying to translate the film scene by scene and frame by frame. Actually, that remake doesn't make any sense to me! Why did they remake it if they were going to use the same script and direction Hitchcock had done? Just to get new actors and do it in color? Hitchcock did Psycho in black and white because by choice.
FAVORITES!
What's your favorite Hitchcock? I find I like Hitchcock's later career -- but not the last of the last! The films of the 60's -- Marnie, Torn Cuartian, Topaz, Frenzy and Family Plot all fail to grab me. My all time favorites are Psycho, Rear Window and Vertigo.
Here's a few of my favorites:
Mr. and Mrs Smith, 1940
Shadow of a Doubt, 1943
Lifeboat, 1944
Spellbound, 1945
Strangers on a Train, 1951 (Which has to be paired with Throw Mamma From The Train)
Dial M for Murder, 1954
Rear Window, 1954
The Man Who Knew Too Much, 1955
Vertigo, 1958
North by Northwest, 1959
Psycho, 1960
The Birds, 1963
And favorite episode of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour is Final Escape.
I'm reading The Wastelands as I wait patiently (not) for Doctor Sleep to come out. I last read this in high school. Interesting thing, while I remember massive portions of the first two volumes of the Gunslinger, this third edition is full of stuff I've forgotten. I remembered there was a train -- and I know later there is a guy named Tic Tock (I think) and I remembered the bear and the restoration of Jake. But there's so much more I've forgotten!
I'm impressed that King is able to cross genre's with real ease. Is this a western, is it fantasy or is it Scifi? It's all of those!
Some much needed character development takes place in the Wastelands. Drawing of the Three was pretty action packed, and so far the Wastelands has been focused on building the people. No doubt, the action is yet to come! The driving action in the early book is a rather anticlimactic fight with a gigantic bear. The question in the readers mind is not if anyone is actually going to get killed in this fight, but what in thew world the bear is.
When it comes to characters, King builds his house of cards carefully. Roland is tortured by two realities; one in which the boy exists, and one in which there was no boy. Likewise, Jake struggles with the sure knowledge that he died, yet he lives on. He is stuck reliving events, knowing what will happen next, but seemingly unable to make different decisions.
King doesn't spend much time explaining Eddie and Susannah's sudden love. It just seems that two people in the same proximity have no choice -- they're going to love each other. The scenes with the two are tender. In particular, King continues to develop Eddie's character. In the Drawing of the Three he was little more than a street wise junkie. But in this novel, King quickly shows his hands, revealing a kid who is going to be a great asset to the quest.
To me the most interesting stuff actually happens in our reality. Jake Chambers knows something is wrong -- in fact, he knows he's dead -- and yet he continues to move through our world. He remembers the car accident, the priest (man in black) and every detail of the scene. In fact, when he arrives, he knows everything that is going to happen -- except this time he does not get hit by a car. Jake and th gunslinger are separated by worlds, but are both experiencing a duel reality.
Is a haunted hotel scarier than a haunted house? I think it is. King has used the idea of a hotel, or a hotel room being haunted, but he does not seem to be so much of a fan of the haunted house idea. Bag of Bones had a haunted cabin -- kinda. But the old spooky house where someone moves in and then bad things start happening does not seem to be part of King's tool kit.
Are haunted houses scary? Maybe -- but a hotel is scarier. Here's why: If you live in a house, you now that house! But a hotel gets creepy when you don't know every turn.
Some haunted things in King stories:
1. Haunted House (Marsten House, Salem's Lot)
2. Haunted cars. (Christine)
3. Haunted hotel. (The Shining, 1408)
4. Haunted graveyard. (Pet Sematary)
5. Haunted writer. (Dark Half)
6. Haunted cabin. (Bag of Bones)
7. Haunted town. (Derry, IT)
. . . Cell ?
. . . I have not yet seen Rose Red.
Does the house in Salem's Lot classify as haunted? I think so. Ben did see some pretty scary stuff in there. But at its core, the haunted house is just a prop for the vampires to live in -- the story is really about the vampires, not the house.
Most often, what king gives us is haunted people. Evil is not so much found in a location, as it is in a person. King is big on the personification of evil, either directly from a man in black or from Mr. Gaunt.
I like the haunted house story quite a lot. My favorite is Poltergeist. And, Amityville Horror -- the novel -- can be scary. It can also be pretty funny. (Really, it was a ghost pig!) The Old Dark House was good stuff. There is a campy, but fun, movie called The House Of Long Shadows. I can't make it through HOUSE. I've tried many times, but it's so boring and ridiculous that I get depressed.
Disney's move Haunted Mansion was fun. I also like The House On Haunted Hill. I did not like The Haunting, mostly because nothing happens! They run from the noise, they run toward the noise. . .
My favorite haunted house movie: The Others. It was dark and creepy, had real ghosts and I was honestly surprised by the turns the movie made.
The closest I've been to a real haunted house is the Winchester House -- which is a lot of fun. That lady was nuts!
Is there a traditional haunted house story in the king canon? What's your favorite Haunted House story?
Check out James Smythe's most recent update to his rereading Stephen King adventure. Week 11, Smythe takes us back to the world of Cujo at www.guardian.co.uk.
I love Smythe's note that Cujo doesn't pause to bother with chapters and things like that. It's "a constant rush of words, darting between characters and with reminiscing periods of backstory, but always pushing forward."
Smythe notes King's increased abuse of addictive substances is reflected in his books, and ultmatly Cujo is a metaphor for addiction. Though King admits that he was in the throws of serious drug abuse when he wrote Cujo -- so serious he does not remember writing it! -- I have trouble with the rabid dog being a symbol of drug use or addiction. He further sees Tad's death as a metaphor for drug addiction.
Smythe writes, "As I say, it's all one giant metaphor for King's addiction. Metaphor is there in all fiction if you look for it, of course, but this book aches with symbolism."
So how is Cujo a metaphor for drug addiction? Because he is a great pet -- until bitten. Once he is rabid, the dog ravages terror on innocent people. Smythe offers,
He – Cujo, King – is trapped inside whatever's driving his body for him. He hurts those he loves. He is brutal and remorseless, because he is not himself. Those who would stop him are cut down or trapped. They can only look at him through windows and pray he leaves them alone, or that they get a chance to stop him.
And how is Tad a symbol of addiction?
"Even when the demon is dead, it still kills them. Well, no. Actually, what kills Tad is his desperate need for a drink."
Even the structure of the book is a symbol to Smythe of King's addiction. The book is a rush toward the end because King is "unrelenting" in his addiction.
Smythe likes the book a lot, and says it is even more "tremendous" when you know the back story.
Now, here's what I find myself wondering: Do we really think Stephen King meant for the dog to be a symbol of drug addiction? Or the boy a symbol of alcoholism? Symbolism and metaphor don't work unless there is intent on the authors part. Did King mean to show a boy trapped in a car as a symbol of his own entrapment? I'm not sure at all King intended that. I think King meant to write a novel about a dog. That seems shallow after all the work Smythe did to get us to see the book at a deeper level -- but I just can't help the surface reading here!
Look, I'm glad to go deep and see metaphors. I'm a preacher! The Bible is full of symbolism, metaphor and typology. Even with Scripture (especially with Scripture) you have to have some sense that there was either intent on the authors part to make the metaphor or on God's part to include it in the text. Reading metaphor back into a text long after its composition is simply spinning your own application. Or, more bluntly: It's making stuff up to portray yourself as deep.
This stuff about metaphor presses me a little because I see it abused so often. It leads to bad exegesis and blurs the authors real intents. Ever been in a Bible study where every word symbolized something else ? "So when Jesus is born -- what does the manger represent?" A MANGER! If you make the manger something other than a feeding trough a baby was laid in, you lose focus on what the account is really about. Same for novels! To get too focused on your own interpretation of a metaphor the author never intended will cause you to miss the authors true intent.
So what is Cujo? As far as writing goes, it is King working to limit himself. He restricts the story to a woman and a boy trapped by a dog. He would press his skills further with Gerald's Game, binding a woman to the bed. How do I know this? Because King said so! He did tell us that The Shining is a picture of addiction.
Often you wouldn't get a writers symbolism unless he told you. Needful Things, which I loved, is a satire of the greed of the 1980's. How do I know that? King said so! (source: Time) Having the authors interpretation helps, right? Otherwise you can read anything into anything!
Is Huck Finn about slavery? You bet! The message isn't even hidden. But what if I said Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles is a commentary on the dangers of space exploration. Is there a problem with that? Yes! Bradbury never said that was the message of the book. It seems much more that the Martian Chronicles is about stewardship and kindness. We are to stewards of whatever we are given (Earth or Mars) and resist the need to fight and beat down everything we encounter. The book can serve as a warning against atomic warfare, because Bradbury was actually concerned about those things. But you can't make it about anything, or in the end the book itself loses meaning in the commentary. The same is true of Cujo.
The journal entries are not intended to be reviews of the books. They are simply my notes and observations as I journey through various King novels. I will leave the work of review to the outstanding Lilja at Lilja’s Library.
I have started a familiar journey toward the Dark Tower, traveling once again with the Gunslinger as he chases the man in black.
Here are some initial impressions:
1. I like the style better than I remember. It does read like someone who really wants to be very serious! This is before King really had the freedom in his writing to play games and crack lots of jokes at himself. The light heartedness we sometimes encounter in the narration of other books is not yet present.
But I like the heavy serious tone that novel strikes. It does feel like someone who has lots to say. . . but isn’t sure just yet what it is they have! That’s okay, I’m game, Mr. King! If you want to be serious, I’ll be serious and play along. It is the joy of reading a young mans work.
2. In the Dark Tower, King is “world building.” But he keeps the reader in suspense in this novel – what world are we on? Where are we? Is this the afterlife? The man in black mentions the world next door – I like that phrase. The world of the dark tower is one that parallels our own, yet has some drastic differences. It is a world that has moved on – a world in flux, or change. Though there are familiar things – birds and farmers and guns – there are also some missing items. Government? It appears each town is run on its own. It is a lawless world where dark men can come to town and raise the dead. I imagine the book of Judges in the Bible.
3. Nineteen. The key word the dark man gives to drawing out information from the man he raised (Norton) from the dead is “nineteen.” A theme that King will play with throughout the series, and his own writing.
4. The book is difficult to follow. It starts with the gunslinger meeting a farmer. The farmer wants to know about Tull. This leads to a flashback. But there are scene shifts within the flashback – points of view given that are not directly the gunslingers. This gets a little complicated, I think. I'll discuss that further below.
5. Spiritual Overtones: By the way, the idea of a fallen world that needs to be restored has huge spiritual overtones. A good gunslinger, who does not conform to “religion” as it is known rides out to confront and defeat a dark man. Of course, creation itself is at stake and must be rescued. Sounds familiar to me.
6. The dark resurrection reminds me of Pet Sematary.
Mr. Vincent and Me:
Wow, am I glad I have Bev Vincent’s “The Road To The Dark Tower.” Vincent explains everything from a birds eye point of view, taking into account the entire series, changes King made to the Gunslinger and even discussing issues of chronology.
I have to admit, I was lost as the Dark Man raised Norton from the dead – simply in terms of where we were in the timeline. I knew at some point the Gunslinger started talking, but then the scene changed and it was another flashback. So it was a flashback in a flashback. But, to make things more complicated – I wasn’t even clear where the Gunslinger’s conversation with the farmer fit in to all of this.
So Vincent explains the whole chronology thing succinctly, without making me feel stupid (though you all are welcome to point fingers and declare me unworthy of the journey!) Vincent writes:
“The Gunslinger,” covers a period of nearly two months, taking the as-yet-unnamed gunslinger from Prince town through Tull and southeast into the desert, where he encounters Brown. . .
. . . King begins the story five days after Roland departs from Brown’s hut. . .
(AH!!! How did I not put this together. So even Brown is a flashback)
“Through a series of flashbacks, he reminisces about his recent history.”
See, now I get it! In fact, now I’m excited about it. What was that, four sentenses that made the whole first part of the novel flow.
“In Song of Susannah, King says he liked how the story seems to be going backward (I’LL SAY!), starting with Roland, slipping back to Brown, then to Tull and finally to show Nort the Weeedeater being resurrected by Walter. “The early part of it was all told in reverse gear.”
(The quotes are from page 31 of the paperback.)
PURPOSE:
Finally, Vincent address the issue I’ve been harping on – one of PURPOSE. Why must the gunslinger go to the tower? “The gunslinger sues people and discards them after they’ve served thier purpose or if they stand in the way of his goal. In the abstract, his actions are understandable. Saving all of existence is surely worth sacrificing a few people.”
But, I must ask – when the gunslinger gets to the Dark Tower, does he make any real attempt to save all humanity? Is that what happened? And, is he not caught like Bill Murray in an eternal Ground Hog Day situation? Be patient, the journey will answer these questions for me! Will King ever give us a Dark Tower 8, where the Gunslinger finally reaches the Dark Tower and successfully restores things?
Isn't this basically what every Star Trek movie is about?
What a ride! Misery was a huge surprise to me. I did not expect to like it. How, I wondered, could King carry the story of a trapped writer for so many pages? Of course, my opinion was based solely on the movie. Having read the book, I now fully understand what Bev Vincent meant when he wrote, "Misery will get under your skin."
Misery Origins:
In The Stephen King Illustrated Companion, Bev Vincent says that Misery was inspired in part by John Fowles's The Collector and the Evelyn Waugh short story "The Man Who Loved Dickens." Vincent writes:
After reading the latter, King wondered what would happen if Dickens himself were held captive. He reflected in an interview, "Halfway through. . . I realized I was trying to express some of my own deepest fear-feelings: the sense of being trapped, the sense of having come from someplace like Africa and knowing I would never be able to get home, and trying to figure out what it was I was doing, why I was doing it, and why people were responding to it." (p.96)
Vincent further explains that the novel was the result of a dream King had while flying to England. "He dreamed about a woman who held a writer prisoner and killed him, skinned him, fed the remains to her pig, and bound his novel in human skin."
The Stephen King Universe notes that due to its realistic themes and dark ending, King originally intended Misery to be published as a Richard Bachman novel.
Number One Fan:
Autograph hunter Mark Chapman gets a signature from John Lennon outside his elegant Dakota apartment building in New York where hours later he gunned down the former Beatle (photo credit HERE)
King fans can be obsessive. One guy broke into King's house claiming to have a bomb. He is mobbed for autographs, and sometimes the fans turn out to be flat out scary! The Stephen King Universe says, "Misery was clearly inspired by events in King's own life." It relates this frightening account:
In 1980, he reportedly signed one of his books for a stranger who literally did call himself King's 'number one fan.' That lost soul was Mark Chapman, who would later earn his palce in history by shooting and killing John Lennon shortly thereafter." (SK Universe, p.335)
The encounter with Mark Chapman is elaborated on for a full page in the original edition of The Stephen King Companion (p.248) which is quoting form King's September 22, 1986 Virginia Beach lecture.
The book is dedicated to "Stephanie and Jim Leonard, who know why. Boy, do they." George Beahm offers this insight in the original Stephen King Companion, "Stephanie Leonard, for many years King's secretary and the editor/publisher of Castle Rock, knows firsthand what it's like to deal with the fans -- the good, the bad and the ugly."
Here are my final notes for the present Misery Journal:
1. Suspense: As Paul finishes the novel, King builds intensity. What is going to happen when he finishes writing? The pages left to write become something like a clock running down, like in Running Man.
The novel employs Hitchcock levels of suspense at the end as the reader (and Paul) wnder if Annie is really dead. She is discovered, not laying dead with wads of paper coming from her mouth -- but outside Misery's pig stall, with one hand wrapped around the handle of a chainsaw.
2. There are rats here! King has a way of sending rats racing through a story at moments I do not expect them. Who would have expected to find rats in Misery? I didn't! But rats there are! They are down in Annie's cellar. Of course, Paul can't move, so the horror builds all the more as he contends with rats staring at him.
3. ESCAPE: As with any novel where an escape is required, the reader is left thinking how they might execute an escape in a similar situation. What the reader is likely to forget is just how weak and dependent on Annie Paul really is.
4. King takes us inside the writers mind as he works through problems. Misery is really about the art of writing.
The Stephen King Companion, by George Beahm, notes that the August 1987 edition of The Castle Rock included an article by Tabitha King in which she reminded readers that Stephen King was not Paul Sheldon. More importantly, she made the point that Annie Wilkes is a "metaphor for the creative drive itself." Beahm writes (quoting Tabitha King):
Beyond merely a tale of torture and murder, "Misery is far more concerned with the way in which a creative person can be tortured by his own powers, addicted to the act of creation, damaged by it. At the end, Paul Sheldon has not freed himself from Annie Wilkes; she holds him captive still, emotionally and creatively." (The Stephen King Companion, Revised Edition, 269)
I like the insight that a novel never turns out quite the way an author first imagines it.
He felt as he always did when he finished a book— queerly empty, let down, aware that for each little success he had paid a toll of absurdity. -- Misery, p. 287
Not only is it about writing, but it is about writing being an act of creation (as discussed above by Tabitha King),
Still, it was good to be done— always good to be done. Good to have produced, to have caused a thing to be. In a numb sort of way he understood and appreciated the bravery of the act, of making little lives that weren’t, creating the appearance of motion and the illusion of warmth." -- Misery, p.288
5. Disgusting! Stephen King almost made me gag. I don't normally have any physical reaction to books. I don't cry, I don't get grossed out, I don't get scared. Sometimes I talk back to a book -- but I'm actually pretty passive. But I was driving to work listening to Misery as King described the final fight with Annie. Paul shoved the novel down her throat -- while it was on fire! The description was so powerful, I stopped the CD because I was gagging.
King brilliantly drags that part out, letting you suffer with Annie as more and more pages are jammed down her throat. Even though she is getting what she deserves, the reader hurts with her. That is a sign of good writing!
6. Irony: The novel employs a lot of irony. For instance, Annie supplies Paul with the instruments that will be used to bring about her own demise. Both the typewriter and the pages of Paul's novel are weapons he will use in the final struggle.
King himself points all this out, writing,
So in a way she had been killed by the very typewriter Paul had hated so much. -- Misery, p.307
Am I the only person confused by the Broadway musical, Carrie? I might be.
Musicals on their own don't make sense to me. People do not walk down the sidewalk and burst into song. . . choirs do not leap out of flower beds to join the crazy guy singing. . . taxi drivers don't stop in the middle of the street to join the crazy guy singing with his choir. . .
I can tolerate about two (2) musicals. Little Shop of Horrors and Phantom of the Opera. Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote an awesome script for Phantom, and Little Shop of Horrors is simply delightful.
Something about Stephen King doesn't make me think: MUSICAL! When a new King book gets announced, I do not think, "Oh boy, I hope it becomes a musical!" I saw a poll asking what King book should be the next musical.
Mixing horror and musical seems like more than just a genre buster. This isn't like Cowboys and Aliens -- it's more like . . .
Mr. Rogers directed by Oliver Stone
The Happy Days cast does Nightmare on Elm Street 12
Frenchtoast and Spaghetti
A Bible movie with a budget
Oprah in Star Wars
Jonathan Edwards teams with Joel Osteen
Seriously, can you see Jack singing away as he swings at Wendy? Talk about a new take on "Heeeeers Johnny!" Would the dog sing in Cujo? Would zombies do a super dance in Cell? Somehow I just can't really see Misery the Musical. The only one that might be cool would be IT. Pennywise sings. . . no, I take it back.
I'm very happy about this because it is a great article, and a great blog.
WOMEN IN HORROR MONTH: Stephen King's Ladies by The Girl Who Loves Horror
As many other bloggers out there have already said, February is Women in Horror Recognition Month, which is pretty freaking awesome. Women are an integral part of the genre, on all sides of the field, and this is an excellent way to honor and exalt them as they should be!
The Mike at the fabulous From Midnight, With Love blog is offering up some linkage opportunities to Midnight Warriors who post their thoughts on women in horror so be sure to step by there this month and see what other awesome bloggers are talking about.
For my first post on this topic, I'm starting off with what I know best.
What a cute dork.
Stephen King is known by fans for doing some pretty gruesome stuff to the characters in his books. When he takes on the task of putting a female in the lead of his story, or an otherwise important role, they are just as fair game for his twisted plot lines as the males. So here comes the list! Some are heroines, some are villains, but all of these fabulous females have been put through King's crazy shit that he thinks up and have either come out on top or gotten their bloody revenge, and for that, THEY RULE.
If you haven't read these books, I'm about to reveal some serious spoilers.
Jessie Burlingame from Gerald's Game
Jessie and her hubby Gerald were having a nice time at their cottage by the lake, until Gerald wanted to kink up their sex life. He handcuffs Jessie to the bed, but she's not into it and kicks him off of her, causing him to have a heart attack and die. Lying there naked and bound, with no one around to help her, Jessie's torment over the next several hours are both physical and emotional. She has recollections of being sexually molested by her father; watches a dog eat her dead husband's body; and deals with a frightening manifestation coming at her in the room - all while still trying to free herself from the handcuffs. In the end, she gets out of this situation in the grossest way possible by almost skinning her own hand to slip out of the handcuffs. Gross, Stephen King. GROSS. By the way, that manifestation that was stalking Jessie during her ordeal was actually a necrophiliac grave robber who is later caught by police. Somehow, I don't think that made Jessie feel better.
Sandra Stansfield from "The Breathing Method"
"The Breathing Method" is the only novella from King's collection titled Different Seasons to NOT have been adapted to film, and believe me, after reading this I think you'll understand why. "TBM" is a frame story that follows a men's club who gather around a fireplace and tell stories. One man, a doctor, tells the story of one of his patients, Sandra Stansfield. She is a single woman pregnant with the child of a married man. This happened in the 1950s, so that's not a good thing. However, Sandra is a proud woman determined to have the child and when the doctor introduces her to the new technique of Lamaze, she dutifully practices. Sandra is past her due date when she's in a terrible car accident on Christmas Eve. The doctor arrives on scene only to find out that Sandra has been decapitated in the accident. However, her body is still miraculously alive, and able to continue to do the Lamaze breathing until the doctor successfully delivers her baby. My jaw was on the floor when I first read this story. Incredibly gruesome, but still kind of sweet and uplifting? Yeah, I don't know how it's possible either, but that's how I felt.
Sara Tidwell from Bag of Bones
This is my absolute favorite King book. I've read it several times now, and it's a fantastic book to pick when you just want to read a really good story. Sara Tidwell is kind of the villain in this piece but maybe you won't blame her once you read about what Stephen King put her through. Sara was the singer of a popular African American band at the turn of the century in the town where author Mike Noonan has his summer home. Haunting experiences at his house lead Mike to uncover a curse on several families in the town which have something to do with Sara Tidwell. In a vision, Mike uncovers the horrific truth - Sara and her young son Kito were killed by a group of men by the lake. They brutally rape and murder Sara and drown her son in the lake. Since then, the descendants of the men responsible have all had tragic drownings of the firstborn child in their families - children whose names begin with "K" or "C." King graphically describes Sara's attack which is all the more brutal because of how strong and confident Sara is described as being earlier in the book. The men intend to "break" her by raping her, but her spirit proves to be quite unbreakable and very deadly.
Rose Daniels from Rose Madder
Rose's husband Norman is a police officer. He should be the perfect guy, but instead he is a vicious rage-oholic who beats Rose for 14 years before she finally leaves him one day. Rose manages to make a new life for herself and get rid of Norman for good (with the help of a woman in a painting and the other world it transports her to - hey, it's a King novel, I don't know how else to say it to make it make sense) Her character is amazing for many reasons but mostly for what she endures in the first chapter of the novel. It's an incident that occurs 9 years before Rose leaves her husband, and it's a particularly violent and disturbing incident of abuse. Rose is lying in the corner of the room, bleeding and in immense pain after Norman has punched her in the stomach. The worst part: she's four months pregnant. This one short chapter of the novel instantly sets up how truly evil Norman is as he casually eats a sandwich while cleaning up Rose's blood and smiling at her while her dead baby is leaking out of her body, assuring her that she can always have another one. Descriptive yet sickening sentences like "Something is putting sinister, slippery little kisses against the insides of her thighs" really put the reader in Rose's shoes and make you feel the unbearable pain she is going through. And you truly believe her and side with her as she vehemently repeats "I hate you" in her head.
Trisha MacFarland from The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon
If I were ever lost in the woods for days on end, I'm not sure how I could survive. The 9-year-old heroine from one of King's shortest novels surely has one up on me there. While on a hiking trip with her brother and mother, Trisha wanders off the path and when she tries taking a shortcut back to where she was, she becomes hopelessly lost. With little food and drink, her GameBoy and her Walkman, Trisha must do whatever she has to to live through this. This girl is awesome. She's only a child and still manages to keep her cool and use smart and effective methods to sustain herself until help arrives. Sure, she starts going a little loopy and imagines that an evil creature called The God of the Lost is after her, but having pneumonia and diarrhea from forest berries is bound to do that to anyone. The climax of the novel is great too. Trisha comes upon a road but not before the God of the Lost comes upon her. At least, that's what she imagines it to be, when in reality it's a freaking BEAR. Thankfully she's saved by a hunter and taken back to her family, but damn. This 9-year-old survived days in the woods and almost got her ass eaten up by a BEAR. She's way cooler than all of us. This is not one of King's more popular books, but it is interesting in that it the most straightforward narrative that he's ever written I think.
I've avoided discussing the women most obviously affiliated with King - Carrie White from Carrie, Annie Wilkes from Misery, Dolores Claiborne from Dolores Claiborne, Charlie McGee from Firestarter - because all of those novels have been made into movies and none of the above stories have. (None of them had been when the blog post was written. Now we have Bag Of Bones.) And they are some of King's best work and most interesting stories, and hopefully this will make more fans aware of King's entire body of work. I highly recommend any of the aforementioned novels (especially Bag of Bones - I SERIOUSLY love that book) to you so pick one up today and enjoy! And keep celebrating all the amazing Women in Horror!
I want to post some short articles on why I think the constant reader is -- constant. Why do we come back to King when the world is full of wonderful writers? I saw a new Grisham book today, but realized I don't have time to read it. I mean, the Stand comes out next month! And I want to read the Library police. When it comes to fiction, I think King is simply the best. Why?
Reason #1 : He's Fearless.
You can smell fear dripping off some writers. They're scared to kill a character off; and when they do, they have to bring them back. Star Trek boldly killed Spock -- then they blinked and brought him back. King doesn't play stupid games with the reader!
The courage of the writer is important for the following reasons:
A writer needs to get out of the way and let the story tell itself. They must be willing to kill characters and bring misery on people they've fallen in love with, so that stupid story can unravel the way it's supposed to. I think that sometimes the story heads in directions that even Stephen King doesn't expect!
This comes partly because King does not write with an outline. In fact, he says stories that didn't work for him were the ones he plotted.
Courage also means that he lets the characters show us uncomfortable sides of humanity. Were there moments you felt for Oswald? Or were there times you hated Roland? That's because characters are not just good and bad, the best of them have depth. Allowing characters to live means that they sometimes curse, hold opinions the author does not and exhibit both noble and dark behavior.
Here are 5 novels that show the courage of a writer:
1. The Stand. One reason we love The Stand is not only is it big, you actually don't know what's going to happen next! Characters you think are on King's cutting block hang in there to the end. Of course, some of us have read The Stand so many times, it has lost that initial power of suspense.
2. Cujo. I don't want to ruin the book for you, but it is gutsy! King once again allows the story to tell itself without getting in the way, and the result is wonderful.
3. Pet Sematary. This novel is full of surprises -- unless you watched the movie first! (Where is the audio?) The novel is gripping because it is the story of a typical nuclear family dealing with the worst thing in the world for a parent -- the death of a child. But the novel does not take expected directions! And again, those dark endings take nerves of steel.
4. The Mist. The novella has the courage to leave the ending open! I think that takes real courage for a writer to not eel the need to fully conclude the story. Of course, sense it is told in first person, King could not exactly kill his main character off.
5. Thinner. While not my favorite novel, it's strength is partially in the fearless writing of Stephen King. He follows that novel down uncomfortable avenues and let's us cringe with him. And then, as usual, once he's got us all cringing and scared, he laughs his head off.
TELL ME:
So, what novels do you think reveal Kings courage as a writer?
Or, perhaps even more fun, what novels did he totally wimp out on? !
Wayne C. Rogers has a very nice review of 11.22.63 titled, “Stephen King’s, 11.22.63., his best in a decade.” (HERE)
Rogers opens by saying that “Until I finished Stephen King’s newest novel, “11/22/63,” I’d only cried at the end of three of his books.” He recounts the tears flowing during The Stand, The Dead Zone and The Green Mile.
Rogers suggests that the real strength in King’s writing is the characters. I totally agree! 11.22.63 is not an action novel – nor is it really an alternate history novel – nor is it science fiction (sci-fi for those of you who remember how to abbreviate that correctly) – the novel is completely character driven! And that, my friends, is the real joy of a Stephen King novel. It breaks all genre, because he doesn’t write to genre, he write about people!
Even if you spent a lot of the novel yelling at Jake, “you’re an idiot!”, you still care about him. Often characters in a novel can come across very cardboard. I like John Gresham novels, but can’t say I ever really cared deeply about anyone in the novel! Those puppies are totally plot driven, and the ride is awesome. But in the end, I don’t feel a deep connection to the people I met in the book.
With Stephen King, I feel like I’ve met these people. What’s more, characters in his book remind me of people I know (good and bad). Anyone met Mother Abigail? I have! How about Lloyd? Or how about Herold? We have all met someone who might remind us of Jack in The Shining. Worse when we discover a bit of Jack in us! If you ever have to deal with small government and the men who like being big fish in a small pond, then you’ve met Big Jim! What made Carrie so powerful was that we all knew a Carrie in High School. For some of us, we had moments when we felt just like Carrie! Other moments we look back with regret on because we behaved like those who made life miserable for Carrie. Sure, rocks didn’t fall from the sky, and the high school did not burn on prom night! A plague did not sweep America, a Dome did not lock my city in – but it’s the characters identify with. The crazy become believable when you add people you know.
Meditating on what Rogers said, I am quite curious. Do any of you actually cry when you read Stephen King? I like these characters a lot, but I’ve never ever cried reading a book. Never. And I think I’m a pretty compassionate guy. But I don’t cry for people I know aren’t real! I’ve shouted “YES!” before. I got pretty excited when the finger of God reached down from heaven and nuked the bad guys. That was sweet stuff! When Christine took out revenge on the bad boys, that was well worth the price of admission. And 11.22.63 has some definite yes moments. But tears? Am I the only one keeping the pages of my Stephen King novels nice and dry? Really? REALLY!
I did not cry when. . .
The kid in Cujo died
The kid in Pet Sematary died
The kid in The Gunslinger died
The kid in IT died
. . . wow, it’s bad to be a kid in this guys novels!
I did not cry in the Green Mile, The Shining, The Dead Zone, or IT.
Now, two questions:
1. What scenes has King gotten you to cry during? Come on, surely he’s squeezed some tears out of some of you!
In the recent Wall Street Journal interview, King said that 11/22/63 was so different for him that it was like trying to break in a new pair of shoes. We all know that King thrives in the horror genre, but his writing has never been limited to horror alone.
I think it is important to note that King often mixes genre's. Don't be surprised to find sci-fi dancing with horror while it holds hands with a bit of romance. I mean, Christine was described as a love triangle! And what was Lisey's story?
The Dark Tower was a dark version of The Lord of the Rings. It involved Romance, Horror, lots of Fantasy, Drama, Action Adventure and more.
Under mystery, there was Umley's Last case and that strange novel Haven. I'm not sure Haven was really a mystery, since the mystery was never solved! (Or did I miss something?)
Here is my top ten Stephen King genre busters.
1. COMING OF AGE: The Body. I think this one falls under "Drama." Or Coming of Age. Whatever it was, I liked it.
2. DRAMA: The Shawshank Redemption. A prison break without a ghost in sight.
3. SCI-FI: The Tommyknockers. This long, very unusual novel was sci-fi. I think. Was it? Yes, definitely. Maybe.
4. APCALYPTIC: The Stand. While the Stand contains elements of horror, I think one reason it took the world by storm is because it was so unexpected from the young Stephen King. It falls under the rather strange category of apocalyptic.
5. ? Rage. While all of the Bachman books break type in some way, there will never again be another book quite like Rage. It reminds me of an extreme Catcher In The Rye. It is both insightful, prophetic and flat out scary.
6. SCI-FI: From A Buick 8. Sci-fi all the way, with the added bonus of multiple points of view. It was a very unique novel that seems overlooked in the King canon. For all the King adaptations that have suddenly become so popular, where is this one? I'm afraid it's simply seen as a "Christine part 2" for those who don't know what it's really about.
7. FANTASY: The Eyes Of The Dragon. A children's book that was much more than a children's book. It falls neatly under the category of dark fantasy.
8. DRAMA: The Green Mile. yes, there are dead people here, and violence, but the novel is really about a healer and the man who is required to put him to death. So what is it? Drama?
9. SUSPENSE: Dolorores Claiborne. A rambling confession takes all kinds of suspenseful turns. And that's what I think it is. . . suspense. What if a woman who got away with a murder was now accused of a murder she was actually innocent of? I like it! The novel is never really a "mystery" since we know from the start who done it! This is also unique because it is a woman's first person narrative. "How does he know what women are thinking?" My wife often asks, noting how strong King's female characters often are.
10. SUSPENSE: Misery. It was originally slated to be a Bachman novel, but then someone turned the lights on Mr. King and outed him. Anyway, Misery is almost 100% suspense. It's the kind of stuff Hitchcock would have loved.
The really nice thing about a Stephen King novel is that none of them fall neatly into the parameters of normal genres. King is more focused on telling the story than he is interested in shaping it to fit neatly into a publishers box. Proof positive that he is not the "hack" that mean spirited, usually jealous people accuse him of being. He's not churning out cheap novels, he's telling rich stories that build on well developed characters and a variety of genre's.
In short, readers both familiar and unfamiliar with Stephen King's novels will find a motherlode of interesting information inside the pages of Brighton David Gardner's insightful and illuminating treatise.
I can't recommend it enough, so be sure to get it either for your Kindle or e-Reader of choice, or buy the print version because it's easily worth twice the cover price.
