Stephen King NEWS

• NPR has an engrossing interview with Stephen King at www.npr.org

• PARADE magazine has an interview with Stephen King.  He says his wife is tough to impress when it come to writing, and that he used to pay his kids to put books on tape.  That's so cool!  I used to bribe my sister  to do the same thing.  Now we have audible.  King says Mad Men is basically a "soap opera."  The PARADE interview is at www.parade.com

• Lilja's Library posted the episode list for Under The Dome at www.liljas-library.com

• James Smythe has posted the next part of his Rereading Stephen King (IT).  He calls IT, "one of King's most enduring novels" and "intimidatingly huge."  www.guardian.co.uk.   

• Crews working on the set of A GOOD MARRIAGE set off fire alarms for a second time -- annoying a neighbor enough to try and turn his irritation into "news."  So here it is!  news.  But it's not news, is it?  Nope.  But here's the link --tarrytown.patch.com

Does THINNER Work?

I'm loving James Smythe's "re-reading Stephen King" series. His most recent entry is the Bachman novel, Thinner.  Smythe subtitles the article, "The last time Richard Bachman and Stephen King were thought to be different writers, and King's signature is becoming ever clearer in its story."  That is quite true.

Smythe's article can be found www.guardian.co.uk

Smythe writes,

What made a book Bachman rather than King? Was erring closer to King's usual output here some deep-level subconscious version of self-sabotage? Of wanting to be found out? Of wanting to be able to claim these books as his own again?

Smythe notes that King had previously done a nice job with unlikeable protagonists, including Carrie and Jack Torrance, but Smythe can't find anything redeemable about that Halleck --and that "makes reading the novel relatively tough."

Is it tough for the main character in a story to be truly rotten?  I don't know.  I'm watching House of Cards on netflix, and there's not much redeemable about the main character!  Thinner is dark for other reasons.  Smythe discusses the supernatural elements of Thinner as being more King than Bachman.

What breaks the book for me?  Plotting.  It doesn't work.  Thinner twists and turns with plot twists that aren't always logical.  More bluntly, Thinner feels forced to me.  The ending in particular feels like an end that King wanted to get us to.  Twilight Zoneish as it may be, it didn't feel natural to the flow of the story.  King is forcing the plot, not letting the story itself take its natural turns.

That said, I might ask: What would a more plausible ending to Thinner be?

Smythe Returns To The Forgotten Wolrd Of The Talisman

Photograph: www.peterstraub.net

I was excited to see a review of The Talisman appear as part of James Smythe's "Rereading Stephen King" series at The Guardian.  This is because I've never read The Talisman.  I promised a friend a while back  I'd get right to it, as he really encouraged me, saying it was quite good.  However, I can't seem to get very far into it!

Smythe says that this is a novel that completely "slipped" through his memory!  He couldn't remember a word of it.  Still, Smythe  comes away with a fresh love for the book, declaring, "The themes are strong; the world is strong; the characters are strong. It's well written. It's long, and maybe a little over-egged in places – some of the novel's mid-section sags – but the things that they were paying tribute to come through, and the story is a good one."

Smythe offers the best summery of the boo that I've read -- and I've read several.  Smythe notes the influence of Lord of the Rings, The Wizard of Oz and Huck Finn streaming throughout the novel.

As always, Smythe does a nice job spotting the connections to King's other works.

The full article is at www.guardian.co.uk

On a final note -- I offer this strange comment: I think one reason I have been  unable to read The Talisman has to do with bad book cover.  Don't throw stones!  Seriously.  And, the original paperback  I tried to read was strangely bound.  The type face was unusual.  Everything about the edition I first tried to read seemed unusual and uber-boring!

Smythe: Rereading Stephen King CHRISTINE

I usually enjoy James Smythe's posts at theguardian, "rereading Stpehen King."  Segment 15 is a review of the novel Christine.

I also read this book recently, and loved it!  (My CHRISTINE JOURNAL is HERE)  Smythe is not so enthusiastic about Christine, writing, "I suspect it was the first time his fans felt cheated."  He rightly latches on to the books overarching problem, the structure.  Smythe calls it a "mess."  And it is!  The book  jumps from first person to third person to first person.  To me it's an acceptable mess, but Smythe says it is "jarring" and "clumsy."

King said he wrote himself into a corner with Dennis the narrator getting injured.  It would seem then that either 1. Dennis should not get injured! or, 2. That King should start over and rewrite the whole thing in third person.  I don't understand why he didn't just rewrite the book.  He loves to rewrite!

Smythe also points out, "Come the end of the novel, it's still not clear who the third-person narrator is, or how Dennis knows what it reported."  He finds both narrations "hollow."  I think that's crazy talk!  Christine is a pretty passionate novel.  When that car is in kill mode, and chasing people down -- wow!  I loved that stuff.  And there was tension with Arnie and his parents -- first love -- rock and roll.  It was certainly not hollow.

Smythe doesn't like the characters in Christine, finding them flat and underdeveloped.  I noted this in my final journal entry:

The characters in Christine work; but they aren't King's best. Lea's scenes are almost painful. She's very wooden; cardboard. Some of the best scenes are with Arnie and his parents. Fights spiral out of control as the family comes unglued. King gives us a picture of a healthy family environment through the eyes of Dennis, who's parents both love and trust him. 

Of course, my favorite character is Christine. She has a life of her own, and some pretty awesome abilities. We're talking super-hero stuff. In particular, her ability to regenerate makes her a formidable foe.

the full article is at www.guardian.co.uk

I have the final death count at. . . HERE

Smythe: Rereading The RUNNING MAN

James Smythe at The Guardian has posted the latest leg of his journey through the Stephen King universe -- The  Running Man.  A highly reflective piece, Smythe found a deeper appreciation for this novel as he reread it.  Like most everyone on planet earth, he was not moved by the film adaptation.  "It's awful!" Smythe laments.

Smythe writes,

This time, I read the book and much preferred it. Maybe I'm more attuned to the sadness now; maybe I'm better with the weaker Ben Richards, the desperation that makes him enter the competition. It's decently written: not King's best, but not his worst. The structure is interesting too, echoing his other dystopian game show novel of the period, The Long Walk. Where that novel counted down the boys left alive as part of the text, here the short chapters are on constant countdown, starting at 101. You know when the book is going to end: the timer tells you. It's a pacey device, and one that serves the game-show content of the novel, and this is a good book; mid-tier King.

read the full article at /www.guardian.co.uk

Is Cujo A Metaphor?

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.

Symbolism has no weight without authors intent.

Smythe's review of The Stand

James Smythe at gaurdian.co.uk has posted a unique review of The Stand.  (HERE)  The article is the the next installment of his journey to read the King books in chronological order.  Like most King readers, the Stand is a favorite of Smythe's.  And, like many of us,  he discovered the Stand while  he was young.

Smythe begins with the conclusion that The Stand is essentially the book of Job -- with a little fantasy thrown in.

About the line-up, Smythe writes:

Where King's previous antagonists were small fry (or protagonists flipped on their heads), Randall Flagg is never less than pure evil. He has a counterpart, as all evils should: Mother Abigail, 108 years old, who communes with God, and who is the frail good to Flagg's evil. 

Job and Revelation:

And, about the Biblical book of Job (pronounced Jobe) Smythe  offers:

I read once that The Stand was essentially the Book of Job, with the survivors in Job's place: tested by good and evil both; pushed and challenged to see how much they could endure, as if their suffering were a game. There's a little more epic fantasy here than in the Bible, maybe, and it ends not with a war, but with an accident; with the chaos of Trashcan Man finding a weapon, and with Flagg's showing off going to far. But I can still see it. Good wins by default, because evil cannot. Those were the rules in the Old Testament, and they're the rules now.

That's an interesting perspective.  The Stand is very much like Job!  However, in Biblical terms, I think the Stand is more like the book of Revelation.  (No "s" in Revelation.)  Plagues are poured out on the world, evil rises up and people must choose which side they will turn to.  As evil rises, the good must decide if they will  bow down  to evil (take the mark of the beast) or stand up against evil (the mark of God.)  Yet, in the end, man cannot stand against evil alone, only the work of God can end it.  Thus in revelation fire comes from heaven and destroys the enemies of God, while in the Stand, the finger of God brings an end to evil.

What I like about The Stand as end-time fiction is that it does not play the rapture game.  The rapture is a ridiculous view -- new to the scene theologically -- that God will rapture out his people before the Great Tribulation.  In this case, King gets it more right than the Left Behind series!  God does not rapture his people out in the hour of evil, he expects them to "stand."  In fact, Christ clearly said that those  who "stand to the end will be saved." (Matt. 24:13)

Here's a fuller  post of mine on The Stand and the Bible.

An American Lord Of The Rings

As I read this, I keep wanting to shout, "me too, me too!"  For instance, Smythe notes that King said in the introduction that  he wanted to write something like Lord  of the Rings.  He notes, "I didn't read Tolkien when I was a kid, I read this."  YES!  Me too.  I did read Lord of the Rings -- for as long as I could.  I find Lord of the Rings difficult.  I know this will offend many, but it does not connect with me at all.  It seems like they just walk around a lot.  (I just realized that in The Stand. . . there's a lot of walking around!)

That said, what does  connect with me is The Stand.  It is more than an American version of Lord of the Rings, I think it reaches far beyond.  The Stand doesn't build an unknown world as a stage for its characters to play on -- in the Stand, the characters are on our stage.  

Some of my favorite lines (from the Smythe review)

• The Stand is a masterpiece. . . 
• When swine flu broke out in 2009, I lost track of the number of tweets referring to it as Captain Trip.
• About Flagg: "I've mentioned him before – in my Carrie and Night Shift rereads – but here's where he makes his grand entrance."
•  This is my most reread book.
• as I read The Stand again, I realised that I am wholly, totally indebted to King's book.

RAGE article by James Smythe

I’m LOVING Stephen King enthusiast James Smythe’s articles as he rereads King’s works in chronological order.  This week is particularly good – RAGE.

Smythe points out that Rage is the only King novel you can’t buy in a local bookstore.  That’s because King had it pulled from publication.  He chronicles some copy-cat events, including 14-year old Michael Carneal’s December 1997 rampage.

Smythe writes:

Carneal wasn't the first: Jeffrey Lyne Cox held a class of students hostage at gunpoint in 1988, inspired by the novel; Dustin L Pierce did the same in 1989, down to the detail of imprisoning his algebra class; in 1996, Barry Loukaitis killed his algebra teacher and two others, before holding the rest of the class to ransom. At his trial, Loukaitis even said that he tried to model his life after Decker. All three had read the book, and they were young and impressionable. (Crucially, though less sensationally, they were also all bullied and tormented at school.)

Smythe makes personal connections to the novel, discussing his own struggle with being bullied.  He concludes by telling us,

“In the best possible way, I hate Rage: I hate it because I hate Decker, and he is the book in its entirety.”

The full article is great! Check it out HERE.