Showing posts with label Sherlock Holmes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sherlock Holmes. Show all posts

Four Past Midnight Journal 2: NOVELLAs



I'm wondering why King's Four Past Midnight gets sold on individual story at a time -- while Full Dark No Stars gets sold as one big book.  Does it matter?  Sure.  It's the difference in 1 audible credit verses 4.  Or, 1 month's payment verses FOUR.  Different Seasons is also broken up.

Know why I like Four Past Midnight? I do think the stories are pretty good.  I also think it is because I read them at a time when reading Stephen King was a little dangerous -- a little naughty.  I was a teen and it was pretty cool to read Stephen King.  I was pretty new to the world of Stephen King, having just come off The Stand and the first few Dark Tower novels, so I had a sense that anything could happen in a SK novel.  King novels did things that would never even come up in the books our High School teachers handed out.  I tried to endure Cat's Cradle, but really didn't know what Mr. Vonnegut was talking about.  King I did understand. 

So my excitement about this book my be as simple as emotional association; I read it when I was happy to be reading anything by Mr. King.  Some of the elements of the stories did disappoint me; but I still liked them.

I LOVE NOVELLAS!

I was first introduced to the wonderful world of Novella's with John Steinbeck's The Moon Is Down.  It was a great story -- and it was short!  As a kid in school, I was a big fan of the entire idea of a short novel.  The only problem was, the teachers wanted us to read those short novels faster.  The short novel was far better than the chopped novel -- parts of novels all cut up in "reader" textbooks.  Who wants to read the Readers Digest version of Great Expectations?

Novella's are often written in a big burst of energy.  They are just short novels that feel like the author is exploding all over the page!  It seems like you can sometimes feel the writers raw energy as he works, pressing an idea forward as if he is about to get run over by a train.

Animal Farm has been inflicted on numerous school children -- and for good reason!  Orwell tells his story with that raw energy of an idea being hammered out.  The story is a parable of government and power; how those promising to help  the underdog quickly use power to get special privileges.  Animal Farm is more than a Social Studies lesson, it's brilliant writing.  Farm Animals plot the overthrow of a farmer; I thought it was a great story!

My favorite King novella is THE MIST.  Again, you can feel King's energy flowing as he writes.  He is driven by a story that has to get out, and quick.  In fact, he doesn't even have  time to end it! So it's not processed through deeply -- it's just gutted out.  But sometimes what we find when a writer just goes with a story is delightful.  I kind of like those  paperback editions of The Mist that appeared in bookstores to promote the movie.  Something about seeing it all by itself -- kinda naked -- was great.  It didn't need all those other stories crowding around, it was ready to stand on its own two feet!

My favorite novella's:
  • A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens (But no more movies, please)
  • Nightfall, Isaac Asmov 
  • The Time Machine, HG Wells
  • The Moon Is Down, John Steinbeck
  • Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck
  • Animal Farm, George Orwell
  • The Hound of the Baskervilles, Arthur Conan Doyle
The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury exists in some strange world of novel/short novel/book of short stories.  What is it?  All the stories make a novel.  But not a long novel.  The narrative flow is uneven, but beautiful.  What is this thing? -- it's just Bradbury being wonderful.

Really, story length should not matter.  Often I don't know what a book is!  Is Joyland a novel  or a novella?  I dunno.  I guess you could do a word count, but in the end, does it really matter?  Nope.

Good Sequels



In an interview with EW, Stephen King said one of his hesitations about doing a sequel to the Shining is that "most sequels really suck."  He gives only two exceptions: Huckleberry Finn  and the Godfather II.

Do you agree?  I'm not sure I do.  I think sometimes a story is better as it continues because the writer is in familiar territory and is working to their strengths.

Here are a few sequels that did not suck:
1. The Drawing of the Three, Stephen King
2. Odyssey, Holmer (The Illiad)
3. World Without End, Ken Follett (Pillars of the Earth)
4. The Empire Strikes Back, Glut/Lucas (Star Wars)
5. Piercing The Darkness, Frank Peretti (This Present Darkness)
6. Return of Sherlock Holmes, Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)
7. Catching Fire, Suzanne Collins (Hunger Games)
8. Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter)
9. Patriot Games, Tom Clancy (The Hunt For Red October)
10. Leaving Cold Sassy Tree, Olive Anne Burns (Cold Sassy Tree)
11. The Two Towers, Tolkien (The Fellowship Of The Ring)
(I have not read Talisman or Blackhouse)

Many famous writers have actually resisted the temptation to go back  and write sequels.  Charles Dickens and John Steinbeck to name two. I also notice that John Grisham also does not do a lot of  sequels.

I think King may feel some pain when it comes to sequels, since his own works have had to endure  the likes of Return to Salem's Lot, Firestarter II and all those dreadful Children of the Corn movies.

George Beahm once said that  Eyes of the Dragon deserved a sequel.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:
1. What is your favorite sequel?
2. What Stephen King book would you like him to write a sequel  to?

Batman #400: BATMAN or SUPERMAN



REPOST: IN HONOR OF BATMAN, DARK KNIGHT RISING COMING OUT TODAY

Batman #400 was issued October, 1986.  It features a special introduction by Stephen King.  King's topic of choice. . . Batman or Superman.

This special introduction its on inside front and inside back covers.  

QUESTIONS THAT MATTER:

King writes: "When I was a kid there were certain questions which came up and had to be answered. . . or at least aired, if finding a conclusive answer proved impossible.

He then offers us a quick list of questions that had to be answered:
  • Whether or not Don Larsen's World series no-hitter was skill, fate, or just dumb luck.
  • What was at the center of golf balls.  
  • Why all the Disney characters wore gloves.
  • Was there such a thing as a complete set of green Davy Crockett trading cards.  King writes, "The red ones were easy, but the green ones were weirdly scarce."
  • Here's one I've given some time to: Would you come out in China upside down i it was really possible to dig all the way through the earth to the other side.  (And, may I add. . . at what point are you upside down?)
"These were questions asked and answered after you were too tired to swim out to the raft anymore and had to crash out on the beach, or when you were walking home from the baseball field in summer's sweet dusk with your feet burning inside your sneakers, or before you fell asleep on camp-outs."
Of course, this is exactly what we are treated to in the movie Stand By Me.  Questions kids ponder.  And. . . if Mickey is a mouse, Pluto is a dog. . . what's Goofy? 

And then there was this question: Who do you like better, Superman or Batman?

Before I tell you King's preference -- I took an unofficial poll.  I discovered a little generation gap.  Teens and adults pretty quickly choose Batman.  Children were divided, but Superman was still pretty popular with the kiddos.  We, it turns out, are a house divided!  The nine year old was offended anyone would think Batman was better than Superman.  She had not considered that anyone might hold a varying opinion.

King's vote: Batman.  (Come on, no surprise there, right?  He's writing the intro in the Batman comic.  I guess he would have had to do some more soul searching if D.C. had asked him to write an introduction!)

He assures us that he still "digs" Superman, because he's the "good" guy.  However, King explains that Superman is a little removed from the rest of us.  He can't be beat!  There's Kryptonite, even red and yellow Kryptonite, but "Batman was just a guy.  A rich guy, yes.  A strong guy, granted.  a smart guy, you bet.  But. . . he couldn't fly.  I think that formed my preference more than anything else."

FLIGHT: 

King discusses the first Superman movie, and the tagline, "You'll Believe A Man can Fly."  He didn't!  He didn't believe it in the movie or the comic books.  "Ironically, the closest I ever came to believing it was in the TV series."  Interesting!  I love that old TV series.  And so do my kids.  We've watched them all, over and over.  "DON'T CALL ME CHIEF!"

King says the Batman TV show was "unpleasantly campy."  I must agree!  I saw it recently, and it pained me.  But, the actors were awesome.  They were trying to make it feel like a comic book; but in that vein, the Dick Tracy movie leads the pack, I think. 
"But when Batman swung down into the Joker's hideout on a rope or stopped The Penguin from dropping Robin into a bucket of boiling hog-fat with a well-thrown Batarang, I believed.  These were not likely things, I freely grand you that, but they were possible things.  I could believe in a Caped Crusader who swung on ropes, threw boomerangs with deadly accuracy, and drove like Richard Petty getting a pregnant woman to the hospital." 
(He also says he had trouble believing in Super-breath.)

SHERLOCK HOLMES

Batman, King explains, really was a detective.  
"He had to be a detective.  He couldn't rely on super-breath to return Gotham city to its proper place after the crime had happened; he had to catch The Riddler or whomever the villain might be before he could jump start those nuclear jets.  Like Sherlock Holmes, Batman looked at the tracks the crooks left; he took finger prints; he picked up hairs from the scene of the crime and took testimony.  He kept files -- also a la Homes -- on the modus operandi of various criminals. He searched for patterns, knowing -- as all the great detectives have -- that if a pattern can be found, you can be there waiting for the criminal at his next stop."
THE DARK SIDE

So what's really up, Mr. King?  What's the bottom line?  

"Maybe the real reason that Batman appealed to me more than the other guy: There was something sinister about him.  That's right.  you heard me.  Sinister."

And this is where the article gets real sweet, my friends.  Because, remember, I love old radio, right?  And King now compares Batman to The Shadow.  I loved the shadow! 

Batman, King says, is like a vampire -- because he is a creature of the night.  All the more a comparison, as we now know that Superman gets his power from our sun.  Thus, making Superman all the more a day creature, and Batman a night creature!
"Oh, yeah, you saw him fighting crime in the day once in a while, but mostly he was a shape in the shadows or a grim-faced man-thing crashing through a window at some small hour of the morning, his cape floating around him like a great shadow.  In those Batman-busts-in-panels, you almost always saw a horrid species of fear on the faces of the hoods he was about to flush down the toilet, and I always flet a strong sense of identity with those expressions.  yeah, I thought (and still do think), sitting under a tree in our backyard, or maybe in the tub, or on the john (or, as a kid, under the covers with a flashlight).  Yeah, that's right, they should look scared, I'd sure be scared if something like that busted in one me.  I'd be scared even if I wasn't doing something wrong."
As if to give great credibility to this line of argument, the last page of the comic -- the page facing this exposition of Batman, is a series of night scenes,w tih Batman's cape wavering around him.  The Bat signal flashes in the sky. . .
"The night was his time; the shadows were his place; like the bat from which he took his name, he saw with his hands and feet and ears.  as Bruce Wayne, he was cheerful poshy, full of savoir faire and bonhomie, a fellow easily imagined in front of the fire in his book-line library with a balloon glass of brandy and a bowl of Cheez Doodles near at hand.  But when the Bat-Signal floated against one of Gotham's skyscrapers (or perhaps the underside of a handy passing cloud) a grim and unsmiling creature emerged from the Bat-Cave.  You could shoot him and he would bleed. . . you could crank him a good one on the head and he would fold up (at least for a while ). . . but you could never, never stop him."
STEPHEN KING CONGRATULATES BATMAN

King closes by noting that Batman was on the rise (1986) and he writes:
"I'd like to congratulate the Caped Crusader on his long and valiant history, thank him for the hours of pleasure he has given me, and wish him many more years of heroic crime-busting. 
Go get'em, Big Guy.  May your Bat-Signal never fall, your Batmobile never run out of the nuclear pellets it runs on your utility belt never come up fatally under-stocked at the wrong moment. 
And please, never come busting through my skylight int he middle of the night.  You'd probably scare me into a brain hemorrhage. . . and besides, Big Guy, i'm on your side.
I always was.
--Stephen King"
That's nice, it's really really nice.  Even sweet.  

I'll weigh in on my opinion -- Batman or Superman -- in the comments section, and invite you to do the same.

Question is: WHO DO YOU PREFER, BATMAN OR SUPERMAN?