Stephen King and the End of the World

By Brandon Engel

When it comes to book-to-film adaptations, Stephen King doesn’t really have a consistent track record. Some film adaptations are awful and some are great. With anticipation building for the release of the film Cell with John Cusack, and murmurs about a new film series based on The Stand, one wonders how these new films will measure up against older film/tv adaptations of King’s dystopian stories.

You might remember the TV miniseries adaptation of the "The Stand" which debuted in 1994. It was based on a novel by King from 1978, which told the story of a weaponized version of the flu that escapes from a government lab, and it wipes out most of humanity, except for a few people scattered throughout the United States. In the TV adaptation, these survivors are portrayed by famous performers: “Nick Andros,” a deaf man from Arkansas, was played by Rob Lowe, and “Frannie Goldsmith,” a Maine teenager played by Molly Ringwald. The survivors start to have visions of either the kindly “Mother Abagail,” played by Ruby Dee, or the demonic “Randall Flagg,” played by Jamey Sheridan. Survivors are told to travel to Nebraska to meet Mother Abagail, or to go to Las Vegas to join Flagg.

The eight hour “Stand” miniseries is faithful to the over 1,000 page book, but it is more similar to the earlier abridged version that was released in the seventies than the complete, uncut edition that Doubleday published in 1990. The A.V. Club said in its review that the miniseries reduced the story to a simple-minded duel between good and evil, without the complex nuances of the book.

Entertainment Weekly offered a somewhat backhanded compliment, stating that the "Stand" miniseries was a "sheer messy sprawl" in the most affectionate way a critic can say that sort of thing. In this writer’s humble opinion? The TV miniseries has not aged well. The music, the special effects, and even the actors chosen seem a little dated and cheesy.

Speaking of dated and cheesy: you might also recall an Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle based on a book that  was attributed, not to King directly, but to King’s nome-de-plume, Richard Bachman. The novel was, of course, “The Running Man,” which “Bachman” wrote in 1982. The novel talks about a man named Ben Richards, who lives in the middle of the United States in the year 2025. The world economy has collapsed, and the general public is demoralized. Richards has a daughter who is violently ill. Because he lacks the finances to pay for her medical treatments, he agrees to participate in a new TV program entitled “The Running Man,” which is sort of like American Gladiators, but infinitely more barbaric.

Contestants on the program try to evade “hunters” — hitmen who are employed to track contestants down, and snuff them out. Contestants win money for every hour they stay alive, plus money for every hunter they manage to kill themselves, plus a billion dollars if they make it for a whole month without getting caught.

When producers approached King with the desire to turn the novel into a film, King insisted that the story be credited to Bachman. The film (released in 1987) starred Arnold Schwarzenegger as Ben Richards, and the story was changed. In King’s novel, Richards was an impotent civilian acting out of desperation for the sake of his family. In the feature film, Richards is a former police officer who is wrongfully accused of killing civilians. He is put in prison, but manages finds a way out when he is invited to compete on “The Running Man.”

According to Roger Ebert, "The Running Man" film felt sort of like a videogame or a comic book for the big screen. The film is repetitive, highly stylized, and heavy-handed, but still manages to capture some of the cynical satire of King’s novel. Regardless, ultimately, the film shares many weaknesses with the TV adaptation of “The Stand” — it’s overwrought with dated cliches, and it featured a lot of dubious casting choices.

The bad news? Dystopian fiction is easy to sell to people. It doesn’t even have to be especially well-written (just think about “The Hunger Games” or “Divergent” series). Perhaps part of the reason why there are so many dystopian novels and films in the first place. While King’s dystopian novels are well constructed, bad things happen to these stories when producers get their hands on them. The film studios pander to the audience, and what results are subpar films that look even more ridiculous over time. Cell will be, in its own way, capitalizing on the popularity of the zombie craze. The unlikely pairing of Samuel L. Jackson and John Cusack is also worrisome. Cell will probably not be a very good movie. Hopefully, I’ll be proven wrong on this point.

The good news? There are Stephen King film adaptations that were pretty great, such as The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, which still air regularly on satellite TV networks (more info here). For every thirty crumby Stephen King derivative films, maybe one or two will be truly excellent. Such is life.

If King Had Written Poltergeist

10,000 Magazines, #9992
Forrest J. Aackerman's Monster Land, April 1985 

Monster Land is -- well, the best.  I love it!  Forrest J. Ackerman was an early fan and collector of old horror props.

Magazine's are like time capsules  Locked in the pages are reviews and all kinds of cultural references.  There was a completely new Godzilla, and an article on the popular scifi television series "V."  It was actually dreadfully bad, but when I was a kid I liked it.

Charles Grant's interview with King is a great peek in a young Stephen King.  they discuss Tabitha King's writing, King's book Danse Macabre and Creepshow.  The  discussion also turns to what is now well worn ground: The Kubrick version of The Shining.

Grant also asked King if he would like to adapt one of his own works, and specifically asks about The Stand.  King quickly responds with a hearty, "No."  Interesting, since King did write the script for the mini-series of The Stand. "I'd like to do another feature," King says.  "something long.  God help me, I'd even like to do a novel for television.  Everyone has their own sword planted int eh sand and they go by it twice a day and say, Sooner or later I must rush on that sword; disembowel myself.  I think that's mine."

King goes on to say that he's convinced that network tv is still viable.  And he's stuck to that conviction, sans Under The Dome.  But then things get interesting as King begins to imagine the Dukes of Hazard as a horror flick.  "If you give somebody enough time and get the audience involved in the characters, you can scare people," King said. "You could even scare people over programs like The Dukes of Hazard if you could kill off one of those creepy kids.  Can you imagine the reaction of all those nerdy 11 or 12 year-olds sitting in front of their tvs watching The Dukes of Hazard and some 10 wheeler comes and just rams those duke boys right down!

When asked if there is a particular director he'd like to work with, King names Spielberg.  'i think that would be fun," King said.  "I came very, very close to writing Poltergeist."  WOE!  i wish the interview had backed up at that point for some more info, because that movie was SCARY!  And, not to mention there was that nasty creepy awful clown in Poltergeist.  I wonder what the movie would have been like with a King script.  Personally, I think I'm glad King didn't write that script.

King also says he would have liked to have worked with Don Siegel, the guy who did the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  Which, by the way, is on Netflix this October.

Stephen King, 1985

Here  are some of my favorite bits of the interview:

Grant: would you like to direct?
King: I'd like to do it once.  I've always had the feeling i could probably do a horror picture and scare people.  But that is yet to be proven.  There comes a moment when you're writing, that you see something some other writer has done and been paid for and you say, "I know I an do better than that!"  i don't know that I could do better than anybody else but sometimes I'd like to try it.  I think it would be possible to really give people the tremors, send them out of the theater straight to an ambulance.

Grant: Which of your stories is your favorite?
King: Think my favorite novel is still Salem's Lot in terms of the way it makes me feel.  I don't think it's the best but it's my favorite.  As far as short stories are concerned, I like the grizzly ones best.  however,r the story Survivor Type goes a little bit too far even for me.  After 4 years of fruitless efforts to get the thing published, Charlie Grant bought the story.

Grant: Do you really think that story is funny?
King: I think it's hilarious!  A guy cuts himself up and eats himself, piece by piece.  It's the grossest thing you've read!
Grant: Why did I buy that?
King: You bought ti because of King's name!

Has The 1994 Miniseries THE STAND stood the test of time?

Stephen King's novel, The Stand, has made a lasting impact on American culture.  I suspect it will be read and reread for many decades to come.  But what about the 1994 miniseries directed  by a King favorite, Mick Garris?  Will it stand the test of time?

avclub.com's Emily L. Stephens posted an article  titled, " 1994’s The Stand does not stand the test of time."

I'll list Stephen's concerns in a simple list format, as her article is long and pretty detailed.  The quotes are from the article:

1. The Stand is locked in the time it was filmed in.  

"Everything from casting choices to wardrobe to musical cues cements The Stand firmly in the mid-’90s, sacrificing any timelessness in favor of an already dated sensibility. It’s not the self-aware frolic of Clueless or the drab naturalism of Office Space. This is 1994 as an ’80s hangover, complete with former members of the Brat Pack and an 8-year-old Top 10 hit already milked for nostalgia."

2. The acting is bad.

"It doesn’t help that the performances are so flat."  She specifically picks on Ruby Dee, who is "hampered by King's tics of dialogue."  And Jamey Sheridan's portrayal of Randall Flagg, who she finds far too affable.   

Wait -- she ain't done.  There is discussion on Rob Low (who I thought was great in this film), but she calls "inept at expressing inner life through gesture and expression."

Of course, she gives kuddos to Gary Sinise's portral of Stu and is silent -- and then moves on to Frannie; who mostly gets knocks for her wardrobe.  "Frannie’s endless assortment of distinctively ’90s floral dresses highly unsuitable for a post-apocalyptic road trip--"  I didn't notice!

3. The miniseries took the book to literal:

In the miniseries, this metaphorical hand of God becomes literal, its massive glowing fingers wrapping themselves around the A-bomb to spark the obliteration of the city, to kill Flagg and his disciples, and to dismantle all the stakes established in the story so far. This burst of micromanaging by God undermines the gravity and compassion of the protagonists by making their path a sure and holy one, rather than a journey of agonizing doubt.

Wait a minute. . . in the book it was not a "metaphorical hand of God" -- it was literal.  And I know the script got it right, because King wrote the script.

4. The Stand fails to make the needed point: 

Stephen King’s script wipes out the point he built up so potently in the book: that ordinary people might gravitate toward Flagg for complex, even sympathetic reasons—a craving for order in the post-plague chaos, the lure of structured society that values their skills and dedication, the belief that they’re helping to re-establish discipline and law—and that, once having found their place in that well-ordered society, they’re resistant to challenge or change. It’s an unsubtle but trenchant critique of middle-class comforts and the seductive ease of hypocrisy.

Oh -- that was the point?  I've been reading the Stand wrong all these years.  I thought the point was: Faith must be tested.  Evil is real, and good is real; but good cannot simply count on God to fight evil, as moral beings we must also be willing to take our stand against wickedness.  But hey, maybe I'm wrong. But honestly, her description of The Stand's purpose reads more like Needful Things.

Two quotes from A Face Among The Masters:

King might not have angels and demons duking it out, like in This Present Darkness, but the spiritual warfare is still very real in The Stand. (Gardner, Brighton, Stephen King A Face Among The Masters)

In 2008, King told novelist John Marks in Salon magazine that The Stand was his attempt to give God his due. “Too often, in novels that are speculative, God is a kind of kryptonite, and that’s about all that it is, and it goes back to Dracula, where someone dumps a crucifix in Count Dracula’s face, and he pulls away and runs back into his house. That’s not religion,” King told Marks. “That’s some kind of juju, like a talisman. I wanted to do more than that. I wanted to explore what that means to be able to rise above adversity by faith, because it’s something most of us do every day.” He then said that he wanted The Stand to “be a God trip.”

MSN Looks At Stephen King TV The Good And The Really Bad

MSN Entertainment reports that  Under The Dome came out swinging, coming out as the second-highest rated drama debut this year (per Nielsen).  

The article, by Barbara Card Atkinson, goes on to discuss the good and the bad of Stephen King TV.

I found this note on The Dead Zone series interesting:

They did this one right, too -- at least for a while. The series starred Anthony Michael Hall as a psychic loner, and the series premiere broke records for the USA Network at the time, attracting 6.4 million viewers. The series ran six seasons, but viewer numbers had dropped enough that a seventh season was abandoned with no series finale. 

Reading the lists of Good and Worst -- I found out I like a lot of Stephen King TV that no one else does.  I thought both the Tommyknockers  and The Shining were great.  The Tommyknockers felt a bit soap operish at times and too closed in -- things Under  The Dome has avoided thus far -- but I still  like the story.  Oh, and the spaceship in Tommyknockers was a disappointment.  But that moment when the kid does a magic trick and makes his brother disappear. . . and then can't bring him back! -- that was great television.

I also liked the 2002 Carrie a lot. I thought it managed to bring new ideas to the story while remaining pretty faithful to the book.

I do think this note  on Bag of Bones was insightful on Atkinson's part:

"This miniseries ran three hours, which might have been an hour too long, or several hours too short. More time would have allowed for better character development; less time might have forced a much-needed pace tightening."

And also Atkinson gives this interesting explanation to the mediocre  response to The Shining miniseries, "it was another case where the novel was so dense with backstory and internal experiences (and audiences missing those creepy twins and bloody elevators) that it couldn't be roundly brought to the screen."

When it comes to The Shining, I've hoped for a directors cut that would restore some scenes that Garris cut out.

Even with a love  for bad Stephen King television -- I cannot offer and defense for The Langoliers.

THE GOOD:
IT
THE STAND
SALEM'S LOT
THE DEAD ZONE

THE WORST:
THE SHINING.
THE TOMMYKNOCKERS
STORM OF THE CENTURY
CARRIE
SOMETIMES THEY COME BACK
ROSE RED
THE LANGOLIERS
NIGHTMARES & DREAMSCAPES
BAG OF BONES

The Stand Journal 7: The Walking Dead

Reading the Stand again is like driving down a long road you've been over before.  The first time you were very focused on getting to the right destination.  But when you take the trip again, you see things you previously overlooked.  There are stretches of road that are not as interesting because you know them so well.  And then there are spots in the road you don't remember at all.

TWISTER!

The journey the major characters take is pretty familiar to me. Larry and Rita, Harold and Fran and even the early parts of Tom and Nick.  But then there is a story in the Tom and Nick episode I had completely forgotten.  In fact, I wonder if I ever read it at all!  I know I read the novel in High School.  And read it a couple times abridged.  I thumbed through the first edition of The Stand and found that the Twister is not there.  It was cut!  Or, perhaps King added it brand new to the revised edition. Either way, it is unique to the Complete and Uncut story.  It certainly spooks things up!

Soon after Nick meets Tom a Tornado descends and Tom goes running for his life.  Nick soon follows, and quickly takes refuge in a storm cellar.  Only, they aren't alone.  There is a "family" of "rat gnawed corpses" down there.  I like this set up, since they can't run away!  Usually in a scary story you think, "Just move!  Who hands out with a creepy corpse!"  (Take Amityville Horror for instance.  When the door comes open and a deep voice says, "GET OUT!"  You should move.  That's the clue that things aren't going to go well.)  But Tom and Nick can't get out, because the storm cellar is their only hope of surviving the twister.

But more is down there than just the corpses.  It is something they feel.  An evil that came out of the twister.

as the time passed, he became convinced that he and Tom were not alone in the storm cellar. (422) . . .
What he felt was the presence of another being, and he became more and more convinced who—or what—it was. It was the dark man, the man who came to life in his dreams, the creature whose spirit he had sensed in the black heart of the cyclone. (422)

Later, Tom acknowledges that he also sensed the evil presence.

“Someone was in there,” Tom said abruptly. . . 

. . . “No,” Tom said. “Not just us. Someone else. Someone who cameout of the twister.”

That's good!  Really good.  The scenes with Nick and Tom are some of the best.  Nick often picks up on things that seem quite unlikely -- but as a reader I'm willing to give Mr. King a pass on that.  Nick seems able to read lips as easily as we might read a book.  I'm not sure lip reading is that easy.  But, there has to be some means of communication to move the story forward.  I give King high marks for daring to use a character  who is both deaf and mute.

COACH!
In the Mick Garris miniseries, Tom Cullen is played by Bill Fagerbakke, who was Dauber on Coach.  Now it's hard to watch Coach reruns and not see Tom.  Of course,  he's also Patrick on SpongeBob SquarePants.

Walking Dead:

I also noticed several times that King used the word, "The walking dead" in The Stand.  This is a reference of a vision Larry had in the tunnel.  Here's one reference:

It was the devil, and he was stalking Larry with a lightless grin frozen on his face. The black man wasn’t the walking dead; he was worse than the walking dead. Larry ran with the slow sludgy panic of bad dreams, tripping over unseen corpses, knowing they were staring at him with the glassy eyes of stuffed trophies from the crypts of their cars, which had stalled inside the frozen traffic even though they had some other place to be, he ran, but what good was running when the black devil man, the black magic man, could see in the dark with eyes like snooperscopes? (439)

Check this out from Stephen King's website/message board: "The Walking Dead is in the middle of it's 3rd season. It's my favorite show currently on TV. But I can't escape the thought that it resembles The Stand in more than one way. Society has been wiped out by a flu and the dictator of the evil people, The Governor seems to me to be Randall Flagg lite." (stephenking.com)

Movies That Represent The Book Well

One of the things the producers of the upcoming Carrie movie have emphasized is that they are not so much remaking the original Carrie as they are doing a new interpretation of the book itself.  Some movies don't do much more than offer a title similar to the book, while others hold tight to the characters, tone and themes we've came to love as readers.

A really good movie will  make you want to read the book.  (With the exception, for me at least, of Les Miserables.)

Here are some King movies that represented the book well:

• The Mist
• Cujo
• Pet Sematary
• Shawshank Redemption
• The Stand
• The Green Mile
• Stand By Me
• Secret Window 
• Salem's Lot
• Dolores Claiborne
• The Dark Half
• Misery
• The Dead Zone

A couple of these on the list might need a defense.  I thought Salem's Lot (the original mini-series) was scary and pretty true to the tone of the  book.  I thought the screen adaptation of Secret Window actually made great improvements on the plot and structure of the story itself.  It was better on film than was my reading experience.  

I think The Stand gave the movie a good representation.  The plot was largely intact, and the characters similar to what I imagined.  With the strong exception of  Franny!  I would love to see a theater version of The Stand, but that in no way detracts from the excellent mini-series directed by Mick Garris. 

Neither version of The Shining captured the sense of the novel, either in intensity or sheer spookiness.  I think King was right to say that the Kubrick version wasn't "His (King's)" story; however, the King version also failed to quite capture the magic the book possessed.  

Some movies actually detract from the book, making you think, "I have no desire to spend another moment in this creation!"  Thinner comes to mind.  Often King's longer works do not translate well to film.  IT was a wonderful try, but it fizzled when we actually came to the crucial scenes.  I loved  the scenes with the kids -- but the adults were unconvincing.  I think the scene with Bev and Pennywise is brilliant.  

I really wanted to like Firestarter.  Many of the scenes from the book are in the movie.  However, it just  doesn't feel like it's the same story.  Same is true of Christine -- which I really want to like.  I think I have a love hate relationship with the film.  It should be awesome, but it's just okay.  Sometimes okay is just fine.  Still, the book was great, and the film isn't.  

Some movies involve such deep changes that they have little in common with the book itself.  Such is the case with Needful Things, Children of the Corn, Lawnmower Man, Dream-catcher   

Erik Lundegaard at MSN writes, "Any time Stephen King's name is above the title, like "Stephen King's Silver Bullet"? Well, that's not a movie you're going to hear about at Oscar time." (movies.msn.com)

And some projects aren't based on a book.  Aren't you glad there's no Sleepwalkers to feel guilty about not reading? 

I know there's a lot I left out, so tell me what  movies made you want to read the book -- and which ones would cause you to keep those books crisp, clean and unread.

The Stand Remake: Body Language

Well, this is not exactly a handwriting analysis -- or a "body language" study. But let's read behind the lines of King's statements about the Stand remake.

.

Here's what I got. . .

.

1. They didn't have to get King's permission. He actually learned about it on the internet!

.

2. King suspects that people will like the mini-series better. I agree.

.

3. He doesn't think anyone can top the performance of Gary Sinise.

.

4. King liked the directing Mick Garris brought to the original mini-series.

.

5. King also thought would Rutger Hauer would do a great job as Flagg.

.

So here's the bottom line: King really thinks the mini-series hit the nail on the head. It is a faithful representation of his book, he liked the acting and directing and length. So why remake it? -- is the unspoken question.

.

I am very glad Woody Allen will not be directing it. The only Woody Allen film I liked is Radio Days. A Woody Allen Stephen King movie would be really messed up stupid.

.

Now here's a line I disagree with:

King wrote, "People who’ve seen Kubrick’s The Shining dislike the miniseries I wrote (and my amigo Mick Garris directed) even if they haven’t seen it." I've seen both, and I prefer King's adaptation. Kubrick's offering is good, but it's another story -- as King himself has said.

.

What could be good:

I'll stop harping on this someday. . . but not yet. Usually with a theatrical release the paperback edition of the book is re-released with a new cover depicting scenes or characters from the movie. And there is usually an audio release. Ah-ha! If that happened, it could be the best thing to come from the movie.

.

Now before people comment and say that you can get The Stand audio edition for free on the Internet (yes, I do delete those comments, because you are advocating something illegal), I want to simply say that I am hopeful for a LEGAL release. Too bad I have to clarify that, y'all. That some of you are downloading books illegally not only denies the artist their rightful due, it promotes sites that do naughty things to your computer.

.

Of course, The Stand has already been put on audio by Grover Gardner. But that was the abridged edition. I do not know that an unabridged reading of Revised Uncut The Stand has been done. I saw someone on eBay trying to sell the unabridged edition, recorded by a computer reading.

.

Who should read The Stand? All of the recent artist reading King's work have been great. But my favorite reader is Stephen King -- always. Now, if I'm listening to Olive Anne Burns Cold Sassy Tree, I don't know that King would be my first choice as a reader. But when reading his own work, he's awesome! My favorite was his reading of Needful things.

King: 10 Things I Know About The Stand Remake

This is an article King wrote for Entertainment weekly -- where he is affectionately known as "Uncle Stevie." Here's what King told E.W. :
.
1. No one will be able to top Gary Sinise, who played Stu Redman in the original ABC miniseries. He was perfect. When he says “You don’t know nothing” to the soldiers who are putting him under mandatory quarantine, you believe his contempt completely. My runner-up pick would be Jake Gyllenhaal.
.
2. I didn’t know anything about the remake until I read about it on the Internet.
.
3. You absolutely can’t make it as a two-hour movie. If it was a trilogy of films…maybe.
.
4. Molly Ringwald won’t be playing Fran Goldsmith this time.
.
5. Rutger Hauer is a little too old to play the Walkin’ Dude, and that’s too bad.
.
6. People who’ve seen Kubrick’s The Shining dislike the miniseries I wrote (and my amigo Mick Garris directed) even if they haven’t seen it. That’s always annoyed me. But the wheel of karma turns! This time people will probably say, “The miniseries was lots better.” BUT…
.
7. …historically speaking, movie studios blow the budget on things like this, so maybe it’ll be fun to look at. The dough certainly isn’t going to me, although if it is a trilogy, and if it makes a lot of money, I might be able to buy a chicken dinner at Popeye’s. Great slaw!
.
8. Molly Ringwald will probably not play the Trashcan Man, either, but Billy Bob Thornton would be cool. Billy Bob’s always cool.
.
9. They need to write in a lot of heavy-metal for the soundtrack.
.
10. M-O-O-N, that spells “you probably won’t see this anytime soon.” And when you do, Woody Allen won’t be directing it. Or Molly Ringwald.
.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/02/03/stephen-king-10-things-i-know-about-the-remake-of-the-stand/

Fangoria #133: The Stand

Almost as much as I love books by Stephen King, I enjoy books about Stephen King. And almost as much as I like books about Stephen King, I dig old magazines about Stephen King! Go figure, it's kinda strange.

.

I got a copy of Fangoria #133, which had as its cover feature the 1994 mini-series The Stand. In fact, there's a pretty nasty picture on the front of Flagg bearing his teeth. He won't win Miss America with that pose.

.

The articles include:

• Elegy, "The Stand Comes To New York."


• Baby, Can You Dig "The Stand"? Douglas Winter does, and finds plenty to praise in the lengthy miniseries.


• "Stand" By Your Book, after seeing dozens of his works adapted by others, Stephen King takes on the script for "The Stand" himself.

Time warp:

One of the things I like about the magazines is that it gives us King's stories in a cultural context. They act as a kind of time warp. In 1994, Clive barker was on the rise. In fact, Fangoria wrote, "If Clive Barker hasn't already staked his claim as a one-man horror/fantasy industry to rival Stephen King, then 1994 looks set to propel him into the stratosphere. No fewer than four movies are set to go before the camera's this year, plus a major eight-hour TV miniseries."

There is also a great interview with Fiath Domergue. She did a lot of 50's B-movies, including: Where danger Lives, The Duel at Silver Creek, This is My love, This Island Earth, It Came From beneath The Sea, Cult of the Cobra. This is funny, Domergue says, "House of Seven Corpses was backed by Mormons. There was always one on set making sure there was no smoking or alcohol."

Douglas E. Winter's "Television Stand-Out" piece is outstanding. Not only the article itself, but the pictures and layout are quite nice. the cover of the review looks like the cover of the Revised edition of The Stand (good fighting evil on a desert backdrop). He writes, "King and Garris wisely chose to adapt the book, not to reinvent it; because any shorter version would have required the unpalatable (and for some, heretical) act of cutting or consolidating characters, no one who has treasured Kings' novel (or, indeed who has written fiction) will fault their decision."

I must admit, my favortie thing in this magazine: The ad for life sized skulls, only $30. I'm getting up early in the morning and leaving one on my pillow, just to show my wife how much I love her.