I've been on a Stephen King binge. (1 Viewer)

[Steve Christou]

Carrie was my first Stephen King novel and still one of my favorites, I also enjoyed The Stand and The Shining. I haven't read any of his recent books. I've watched the films if that counts?

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I never read the longer version of The Stand, as I have one of the original hard cover printings. So I cannot offer much on the differences. The original story was quite long, so I cannot imagine what needed to be added -- sort of like with Peter Jackson's film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I never had a desire to watch the extended cut of that, either.


It has been many years since I read The Tommyknockers, but I remember enjoying the story. I did not realize it wasn't that well-liked.

 

[TravisR]

Count me in as another fan of The Tommyknockers. The ending doesn't work perfectly but I really liked the first 3/4 of the book or so. After finishing it, I was surprised to find out that King disliked it so much. I'm wondering if his view is tainted by having written it during what I assume was the height of his drug and alcohol problem than the book really being worse than some others.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Travis: See my earlier comment. Yes, Mr. King does dislike The Tommyknockers because of its having been written during the worst of his substance-abuse situation. Yet it sure looks as though many of his fans love the book.


Scott: I loved The Green Mile; in some ways, I think of that (eventual) novel as among Mr. King's finest. It hits all the right spots. I, however, read it all in one piece (it was serialized when my attention was elsewhere).


Steve: Readest thou the books/stories, young man. The films do not count (at least here, in this thread).


Further musings (if only to keep this going):


* Though I have read all but the first of the Dark Tower novels (still waiting for a library branch to have it), and though I like them (despite having a thing against ending a novel as a cliffhanger -- two of them end that way), and despite them being of a genre I do not like at all (the so-called quest fantasy -- and, you are right, I am not a Tolkien fan), the series is a good mix of both SF and fantasy. SF, as in the parts dealing with the city of Lud and Blain the train and the robots; fantasy, as in all other parts of the mega-opus (the magic doors, Black Thirteen, ad infinitum). Also interesting is how the series was inspired: the writer having been exposed to and therefore obsessed by the so-called spaghetti westerns.


* My favorite "Richard Bachman" novel: the "last" one, The Regulators -- perhaps because of how it ties in with Desperation. Of the earlier "Bachman" novels, I suppose I like The Long Run best (it being SF).


* I think I like Mr. King's second book about a vintage car, From a Buick 8, better than his first, Christine. In fact, Buick is yet another of the writer's forays into science fiction. But do not get me wrong, I love Christine (and, Steve, the film version of Christine actually is pretty good, though the book is much better).


* The title of Mr. King's latest book -- that short-story collection -- is The Bazaar of Bad Dreams. Very much recommended.


* Of Mr. King's two collaborations with Peter Straub (of Ghost Story fame), I like the second better, Black House.


* I appreciate Mr. King's constant recognition of other writers and their work in his own fiction. I am especially glad he likes Robert A. Heinlein's The Door Into Summer (which is my favorite Heinlein novel; we cat lovers form a closely held community).


* Again, though I enjoyed the novels overall, my two biggest disappointments of his more recent output are Cell and Insomnia. Cell seemed something of rehash for the author; Insomnia was a bit too immersed in its Dark Tower background to be enjoyable on its own by someone who is not familiar with the series.


* Of his two forays into writing as a topic, I prefer 1981's Dance Macabre to his On Writing, perhaps because of the former's immersion in so many aspects of the genres of horror, fantasy, and science fiction.


Now I turn the thread back over to all of you. ...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

We've got some snow in NYC, and since I work weekends and am deemed "essential" personnel at work, I've got to stay in a hotel instead of getting a snow day -- I've taken this opportunity to download "Bazaar Of Bad Dreams" on my Kindle and will check it out when I get back to the room. For some reason, I really really enjoy reading King's short stories when staying at a hotel, the atmosphere is somehow just right.

 

[Charles Smith]

Did somebody say 1408?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Did somebody say 1408?

So last summer, I ended up visiting Boston, and stayed at the Boston Omni Parker House Hotel - as I was looking up fun facts before the trip, I discovered that it was that hotel that was the basis for 1408. King moved the city to New York, but it was that hotel. The legend for the actual hotel had one room on the third floor being the uber haunted room, and then the ghost of the hotel's founder, Harvey Parker, has apparently been seen on the eighth floor asking guests if they've enjoyed their stay. I went by the room on the third floor that was supposed to be haunted (legend has it that they don't rent it out), and I could swear I saw a twinkle of light ever so briefly coming from the peephole on the door, but I can't swear to it - and nothing on the eighth floor. Although when I snuck up there, there was a bellman waiting to use the elevator going down and I must've jumped ten feet when I saw him as the door opened, just was not expecting that. So I had my fun, and of course, had to re-read that story while I was staying there. My fiance fell asleep while I was reading, but before she did, she warned me, "If you get yourself scared reading that, do not wake me up with your nightmares!"


Hotel was nice, trip was fun, location was great, I'd definitely recommend it. And the story is fantastic. Movie isn't bad either, but doesn't quite sustain the creepy in the way the story does.

 

[Jack Briggs]

That is a nice and interesting story. And now, for further musings:


* I agree with Stephen King that his novel, Rose Madder, is one in which he is "trying too hard." My own opinion is that while it is good that he was making a statement on domestic violence, I feel that his heroine was sometimes depicted a bit too much as a damsel in distress. Does anyone agree with that? Yet, despite the novel's weaknesses, I still enjoyed it. There is something about Mr. King's way with writing that holds my interest no matter what. The closest I can compare him with is, and I mention the man yet again, Robert A. Heinlein -- not by any means the greatest writer of science fiction but certainly its most important author (who always manages to be entertaining).


* We know that Stephen King loves baseball, especially how the game was once played (that is, up until the late fifties). So, has anyone here read his novella Blockade Billy? If not, try to find it in its by-itself volume, with the excellent illustrations.


* I mistakenly referred to a Bachman novel of his as The Long Run. My bad. It is The Long Walk. Similarly, I misspelled the name "Dolores" when referring to one of his novels that I have yet to locate in a library branch here in Los Angeles (i.e., Dolores Claiborne).


* His recent novel Revival is yet another story of his that is tied in with The Dark Tower cycle. Though I think it, too, is another trying-too-hard work, the novel somehow, well, works. It demonstrates, too, Mr. King's ongoing obsession with an afterlife, though in his (relatively) recent Rolling Stone interview he still states he cannot say whether he believes in an afterlife. Again, I have to respect his honesty.


* In my opinion, Stephen King absolutely trounces Anne Rice, who I simply cannot read any longer (her prose style, for one thing, is too sloppy -- too, too many back-to-back sentences that begin with "And" and "But" on a single page, for one thing). Her tales take so many liberties to the point where one cannot suspend disbelief and enjoy them; whereas Mr. King, as I said earlier, draws the reader in (seemingly without effort). If one were to classify Stephen King as a "horror writer," he is without peer in the modern era (though Mr. King might point to Richard Matheson to disagree with me).


Any opinions, folks?

 

[Sam Posten]

What moron thought putting 11/22/69 on Hulu only would actually work? I am a huuuuuge fan of this book but no way am I subscribing to Hulu just to see it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I haven't gotten to Rose Madder, Billy Blockade or the early Bachman novels yet. I fully intend to, just haven't had a chance yet.


I think it's interesting that we've got such a different take on Revival. To me, it's the scariest thing he's done in ages. That book gave the creeps the way reading Pet Semetary and It did. I raced through it last fall; I think I finished it in less than a week, possibly even two or three nights.


This may come as a surprise, but I'm actually not that well versed in horror novels in general. It's my least favorite film genre, so I guess that carried over a little bit with my reading choices. Other than King, I'm not sure that I've read a horror novel by another writer as an adult. I'm not opposed to the concept, but I'd probably need a recommendation from someone or loan of a book; I don't think I'm likely to go browsing store bookshelves for horror anytime soon. One of the things I like about King is how evocative and full his writing style is. I'm not sure if I'm explaining that well, but what I mean is, in his novels, the characters seem fully developed, and the worlds he creates are so detailed that I don't feel like I'm reading a mere horror book - I feel like I'm just reading a book, and that it just so happens that things can happen in those books that couldn't in real life. But he makes the real life parts seem real enough that it doesn't feel like a genre exercise. And I like that each of his books really feels like a complete work. (Putting aside a couple cliffhangers in the Dark Tower series.) It feels like a lot of stuff I come across today, be it movies or books, are holding back, as if they're saying, "If you like this, we'll make more of the same!" instead of presenting a story with a beginning, middle and an end. When I read a King book, I don't feel that he's holding anything back.


I used to read Anne Rice; I really liked the "Interview With A Vampire" movie so I read that series up until and including "Memnoch The Devil," which I really enjoyed. The I tried reading whichever one followed that, and I just couldn't stay interested, and never finished it. I enjoyed reading Anne Rice at the time, but I can't imagine picking up another one of her books today.

 

[Malcolm R]

I agree about Anne Rice. I gave up reading her stuff years ago as her more recent writing just could no longer hold my interest, though I enjoyed many of her early Vampire and Witches novels.

Dean Koontz is another who I really loved through the 80's to early 00's, but his recent novels have really tested me.

Josh...you may enjoy Koontz from this period. They're sort of multi-genre with a mix of horror, sci-fi, drama, and bits of comedy at times. "Lightning," "Midnight," Watchers," "Strangers," were all favorites of mine. I enjoyed most everything up to "Mr. Murder," but after that he became pretty hit-or-miss. I've liked the "Odd Thomas" series and "77 Shadow Street" of his more recent output. I'm still waiting for him to finish the "Moonlight Bay" trilogy. The first two books were out in 1998 and 1999, but the third book has been in limbo ever since.

I haven't picked up most of King's recent output, either. I have "Cell", "From a Buick 8", and some others like "Lisey's Story" and "Duma Key," but haven't read them yet. Once I read what I have, I'll probably track down the newer ones.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Josh: You explained yourself quite well, in fact. I fully understand what you are saying. Also, your post demonstrates -- re Revival -- how the same novel can impress two different readers in different ways. Remember, I very much like that novel. But I feel I can pick it apart, as well.


Same with Under the Dome. Me, I enjoyed the hell out of it -- even though many of the "standard" types of King characters populate it (rough, heroic protagonist; strong-willed female lead character who also edits the local newspaper; young characters who march off into their own military-style "police department"; nasty local politician as the lead bad guy, etc., etc.). But it is what you mention about Stephen King's character development that stands out, nonetheless, and therefore we are caught up with the denizens of that bottled-up community.


I mean what I have said, though: Even with what I consider Stephen King's weaker novels (as well as short stories), I still like them. I liked Duma Key, even though I thought the sea ghosts/monsters during the climax were something of a cliché.


Also, the strengths of Stephen King's prose -- as well as the diversity of his topics -- are the chief things that make him stand out from his competitors (chiefly Anne Rice, but Dean Koontz, too). He just makes the reader too interested in what he is saying to want to put him down.


About Dean Koontz: Though his earlier novels at least held my interest, his work -- for me -- seems too in-the-moment, too bestellerish (make sense?). I feel more comfortable, believe it or not, comparing Stephen King with Joyce Carol Oates, who is considered a "serious" writer (or was, at least).

 

[sampsoninc916]

Have you been playing the Stephen King drinking game? That's been known to kill people.


Also, Do you have Prince Albert in a can? You do? Well you better let the poor guy out!! WA HA! WA HA! WA HA! WA HA!


Also, Isaac from Children of the Corn is hilariously over the top.


I clicked this topic because Nostalgia Critic reviews a Stephen King movie every Halloween.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I remember liking the Under The Dome novel - another one I raced through in an absurdly quick fashion. They really screwed up with the television adaptation. Could have been really good, but they changed too much and kept it too open ended. Some of the more loathsome characters in that book are tolerable because you know somethings gonna happen to them by the end. With the show, it felt like no one was ever gonna die as long as they were hoping for a renewal. It didn't work as an open ended story and I bailed a while ago.

That said, I'm gonna give the 11/22/63 miniseries a shot. I think that has a chance of being better because they're keeping it as a limited run. But I'm glad I read the book first!

 

[Steve Christou]

You guys might find this an interesting read, Stephen King on his 10 longest novels -


http://entertainment.time.com/2009/11/09/stephen-king-on-his-10-longest-novels/

 

[Jack Briggs]

Thank you, Steve.


And now let me try this (in a -- I hope -- not-vain attempt at keeping this discussion going): Has anyone here read Mr. King's novel of a few years back called Joyland? Has anyone here ever heard of it? It appeared as a trade paperback for a mystery-novel publisher. And, of course, the novel is a straight-up murder mystery involving a college-student protagonist and a troubled amusement park with a dark past.


I bring up the novel to build up the case that it is best not to categorize Stephen King solely as a "horror" writer. Joyland is a mystery novel with no supernatural elements, no SF elements, nor quest-fantasy elements. Yet, at the same time, it clearly is a Stephen King story, done in his unique style.


Much the same can be said of this trilogy he is finishing up in June of this year, which began with Mr. Mercedes and Finders Keepers. I say "much the same" here because, though the first two novels also are straight-up mysteries, the tail end of the second one ends on a slightly offbeat note that suggests something of the supernatural (those who have read the two books would know of which I speak).


Too, Stephen King's nonfiction books also point to the fact that he is not "just" a writer of fantastic fiction -- as was mentioned, his Boston Red Sox "dialogue" book, plus works on gargoyles in architecture and essays on gun violence and so on.


Add to that, from the standpoint of fantastic fiction, his many forays into science fiction, and, well, there you go. Just call him a versatile writer of popular fiction who occasionally touches upon the serious (whereas, pointing back to Joyce Carol Oates, you can think of her as a writer of serious fiction who occasionally touches upon the popular -- her most recent novel, for example).


Well, anyway, if anyone cares to comment upon these ramblings, please do. ...

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I love Stephen King and I love the Red Sox, but I could not get through that awful, unedited mess of a book. If I have to hear one more time about Stewart O'Nan catching a foul ball. . .

 

[Stan]

That said, I'm gonna give the 11/22/63 miniseries a shot. I think that has a chance of being better because they're keeping it as a limited run. But I'm glad I read the book first!

Do​ you know when the miniseries starts?


I'm still going through​ the novel (keep getting pulled aside by Dean Koontz stories). I don't even know when the Koontz stories were published. Some I buy new, others from friends, yard sales, whatever. He's almost as prolific as King.

Not a big winter reader, but come summer, working on the tan, I can lay out for hours, so want to finish 11/22/63 before seeing the miniseries.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think it starts on Presidents Day, so February 15 or something close to that.

 

[Stan]

I think it starts on Presidents Day, so February 15 or something close to that.

Guess I'll be reading fast or else it sits on the DVR for a while. Thanks