Monday, March 10, 2014
One more thing on Misery
What struck me on this reread as well is that Misery works in a similar way to The Eyes of the Dragon and 'Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.' In all three, someone is imprisoned and needs to escape through an elaborate plot. All three also rank among the stories that I feel are the best in SK's work. Coincidence?
Misery (aka On Writing, Version 1.0)
[I told you that would be fast....here we are, just over 24 hours later, and Misery is done]
I know that I start to sound a bit like a broken record on this blog when I go on about how you don't actually need a terrifying alien clown or a bunch of vampires invading a town or a violent writer going crazy in a hotel or whatever in most of Stephen King's horror books to create the horror. But bear with me a minute when I say that you don't actually need Annie Wilkes for Misery. Because I know that this sounds absolutely absurd from one perspective (how else would you wind up with the basic scenario?), but from another perspective, it makes complete sense to me. Sure, she is a psychopath with severe mental health issues and a penchant for the grotesque. But she is also Paul's muse, albeit something of a practical version of one. She is an editor and a facilitator for the creative process. She offers advice that might seem to stem from her naivete. However, as Paul starts to think over the advice that she has provided, he realizes that she is right: perhaps Fast Cars was not such a great project, perhaps his first draft of Misery's Return was not convincing, perhaps Annie (and therefore, perhaps readers in general) are not fooled by poor work. The perverse situation in which Paul finds himself under her care creates the almost perfect scenario for him to write; at one point, he notes that before finding himself Annie's prisoner, he would avoid writing for the most mundane reasons, like having a headache, but while he is there, he maintains a steady schedule and is productive to an unprecedented degree. He acknowledges that he plays Scherherazade both for her and for himself. So muse, editor, facilitator, Shah...call it what you will, but Annie helps Paul reach his creative potential. And when she has fulfilled this role, he kills her. LITERALLY.
Mind you, in doing so, she reveals herself to be a complete headcase, and part of what makes this novel work, I think, is Paul's reaction as her antics get further and further out of control. His near-panic when the troopers rescue him is grounded in hysteria, and rightly so. The deterioration of his body is made very obvious when the troopers are looking him over in this scene, and the reader is reminded of how visceral the experience of writing this novel has been. When the original state trooper comes out to investigate Annie's house, Paul is described as 'a man with blue eyes bulging from his white and whiskery old-man's face...staring at him from behind a window, moaning through closed lips, hands rattling uselessly on a board laid across the arms of a wheelchair' (p. 259). This is in contrast with the Paul that we hear about from before the accident, a fun-loving, free-wheeling guy who even considers picking up the attractive bank attendant before continuing on his post-book journey. Is part of this novel, then, about the fear of getting older too? That he won't be able to finish his 'great novel' not only because of Annie, but because he simply won't finish it? In the previous paragraph, before this description of Paul as old, is the following:
I realize that I am getting a bit ahead of myself here: let's go back to the title of the book, and Paul's book Misery. Misery is the main character in the novel, and perhaps it describes the entire process of writing the novel in the first place: it is misery. Misery's Return, the name of Paul's next book in the series, seems almost like a joke when considered in this context. However, with the misery, he also finds himself deeply invested in the process and the story, and ultimately he is fulfilled by the experience. Perhaps that bird from Africa that he saw as a child was not so sad after all.
I found many parallels in this novel to other Stephen King works, some of which were very weird. Like, who thought that the thumb pie from Thinner would return? Or a killer lawnmower like in 'The Lawnmower Man'? There were also a few hints of 'The Drawing of the Three,' but perhaps that is not surprising, considering how closely these two novels were written together (in fact, did you realize that King had four novels that were published in 1987 alone? Four? That is insane. And this was the year after IT). Keflex (penicillin) is featured in both novels, for instance, which is kind of weird. What really resonated with me in both novels was the imagery of the ocean coming in and out: in 'The Drawing of the Three,' this is a literal ocean, since almost the whole novel takes place on the beach. In Misery, the waves on a set of pilings was likened to the pain that Paul felt as he needed his Norvil, a pain that would then gradually abate, hiding the pilings again. King has said that this book was very much about addiction, with Annie serving as a stand-in for his own problems at the time. This time around, I actually found the addiction issue less salient; after all, Paul becomes addicted to his Norvil, but he also does need it to keep his pain at bay. By contrast, Eddie Dean in 'The Drawing of the Three' was a real addict, a person who had to be ripped out of his own world to stop using heroin (and even then still tried to trick Roland to get back). Misery, to me, felt much more like an expose on writing and how wracking the process can be--Annie Wilkes or no.
One last thought: is this the first book with no mention of the supernatural at all? Cujo didn't need any supernatural plot driver, even though there were some references to a general evil descending on the town. But that doesn't even happen in Misery: it is simply a person who is crazy. Maybe this is the first novel where King is hinting that the supernatural in his other books is something of a cover that hides what is really terrifying: everyday people who don't act as they should.
I know that I start to sound a bit like a broken record on this blog when I go on about how you don't actually need a terrifying alien clown or a bunch of vampires invading a town or a violent writer going crazy in a hotel or whatever in most of Stephen King's horror books to create the horror. But bear with me a minute when I say that you don't actually need Annie Wilkes for Misery. Because I know that this sounds absolutely absurd from one perspective (how else would you wind up with the basic scenario?), but from another perspective, it makes complete sense to me. Sure, she is a psychopath with severe mental health issues and a penchant for the grotesque. But she is also Paul's muse, albeit something of a practical version of one. She is an editor and a facilitator for the creative process. She offers advice that might seem to stem from her naivete. However, as Paul starts to think over the advice that she has provided, he realizes that she is right: perhaps Fast Cars was not such a great project, perhaps his first draft of Misery's Return was not convincing, perhaps Annie (and therefore, perhaps readers in general) are not fooled by poor work. The perverse situation in which Paul finds himself under her care creates the almost perfect scenario for him to write; at one point, he notes that before finding himself Annie's prisoner, he would avoid writing for the most mundane reasons, like having a headache, but while he is there, he maintains a steady schedule and is productive to an unprecedented degree. He acknowledges that he plays Scherherazade both for her and for himself. So muse, editor, facilitator, Shah...call it what you will, but Annie helps Paul reach his creative potential. And when she has fulfilled this role, he kills her. LITERALLY.
Mind you, in doing so, she reveals herself to be a complete headcase, and part of what makes this novel work, I think, is Paul's reaction as her antics get further and further out of control. His near-panic when the troopers rescue him is grounded in hysteria, and rightly so. The deterioration of his body is made very obvious when the troopers are looking him over in this scene, and the reader is reminded of how visceral the experience of writing this novel has been. When the original state trooper comes out to investigate Annie's house, Paul is described as 'a man with blue eyes bulging from his white and whiskery old-man's face...staring at him from behind a window, moaning through closed lips, hands rattling uselessly on a board laid across the arms of a wheelchair' (p. 259). This is in contrast with the Paul that we hear about from before the accident, a fun-loving, free-wheeling guy who even considers picking up the attractive bank attendant before continuing on his post-book journey. Is part of this novel, then, about the fear of getting older too? That he won't be able to finish his 'great novel' not only because of Annie, but because he simply won't finish it? In the previous paragraph, before this description of Paul as old, is the following:
The truth of everything was so simple in its horridness; so dreadfully simple. He was dying by inches, but dying that way wasn't as bad as he'd already feared. But he was also fading, and that was an awful thing because it was moronicThis problem of fading, this could happen at any age, to anyone. And it could suck away creative talent. In fact, the Paul described in the very final section of the book has faded. He can no longer write, he can no longer support himself (literally, in terms of mobility), he finds it hard to walk a mile, and he even cowers at his housekeeper and cat. At the end, he finds a creative spark, but just enough to get started (and to stop him from drinking so that he doesn't lose his creativity).
I realize that I am getting a bit ahead of myself here: let's go back to the title of the book, and Paul's book Misery. Misery is the main character in the novel, and perhaps it describes the entire process of writing the novel in the first place: it is misery. Misery's Return, the name of Paul's next book in the series, seems almost like a joke when considered in this context. However, with the misery, he also finds himself deeply invested in the process and the story, and ultimately he is fulfilled by the experience. Perhaps that bird from Africa that he saw as a child was not so sad after all.
I found many parallels in this novel to other Stephen King works, some of which were very weird. Like, who thought that the thumb pie from Thinner would return? Or a killer lawnmower like in 'The Lawnmower Man'? There were also a few hints of 'The Drawing of the Three,' but perhaps that is not surprising, considering how closely these two novels were written together (in fact, did you realize that King had four novels that were published in 1987 alone? Four? That is insane. And this was the year after IT). Keflex (penicillin) is featured in both novels, for instance, which is kind of weird. What really resonated with me in both novels was the imagery of the ocean coming in and out: in 'The Drawing of the Three,' this is a literal ocean, since almost the whole novel takes place on the beach. In Misery, the waves on a set of pilings was likened to the pain that Paul felt as he needed his Norvil, a pain that would then gradually abate, hiding the pilings again. King has said that this book was very much about addiction, with Annie serving as a stand-in for his own problems at the time. This time around, I actually found the addiction issue less salient; after all, Paul becomes addicted to his Norvil, but he also does need it to keep his pain at bay. By contrast, Eddie Dean in 'The Drawing of the Three' was a real addict, a person who had to be ripped out of his own world to stop using heroin (and even then still tried to trick Roland to get back). Misery, to me, felt much more like an expose on writing and how wracking the process can be--Annie Wilkes or no.
One last thought: is this the first book with no mention of the supernatural at all? Cujo didn't need any supernatural plot driver, even though there were some references to a general evil descending on the town. But that doesn't even happen in Misery: it is simply a person who is crazy. Maybe this is the first novel where King is hinting that the supernatural in his other books is something of a cover that hides what is really terrifying: everyday people who don't act as they should.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
'The Drawing of the Three'
So as you may recall, I was not such a fan of 'Gunslinger' when I reread it, and I was so disappointed that I sought out the old version of it (instead of the revised one) to see if I liked it better. I was slightly trepidatious that I wouldn't enjoy this book either, even though I remembered it being pretty engaging the first time that I read the Dark Tower series--as you may recall, I was also down for the count with some kind of flu or something, so my judgment may have been skewed. However, I still enjoyed it. It was a very quick read, as I started it Friday night and by Sunday morning, I had it done, even though I lost an hour in there to Daylight Savings (during this same weekend, I helped in a rescue effort for two bunnies, attended a very long and not great baseball game, drove around numerous locales in the greater Fort Myers area, and listening to a chunk of Berg's Lulu. As you do).
I was somewhat surprised as the proportions of this one, as I thought for some reason that Jake showed up again and kept wondering if SK was going to cover that in one paragraph or something. My bad. Not this book, the next book. And while I did enjoy the section where Eddie Dean was brought into Roland's world (it's really great!), knowing the outcome of Odetta/Detta somehow made it slightly less compelling this time around. That being said, I did enjoy the reread, and I think the book in general makes a lot of sense within SK's works of this time.
First, you have drug addiction, which will be a significant theme in the next two books: Misery and Tommyknockers. Misery I know well and love; Tommyknockers I vaguely remember not enjoying whatsoever, but I think it's still about addiction from what I recall. So I guess this is SK's druggie phase, which, if I had to put a limit on it, I would say started around Christine and ends around Tommyknockers. This seems about right, as it appears that the King family intervention to get SK sober happened right after this novel.
Second, you have SK, known as the master of horror, etc....... branching out to something new with both Eyes of the Dragon and 'The Drawing of the Three.' Let's bear in mind that 'The Gunslinger' was not a huge success when it was published, so he was leaving horror in pursuing this project. And 'The Drawing of the Three' is a novel that crams in an awful lot of stuff. It has fantasy, a mob scene, a heist movie, some kind of psychological thriller, family drama, and maybe even a little bit of horror in the lobstrosities. I even saw some of Misery being paralleled here with the scenes when Roland is increasingly ill and on his own, having to cope. But horror by no means drives this novel.
I don't want to give away too much here, since Misery is next on the list, but Misery is, among other things, also a book about writing--or perhaps more specifically, about how sometimes you would literally have to trap an author in a bed by maiming him, then forcing him to write, in order for him to finish a project. It feels like that sometimes. And I am wondering if part of this sentiment was brought up by these two books which move away from typical SK and instead feature more fantasy and adventure. Maybe Misery serves as a transition back to what he was known for doing? Still, he could have skipped Tommyknockers. We all would have been okay.
I feel super confident that I will be done with Misery very soon and have a new post very soon. One of my all-time SK favorites.
I was somewhat surprised as the proportions of this one, as I thought for some reason that Jake showed up again and kept wondering if SK was going to cover that in one paragraph or something. My bad. Not this book, the next book. And while I did enjoy the section where Eddie Dean was brought into Roland's world (it's really great!), knowing the outcome of Odetta/Detta somehow made it slightly less compelling this time around. That being said, I did enjoy the reread, and I think the book in general makes a lot of sense within SK's works of this time.
First, you have drug addiction, which will be a significant theme in the next two books: Misery and Tommyknockers. Misery I know well and love; Tommyknockers I vaguely remember not enjoying whatsoever, but I think it's still about addiction from what I recall. So I guess this is SK's druggie phase, which, if I had to put a limit on it, I would say started around Christine and ends around Tommyknockers. This seems about right, as it appears that the King family intervention to get SK sober happened right after this novel.
Second, you have SK, known as the master of horror, etc....... branching out to something new with both Eyes of the Dragon and 'The Drawing of the Three.' Let's bear in mind that 'The Gunslinger' was not a huge success when it was published, so he was leaving horror in pursuing this project. And 'The Drawing of the Three' is a novel that crams in an awful lot of stuff. It has fantasy, a mob scene, a heist movie, some kind of psychological thriller, family drama, and maybe even a little bit of horror in the lobstrosities. I even saw some of Misery being paralleled here with the scenes when Roland is increasingly ill and on his own, having to cope. But horror by no means drives this novel.
I don't want to give away too much here, since Misery is next on the list, but Misery is, among other things, also a book about writing--or perhaps more specifically, about how sometimes you would literally have to trap an author in a bed by maiming him, then forcing him to write, in order for him to finish a project. It feels like that sometimes. And I am wondering if part of this sentiment was brought up by these two books which move away from typical SK and instead feature more fantasy and adventure. Maybe Misery serves as a transition back to what he was known for doing? Still, he could have skipped Tommyknockers. We all would have been okay.
I feel super confident that I will be done with Misery very soon and have a new post very soon. One of my all-time SK favorites.
Friday, January 3, 2014
The Eyes of the Dragon
The Eyes of the Dragon was one of my favorite Stephen King books when I was younger. It wasn't scary, it was relatively short, and it was a fun adventure story. I reread it in 2005, just because I felt like it one day and ran out to buy a copy. In the most recent rereading of it, I again enjoyed it, and I think that it makes a great 'short' novella after IT--remembering, of course, that SK's novellas in Different Seasons were written after completing his major books.
This time around, I was very much reminded of 'Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption' because I think that the two stories operate in very similar ways. Both are, of course, about a man who is jailed because of a crime that he didn't commit. But SK uses several of the same techniques too. He gives clues about what will happen in advance, so if you are paying close attention you might put everything together. Both men come up with elaborate plans (that rely on gifts) to make their escapes. Eyes of the Dragon is intended for a younger audience--specifically King and Straub's kids--which I think changes the overall tone. There is also a dog as a major character in the form of Frisky, which is an idea that will stick around for SK too, particularly with the introduction of Oy in The Waste Lands.
Also worth noting, of course, is the return of Flagg, who hasn't been around for a while. In fact, I think his last definitive appearance was in The Gunslinger (....or was it? If you read the original, maybe not. If you read the revised 2003 version, probably), and he was obliquely hinted at in 'Children of the Corn.' Flagg will be back in a big way, of course, in the Dark Tower series. In this novel, Flagg even has moments where he resembled It: he bares his teeth, he smells monstrous (according to Frisky), he poisons the sewers, and SK even refers to him as It at one point. Not quite the same, but a terrifying monster nonetheless.
In sum, quick read, fun stuff, great adventure. I still like this one a lot. In fact, I am surprised that it has not been adapted, seems like it would be pretty easy to make it a compelling movie.
This time around, I was very much reminded of 'Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption' because I think that the two stories operate in very similar ways. Both are, of course, about a man who is jailed because of a crime that he didn't commit. But SK uses several of the same techniques too. He gives clues about what will happen in advance, so if you are paying close attention you might put everything together. Both men come up with elaborate plans (that rely on gifts) to make their escapes. Eyes of the Dragon is intended for a younger audience--specifically King and Straub's kids--which I think changes the overall tone. There is also a dog as a major character in the form of Frisky, which is an idea that will stick around for SK too, particularly with the introduction of Oy in The Waste Lands.
Also worth noting, of course, is the return of Flagg, who hasn't been around for a while. In fact, I think his last definitive appearance was in The Gunslinger (....or was it? If you read the original, maybe not. If you read the revised 2003 version, probably), and he was obliquely hinted at in 'Children of the Corn.' Flagg will be back in a big way, of course, in the Dark Tower series. In this novel, Flagg even has moments where he resembled It: he bares his teeth, he smells monstrous (according to Frisky), he poisons the sewers, and SK even refers to him as It at one point. Not quite the same, but a terrifying monster nonetheless.
In sum, quick read, fun stuff, great adventure. I still like this one a lot. In fact, I am surprised that it has not been adapted, seems like it would be pretty easy to make it a compelling movie.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
I did IT!
I am very proud to announce that I read IT. And survived. And can even take the dog out for a walk at night without fearing a horrible death by clown. This is some serious progress from the first time I read the book.
And in rereading the book, I understood in part why it scared me so much the first time--and possibly why it would scare anyone. When I was a kid, I used to volunteer at a historical museum and I often had to go into the creepy, dark basement by myself, where the modern plumbing and everything was (you went if you needed to get water, since we did not have a handy creek as they did back in the day). Having to go down in the dark by yourself reminded me of the opening of IT, particularly the cellar part. That really stuck with me. So did Stanley's death and the haunted house. And this is where SK gets you. He takes moderately creepy everyday situations and turns them into actual terror (remember that garbage disposal in Firestarter?). But I found it interesting how much did not stick with me, and I think that this book might have too much horror in it, in the sense that there are simply too many scenes to process and still be afraid. In fact, by the time we were back in 1985 and reminiscing in the Chinese restaurant, I was getting a bit done with horror scenes (oh no! The cookies have terrifying things instead of fortunes!). Then later, there was a scene with Audra at the hotel where the TV came on by itself and there were horrifying noises from the bathroom. This didn't scare me at all as a kid, which surprised me. My first instinct was that perhaps I simply had not stayed in too many hotels by that point in my life, which is probably true. But I think I may have read too much that was scary by that point and it started to blur together.
It's very clear that this book was a pivotal one for SK, because I think that it contained references to pretty much every single previous book that he wrote. Entire town destroyed? Carrie. Group bands together to fight evil bullies? 'The Body.' A werewolf? The Cycle of the Werewolf. Haunted house? The Talisman. Haunted town? 'Salem's Lot. Scary stuff in a bathroom? The Shining. I think you get the idea. Really, there was everything. Even stuff coming in the future. A reference to a bird from Africa? Misery (I can't tell you where that happened, it was very brief but stuck with me). A group banding together to fight evil for the Turtle? The Dark Tower. Small town goes gradually insane as though possessed by an evil force? Needful Things. Violence at a lumberjack camp? The Wind Through the Keyhole. Seriously, this one runs deep.
The book, at its core, is of course not about an evil killer sewer clown or even an evil female spider, but really about the boundary between childhood and adulthood, and how these collide. The idea that the characters had forgotten so much about their past didn't surprise me so much this time, as it did when I was a kid. Of course we forget many things as we age, we can't possibly remember it all. While the premise of IT was that the Losers forget because of the trauma that they experienced, it seems to me that perhaps it was the simple act of forgetting that we all encounter as we age.
I also was less disappointed by the ending than I was the first time. I felt like SK just ran out of ideas when I initially read the book, but now I am more convinced that he had a much bigger story in mind, but couldn't put it all in this one. I mean, it's not like he didn't try. The whole thing comes in at 1142 pages, after all. But this is the closest thing to the seven-volume Dark Tower that exists in his whole oeuvre, I think. And there is a bigger story, with the Turtle and larger forces and galactic battles--in other words, exactly The Dark Tower. But I think he hadn't quite formulated all of that yet. He would get back to it soon afterward, churning out 2 and 3 in the series within the next five years. And maybe this novel marks the bifurcation between the epic and the mundane in SK (not that they are ever fully bifurcated). Books set more in reality took one path, while books that thrived on fantasy took another. Considering that the next book is The Eyes of the Dragon, this idea of a split makes sense.
SK took four years to work on IT, which is virtually unheard of in his works. I hadn't realized this until completing it, but he also did not have any real novels that came out during this time. In fact, the previous novel was Pet Semetary, which means he went from a pretty dark place to an even more dark place (there was The Talisman, but that was co-written, and I am assuming that the Bachman books were earlier). So despite the fact that SK appeared to be very prolific, he was in fact honing this one novel for a long time. Certainly it shows in places. The beginning, with George's death, is incredibly captivating and well-written. The same can't be said throughout, which is not surprising to me since it is a very long novel. But what bugged me the most was that it was unclear why the Losers kept getting away, while others could not. With George, we see that he is tricked by IT because he doesn't know enough to be suspicious of a clown in the sewer (in fact, much of this reminded me of Erlkönig again, especially when IT tried to convince his victims that they were going to a more beautiful, fun world). But it's not clear in other places why the Losers could escape him, unless you buy the 'protected by the Turtle' argument.
Oh, and you don't really need the clown, of course. The situations in which the kids find themselves are all perilous and it seems pretty clear that they could have died regardless of what IT did. For instance, Ben tried to walk home by himself in the cold, even though the adults had haphazardly tried to stop him. Stanley should never have been in the Standpipe by himself, which was a known danger. Beverly's father is clearly close to insane and unquestionably abusive, whether he is possessed by IT or not. George never should have been playing in the storm water in the first place. I haven't even mentioned the bullies yet, who pose yet another hazard. In fact, the book serves as a reminder of just how perilous childhood can be, and how seemingly normal activities can, in fact, end tragically.
I was thinking that I would write multiple entries on the book and I may still have more to say later, but for now, I think that these are the most salient points from my rereading of IT. I am super glad that it wasn't nearly as scary as the first time around, although I am still not quite ready to tackle the mini-series. I did really enjoy this commentary on the book and recommend for more consideration of it: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/09/the-great-stephen-king-reread-it
And in rereading the book, I understood in part why it scared me so much the first time--and possibly why it would scare anyone. When I was a kid, I used to volunteer at a historical museum and I often had to go into the creepy, dark basement by myself, where the modern plumbing and everything was (you went if you needed to get water, since we did not have a handy creek as they did back in the day). Having to go down in the dark by yourself reminded me of the opening of IT, particularly the cellar part. That really stuck with me. So did Stanley's death and the haunted house. And this is where SK gets you. He takes moderately creepy everyday situations and turns them into actual terror (remember that garbage disposal in Firestarter?). But I found it interesting how much did not stick with me, and I think that this book might have too much horror in it, in the sense that there are simply too many scenes to process and still be afraid. In fact, by the time we were back in 1985 and reminiscing in the Chinese restaurant, I was getting a bit done with horror scenes (oh no! The cookies have terrifying things instead of fortunes!). Then later, there was a scene with Audra at the hotel where the TV came on by itself and there were horrifying noises from the bathroom. This didn't scare me at all as a kid, which surprised me. My first instinct was that perhaps I simply had not stayed in too many hotels by that point in my life, which is probably true. But I think I may have read too much that was scary by that point and it started to blur together.
It's very clear that this book was a pivotal one for SK, because I think that it contained references to pretty much every single previous book that he wrote. Entire town destroyed? Carrie. Group bands together to fight evil bullies? 'The Body.' A werewolf? The Cycle of the Werewolf. Haunted house? The Talisman. Haunted town? 'Salem's Lot. Scary stuff in a bathroom? The Shining. I think you get the idea. Really, there was everything. Even stuff coming in the future. A reference to a bird from Africa? Misery (I can't tell you where that happened, it was very brief but stuck with me). A group banding together to fight evil for the Turtle? The Dark Tower. Small town goes gradually insane as though possessed by an evil force? Needful Things. Violence at a lumberjack camp? The Wind Through the Keyhole. Seriously, this one runs deep.
The book, at its core, is of course not about an evil killer sewer clown or even an evil female spider, but really about the boundary between childhood and adulthood, and how these collide. The idea that the characters had forgotten so much about their past didn't surprise me so much this time, as it did when I was a kid. Of course we forget many things as we age, we can't possibly remember it all. While the premise of IT was that the Losers forget because of the trauma that they experienced, it seems to me that perhaps it was the simple act of forgetting that we all encounter as we age.
I also was less disappointed by the ending than I was the first time. I felt like SK just ran out of ideas when I initially read the book, but now I am more convinced that he had a much bigger story in mind, but couldn't put it all in this one. I mean, it's not like he didn't try. The whole thing comes in at 1142 pages, after all. But this is the closest thing to the seven-volume Dark Tower that exists in his whole oeuvre, I think. And there is a bigger story, with the Turtle and larger forces and galactic battles--in other words, exactly The Dark Tower. But I think he hadn't quite formulated all of that yet. He would get back to it soon afterward, churning out 2 and 3 in the series within the next five years. And maybe this novel marks the bifurcation between the epic and the mundane in SK (not that they are ever fully bifurcated). Books set more in reality took one path, while books that thrived on fantasy took another. Considering that the next book is The Eyes of the Dragon, this idea of a split makes sense.
SK took four years to work on IT, which is virtually unheard of in his works. I hadn't realized this until completing it, but he also did not have any real novels that came out during this time. In fact, the previous novel was Pet Semetary, which means he went from a pretty dark place to an even more dark place (there was The Talisman, but that was co-written, and I am assuming that the Bachman books were earlier). So despite the fact that SK appeared to be very prolific, he was in fact honing this one novel for a long time. Certainly it shows in places. The beginning, with George's death, is incredibly captivating and well-written. The same can't be said throughout, which is not surprising to me since it is a very long novel. But what bugged me the most was that it was unclear why the Losers kept getting away, while others could not. With George, we see that he is tricked by IT because he doesn't know enough to be suspicious of a clown in the sewer (in fact, much of this reminded me of Erlkönig again, especially when IT tried to convince his victims that they were going to a more beautiful, fun world). But it's not clear in other places why the Losers could escape him, unless you buy the 'protected by the Turtle' argument.
Oh, and you don't really need the clown, of course. The situations in which the kids find themselves are all perilous and it seems pretty clear that they could have died regardless of what IT did. For instance, Ben tried to walk home by himself in the cold, even though the adults had haphazardly tried to stop him. Stanley should never have been in the Standpipe by himself, which was a known danger. Beverly's father is clearly close to insane and unquestionably abusive, whether he is possessed by IT or not. George never should have been playing in the storm water in the first place. I haven't even mentioned the bullies yet, who pose yet another hazard. In fact, the book serves as a reminder of just how perilous childhood can be, and how seemingly normal activities can, in fact, end tragically.
I was thinking that I would write multiple entries on the book and I may still have more to say later, but for now, I think that these are the most salient points from my rereading of IT. I am super glad that it wasn't nearly as scary as the first time around, although I am still not quite ready to tackle the mini-series. I did really enjoy this commentary on the book and recommend for more consideration of it: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/09/the-great-stephen-king-reread-it
Friday, December 6, 2013
Skeleton Crew
Okay, I need to fess up about this book and the reason that it took me so long to read it. I ordered a copy from the library in August, then when it didn't turn up, did some quick investigating and learned that:
1) There was only one copy at the library;
2) It was reported missing.
So that put me behind by a few weeks.
Then I ordered a copy from Amazon and started reading. I had read this book before (summer of 1994, to be exact) and some stories I remembered well. For instance, the leading story, 'The Mist.' You can probably guess that it terrified me. Soon after reading it, I found myself walking around a strange city somewhat late at night and that terrified me even more, because what if a mist suddenly rolled in with the accompanying terrifying monsters? Naturally, that was not very likely, but you know how it is.
I also remembered a few more, like 'The Monkey,' particularly because I had the older copy of the book with the monkey toy on the cover:
I also remember 'The Monkey' being pretty predictable and not that great, which was true in this rereading as well. In fact, I did not remember all that many stories, and I have concluded that the reason for this is that several are not very good. Here is my assessment:
Very good stories: 'The Mist' (don't read if you live in a foggy area); 'Mrs. Todd's Shortcut' (I feel like this one really tends to stick with people, it is a fun story); 'Survivor Type' (sort of a proto-Misery, only ickier); 'Nona' (sort of predictable but still good); 'The Reach,' 'Word Processor of the Gods,' 'Ballad of the Flexible Bullet,' 'Gramma,' 'The Jaunt.'
Stories that made me want to put the book down and possibly never ever read it again and OH MY GOD HOW PAINFUL WAS THAT: 'The Wedding Gig' (WHY??????) and 'The Man Who Would Not Shake Hands.' Conclusion: I do not like stories that go to that gentleman's club in New York that is also featured in Different Seasons.
Stories that were meh: everything else in the book. 'The Raft' especially.
So that is my assessment: a mixed bag. The good stories really are very good and if you have never read 'The Mist,' you really should. Some fine stuff. But I officially give you permission to skip over ones that you find to be less than intriguing. They don't get any better.
Anyway, that is why it took me so long to get to this one, even though I had been trying to since August. I promise that this was not solely an attempt to procrastinate from the next book. Honest. Even though the next book is.......
1) There was only one copy at the library;
2) It was reported missing.
So that put me behind by a few weeks.
Then I ordered a copy from Amazon and started reading. I had read this book before (summer of 1994, to be exact) and some stories I remembered well. For instance, the leading story, 'The Mist.' You can probably guess that it terrified me. Soon after reading it, I found myself walking around a strange city somewhat late at night and that terrified me even more, because what if a mist suddenly rolled in with the accompanying terrifying monsters? Naturally, that was not very likely, but you know how it is.
I also remembered a few more, like 'The Monkey,' particularly because I had the older copy of the book with the monkey toy on the cover:
 |
| This one |
Very good stories: 'The Mist' (don't read if you live in a foggy area); 'Mrs. Todd's Shortcut' (I feel like this one really tends to stick with people, it is a fun story); 'Survivor Type' (sort of a proto-Misery, only ickier); 'Nona' (sort of predictable but still good); 'The Reach,' 'Word Processor of the Gods,' 'Ballad of the Flexible Bullet,' 'Gramma,' 'The Jaunt.'
Stories that made me want to put the book down and possibly never ever read it again and OH MY GOD HOW PAINFUL WAS THAT: 'The Wedding Gig' (WHY??????) and 'The Man Who Would Not Shake Hands.' Conclusion: I do not like stories that go to that gentleman's club in New York that is also featured in Different Seasons.
Stories that were meh: everything else in the book. 'The Raft' especially.
So that is my assessment: a mixed bag. The good stories really are very good and if you have never read 'The Mist,' you really should. Some fine stuff. But I officially give you permission to skip over ones that you find to be less than intriguing. They don't get any better.
Anyway, that is why it took me so long to get to this one, even though I had been trying to since August. I promise that this was not solely an attempt to procrastinate from the next book. Honest. Even though the next book is.......
 |
| What have I got myself into here??? |
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Thinner
The last of the Bachman books. I had an old copy. Here is how I can tell:
I thought that I had read Thinner when I was younger, then wasn't sure, then decided that probably I didn't since I didn't remember a thing about it. For some reason, I found the beginning to be a really slow read, but it went faster as I went along. I think that I would still argue without a doubt that this book would be better as a short story, although perhaps SK views a 300-page book as akin to a short story.
Anyway, the main idea of this book was that a lawyer, who had gotten away with manslaughter, was cursed by a gypsy and started losing massive weight. Obviously. This curse started when the gypsy touched him and said, 'Thinner' -- hence the title. Two other people were cursed in this book, one with scales and the other with a horrible skin condition. I am really curious to know how the gypsy summoned these two conditions ('Scales!').
We start in Connecticut, then guess where we go? No really. See if you can guess. Did you guess Maine? Because you are correct! We have already had a conversation about not setting pseudonym books in Maine, so I will just leave it at that.
There were some pretty gruesome moments in this book. Maybe not quite horror and I didn't find the premise of the thing very scary, but very gruesome. To exact his revenge, the main character, Billy, calls on a gangster friend to do the dirty work and he is about as brutal as you can get without actually killing anyone (part of the deal). Also, ball bearings did considerable damage in this book. Possibly more than they could do in real life using a slingshot.
Then everybody eats a slice of pie and dies. For real.
I am still not quite convinced on this book. It definitely was not my favorite, but it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be from the beginning. Probably skippable, if you are doing anything other than reading everything by SK in chronological order.
 |
| Maybe if you don't want people to think it's a pseudonym, add a bit more detail to the biography? |
I thought that I had read Thinner when I was younger, then wasn't sure, then decided that probably I didn't since I didn't remember a thing about it. For some reason, I found the beginning to be a really slow read, but it went faster as I went along. I think that I would still argue without a doubt that this book would be better as a short story, although perhaps SK views a 300-page book as akin to a short story.
Anyway, the main idea of this book was that a lawyer, who had gotten away with manslaughter, was cursed by a gypsy and started losing massive weight. Obviously. This curse started when the gypsy touched him and said, 'Thinner' -- hence the title. Two other people were cursed in this book, one with scales and the other with a horrible skin condition. I am really curious to know how the gypsy summoned these two conditions ('Scales!').
We start in Connecticut, then guess where we go? No really. See if you can guess. Did you guess Maine? Because you are correct! We have already had a conversation about not setting pseudonym books in Maine, so I will just leave it at that.
There were some pretty gruesome moments in this book. Maybe not quite horror and I didn't find the premise of the thing very scary, but very gruesome. To exact his revenge, the main character, Billy, calls on a gangster friend to do the dirty work and he is about as brutal as you can get without actually killing anyone (part of the deal). Also, ball bearings did considerable damage in this book. Possibly more than they could do in real life using a slingshot.
Then everybody eats a slice of pie and dies. For real.
I am still not quite convinced on this book. It definitely was not my favorite, but it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be from the beginning. Probably skippable, if you are doing anything other than reading everything by SK in chronological order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)