Thoughts on Stephen King?

[Jason Wynn]

I loved Road Work, tho. Good example of how our government has no qualms about fucking us over. I actually prefer some of his non-horror stories.

This is a good one. Wish more people mentioned Road Work when talking about his Bachman output. Might be seen as boring if you're younger, but once you're settled into adulthood and have a bit of experience under your belt, this one is downright bleak.

 

[Chan Fan]

Is anyone planning to get his new book, "If It Bleeds?" I am but there are a few books that have priority right now so I won't be starting it for at least a month or two

 

[Tootsie Bear]

My problem with King is that, well, his stories often start good then take a turn towards the tarded. Take The Stand, a perfectly good post apocalyptic thriller that eventually devolves into an autistic story about old black woman Jesus and her chickens. The ending just felt like a massive letdown after the amazing buildup.

I loved Road Work, tho. Good example of how our government has no qualms about fucking us over. I actually prefer some of his non-horror stories.

Same with It. I was enjoying the build up until they got to the part where it focuses on Mike and the racism both him and his father faced. On one hand I liked it because it helps develop his character since part of the story takes place in the 1950's during the Civil Rights Movement. But I disliked how unnecessary King wrote how Mike's father hulked out and attacked white guys in response for their racism. It felt like King was writing his own interracial fanfic where the black brute finally attacks whitey for his racism.

 

[Cosmos]

Is anyone planning to get his new book, "If It Bleeds?" I am but there are a few books that have priority right now so I won't be starting it for at least a month or two

I forgot this was coming out! Thanks for reminding me!

Yeah, I'll probably read it, but like you I have other books that have been languishing in the "to read" pile that I'd like to get to first. I did read the short synopses of the stories and they sound interesting.

Also I just remembered the last 4-novella collection he put out was "Full Dark, No Stars" which was published in 2010. I cannot believe that book came out a decade ago, crazy.

 

[fke666]

I've read about 35 of his books. Some twice & three times.
His stuff was really good throughout the 80's and early 90's.
When he had the intervention, he lost a great deal of inspiration - and the accident was certainly the point where his books became garbage.
Adding to the fact he decided to become a partisan political hack, and I've come to hate him.
Tried re-reading Needful Things recently (I remembered it being good)
And after the 2nd underage boy sex fantasy, I was out.

Misery was probably my fav book of his though. Tommyknockers too.

 

[Chan Fan]

I forgot this was coming out! Thanks for reminding me!

Yeah, I'll probably read it, but like you I have other books that have been languishing in the "to read" pile that I'd like to get to first. I did read the short synopses of the stories and they sound interesting.

Also I just remembered the last 4-novella collection he put out was "Full Dark, No Stars" which was published in 2010. I cannot believe that book came out a decade ago, crazy.

I thought "Full Dark, No Stars" was really good, and the title is great

Tried re-reading Needful Things recently (I remembered it being good)
And after the 2nd underage boy sex fantasy, I was out.

"Needful Things" really didn't need those fantasy descriptions, I agree. I've said it before but I'll say again - "Needful Things" really needed to be edited down, it would have gone from 'good, worth reading' to something much better.

 

[Lungmos]

I've always considered King's best work to be his short story fiction. Edgar Allan Poe, that great pioneer of American horror, understood that terror is a fleeting emotion and thus best conveyed through a smaller format. King's novels have some good storytelling in them, but they also tend to get longwinded, bloaty and are occasionally marred by sentimentality and hamfisted pathos. His short stories on the other hand have much less of that flab and are all the more enjoyable for it.

Night Shift is probably my favorite King short story collection. It has a little bit of everything and I would recommend it if you happen to be interested in his shorter fiction. There is, for example, a Lovecraftian tale about an inbred New England cult, a touch of sci-fi in a story about an astronaut afflicted with a truly horrifying disease and, finally, a bit of dark comedy in a story where a man drinks some REALLY stale beer.

 

[sperginity]

watching made for tv movies or miniseries of his books is a lot better use of time. The things that happen in his books are usually pretty interesting, but there is so much unnecessary narration in the books that it stretches the events out to the point of cruelty sometimes. He blacked out for entire books he has written when he was still drinking, those are not so great.

 

[Dom Cruise]

I forgot this was coming out! Thanks for reminding me!

Yeah, I'll probably read it, but like you I have other books that have been languishing in the "to read" pile that I'd like to get to first. I did read the short synopses of the stories and they sound interesting.

Also I just remembered the last 4-novella collection he put out was "Full Dark, No Stars" which was published in 2010. I cannot believe that book came out a decade ago, crazy.

Yeah, I can't believe Full Dark, No Stars is a decade old already as well.

My favorite novella in that one was the one about the man who sold his soul to the devil, contrasted with the current events of the late 2000s like the Great Recession.

His short story Morality was about the Great Recession as well, for whatever reason King was good at capturing the vibe of the Great Recession.

 

[Cosmos]

Yeah, I can't believe Full Dark, No Stars is a decade old already as well.

My favorite novella in that one was the one about the man who sold his soul to the devil, contrasted with the current events of the late 2000s like the Great Recession.

His short story Morality was about the Great Recession as well, for whatever reason King was good at capturing the vibe of the Great Recession.

I'm pretty sure that's Fair Extension! My personal favorite from Full Dark, No Stars is 1922, the one where a farmer murders his wife and is haunted by rats afterwards. A Good Marriage (the one where a woman realizes she is married to a serial killer) is really good, too.

Actually, every novella in the collection is very solid. I like all of them a lot.

 

[Somnius]

I wish I could write and finish stories as fast as he does. While his works are hit or miss for me, the sheer volume of what he's created is awe-inspiring.

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

I’ve only read a few random books of his, thought I’ve seen a lot of the movie/show adaptations. My dad had The Stand miniseries on VHS, and that was my first exposure to him. Really enjoyed the series and ended up renting the uncut version from the library to read. Which when you’re going to a private school is kinda hilarious. I still have the book too, actually.

I think the most recent book of his I read was Cell. Pretty good take on the whole zombie thing, ending was a little unsatisfying, but I still liked it okay.

 

[Heartmoth]

I like when king writes things that are a little more grounded in reality.
The Dead Zone is my favorite book of his. It's not really "horror", it's just the story about a guy who gets clairvoyant powers and goes into a downward spiral, eventually sacrificing himself in futility trying to stop the rise of a future tyrant.
The best part of it is not the abnormal occurrences, it's how they're quite seamlessly mended with an immersive realistic reality; with all the good, bad, beautiful, and ugly things that come with it.
Johnny and Sarah's date at the fair is the typical young sweetheart couple's story. until of course his clairvoyant powers start to manifest themselves in a carnie game of chance.
The sociopathic salesman who casually kills loose dogs seems to be unrelated in whole to the plot, until he makes the decision to run for public office.
I'd explain more but I'm too lazy to do so and there's no point in explaining the whole book. But basically, the book has such good immersion.

 

[Cosmos]

I’ve only read a few random books of his, thought I’ve seen a lot of the movie/show adaptations.

Let's go off on that topic, actually. What are your favorite/good adaptations of King's work?

I love the Misery movie. While it does have some cons, I think the pros outweigh them.

Cons:

• Overall the movie really tones down the violence and arguably the horror of the situation. In the book, Annie actually chops off Paul's foot with an axe (complete with lovely descriptions of the axe getting caught in bone and the sound it makes when Annie yanks it free) whereas in the movie she just breaks his ankle with a sledgehammer. Which is still completely horrifying, but not as horrifying. Annie also cuts off Paul's thumb and uses it as a candle in a cake she gives to Paul. Oh, and there's a scene where Annie runs over a state trooper with a lawn mower (hilariously, Kathy Bates was apparently pissed this scene wasn't in the movie).
• The epilogue after Paul is rescued is longer in the book, with more focus being placed on his trauma. In the movie, Paul destroys the Misery book he wrote for Annie and later writes a non-Misery book that gets rave reviews. The only implication that he has PTSD is when he hallucinates seeing Annie. Meanwhile, in the book, he publishes the Misery novel and it gets rave reviews (implying that he's been sucked back into his unfulfilling and unhappy existence as a pulp fiction author). After that, however, he's left with major writer's block and has lost the motivation to create. The very end does has him get struck with inspiration as he finally begins to write again (crying tears of joy as he does so), but it's still a bleaker and more realistic ending than the movie imo. One thing I will point out is that in the original cut Paul didn't walk with a limp in the epilogue, but test audiences hated it so they reshot the ending with James Caan hobbling with a cane.

Pros:

• Kathy Bates and James Caan did a phenomenal job. Especially Kathy. They really brought the characters to life.
• One thing I really like about the movie is that they hide Annie is a psycho until later on. In the novel, Paul immediately knows Annie is crazy and is on edge around her. This is because he had done research on mental illness for his novels and was able to peg Annie as mentally ill (because in the books, she's has much less of a mask of normalcy). Right away he realizes he's being held captive. However, in the movie, Annie first appears as a sweet, caring nurse (albeit a little eccentric) who's good at pretending to be normal until she reads about Misery's death, at which point the mask comes off.
• While I really like the claustrophobic feel of the book (where Annie and Paul are the only characters for the vast majority of the book), I also liked the addition of the sheriff looking for Paul in the movie. It sorts of adds a ticking clock element and more suspense (not to mention optimism).

Overall I love both versions of Misery. I will say that the book is scarier and more straight horror whereas the movie is more of a psychological thriller.

 

[disenchanted]

I love Stephen King, his stuff is very thought provoking. After reading the book about the trucks coming to life I just had to stop and think about the implications of that, imagine all the trucks in the world just suddenly coming to life. That would be a fucking nightmare for the local wildlife. I cannot begin to imagine what might happen to the United States if there were all those trucks. Maybe all the industries could just shut down because the way everything has changed. I thought about that for a long time. I also really love the underage sex scene in It despite it's controversy, just the thought of all those kids having sex as a transition into adulthood is just powerful and really resonates emotionally, I felt like I was right there having sex with all the friends I made along the way too, the emotions in that scene, not only does Stephen King have a strong grasp of the human condition but also writes really thought provoking things don't even get me started on The Stand

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

Let's go off on that topic, actually. What are your favorite/good adaptations of King's work?

I love the Misery movie. While it does have some cons, I think the pros outweigh them.

Cons:

• Overall the movie really tones down the violence and arguably the horror of the situation. In the book, Annie actually chops off Paul's foot with an axe (complete with lovely descriptions of the axe getting caught in bone and the sound it makes when Annie yanks it free) whereas in the movie she just breaks his ankle with a sledgehammer. Which is still completely horrifying, but not as horrifying. Annie also cuts off Paul's thumb and uses it as a candle in a cake she gives to Paul. Oh, and there's a scene where Annie runs over a state trooper with a lawn mower (hilariously, Kathy Bates was apparently pissed this scene wasn't in the movie).
• The epilogue after Paul is rescued is longer in the book, with more focus being placed on his trauma. In the movie, Paul destroys the Misery book he wrote for Annie and later writes a non-Misery book that gets rave reviews. The only implication that he has PTSD is when he hallucinates seeing Annie. Meanwhile, in the book, he publishes the Misery novel and it gets rave reviews (implying that he's been sucked back into his unfulfilling and unhappy existence as a pulp fiction author). After that, however, he's left with major writer's block and has lost the motivation to create. The very end does has him get struck with inspiration as he finally begins to write again (crying tears of joy as he does so), but it's still a bleaker and more realistic ending than the movie imo. One thing I will point out is that in the original cut Paul didn't walk with a limp in the epilogue, but test audiences hated it so they reshot the ending with James Caan hobbling with a cane.

Pros:

• Kathy Bates and James Caan did a phenomenal job. Especially Kathy. They really brought the characters to life.
• One thing I really like about the movie is that they hide Annie is a psycho until later on. In the novel, Paul immediately knows Annie is crazy and is on edge around her. This is because he had done research on mental illness for his novels and was able to peg Annie as mentally ill (because in the books, she's has much less of a mask of normalcy). Right away he realizes he's being held captive. However, in the movie, Annie first appears as a sweet, caring nurse (albeit a little eccentric) who's good at pretending to be normal until she reads about Misery's death, at which point the mask comes off.
• While I really like the claustrophobic feel of the book (where Annie and Paul are the only characters for the vast majority of the book), I also liked the addition of the sheriff looking for Paul in the movie. It sorts of adds a ticking clock element and more suspense (not to mention optimism).

Overall I love both versions of Misery. I will say that the book is scarier and more straight horror whereas the movie is more of a psychological thriller.

I’ll say that The Green Mile adaptation made the story a bit more optimistic than the book did, specifically with the guy in the nursing home that was tormenting the main character(completely missing from the film) and the whole “I’m stuck living for way too long because my job forced me to kill an innocent man” bit. The book made it seem a lot more like a punishment.

The actors absolutely killed it though, I cared a hell of a lot more about the people on death row in the film than I ever did in the books. Not counting the super evil guy, of course.

 

[one_time_user]

Stand by Me

 

[Shield Breaker]

Silver Bullet. The book doesn't really have a protagonist.

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

Let's go off on that topic, actually. What are your favorite/good adaptations of King's work?

I love the Misery movie. While it does have some cons, I think the pros outweigh them.

Cons:

• Overall the movie really tones down the violence and arguably the horror of the situation. In the book, Annie actually chops off Paul's foot with an axe (complete with lovely descriptions of the axe getting caught in bone and the sound it makes when Annie yanks it free) whereas in the movie she just breaks his ankle with a sledgehammer. Which is still completely horrifying, but not as horrifying. Annie also cuts off Paul's thumb and uses it as a candle in a cake she gives to Paul. Oh, and there's a scene where Annie runs over a state trooper with a lawn mower (hilariously, Kathy Bates was apparently pissed this scene wasn't in the movie).
• The epilogue after Paul is rescued is longer in the book, with more focus being placed on his trauma. In the movie, Paul destroys the Misery book he wrote for Annie and later writes a non-Misery book that gets rave reviews. The only implication that he has PTSD is when he hallucinates seeing Annie. Meanwhile, in the book, he publishes the Misery novel and it gets rave reviews (implying that he's been sucked back into his unfulfilling and unhappy existence as a pulp fiction author). After that, however, he's left with major writer's block and has lost the motivation to create. The very end does has him get struck with inspiration as he finally begins to write again (crying tears of joy as he does so), but it's still a bleaker and more realistic ending than the movie imo. One thing I will point out is that in the original cut Paul didn't walk with a limp in the epilogue, but test audiences hated it so they reshot the ending with James Caan hobbling with a cane.

Pros:

• Kathy Bates and James Caan did a phenomenal job. Especially Kathy. They really brought the characters to life.
• One thing I really like about the movie is that they hide Annie is a psycho until later on. In the novel, Paul immediately knows Annie is crazy and is on edge around her. This is because he had done research on mental illness for his novels and was able to peg Annie as mentally ill (because in the books, she's has much less of a mask of normalcy). Right away he realizes he's being held captive. However, in the movie, Annie first appears as a sweet, caring nurse (albeit a little eccentric) who's good at pretending to be normal until she reads about Misery's death, at which point the mask comes off.
• While I really like the claustrophobic feel of the book (where Annie and Paul are the only characters for the vast majority of the book), I also liked the addition of the sheriff looking for Paul in the movie. It sorts of adds a ticking clock element and more suspense (not to mention optimism).

Overall I love both versions of Misery. I will say that the book is scarier and more straight horror whereas the movie is more of a psychological thriller.

I love The Shining movie, but when you get right down to it, it's a terrible adaptation given how much it excises from the book and replaces with ambiguity, if not changed entirely. Great movie, great book, but they're two separate entities. The book dealt more with alcoholism and the family trying to keep itself together; Jack desperately wants to be a good father and husband but ultimately succumbs to his demons, which makes it all the more tragic. The movie has that, but the focus is more on insanity and the family dynamic is strongly implied to be fraying at the beginning anyway; Jack and Wendy's relationship has strong shades of emotional abuse, and Jack's relationship with Danny is really cold in stark contrast with the way he tries to bond with him in the book. When you consider how much Stephen King poured himself into the character of Jack and how the book represented his own struggle with alcoholism, it becomes increasingly evident that the book is taking those themes and sets them in a strange new direction, in some ways a little opposite of the book.

 

[Chan Fan]

Let's go off on that topic, actually. What are your favorite/good adaptations of King's work?

I love the Misery movie. While it does have some cons, I think the pros outweigh them.

Cons:

• Overall the movie really tones down the violence and arguably the horror of the situation. In the book, Annie actually chops off Paul's foot with an axe (complete with lovely descriptions of the axe getting caught in bone and the sound it makes when Annie yanks it free) whereas in the movie she just breaks his ankle with a sledgehammer. Which is still completely horrifying, but not as horrifying. Annie also cuts off Paul's thumb and uses it as a candle in a cake she gives to Paul. Oh, and there's a scene where Annie runs over a state trooper with a lawn mower (hilariously, Kathy Bates was apparently pissed this scene wasn't in the movie).
• The epilogue after Paul is rescued is longer in the book, with more focus being placed on his trauma. In the movie, Paul destroys the Misery book he wrote for Annie and later writes a non-Misery book that gets rave reviews. The only implication that he has PTSD is when he hallucinates seeing Annie. Meanwhile, in the book, he publishes the Misery novel and it gets rave reviews (implying that he's been sucked back into his unfulfilling and unhappy existence as a pulp fiction author). After that, however, he's left with major writer's block and has lost the motivation to create. The very end does has him get struck with inspiration as he finally begins to write again (crying tears of joy as he does so), but it's still a bleaker and more realistic ending than the movie imo. One thing I will point out is that in the original cut Paul didn't walk with a limp in the epilogue, but test audiences hated it so they reshot the ending with James Caan hobbling with a cane.

Pros:

• Kathy Bates and James Caan did a phenomenal job. Especially Kathy. They really brought the characters to life.
• One thing I really like about the movie is that they hide Annie is a psycho until later on. In the novel, Paul immediately knows Annie is crazy and is on edge around her. This is because he had done research on mental illness for his novels and was able to peg Annie as mentally ill (because in the books, she's has much less of a mask of normalcy). Right away he realizes he's being held captive. However, in the movie, Annie first appears as a sweet, caring nurse (albeit a little eccentric) who's good at pretending to be normal until she reads about Misery's death, at which point the mask comes off.
• While I really like the claustrophobic feel of the book (where Annie and Paul are the only characters for the vast majority of the book), I also liked the addition of the sheriff looking for Paul in the movie. It sorts of adds a ticking clock element and more suspense (not to mention optimism).

Overall I love both versions of Misery. I will say that the book is scarier and more straight horror whereas the movie is more of a psychological thriller.

Annie not only cut off his foot with an axe but cauterized the wound with a blowtorch, which was horrifying to me. It also really bothered me that she had albums of the people she killed in the hospitals where she worked because it spells Paul's doom that much more. It was proof she could kill and not be caught but also take her time and be really careful (not to mention all the medicine she stole to have the Novril she ends up giving Paul.)

I totally agree about the claustrophobic feel of the book. To me it was upsetting that he didn't know what day or month it was because she never changed the calendar (until she flies into a rage and knocks it off the wall, and even then he still doesn't know.) And the fact that one of the only power plays he seems to have is asking her to turn his typewriter around and she obeys him because she thinks it will help him write. Misery was my first King book and it has stayed with me in a few that few books have