From archive (archive) Xref: sssab.se rec.arts.sf-lovers:10137 rec.arts.books:3049 Path: sssab.se!isy!liuida!sunic!mcsun!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!ucsd!ames!pacbell!pbhyc!djo From: djo@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers,rec.arts.books Subject: STAND in the place where you live Message-ID: <2012@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> Date: 3 May 90 00:23:53 GMT Followup-To: rec.arts.sf-lovers Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Lines: 60 THE STAND -- The Complete and Unrevised Edition by Stephen King A review by Dan'l Danehy-Oakes Copyright 1990, D. Danehy-Oakes It's here, and it's bigger than ever... Yes, after years of promising/threatening, Doubleday Books has blessed us with the uncut version of Stephen Kings immense novel of postapocalyptic struggle between good and evil, THE STAND. What's new about this version? What's different? Well, first of all, the plot is the same. There are more incidents, and some incidents are fleshed out much more. The characters are somewhat more developed, and at least one significant (though not "major") character, who was cut entirely from the original publication, has been restored. And there are a very short prolog (about how the superflu gets out) and epilog (which provides an EC Comics-style "twist). Is it a better book? For my money, yes, it is. THE STAND is one of King's best novels, written after he found his unique and pleasant "voice" but before he discovered that he could sell his laundry lists for megabucks. I've read it three times since it first came out (not counting my recent trip through the brick-which-is-now-a-cinderblock), and enjoyed it fully each time. There are certain books that you reread, not because of their "meaning," but because the characters are dear friends. Some folks feel this way about Jane Austin. Others need an occasional trip to visit Frodo, Sam, and company. For me, THE STAND has been such a book. I occasionally feel the urge to go back to King's imagined holocaust and spend a few days with Larry Underwood, Nick Andros, Fran Goldsmith, Harold Lauder, Stu Redman, Mother Abigail, Trashcan Man, and all their ilk. Even Randall Flagg (the Dark Man) and especially Tom Cullen (M-O-O-N, that spells Tom Cullen). This "unabridged" (but definitely -- lightly -- revised) version gives me that visit, and a longer one. And, the first time through, at least, it's like seeing those old friends through new eyes. It's not like a sequel, where the old friends do all new things. You know what's going to happen (pretty much). But they *do* all have new parts to play in the same outline. So: If you love THE STAND as I do, I recommend the book wholeheartedly. Run out and buy it today. If you thought it was "pretty good," or even very good but for different reasons from mine, I wouldn't bother. If you didn't like it before, you won't now. And if you've never read it, I'd suggest starting with the paperback of the "old" version. If you love it -- buy the hardcover of the new. A paperback this thick simply won't stand up to repeated readings. From rec.arts.sf-reviews Fri Oct 18 10:39:15 1991 Path: herkules.sssab.se!isy!liuida!sunic!news.funet.fi!fuug!mcsun!uunet!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!know!pbhyc.PacBell.COM From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-reviews Subject: Commentary on NEEDFUL THINGS, by Stephen King Message-ID: <1687@know.pws.ma30.bull.com> Date: 17 Oct 91 18:38:00 GMT Sender: wex@pws.ma30.bull.com Reply-To: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM Followup-To: rec.arts.sf-lovers Lines: 116 Approved: wex@pws.bull.com NEEDFUL THINGS, by Stephen King Review Copyright (c) 1991 Dan'l Danehy-Oakes Reviewing a new Stephen King book is something of an exercise in pointlessness; most people know long before it comes out whether they're going to snatch it off the rack, borrow it from the library, wait for the paperback, or make snide comments about those who read such trash. On the other hand, this frees me from the responsibility to recommend or disrecommend the book. I can just sit back and talk to you about it a little. This, then, is not a review, but an informal essay, intended for the consumption of die-hard King fans. In fact, it should probably not be read until after you've read the book yourself. As you may guess, I fall into the first category above, though in my saner moments I wonder why. King's collected works have cost me something like five hundred smackers over the years, and given that he's still pretty young, still incredibly prolific, and books (especially books by brand-name authors) get more expensive every time you turn around, I think it's safe to suspect that that number will someday reach the middle four figures. Which is probably scarier than anything in his new book, NEEDFUL THINGS. That's not a put-down; NEEDFUL THINGS isn't so much a horror novel as a perfect example you can point to when somebody asks "what's dark fantasy:" a contemporary fantasy novel that isn't quite what most folks think of as horror, but has some pretty bad shit happening. In this case, the bad shit is the destruction of King's well-explored little community of Castle Rock. He's been setting stories and parts of stories in "The Rock" since THE DEAD ZONE in the late '70s, and it's probably the best example of one of King's strengths: the creation of a complex and pretty real-feeling small-town environment, complete with its people, history, geography, etc. Characters familiar from several of his past stories (notably "The Body" and THE DARK HALF) make appearances ranging from cameos on up. Most of them are dead by the time the story's over. For this is, as the subtitle says, "The Last Castle Rock Story." King revels in destruction. He's destroyed towns several times before, going right back to his first novel, CARRIE, right through the more recent IT and THE TOMMYKNOCKERS. He's even destroyed the world, or most of it, in stories like "The Mist" and THE STAND. But never, I think, has he focussed directly on the destruction itself. Always the focus was on something else -- Carrie's psychology, the monster in IT, the numinous weirdness in THE TOMMYKNOCKERS and "The Mist," the clash of good and evil in THE STAND. NEEDFUL THINGS has a monster, numinous weirdness, clashes of good and evil, and even a little psychology (though mostly of the mob variety), but they're part of the backdrop, just as the destruction of Derry was backdrop for the monster in IT. Castle Rock is invaded by... a shopkeeper. Not just any shopkeeper; he's the devil himself, selling wonderful things, things you _must_ have... things you need. Thus the store's name, "Needful Things." And Mr Gaunt (as he calls himself) sells them incredibly cheaply: a small amount of cash, and a deed. A harmless practical joke. The correct person is never blamed for the jokes, for they're designed to suggest third parties. Old feuds, hatreds, resentments are touched off. Jokes lead to violence; the good citizens of Castle Rock go right off the deep end. If this plot sounds familiar, it should. It's Twain's Mysterious Stranger writ large -- writ, indeed, with a positive elephantiasis. Twain's work, further, is undoubtedly the greater; it's the last true masterpiece of one of America's few true great writers. Twain's exposure of the dark side of an American town simply makes everything King has ever written on the subject look tawdry by comparison. If NEEDFUL THINGS were no more than a retelling of "The Mysterious Stranger," then, it would be more than a piece of trash. It would be an atrocity. Fortunately, King does add a few features of his own -- besides, I mean, the obligatory gore and the explicitly supernatural nature of Mr. Gaunt. Most important, I think, is his focus on the individual characters of Castle Rock. The town the Mysterious Stranger devastates is somewhat abstract; he deals with its citizens almost statistically. King describes the collapse of Castle Rock from the points of view of individual citizens rather than that of a historian. We know what makes many of them fall for Gaunt's blandishments; we see many of the individual practical jokes played, see why the perpetrators perform them, see how they affect the victims. While none of the characterization is tremendously deep, it's all at least believable. Even Ace Merrill, while we never like him, comes at last to be someone we understand, and even pity a little. Genre horror novels in general, and King's in particular, are often attacked for a simplistic morality. I'd like to suggest that this simply is not the case. While these novels often feature an external and objective Bad Thing, that is neither the extent nor the measure of evil, and is certainly not the source of evil on which everything else can be blamed. Not in a well-done horror novel, at any rate. Similarly, the "heroes" of such novels are not, generally, white-hats with no moral flaws. They're subject to temptation, to moral choice. King's novels in particular generally turn on some point of moral choice. This theme has been present from the beginning; it first appears in explicit form as the priest in SALEM'S LOT, who faces down the chief vampire by force of faith, and loses his soul by breaking his word given to the vampire. NEEDFUL THINGS is full of such choices. As Mr. Gaunt says, he doesn't make anyone do anything. "I show people what I have to sell. . . and let them make up their own minds." The true horror of NEEDFUL THINGS is that so many of them choose to deal with the devil, and for such pittances. Ironically, that leads me to think: when King's next book comes out, maybe I'll think harder before deciding that I need to have it right away. %A Stephen King %C New York, NY %D October 1991 %G 0-670-83953-1 %I Viking Books %T Needful Things From archive (archive) From: ecl@mtgzy.UUCP (Evelyn C. Leeper) Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ Subject: THE TOMMYKNOCKERS Date: 25 Jan 88 17:54:12 GMT THE TOMMYKNOCKERS by Stephen King Putnam, 1987, 0-399-13314-3, $19.95. A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper Copyright 1988 Evelyn C. Leeper THE TOMMYKNOCKERS is full of good ideas--it's just a pity that they aren't fresher, or weren't buried by the volume of prose. When Bobbi Anderson accidentally uncovers a flying saucer that has been buried for millennia in the woods behind her home, strange things start to happen. These things are because of the "tommyknockers," as she (and others) call the inhabitants of the saucer. Aren't the inhabitants dead by this point? Well, yes, but like the Krell of FORBIDDEN PLANET they seem to live on through their devices. FORBIDDEN PLANET isn't the only source King draws on. If it sounds to you like the plot is very similar to QUATERMASS AND THE PIT, you're not alone. And there are bits and pieces from CARRIE, THE FURY, and several of King's earlier works. In general, I don't object to authors tying their works together, but in this novel King mentions has from he Dead Zone, the movie THE SHINING, and himself as a Bangor, Maine horror author all sharing the same level of reality. I don't know about you, but I find this very jarring. Even though the ideas aren't brand-new, the book could still be good. But it's SO long. King does write lively prose, I'll grant him that, but readers who have read widely in science fiction--or even seen a lot of science fiction movies--will probably decide that it isn't worth reading almost 600 pages of unoriginal work, no matter how lively the prose. In addition, King loves to foreshadow ("The next time they met, she would have changed."), a technique that can be used once or twice to good effect, but pales rapidly after that. King uses it about a dozen times in THE TOMMYKNOCKERS--and at least once, he lies: what he says is just not true, though it is obvious that that is because of a slip on his part rather than intentionally misleading the reader. Why are the inhabitants of the ship called the "tommyknockers"? Well, King claims in his Forward that that there are well-known nursery rhymes about the "tommyknockers," who apparently are monsters who skulk around and come knocking on your door in the middle of the night. I've never heard of them, and I spent my childhood (at least from the age of 4 to the age of 9, the years when monsters outside the door are most real) in Bangor myself. Of course, I didn't realize at the time I was researching Maine legends for Stephen King reviews and I might have just not noted it down at the time. If you're a fast reader, you might find this book worth the time. If you're a Stephen King fan, you'll read it anyway. I used to be a King fan, but haven't read any of his latest books--THE TALISMAN, IT, MISERY--because, again, they're just too long. I realize this sounds inconsistent coming from someone who has recently reviewed a 900,000-word Gothic vampire novel. The only explanation I can give is that King's books all start to sound alike after a while. The menace may be different, but the cast of characters is very similar from book to book--not superficially, perhaps, but the underlying types--and it just doesn't seem worth it. I can't NOT recommend THE TOMMYKNOCKERS, but I can warn you that the goal may not be worth the effort. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu