![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Recently, I had cause to read 11-22-63 by Stephen King. In my opinion, this is one of the best works of fiction so far in the 21st century, a great book. So how is it that one of the books for which King gets the most praise is The Stand: The Complete and Uncut Edition?
For starters, this edition is neither complete nor uncut, nor is it unedited. King admits that there are still some pieces he left out, and that he attempted to update the book to be set in 1990 instead of 1980. This reality alone should raise red flags for the average King fan but, mysteriously, doesn't.
First, you may wonder, why did I read this thing in the first place? The answer is that I had to. As a braille proofreader, they don't let me choose my books. If they want me to read a defense of necrophilia, I read a defense of necrophilia. Yes, I've had to. And the same applies to The Stand. In fact, when I finished the book, I purchased the DVD edition of the movie, for the express purpose of snapping the disks in half.
So let's start from a purely literary standpoint. King has tried to update this book to be set ten years later, as I said earlier. This updating effort is one of the worst examples of a quarter-hearted effort to do something I've ever seen. Yes, he's changed the year from 1980 to 1990. Yes, he stuck a footnote in one spot about VCR's instead of film projectors. A few little things have been changed. But all the cars mentioned are mid-seventies models, there's no mention of personal comptuers, compact disks, or a myriad of other things which would have been very different in 1990 than they were in 1980. Even his descriptions of talk radio studios would horrify a talk radio personality from 1990, causing him or her to dive into the history books. So what you have, instead of a book set in 1990, is a book set in 1980 with a few number changes and a footnote. It's pathetic, yet it gains high praise from King fans. I'm the world's biggest fan of Douglas Adams, but if Adams had attempted a lame updating such as this, I would be just as hard on him as I am on King in this case.
Also, to call something complete and uncut when it is not is, well, wrong. Call it expanded. Call it something, but don't say it's complete and uncut when it's neither.
Which brings me to my next point. There are one or two scenes which were cut fin the original release which should most definitely have been left in, such as the opening scene of the book, which very appropriately sets the stage. But many of the scenes that were originally cut should have remained so. I'm no prude: I accept that foul language and descriptions of fornication are considered a reflection of reality and are thus considered to be literary devices in the modern age. I wouldn't write that way, but maybe that's why I've never made a penny from my writing. But there are some scenes in the so-called complete and uncut edition which can only be described as gratuitous, not moving the story ahead, not answering any questions. The rub-by-rub description of the rape of Trashcan Man, for example. Who benefits by reading that? There are other examples, but that to me is the most glaring.
Put this book alongside 11-22-63, and there is, to me, no comparison. The latter book is a well-thought-out, well-told, engaging story, and the former looks, to me, like a hormonally-overendowed high school kid in need of a cold shower and a valium.
But I say this is an opinion piece, because the book is very highly-praised among readers. I seem to be very much in the minority with my views, so clearly, these opinions are my own. I think I have good taste in literature, but I also think ketchup enhances steak, so what do I know?
For starters, this edition is neither complete nor uncut, nor is it unedited. King admits that there are still some pieces he left out, and that he attempted to update the book to be set in 1990 instead of 1980. This reality alone should raise red flags for the average King fan but, mysteriously, doesn't.
First, you may wonder, why did I read this thing in the first place? The answer is that I had to. As a braille proofreader, they don't let me choose my books. If they want me to read a defense of necrophilia, I read a defense of necrophilia. Yes, I've had to. And the same applies to The Stand. In fact, when I finished the book, I purchased the DVD edition of the movie, for the express purpose of snapping the disks in half.
So let's start from a purely literary standpoint. King has tried to update this book to be set ten years later, as I said earlier. This updating effort is one of the worst examples of a quarter-hearted effort to do something I've ever seen. Yes, he's changed the year from 1980 to 1990. Yes, he stuck a footnote in one spot about VCR's instead of film projectors. A few little things have been changed. But all the cars mentioned are mid-seventies models, there's no mention of personal comptuers, compact disks, or a myriad of other things which would have been very different in 1990 than they were in 1980. Even his descriptions of talk radio studios would horrify a talk radio personality from 1990, causing him or her to dive into the history books. So what you have, instead of a book set in 1990, is a book set in 1980 with a few number changes and a footnote. It's pathetic, yet it gains high praise from King fans. I'm the world's biggest fan of Douglas Adams, but if Adams had attempted a lame updating such as this, I would be just as hard on him as I am on King in this case.
Also, to call something complete and uncut when it is not is, well, wrong. Call it expanded. Call it something, but don't say it's complete and uncut when it's neither.
Which brings me to my next point. There are one or two scenes which were cut fin the original release which should most definitely have been left in, such as the opening scene of the book, which very appropriately sets the stage. But many of the scenes that were originally cut should have remained so. I'm no prude: I accept that foul language and descriptions of fornication are considered a reflection of reality and are thus considered to be literary devices in the modern age. I wouldn't write that way, but maybe that's why I've never made a penny from my writing. But there are some scenes in the so-called complete and uncut edition which can only be described as gratuitous, not moving the story ahead, not answering any questions. The rub-by-rub description of the rape of Trashcan Man, for example. Who benefits by reading that? There are other examples, but that to me is the most glaring.
Put this book alongside 11-22-63, and there is, to me, no comparison. The latter book is a well-thought-out, well-told, engaging story, and the former looks, to me, like a hormonally-overendowed high school kid in need of a cold shower and a valium.
But I say this is an opinion piece, because the book is very highly-praised among readers. I seem to be very much in the minority with my views, so clearly, these opinions are my own. I think I have good taste in literature, but I also think ketchup enhances steak, so what do I know?
