Is anyone else reading anything by Stephen King right now? Not necessarily Salem's Lot, but anything?
Currently, I'm reading It.
I'm listening to The Langoliers.
--
Listen to them—the children of the night. What music they make!
Unfortunately, I don't have much time to read, but I am buying the audio cd for Salem's Lot this weekend to listen to in the car as I'm traveling.
shareUnfortunately, I don't have much time to read, but I am buying the audio cd for Salem's Lot this weekend to listen to in the car as I'm traveling.I think that you will like it but expect some very major differences with both of the film versions.
I've done so much research on the book that I feel like I've read it even though I know I haven't. I know some of the major differences but there is still plenty I don't know.
You and others have made frequent references to things in the book that flesh out the story better than the movies which is why I'm getting it.
I've done so much research on the book that I feel like I've read it even though I know I haven't. I know some of the major differences but there is still plenty I don't know.Just curious: how far have you gotten in the novel? share
You and others have made frequent references to things in the book that flesh out the story better than the movies which is why I'm getting it.
I've read the full novel and I can confirm what the other poster said about there being many differences. The book is a lot better too. It feels like a more 'complete' experience.
shareAgreed; the book is a lot better. BTW where are you from, if you don't mind my asking? share
I've read the full novel and I can confirm what the other poster said about there being many differences. The book is a lot better too. It feels like a more 'complete' experience.
Ireland. I live less than a mile from Bram Stoker's old house in Dublin.
shareIreland. I live less than a mile from Bram Stoker's old house in Dublin.That is interesting!! I have Dracula and quite a few of the motion picture adaptations of it. Without a doubt, my favorite is the 1977 BBC effort with Louis Jourdan as the Count. Not only is the acting absolutely superb, but the script actually follows the story in the book really well.
I'm not sure what my favourite version of Dracula would be. The 1992 Coppola movie was quite good. And I do like the Hammer classics from the 60s. Not seen the BBC one you refer to.
share[deleted]
Wish I had the time to read to, but my reading itinerary is taken up by school. I want to read Dolores Claiborne and maybe will over the holiday. Salem's Lot is my favorite King book though hands down.
shareThat (Dolores Claiborne) is one that I haven't read yet. Clever use of Elizabeth Short there!!
shareHaha, thanks! I've been fascinated by Elizabeth Short's story for years now.
I do need to read Dolores Claiborne, given that I love the movie so much. I also need to read Christine, although I've heard a lot of King fans say that it's one of his weaker books.
OT admittedly, but do you have any theories as to who killed Elizabeth?
shareHi there Ultra_violent,
You raised a point which I actually have to disagree on, about King's novel 'Christine' being one of his weaker novels.
In all honesty I cannot say I agree with you there. 'Christine' was the first King novel that I ever read (when I was 14) and it really stayed with me.
It works as a fascinating (and in-depth) character study of both the Cunningham and Guilder households (the names of the two leading characters in the novel) and how everything is fine until one single factor (in this case the car of the title) comes along and acts as the basis of an obsession with will eventually be the ruination of one of the families.
Which is even more fascinating when you think that King may have been writing about a car (on this occasion) but that it can also easily be viewed as a allegory for drugs, and what drug dependency / addiction does to the stability of the family unit.
After reading the above you might have guessed that there is a LOT more in the book than the 1983 John Carpenter movie! The movie is fine for what it is though.
As for my two cents re: Reading Stephen King... top 5 (in no particular order):
Christine
Salem's Lot
The Dead Zone
It
The Body
And as the risk of going 'Off topic' here, I also have a soft spot in my heart for the stories which make up 'The Bachman Books' but of course that is a whole other issue.
And now... once again to risk going 'off topic':
The book / story of King's that I would most like to read (which I probably never will) is from 1970 and it is called 'Sword in the Darkness.'
From wikipedia:
1970 Sword in the Darkness (unpublished novel)
'Sword in the Darkness is the title of an unpublished novel. It is the longest of King's unpublished works at approximately 150,000 words. Upon its completion in April 1970, it was rejected by twelve publishers. King has said that he now considers it unpublishable and intends for it never to be released to the public. The book's plot includes a character dealing with the suicide of his pregnant sister and the death of his mother from a brain tumor, and another character, a black activist lawyer, who incites a riot after speaking at a local high school.
In 2006, a lengthy excerpt from the book was published in Stephen King: Uncollected, Unpublished, by Rocky Wood et al. (Cemetery Dance Publications, March 2006). The excerpt related the back-story of one character, a teacher named Edie Rowsmith. It is effectively a stand-alone horror-story in the style of the early Stephen King.'
Obviously the quote from the above excerpt: 'King has said that he now considers it unpublishable and intends for it never to be released to the public.' might just mean that it is going to be either difficult (or downright impossible) to read 'Sword in the Darkness.'
Interesting side-note here: Does the above point to a flaw in my character?
What I mean is that with the amount of (great quality) writing that Stephen King has produced, there should be enough to keep me (or anyone) busy for years.
By mentioning 'Sword in the Darkness' in particular am I simply pinning after something that I know I can't have because it is never set for publication?
An interesting character insight there. Please feel free to respond with your two cents, re: my mental state...
Or in fact Reading Stephen King... which is what the thread is about!
Obviously the quote from the above excerpt: 'King has said that he now considers it unpublishable and intends for it never to be released to the public.' might just mean that it is going to be either difficult (or downright impossible) to read 'Sword in the Darkness.'Perhaps I'm not the one that you directed the question to, and if not, my apologies; but it is hardly a character 'flaw'. A better, more accurate (and kinder) way to 'characterize it' (pun intended!) is a 'character trait'.
Interesting side-note here: Does the above point to a flaw in my character?
What I mean is that with the amount of (great quality) writing that Stephen King has produced, there should be enough to keep me (or anyone) busy for years.
By mentioning 'Sword in the Darkness' in particular am I simply pinning after something that I know I can't have because it is never set for publication?
An interesting character insight there. Please feel free to respond with your two cents, re: my mental state...
You have raised a good point... if the Scottish scientist Alexander Flemming had not been curious about a mold growing in his lab then we would not have penicillin today.
If Christopher Columbus had not set sail in 1492, in the steadfast belief that the earth was flat, then we would not have what is called today 'Oklahoma'! Of course we all know why Oklahoma is important, don't we?
Ok that's enough funny nonsense for now... to get back on point here:
(reprinted from previous post)
Hi there Ultra_violent,
You raised a point which I actually have to disagree on, about King's novel 'Christine' being one of his weaker novels.
In all honesty I cannot say I agree with you there. 'Christine' was the first King novel that I ever read (when I was 14) and it really stayed with me.
It works as a fascinating (and in-depth) character study of both the Cunningham and Guilder households (the names of the two leading characters in the novel) and how everything is fine until one single factor (in this case the car of the title) comes along and acts as the basis of an obsession with will eventually be the ruination of one of the families.
Which is even more fascinating when you think that King may have been writing about a car (on this occasion) but that it can also easily be viewed as a allegory for drugs, and what drug dependency / addiction does to the stability of the family unit.
After reading the above you might have guessed that there is a LOT more in the book than the 1983 John Carpenter movie! The movie is fine for what it is though.
As for my two cents re: Reading Stephen King... top 5 (in no particular order):
Christine
Salem's Lot
The Dead Zone
It
The Body
Please feel free to post with your own thoughts here. Cheers for now.
Hi All,
Further to a previous post that I put on the thread:
I attempted to buy a copy of the book 'Stephen King: Uncollected, unpublished' by Rocky Wood. This was specifically so that I could get a seventeen-page chapter from "Sword in the Darkness," which is an unpublished novel King wrote in the early 1970's. In addition to that, Wood has provided a very detailed synopsis of the entire novel.
However, unfortunately for me what I bought was the 2014 update, which was only 78 pages in length, and only contains an appendix of updates for the original book, and NOT the material in the book itself.
Disappointing that, I should have read the publishers details a little more closely.
I will have to wait a little longer for any more in-depth info on the novel 'Sword in the Darkness.'
Cheers for now.
Just a brief post here to say that I am currently one third of the way through reading Stephen King's 1983 novel 'Christine' and that it is a particular book that has a special place in my heart, as it was the first Stephen King novel that I read (at the age of 14.) I have to say that I am enjoying it and also that I still think that it is pretty good - not to mention seriously detailed - to this day.
Someone on the thread here mentioned that they thought that 'Christine' is one of King's weaker novels, however I have to say that I would disagree with that.
I can honestly say that I think a lot more people should actually read 'Christine.' As I said I still think it is a pretty good novel.
Please post with any thoughts you might have.
Cheers for now.
I have just finished reading / listening to the Stephen King novel 'Revival' It is well worthwhile.
It is vintage stuff. A horror story with a slow build-up and an (eventual) terrifying climax.
Anyone who is a fan of HP Lovecraft should find it very enjoyable, as the ending of the story taps strongly into the Lovecraft mythos.
Enjoy one and all.
Cheers for now.
Pet Sematary - it's really creepy and good - MUCH better than the movie.
shareI recently re-read / listened to 'Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption' from the King collection 'Different Seasons' I have to say firstly that I forgot that it was a short story (in Stephen King parlance undeniably short) and I also have to say that I had forgotten what a very good piece of writing it truly is.
The movie was both well done, and very successful - to the extent that it may have eclipsed the original work somewhat - and lest we not forget the original work was excellent stuff indeed.
I genuinely enjoyed it, and I hope it will not be so long before I read it once again.
Please feel free to post with any thoughts.
Cheers for now.
It's hard reading a forty year old novel about vampires in the 21st century. So much has happened to the genre in the past twenty years. It's very easy to think of this book as just "another damn vampire story". Then you look at the date of publication and you're tempted to put it back on the shelf and move on. But wait just a moment. Consider these couple points before you do that and then make your decision.
"Salem's Lot" was one of the first novels to put vampires in "contemporary times". Of course the book is something of a period piece now as well, but you understand. It was groundbreaking in 1976. King not only set the story in the modern era, but the United States as well.Most of the vampire stories up until then took place in Europe and the 19th century.
"Salem's Lot" went away from the idea of vampires being dark, seductive and sexy. In this book they live in the dirt and filth. They're really no better than rats as they scavenge off of the living.There are no cool Euro accents, awesome evening dress and long flowing cloaks. Vampires are evil and a threat to Humanity......to our Humanity.
In 2016 it's apparent that King's take on the myth never really took hold with the popular imagination. Most people seem to prefer the romantic version. There is the occasional story that goes down this road, but for the most part we're stuck with Anne Rice and Stephenie Meyer's imaginings. *sigh*
Well it's still a pretty good little horror novel. In 2016 it's not as disturbing as it might have been in the mid-seventies (I suppose we're too jaded), but it holds your attention and keeps you turning the pages. And really what more can you ask of a horror novel?
I picked up my used and battered copy (the 1976 paperback edition) in the summer of 2010 at the start of a short vacation. It's the perfect motel read at the end of a long day of playing tourist.
I'm a big Stephen King fan and have made it my personal mission to read as many of is novels as I can. I read Salem's Lot several years ago and it is still one of my favorite vampire stories.
I most recently read 11/22/63 and Mr. Mercades. 11/22/63 was brilliant. It was one of the best of his novels written in the last ten years. I highly recommend it. Mr. Mercades took a few chapters for me to get into, but I also ended up really enjoying it and plan to read the sequel, Finders Keepers next. I also really liked Desperation. That is one of his lesser known titles but very good and unique. Needful Things is also one of my favorites.
I'm currently reading Needful Things and very close to the end of it. It might be his nastiest book not written under the Richard Bachman moniker.
shareI agree. Good book. I like how the shop keeper gets a favor for an item and it brews into a big storm. Hopefully someday we get the full adaption on netflicks
Full Dark, No Stars.
shareI may pull out my copy of this one, Salem's Lot, and give it a go again. I haven't read it in so long.
This is the first book by King that I ever read. I was amazed by it. Never had I experienced a modern day vampire story! at the time this came out, I thought it was brilliant!
I've never read the book but the tv movie was awesome.
shareI love this TV version too. There was a TV remake in 2004 with Rob Lowe, but I didn't care for it.
This one is a really good adaptation..... besides, I could sit and watch James Mason just breath! LOL!
I urge you to read the book. It is a much richer story, of course. Lots of towns people and their stories that weren't in this movie. I think you'll enjoy it.
The 2004 version lacked the atmosphere of the 1979 tv movie. Also Barlow was really scary in the 1979 version. The vampires overall and the kids at the windows were very scary.
shareI couldn't agree more. That's exactly what the 2004 film lacked. Atmosphere!
Did you ever notice that many of the windows in that town were the same type though? I call them the big Wendy Windows..... like the kind that Peter Pan flew into.
I freak at the scene where Mike is filling in Danny's grave, and then he starts digging it up and opens his coffin. Scary stuff!
That kid lying in the coffin with his little suit on, his arms crossed, and strange eyes...scared me, even before he jumped up!!
share