Goofs (or Things that You Wonder About) in the Book - The Stand (1994) Discussion

[–] Koosh_King01 12 years ago

Here's one. When the Judge leaves Boulder, he's described driving a Land Rover. However, when Flagg's sentries sight him, he's driving an International Harvester Scout. There's no mention of him changing vehicles.

And speaking of the sentries who chase him, they're described as being in a "Willys International." Apparently, no such vehicle exists. Willys was a real car company, lasting from 1908 to 1963, but I can't find any info on this particular model.

Another issue I have with this is why does King even make it a Willys? Leaving aside whether Willys made a car called an International or not, it just strikes me as unusual that Bobby Terry and his buddy would be using such a rare old car.

There's also some confusion over how many people Lloyd and Poke kill in their murder spree prior to getting to the gas station. I'd need to reread the book to figure it out, but it seems like King keeps changing how many people were in the "white Connie" they stole, and this causes their body count to be either lesser or greater depending on what part you're reading.

And finally, when Flagg visits the dying Kit Bradenton, why does he insist on the registration papers and such for the Buick? The world as he knows it is basically ending. The registration papers and such are a moot point. The Buick's location and its keys are all he actually requires. Something tells me this scene was originally supposed to occur earlier in the book, before everything had gone belly-up, when Flagg would actually need the car registration.

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

Good points, Mr King. I was wondering about the Willys as well. I just figured it to be an older model jeep.

Here's another few to ponder. When the Four set out for Vegas, Mother Abagail's instructions were for them to carry no food or water, and to go west in the clothes they were wearing. King says that followed her instructions to the letter, carrying nothing. They only took the clothes on heir backs.

The question arises: where did the sleeping bags come from? Did they magically (and fortuitously) appear each night when they were needed, or did they take them with them? Also, in the same vein, where did the baggie of instant coffee come from?

It appears that they were not quite as obedient to Mother Abagail's instructions as they thought they were. Either that, or I'm missing something.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 12 years ago

Koosh_King01

when Flagg visits the dying Kit Bradenton, why does he insist on the registration papers and such for the Buick? The world as he knows it is basically ending. The registration papers and such are a moot point. The Buick's location and its keys are all he actually requires. Something tells me this scene was originally supposed to occur earlier in the book, before everything had gone belly-up, when Flagg would actually need the car registration.

I've always wondered about that one as well. I suppose you could just say that old habits die hard and such a huge event as the end of the world (as we know it) might be difficult for even Flagg to wrap his head around so he is still practicing old habits for awhile - until he gets fully adjusted. But who can really say? While we're talking about that chapter what is with the ghost of Kit Bradenton when Flagg is retrieving the Buick? I know at the end Nick's ghost makes an appearance as well, but the thing with Bradenton's ghost feels like it was going to be part of the plot, but then King decided not to run with that character.

Gary Overman

Here's another few to ponder. When the Four set out for Vegas, Mother Abagail's instructions were for them to carry no food or water, and to go west in the clothes they were wearing. King says that followed her instructions to the letter, carrying nothing. They only took the clothes on heir backs.

The question arises: where did the sleeping bags come from? Did they magically (and fortuitously) appear each night when they were needed, or did they take them with them? Also, in the same vein, where did the baggie of instant coffee come from?

It appears that they were not quite as obedient to Mother Abagail's instructions as they thought they were. Either that, or I'm missing something.

Okay how about this Gary. She told them to leave that very day with only the clothes on their backs. But she never said that they couldn't scrounge once they were on their journey.

reply

[–] tec_4 12 years ago

I never get too uptight about King's gun issues -- although I'm nowhere as knowledgeable as some people here in this thread. Mr. King's on record in several places that he's not much into research when he writes -- he'll fix things after the fact, if it seems as though it matters to the plot, but basically, I've always had the feeling he just wings it.

Re: Nadine - sorry, I don't have a copy of the book handy, but I thought she was living with her uncle and aunt after her parents died. Don't recall anything about adoption, but I'd have to go back and read it, and it might even vary with different versions of the book, from original to 1985 (which I didn't know existed and I don't believe I've ever read) to the Uncut/1990s version.

The King error that's always bugged me was in Salem's Lot, when they find Straker hung upside down and Father Callahan (who should know better but must have slept through seminary) says it's a sign of the betrayer, and says how St. Paul was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross. St. Paul was a Roman citizen, he was beheaded because Romans weren't crucified. St. Peter was crucified upside down and St. Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross (known as St. Andrew's cross, displayed as a saltire on the state flag of Scotland). Oh, well. He tells a good story, does Mr. King and sometimes you just have to shrug and go on.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

<I never get too uptight about King's gun issues -- although I'm nowhere as knowledgeable as some people here in this thread. Mr. King's on record in several places that he's not much into research when he writes -- he'll fix things after the fact, if it seems as though it matters to the plot, but basically, I've always had the feeling he just wings it.>

You know, I agree with you here, but only up to a point. It's just that people such as Mr C, and myself are really into guns, and we will notice the stuff that is not correct about them, just like a person into cars would notice it if I say in my book that someone walked around to the front end of a 1985 Chevy Corvair and opened the hood to see what was wrong with the engine, and deciding that all it needed was to add water to the radiator.

There are three GLARING problems with the statement that I highlighted in red. And anyone who knows anything at all about the Corvair will be able to spot at least one of them and a true car enthusiast will very quickly spot all three. And in this instance the writer's credibility on the subject of the Corvair has just taken a gigantic nose-dive.

Now, I will concede that the technical errors such as the ones on the Corvair in my example and on guns in the book won't make a whit of difference to the non-enthusiast, but they do provide a lot of enjoyable fodder for nit-pickers such as me.

<Re: Nadine - sorry, I don't have a copy of the book handy, but I thought she was living with her uncle and aunt after her parents died. Don't recall anything about adoption, but I'd have to go back and read it, and it might even vary with different versions of the book, from original to 1985 (which I didn't know existed and I don't believe I've ever read) to the Uncut/1990s version.>

The 1990 version definitely tells us that she was adopted, IIRC, at the age of four months from a foundling home, and that her adoptive parents later had their own natural child, a boy

who was--trumpets, please--their very own

and that the adoptive parents and brother were all killed in a traffic accident and that one of the parents' brothers or sisters then took Nadine. She was, if memory serves, about six at the time. There is no hint of the foster parent relationship in the first two editions of the book but it is clearly spelled out in the 1990 edition.

As an aside, I sometimes wonder if Flagg did not 'arrange' this accident. No real proof, but I still have my suspicions.

reply

[–] NoahBody 12 years ago

- gary_overman
>>>I never get too uptight about King's gun issues

You know, I agree with you here, but only up to a point. It's just that people such as Mr C, and myself are really into guns, and we will notice the stuff that is not correct about them, just like a person into cars would notice it if I say in my book that someone walked around to the front end of a 1985 Chevy Corvair and opened the hood to see what was wrong with the engine, and deciding that all it needed was to add water to the radiator.

On the car note ...

Or an author having his book be about a haunted/possessed 1958 Plymouth Fury (Christine - 1983) and having someone get in the car via the back door.

For folks unfamiliar w/ the Fury, here's a picture of the car so you can see why that is problematic:
http://assets.speedtv.com/images/easy_gallery/1032685/1958_plymouth_fu ry_custom_m.jpg

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

Good catch, Mr King.

In my own story, I am going through the completed rough draft with the proverbial fine-toothed comb, looking for little inconsistecies like the one you caught. These things, plus the numerous typos, reblocking when I think of a plot hole and plugging it up, with any necessary adjustments to the dates in the narrative. Then, as I think of changes that would be good to make, I make them. Believe me, I am using up a lot of red fountain pen ink.

All of this effort is done both not to be sloppy and also to forestall folks like me who sometimes seem to take a somewhat perverted delight in picking something apart.

Much of this stuff should have been caught by King himself, and the stuff that he missed, his editor should have caught. But, to be fair, The Stand is an inordinately long book and they are not going to catch everything.

And in spite of the numerous lapses and things that sometimes leave me scratching my head, it is still an excellent book, and it is not only my favorite Stephen King story, it is one of my all-time favorites from any author.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 12 years ago

Here is something I have thought about over the years. It's a big general thing. When the pandemic is at it's peak exactly what is the military trying to do. Is it a quarantine, is it martial law, is it some type of really incompetent cover-up, is it martial law. What is it exactly?

Also the military seems to be everywhere. Small towns in Arkansas, bridges and tunnels in New York City, Kent State in Ohio (that one was cute), roadblocks in rural Vermont, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Maine 9and probably Portland, Oregon). Even in the early 70's the United States military just did not have that much manpower and the United States is a big country. Last time I checked the 4th largest nation in the world - one that stretches across an entire continent.

Perhaps the story is proving my point, but such a task would be impossible. However in the novel and mini-series the military seems to have done just that - or at least is trying. In which case it fails badly.

It just seems to show a real bad sense of logistics. Whatever one might think about the U.S. military the Pentagon excels at logistics. Consider the fact that we have thousands of troops in Afghanistan (a landlocked nation in Asia) and we move troops back and forth and keep them supplied. That is a monumental task and the U.S. military does it. This is no small thing. History is full of armies from powerful and wealthy nations that were total disasters when it came to logistics.

I'm not talking politics here. I'm talking beans and bullets. Trying to be everywhere is lousy tactics and strategy. You have to focus and prioritize.What happens in The Stand just doesn't work.

Yes I know I'm talking about a fantasy of sorts. But I spent 14 years in the U.S. Army and this is something that I have thought about.

reply

[–] whjones79-1 12 years ago

The National Guard is pretty much everywhere. Compatance levels very of course, but after 14 years in the Army you know as well as I do (25 in the US Navy) that orders are orders.

K/H D

America got the Government it deserves!!! Welcome to the USSA!!!

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 12 years ago

Oh sure I understand about orders. What I was saying is that I found it pretty amazing that the military was able to be in so many locations in such large numbers. I thought about the National Guard and Reserve (six of my 14 years were in the Guard), but at one point in the novel it is observed that many of the soldiers seem to be long time regulars. So at least as King wrote it the command turned to the regulars and in particular the lifers. Being career Navy you know that the percentage of career service members is smaller than those who are doing just one or two enlistments.

Just one of those things that I have thought about.

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

So, Mr C, and Mr Jones, you are both like UPS--you love logistics. I know, bad pun.

Actually, you made a very good point, and while I hadn't thought of it as applied to The Stand, that is one thing that in my own story, I have taken into consideration, the proverbial beans, bullets and bandages, without which no military can survive. In my story, the military has to be extremely careful and consider the supply of such things as food, fuel, ammunition, and other things when they decide whether or not to approve an operation. At least one is almost cancelled because of the distance involved and the fuel situation.

Like I say, excellent point.

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

Stuart was thirty years old when the story took place. In the thread on gun goofs, it was pointed out that Stu was a military veteran, and that he had been 'in the war'. In the 1980 version, the only war that this could have been was the Viet Nam conflict, and in the 1990 edition, it still, I believe, has him as a veteran. If he were thirty in 1980, that is feasible, as he was born in 1950 or thereabouts. But if he was born around 1960, as the 1990 book would have us believe, that was too young for Viet Nam and there were no other armed conflicts in the time for him to have served in the military. It looks like this was another error in editing.

What says anyone else?

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

<From yours truly:
Here's another few to ponder. When the Four set out for Vegas, Mother Abagail's instructions were for them to carry no food or water, and to go west in the clothes they were wearing. King says that followed her instructions to the letter, carrying nothing. They only took the clothes on heir backs.

The question arises: where did the sleeping bags come from? Did they magically (and fortuitously) appear each night when they were needed, or did they take them with them? Also, in the same vein, where did the baggie of instant coffee come from?

It appears that they were not quite as obedient to Mother Abagail's instructions as they thought they were. Either that, or I'm missing something.

The response from Mr C:
Okay how about this Gary. She told them to leave that very day with only the clothes on their backs. But she never said that they couldn't scrounge once they were on their journey.>

From the book (the start of Chapter 60):

She [Fran] and Lucy watched the undramatic start of their quest from the steps of Larry's house. The four of them stood there on the sidewalk for a moment, no packs, no bedrolls, no special equipment ... as per instructions. They had all changed into heavy walking shoes.

So they were to take nothing with them. Did the sleeping bags appear fortuitously, like I asked before, or was this an editing goof?

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 12 years ago

Beats me Gary. Probably a little bit of both.

reply

[–] sara-wilson-iii 12 years ago

My guess is they found them on the way in a deserted department store. I don't know if they took them along or left them behind and just got more.

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

<My guess is they found them on the way in a deserted department store. I don't know if they took them along or left them behind and just got more.>

If the inclusion of the sleeping bags was not an error in editing, then finding them in department or sporting goods stores or even in houses was the most likely answer.

Personally, I still think it was an editing error. This notion is not graven in stone, however.

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

This one concerns Lloyd's conversation with his lawyer. It had to have been a later addition, because of the fictitious case that Devins told Lloyd about.

The premise of the case was that there had already been a number of death penalty cases executed and by the time the first edition came out in 1978, there had just been one, Gary Gilmore. The state of Utah had shot him in early 1977 if memory serves. The next execution was not until 1979, a year after the first edition of the book was printed.

In the ten years between the first edition and the 1990 version, there had been a number executions.

reply

[–] twelveboar 12 years ago

In case no-one's mentioned it before, in my verson at least Lauder tries to plug Nadine with a .45 from the bottom of the ravine, yet when the guys find him, he has a .38 in his mouth. That's a boy so hellbent on suicide, he had to change guns halfway through!

reply

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 12 years ago

Granted, a lot of this stuff is just editing errors; things that the editor is supposed to catch, but missed in this case.

If an actual editor had been allowed to touch the book, then you're right, they probably would have been caught. King, however, through a hissy-fit and edited the book himself.

--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NoahBody 12 years ago

- gary_overman

King writes that the Kid 'thumbed the triggers to half cock'. Both handguns do have a half-cock safety feature, so that part is all right, but the way that King puts it has a glaring error.

$King makes a similar error in The Dark Tower books. I believe it was "Wolves of the Cala" where Roland "fans the trigger" in order to get a few quick shots off.

reply

[–] sara-wilson-iii 12 years ago

As I understand it, a Payday is some kind of candy bar with a peanut-butter based center, that is coated with roasted and salted peanuts. Next time I go to WallyWorld, I might just get one and try it out.

So no chocolate, what about the thumbprint? I consider that a goof, unless they were chocolate in the 70's.

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

<

As I understand it, a Payday is some kind of candy bar with a peanut-butter based center, that is coated with roasted and salted peanuts. Next time I go to WallyWorld, I might just get one and try it out.

So no chocolate, what about the thumbprint? I consider that a goof, unless they were chocolate in the 70's.>

The lack of chocolate has been mentioned before, Sara. Good point about the thumbprint BTW. You are now officially at the head of the class. My hunch is that for some reason, King wanted the candy to be Paydays, (why change it back to Paydays in the uncut version otherwise?)but that he had to include a chocolate coating on them to make the thumbprint appear in Fran's journal.

Why he insisted on Paydays is beyond me. Maybe they're his favorite candy bar and he wanted to do a tribute to them. I don't know. But it does appear that, for some reason, King wanted the candy to be Paydays.

reply

[–] NoahBody 12 years ago

I love sk goofs, but there was a chocolate Payday..
http://www.inthe80s.com/food/chocolatepayday0.shtml
... at least for a little while and it was before the book was re-released.

Oh, and since I took that one away, let me add one to the game.

When Stu, and the others have the gun battle with the four men holding the (Zoo) woman hostages, Fran sees one of the women struggling with one of the men. During the struggle, the woman grabs the man's groin and squeezes hard. We read "Fran saw her hamstrings pop out all the way up here forearm to the elbow.".

What's wrong here?

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

<When Stu, and the others have the gun battle with the four men holding the (Zoo) woman hostages, Fran sees one of the women struggling with one of the men. During the struggle, the woman grabs the man's groin and squeezes hard. We read "Fran saw her hamstrings pop out all the way up here forearm to the elbow.".

What's wrong here?>

Aren't hamstrings in the leg? More specifically the thigh?

reply

[–] NoahBody 12 years ago

gary_overman
>>> When Stu, and the others have the gun battle with the four
>>> men holding the (Zoo) woman hostages, Fran sees one of the
>>> women struggling with one of the men. During the struggle,
>>> the woman grabs the man's groin and squeezes hard. We read
>>> "Fran saw her hamstrings pop out all the way up here forearm
>>> to the elbow.".
>>>
>>> What's wrong here?>

Aren't hamstrings in the leg? More specifically the thigh?

A+ :o) Well done

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

<A+ :o) Well done>

Thank you, fair sir. That was a good catch on your part.

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

From my OP:

<Nadine Cross, when she notices Larry looking at her hair, tells him that her grandmother had pure white hair by the time she was 40 (Nadine, it might be remembered, was 37 at the time of the story) yet later on, we find out that she was adopted soon after birth. How could she have known about the grandmother's hair?>

I just recalled that in the 1990 edition, that Nadine is described as a foundling--that is, an abandoned child of unknown parentage. So, how could she have known about the grandmother's hair? This was obviously an error in editng.

reply

[–] NoahBody 12 years ago

- gary_overman

I just recalled that in the 1990 edition, that Nadine is described as a foundling--that is, an abandoned child of unknown parentage

I can't find the reference to her being adopted. I'm not saying it's not there.. just that I couldn’t' find it :)

I also couldn't find the blooper mentioned earlier where Harrold tries to "plug Nadine with a .45".

Can you point me in the right direction (chapter / etc...)?

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

<I can't find the reference to her being adopted. I'm not saying it's not there.. just that I couldn’t' find it :)

I also couldn't find the blooper mentioned earlier where Harrold tries to "plug Nadine with a .45".

Can you point me in the right direction (chapter / etc...)?>

In Chapter 49 she is described as taken from the orphanage at the age of four and a half months. I did not recall everything correctly, however; in the book, she is called a 'halfling' not a foundling. But she is also referred to as the earth's child, and from the context, I think it is implied that her natural mother and father were not known.

And FWIW, I don't recall the 45 changing into a 38. King still made an error, however, for as both the erudite Mr C and I have pointed out, King calls the gun a Colt Woodsman and says it was a 38 handgun, and implies strongly that it was a revolver. Now Colt did make a model they called the Woodsman, but it was a 22 caliber semi-auto pistol, not a revolver.

On the Colt Woodsman, I am going from memory, and have just finished reading the version set in 1985, so it is possible that King did refer to it as a 45, and then changed it to a 38.

reply

[–] NoahBody 12 years ago

Thanks much. I agree the firearm errors are there. King makes tons of gun errors.

reply

[–] whjones79-1 12 years ago

What do you expect? He's Joe Biden overdosing on estrogen.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE Steven King's work. There are times that he's just WRONG.

K/H D

America got the Government it deserves!!! Welcome to the USSA!!!

reply

[–] NoahBody 12 years ago

whjones79-1
What do you expect? He's Joe Biden overdosing on estrogen.

LOL

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE Steven King's work.

Me too. Welll. His pre-van work was for the most part quite good. His post-van efforts... less so.

There are times that he's just WRONG.

We are in complete agreement.

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

<His pre-van work was for the most part quite good. His post-van efforts... less so.>

'Pre-van' vs 'post-van'??? You just lost me here. Please explain, if you would.

reply

[–] whjones79-1 12 years ago

Aloha Gary,

I'm pretty sure Noah was referring to King's accident when he was hit by a van while jogging a few years back. It almost killed him.

If I'm mistaken please forgive me.

K/H D

America got the Government it deserves!!! Welcome to the USSA!!!

reply

[–] NoahBody 12 years ago

You are correct sir. The quality of SK's work really plummeted after that accident. Sure there were a few misses prior to that, there were also some really great reads. After event, I can't find a single thing worthwhile. :(

reply

[–] whjones79-1 12 years ago

I liked how he finished out the Dark Tower Series. I don't have the faintest idea of how much of it was written before the wreck (a lot I would assume) but it had a pretty good finish!!!

K/H D

America got the Government it deserves!!! Welcome to the USSA!!!

reply

[–] gary_overman 12 years ago

One thing that I wonder about takes place during Nick and Tom's encounter with Julie Lawry in Kansas. Nick is holding the bottle of Pepto-Bismol, after Julie tells Tom that the pink stuff is poison, yet somehow writes the note telling Julie that they don't need her, and then when she refuses to read it, Nick grabs her by the neck and shoves the note in her face, seemingly all this time still holding the bottle in his hand. Tom disappears and it takes twenty minutes to find him and then Nick realizes that he still has the bottle in his hand.

There is no mention of Nick putting the bottle down and then picking it back up and the implication from Nick's realization after he found Tom is that he had the bottle in his hand the whole time that he was writng the note to Julie and then shoving it it in her face, both of which, it seems to me, would require two hands. This is probably another error in editing.

reply

[–] NoahBody 12 years ago

whjones79-1
I liked how he finished out the Dark Tower Series. I don't have the faintest idea of how much of it was written before the wreck (a lot I would assume) but it had a pretty good finish!!!

To each his own, but have you seen the 1950's cartoon "Duck amok"?

I expected a better ending than a Daffy Duck short.

reply

[–] whjones79-1 12 years ago

Maybe I was just happy to see an end to it. My eyes are going bad so I have a hard time reading. After his accident my only hope was to see the thing finished. Maybe I just partied on that.

Don't remember clearly. Sorry.

"Under the Dome" is coming to TV in June. I haven't had a chance to read the book but do look forward to the series. I have no Idea how it's going to go. Don't really want to either until I see it. I'll just enjoy the good ride if there is one.

K/H D

America got the Government it deserves!!! Welcome to the USSA!!!

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

Reading the chapter where Trashy goes to Vegas, made me wonder about something. Trash fell off the oil tank in Indiana, and broke several bones in his wrist. They failed to heal properly because they were not correctly set, and the hand became, as SK described it, a 'Quasimodo claw'.

How then, was he able to pin Hector Drogan's arm down using it? It seems to me that grabbing a man's arm and holding it down would require two hands, particularly if the man was fighting you like crazy.

I'll put this down as something that I wonder about, as there could very well be something that I'm missing here.

Any thoughts on this?

reply

[–] sara-wilson-iii 11 years ago

It could be he was so hyped up on what was going on that he didn't even feel the pain. He probably manipulated his wrist in a way to hold it down. Adrenilin can do funny things.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

<It could be he was so hyped up on what was going on that he didn't even feel the pain. He probably manipulated his wrist in a way to hold it down. Adrenilin can do funny things.>

Hi sara; how you been?

That is possible, I suppose, but I also don't think the issue was so much the pain, but one of simple loss of use. Several years ago, I had serious work-related injury where I broke and dislocated my right elbow. While it hurt like the very devil at first, the injury healed and I now feel no pain as a result of the injury. However, I did lose a bunch of range of motion in the elbow, and now have a 25% disability there. That's what I was talking about.

The hand was useless to him not as a result of the pain, but primarily due to the way the bones had healed. I refer to another film as an example of what I am talking about; in one of the two prequels to The Exorcist, the boy Cheche had a withered arm due to a fracture that had not properly healed. I am thinking that this is what happened to Trashy.

But then you could have it right as well.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

In reading the book once more, I believe that I spotted another goof. It has to do with Nick and the posters announcing the first mass meeting. When the names of the ad hoc committee members are given, we are told that Nick, Stu and Glen had agreed to these names earlier in the day. Harold's name was not among them.

Yet on the very next page, we are told that Nick had unilaterally stricken Harold's name from the committee, the implication being that the removal was a surprise to the other men and that Nick was wondering how they were reacting to that.

So the others had either already agreed to the removal of Harold's name from the list or they hadn't. Which was it?

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

Another goof involving Nick.

When he, Stu, Ralph and Larry go to Tom's house to see about his going on the little trip, Stu marvels at his being hypnotized so quickly. When Nick explained to Stu about the time that Tom seemingly hypnotzed himself when Nick broke into the drugstore in May, Oklahoma when they first met. Nick told the others how Tom did not understand why he would not talk to him even though he put his hands over his ears and mouth and tried other ways to convey to Tom that he could not hear or speak. Nick said to the others that Tom's finally realizing that Nick could not hear him was when he broke into the drug store and Tom went into a self-imposed hynotic state.

The problem is that Tom went into his self-hynosis when Nick was in the store and he had no way of realizing that this had had taken place. I suppose a fair explanation could be made that Nick, seeing Tom do it other times, made the deduction that this was what happened at the store, but the way it was stated to Stu and the others was that Nick saw this happen and since it took place while Nick was in the store, this was not possible as Tom did not go inside the store until after he figured out what the problem was.

This was a probable editing error.

reply

[–] NoahBody 11 years ago

wow 2 more.

Nicely done :o)

reply

[–] gary_overman 8 years ago

In reading the book once more, I believe that I spotted another goof. It has to do with Nick and the posters announcing the first mass meeting. When the names of the ad hoc committee members are given, we are told that Nick, Stu and Glen had agreed to these names earlier in the day. Harold's name was not among them.

Yet on the very next page, we are told that Nick had unilaterally stricken Harold's name from the committee, the implication being that the removal was a surprise to the other men and that Nick was wondering how they were reacting to that.

So the others had either already agreed to the removal of Harold's name from the list or they hadn't. Which was it?

This same goof appears in the 1978 edition, (taking place in 1980) as well. I honestly don't understand why King himself did not catch this one since they were at most one or two pages apart.

reply

[–] GirlwonderReturns 11 years ago

Having lived in Boulder, Colorado for many years, I always thought it was cool that King mentioned so many familiar places and landmarks, like the Mormon church on Table Mesa Drive, the King Sooper's also on Table Mesa, the Central Park bandshell, and more, but there were a few goofs too. Harold is said to live out west on Arapahoe Avenue across the street from Eben G. Fine Park, but there are no houses across from Eben G. Fine; Arapahoe ends at the park. Also, Stu and Frannie are said to live at Pearl and Broadway, but that's the Pearl Street Mall, the center of Boulder's downtown commercial district - it's all storefronts, no apartments or housing, certainly none with balconies. Minor goofs, obviously, but goofs just the same.

Saying "I apologize" is the same as saying "I'm sorry." Except at a funeral.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

Interesting, and also very good points.

King also makes May, Oklahoma out to be much larger than it is in real life as well. May just has about a hundred people, and has but one business, a combination convenience-store and gas station, yet in the novel it has a Rexall and various other businesses. He tends to do the same thing with other very real small towns as well, giving one a bicycle shop, for example.

However, there is such a thing as literary license, and King certainly indulges in it. Some would say to excess.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

Here is another possible goof, or at the very least, something that I wonder about from the book.

When Lloyd and Poke Freeman are at the scene of their first murder, that of Gorgeous George, they bind him so that he can't free himself. Then they decide that dead men tell no tales so they tape over his nose and allow him to smother. King then tells that they lifted his arm up to look at his watch to see if it was worth taking and they decide that wasn't, so they let his arm drop. If his arms were tied behind his back, this would be impossible, and yet King does not say that they unbound him.

I wouldn't classify this as a definite goof but, like I say, it is certainly something that I wonder about.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

Here's something else that I wonder about: we are told when we first meet up with Mother Abagail, that her mother died in 1955 at the age of 93. This would put her birth in 1862 or thereabouts.

Abagail was born in 1882 which would make her mother twenty when Abagail was born. Here is the problem: in 1902 when Abagail performed in the talent show, she was twenty years old. Yet her brothers were described as nearly middle-aged, which to me, means that they were in their mid-thirties at the very least. Yet in 1902, their mother was just forty years old. If this is the case, then Rebecca, Abagail's mother, was less then ten years old when she gave birth to her oldest child.

I don't know about anyone else, but that strikes me as awfully young to bear children.

Probable error in editing.

reply

[–] NoahBody 11 years ago

Dang Gary, you're the master at this. I thought I was good at catching his goofs, but you've got it down to a science :)

I enjoy your posts, keep 'em coming

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

Dang Gary, you're the master at this. I thought I was good at catching his goofs, but you've got it down to a science :)

I enjoy your posts, keep 'em coming

Thank you. I appreciate the very kind words.

This book, which like I have said many times here, is my favorite SK novel and one of my favorites by any writer, does seem to have an unusual number of these types of errors. Granted, it is long, but even so, the sheer number of goofs such as we are finding, (and you, to give due credit, seem to have pointed out your share) indicates to me either very sloppy editing or as some here have pointed out, NO editing.

Except for perhaps the gun goofs, a good editor would have caught the vast majority of them and either corrected them himself or had SK to do it.

But that does not seem to have been the case, and this provides the wonderful opportunity for nit-pickers such as myself to go to work.

reply

[–] NoahBody 11 years ago

gary_overman

Thank you. I appreciate the very kind words.

This book, which like I have said many times here, is my favorite SK novel and one of my favorites by any writer, does seem to have an unusual number of these types of errors. Granted, it is long, but even so, the sheer number of goofs such as we are finding, (and you, to give due credit, seem to have pointed out your share) indicates to me either very sloppy editing or as some here have pointed out, NO editing.

I found this page a bit ago and have been meaning to ask you. Are you a contributor here? If not, you should be. They could use your keen eye.
http://stephenkingbloopers.wikia.com/wiki/Stephen_King_bloopers_Wiki

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

I found this page a bit ago and have been meaning to ask you. Are you a contributor here? If not, you should be. They could use your keen eye.
http://stephenkingbloopers.wikia.com/wiki/Stephen_King_bloopers_Wiki

No; I haven't made any contributions to that site. I didn't know about it until now. It looks like they have pretty much got it covered though.

Thank you; that was interesting.

reply

[–] pulpfictitious65 11 years ago

I haven't been on this thread for a long time, and I was just clicking through it and saw something that was mentioned (it was also mentioned on that site) and decided to post my reply at the end, because in the middle of such a huge thread it probably wouldn't be noticed. When RF gets the car from Kit Bradenton (a name who's origin I've always wondered about, I'm from Bradenton, FL which is immediately north of King's winter home in Sarasota, but I digress) he is fervent about the car having an up to date registration, but as the world is ending, why would he care? My answer would be, he didn't know how far things had or would go. They make it clear that he isn't omniscient, he had just started to acquire his magic abilities, which they make clear he doesn't know where they came from or why, and they obviously hadn't fully developed yet because if they had, he wouldn't have needed the car anyway, so how would he know the world was ending? It might've been to a point where it was a foreseeable outcome, but it hadn't been set in stone yet, so it stands to reason he would rather be safe than sorry.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!!!

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

Not in the book, but rather, it is in the film. In the mini-series, we are told that Susan Stern was from Tacoma, Washington, which was northwest of Nebraska. Nick and Ralph's party, which Susan was a part of, came to Hemingford Home from Arkansas, via Oklahoma and then Kansas, all of which are to the south of Nebraska. Why did Susan go so far to the south? This strikes me as strange.

In the 1990 version of the book, she was part of the harem that Stu's party rescued in Ohio, so in the book, this makes a lot more sense.

reply

[–] sara-wilson-iii 11 years ago

This reminds me of Nick's background in the movie. When we first meet him, he is in Arkansas. But later, Stu tells everyone at the meeting that he is from Pennslyvania. When and how did he get from PA all the way to AK???

I love trolls, they taste like chicken.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

This reminds me of Nick's background in the movie. When we first meet him, he is in Arkansas. But later, Stu tells everyone at the meeting that he is from Pennslyvania. When and how did he get from PA all the way to AK???

Good one sara.

Another goof in the film that has been pointed out was the place that Stu met Old Baldy. In the book, it was in New Hampshire, close, if memory serves, to the border with Vermont. Yet the film has the meet in Attleboro, MA. That, as you no doubt know, being as how you live in that region, is southwest of Boston, near the Rhode Island border. And then, to top it off, you have Fran and Harold, whose destination was Vermont, going a long ways out of their way, and meeting up with Stu and Glenn in Attleboro.

The book, while it has some geographic errors is not quite that sloppy, so I wonder why the film is.

reply

[–] pulpfictitious65 11 years ago

Well he wasn't from AK, they make it clear that he was a drifter, completely new at least to the area of Shoyo. But, if memory serves, he was actually born and raised in Nebraska. Don't quote me on that though.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!!!

reply

[–] sara-wilson-iii 11 years ago

Well he wasn't from AK, they make it clear that he was a drifter, completely new at least to the area of Shoyo.

Right. It's still a pretty long way to drift...

I love trolls, they taste like chicken.

reply

[–] pulpfictitious65 11 years ago

The only three things on there for me are Flag, Reply and Permalink

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!!!

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

I was referring to the whole big chart or menu that lists the history of all the threads on this movie, not just the individual comments for it. On the far right column of that menu, under the heading 'Latest Posting', if you click on the words "3 hours ago", or however long ago it was that the latest comment was posted, depending on how much time has passed since it was written, it takes you right to the newest comment on all the threads. I didn't figure that out myself until just 2 years ago, but it's a good short-cut for finding the latest post.

In other words, you were referring to the message board for the mini-series itself, and not each individual thread. Right?

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

OT, but here goes: Mr C, I just picked up a S&W Model 64 with the standard or 'pencil' barrel from a guy in Kansas. It is from 42-44 years old and except for a scratch on the sideplate, (purely cosmetic) is in fairly good shape. I seem to be fairly lucky when it comes to finding this stuff. It is basically the old M&P in stainless steel.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 10 years ago

Oh yeah. The "pencil" or tapered barrel Model 64 isn't as common as the heavy barrel. The Model 64 was introduced in the early seventies so you have one of the early ones. S&W went away from the light barreled Model 64 relatively early in the models' production run. Congratulations Gary.

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

OT, but here goes: Mr C, I just picked up a S&W Model 64 with the standard or 'pencil' barrel from a guy in Kansas. It is from 42-44 years old and except for a scratch on the sideplate, (purely cosmetic) is in fairly good shape. I seem to be fairly lucky when it comes to finding this stuff. It is basically the old M&P in stainless steel.

It might be noted that I did not go up to Kansas and buy it from the guy as that would violate Federal law. I had the revolver shipped by his local dealer to my local dealer, and then filled out Form 4473 just like a good little boy.

In case anyone was wondering, the law was complied with.

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

Here is something to wonder about: when Stu sees the sunset after The Three make their stand in Vegas, it reminds him of the Movietone newsreels he saw in the early 1960's and how the sunsets were described then. If he was 30 years old in 1990, that meant that he was born in 1960 or possibly 1959. Doesn't this make it unlikely for him to remember this sort of thing?

However, in the 1978 edition (set in 1980) he would have been born in 1950, so that is certainly possible as I remember the newsreels from the movies I attended as a kid during that same time-frame. I don't recall any of the details, but I do remember the newsreels themselves.

Possibly something that King missed when he put the 1990 version out. Probable editing error.

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

This is something to wonder about. Has it occurred to anyone here that Harold's little surprise for the Committee had at least one glaring weakness? Harold planned to trigger the device by means of a radio broadcast. As I recall, it was through one of the CB frequencies. Does anyone else see a potential problem here?

If I don't get the answer in a short time, I'll say what it is that I see.

Come children, thrill me with your acumen.

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

Are you good folks falling asleep on the watch here or what?

The problem that this presents us with is this: if someone else were to broadcast on the same frequency, would this not set the device off prematurely?

Folks in the Free Zone had and used quite frequently CB radios, so I'd think that this might be a problem. Sooner or later someone is going to try that particular channel out and when they do, BALOOEY!!

I am surprised that Harold did not think of this.

reply

[–] NoahBody 10 years ago

I've been kind of busy so I haven't been able to check in much. I have to think about your puzzle a bit as I don't see the problem right off.
*puts on his thinking cap*.

reply

[–] NoahBody 10 years ago

All I could come up with is the range of a hand held CB, but I don't think that's the answer you're looking for.

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

All I could come up with is the range of a hand held CB, but I don't think that's the answer you're looking for.

You're at least in the ball park.

The problem that I was thinking of is this: if someone else were to broadcast on the same frequency, would this not set the device off prematurely?

The people of the Free Zone had and used quite frequently CB radios, so I'd think that this might be a problem. Sooner or later someone is going to broadcast on that particular frequency and when they do, there will be a big problem.

reply

[–] NoahBody 10 years ago

Well, you've stumped me :)

I give up.

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

The answer is in the spoiler tags contained in the last post I made. But here goes anyway. The problem is that the device was to be activated using a CB radio. Since CB's are in common use at the time, what would keep someone else transmitting on the same frequency from activating the 'package'?

Still, I give you partial credit because you were at least in the ball park.

reply

[–] NoahBody 10 years ago

Another nice catch Gary. Sorry I didn't see the spoiler tags, I use no-script and it hides those.

reply

[–] milamontagne 10 years ago

That one goof is, surprisingly, easy to account for. Its fairly easy (especially
in old Crystal-controlled radios) to change the frequencies used for transmission/reception. It also mentioned that he threw away the one he used to activate the bomb. Nadine (in the expanded edition) also brings up a valid concern as to the range of the transmission. I'm guessing King either did his research, or got incredibly lucky with this one...

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

That one goof is, surprisingly, easy to account for. Its fairly easy (especially in old Crystal-controlled radios) to change the frequencies used for transmission/reception. It also mentioned that he threw away the one he used to activate the bomb. Nadine (in the expanded edition) also brings up a valid concern as to the range of the transmission. I'm guessing King either did his research, or got incredibly lucky with this one...

No; I still wonder about it.

While it is true that it would be fairly easy to change frequencies, it does not address my main point, which was that someone else using the same frequency could detonate the device not intending to do it. And it really does not matter what frequency Harold switched it to, another person transmitting on the same channel could inadvertently set the device off. And my impression is that CB sets were very extensively used in post-CT America, so the danger was very real.

So then, it would appear that it is a very bad idea to use CB radios to detonate explosives. For this reason, unless I am completely misreading what you are saying, I will have to stand by my calling this a goof. If not an outright goof, it is at least something that I wonder about. Of course Harold could have just gotten lucky, too.

reply

[–] milamontagne 10 years ago

No; I still wonder about it.

While it is true that it would be fairly easy to change frequencies, it does not address my main point, which was that someone else using the same frequency could detonate the device not intending to do it. And it really does not matter what frequency Harold switched it to, another person transmitting on the same channel could inadvertently set the device off. And my impression is that CB sets were very extensively used in post-CT America, so the danger was very real.

So then, it would appear that it is a very bad idea to use CB radios to detonate explosives. For this reason, unless I am completely misreading what you are saying, I will have to stand by my calling this a goof. If not an outright goof, it is at least something that I wonder about. Of course Harold could have just gotten lucky, too.

Its perfectly valid to assume someone useing the same frequency would have detonated the bomb. However, the bomb was set mere hours before it was used, and
what i was getting at is the actual frequencies the pair of walkie-talkies was altered to not correspond with any channel on the standard frequencies. When I was a serious CB enthusiast, I had a radio modded as to be able to go to frequencies both below the normal channel "1" and above the normal channel "40".

I hope this clears up any confusion.

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

Its perfectly valid to assume someone useing the same frequency would have detonated the bomb. However, the bomb was set mere hours before it was used, and
what i was getting at is the actual frequencies the pair of walkie-talkies was altered to not correspond with any channel on the standard frequencies. When I was a serious CB enthusiast, I had a radio modded as to be able to go to frequencies both below the normal channel "1" and above the normal channel "40".

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Thanks. I'll move it from the category of 'definite goof' to 'things I wonder about' then.

One problem is that as best as I recall, the book says nothing about altering frequencies.

Anyway, you take care and thanks for participating. 

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

This is something that I wonder about, not a definite goof: in the book, we are told that Nick's party found the little girl, Gina McCne with a broken leg after having fallen forty feet from the hayloft in her uncle's barn. Does this strike anyone else as awfully high for a hayloft? I have never seen a barn that high out here in Oklahoma.

Maybe in Maine or other parts of New England, the barns are that high, but not in the Great Plains. Like I say, I wonder.

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

Here's something else that I wonder about: we are told when we first meet up with Mother Abagail, that her mother died in 1955 at the age of 93. This would put her birth in 1862 or thereabouts.

Abagail was born in 1882 which would make her mother twenty when Abagail was born. Here is the problem: in 1902 when Abagail performed in the talent show, she was twenty years old. Yet her brothers were described as nearly middle-aged, which to me, means that they were in their mid-thirties at the very least. Yet in 1902, their mother was just forty years old. If this is the case, then Rebecca, Abagail's mother, was less then ten years old when she gave birth to her oldest child.

I don't know about anyone else, but that strikes me as awfully young to bear children.

Probable error in editing.

The book tells us that Luke, the 'last of her brothers' had died in 1949 at the age of 'eighty-something', strongly implying that he was older than eighty. Let's go with eighty for the sake of argument. If Luke was only eighty when he died, this would mean that he was born in either 1868 or 1869. Rebecca, Abagail's mother would have been six or seven when he was born. If, as the book implies, Luke was older than eighty, this would mean that his mother was even younger when she had him.

This does not make sense at all.

Like most of the goofs spotted in this thread, this was very likely sloppy editing.

reply