In either the book or the mini-series?
For me it's easy: The Kid. He was a repulsive disgusting person.
I know this is almost a sin to say, but I have never ever liked Larry.
And to compound the bile my post will received, he's closely followed by Mother Abigail.
❤️️
I may not agree with you, but I don't condemn you. That's your opinion and everyone is entitled to that.
I'd just like to change my answer.....
HATED Mother Abigail!!!!
By the way, I liked Ruby Dee in a number of films over the years, but this was not one of those times.
If you ever listen to the commentary, you may want to fast forward past her parts. It makes you want to scream in frustration.
Why did you not like Mother Abagail? Just curious.
share❤️️
I can't really say, exactly. I can't quite put my finger on it. I liked her fine in the book. I had a completely different picture of her though. Maybe that's it. While reading, most people, me included, like to cast these characters. For me, It can be actors and people I know in my life. I had this image of a dear old lady I knew for many years. While I like Ruby Dee, she somehow irritated me in this role. A few years later when I bought the DVD, she further irritated me with her nonstop stuttering during the commentary.....
I had no trouble with Gary Senise as Stu, even though I had always pictured Kieth Carradine in that role after having first read the book in 1979. Go figure....
Larry was my favorite and I resented his being shortchanged in the mini series.
He was one of the few that showed such personal growth while everyone else started out almost saintly.
He became a better man. And that's just more interesting to me.
My least favorite...either Harold or that Julie girl, the one that made fun of Nick and Tom when they were traveling together.
I don't like her very much either, for a reason others might or might not agree with. Ever heard of the "Magical Negro" in fiction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro
Like any race related idea, the term is subject to varying interpretations and even misuse. My definition is a pretty narrow one. To me, a MN is a black supporting character who (a) has some special attribute by virtue of being black; (b) uses this attribute to help a white major character solve a problem he could not have solved himself; (c) does so at considerable cost to himself; (d) gets nothing of value in return; (e) conveniently gets out of the way afterward so that the white character can go on and still be the hero of the story; and (f) whose actions cannot be justified by some legitimate literary purpose (e.g., symbolism).
Unfortunately, any black supporting character in a story with a white major character is a target for this label from people who fling it around indiscriminately. In this article ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Magical_Negro_occurrences_in_fiction
... the following King characters are all listed: Dick Hallorann (The Shining), Mother Abigail, John Coffey (The Green Mile), Ellis Redding (The Shawshank Redemption), Lester Parker (The Talisman).
I read The Talisman a long time ago, so long ago I don't remember anything about it. So I won't comment on Parker. But in King's defense, I think I can present strong arguments why out of the remaining four, Mother Abigail is the only one who qualifies ... but she is the quintessential MN, to a tee.
But the Stand if RIFE with characters like that....Nick, Tom....even Kojak.
shareBut the Stand if RIFE with characters like that....Nick, Tom....even Kojak.Good point.
> But the Stand if RIFE with characters like that....Nick, Tom....even Kojak.
There's a big difference. Authors don't write characters like Nick, Tom, etc out of misplaced white liberal guilt.
To be fair to King, I don't know what the early drafts and outlines of The Stand looked like. I've only seen the finished product. But quite often a MN character comes about when a white liberal author (which King certainly is) realizes part way through writing a story, "oh my God, all my characters are white! That's bad! I need to put in some diversity!" ... inserts a black character for no better reason than to have a black character ... doesn't really know what to do with the new character ... and so has the character contribute in some significant and meaningful way to the protagonist(s) then make a quick exit so the author doesn't have to deal anymore with a character he never truly felt comfortable with in the first place.
I don't know what King's actual reasons were for the Mother Abigail character. It looks that way to me, but at the end of the day, I don't know ... and neither does anyone else here. But by contrast, I'd find it absurd if anyone suggested that Nick and Tom were in the story because King, part way through writing The Stand, realized "I don't have any deaf characters! And all my characters are of at least normal intelligence! That's bad! I need to put in some diversity -- gotta have a deaf character, and a retarded one as well."
The term "magical" is unfortunate in the context of this discussion about The Stand, because it implies that the special attribute is necessarily supernatural. It doesn't have to be any such thing, it can merely be the MN's life experience. The linked Wikipedia articles get that part of it wrong ... well, it's Wikipedia, what do you expect? ... but "magical" here is perhaps better understood as meaning "too good to be true" or "too convenient" rather than having anything to do with hocus pocus.
(CONTINUED ...)
Why is it a problem? It's not at all a problem that Dick Hallorann and Mother Abigail both have psychic powers, or that John Coffey can heal the sick. That's just the sort of thing King writes about.
Read through the list of characteristics I presented and look at the total picture. The problem is that the MN ends up being a black character who exists for no other reason than to help the white characters ... and so reinforces the idea that blacks exist to serve whites, and are only of value to the extent they accomplish this purpose.
Which brings us back to Mother Abigail. Sure, she's got supernatural powers. Well, so does John Coffey, but there are issues of literary symbolism in The Green Mile (there's a reason Coffey's initials are "J. C.") ... and to parallel the racial aspects of the Christ story in a 1930s America setting, John Coffey had to be a black man. Dick Hallorann's rushing back to the Overlook to try to save Danny might seem to be altruism of the most servile sort, but he does get something of value out of it; the preservation of his self respect -- he curses himself for being a fool, but he knows that if he doesn't try he'll never be able to look at himself in the mirror again. And the relationship between Ellis Redding and Andy Dufresne isn't one of subservience but rather symbiosis; each has something psychologically the other lacks.
(CONTINUED ...)
So if anything, I'm defending King ... generally. He gets hit with this particular criticism far more than he deserves. But in Mother Abigail's case, it fits. Her sole purpose is to be a beacon to guide the main characters to Boulder. Once there, she's shunted into semi-irrelevance, a comfortable retirement of sorts. And when it looks like her presence might complicate things for the white heroes, right when the committee is pondering how to work around her, God steps in and tells her to go off and die ... well, not exactly, but sending a 108 year old into the raw elements is pretty much a death sentence.
So yeah, she's the quintessential Magical Negro. Of course, anyone who likes is entitled to disagree. But I think I've made a good case for it, and it'll take more than calling the idea "silly" to change my mind.
Book: By far, The Kid. I'd say the runner-up was Randall Flagg.
Series: Most annoying was that screechy girl who tried to seduce Nick in the drug store, followed by couple-of-the-year, Frannie and Harold. I'd say that the show's Frannie and Harold were a much better couple than Frannie and Stu. Stu would have made a better match with a more adult woman.
>I'd say that the show's Frannie and Harold were a much better couple than Frannie and Stu. Stu would have made a better match with a more adult woman.
Not sure about H&F being a couple, but agree about Stu. I'm reminded of a great quote from Roger Ebert, in his review of The Great Gatsby (1974 version):
> In the novel, Gatsby never understands that he is too good for Daisy. In the movie, we never understand why he thought she was good enough for him. And that's what's missing.
That sums it up for me, in both versions of The Stand (book and TV). I get what Fran sees in Stu; as King put it, he's calm, capable, and isn't "twenty pounds of bullshit in a ten pound bag," or however that quote went. So yeah, I get that. But I've never understood what Stu sees in her.
Stu must have seen something in Fran. While she was not my favorite character, I don't have the dislike of Fran that so many of you appear to have. I think that she grew some in the course of the story, and she was very supportive of Stu most of the time. The one exception that I can think of was Stu taking the marshal's job.
Was she being selfish there? Yeah, she probably was. But I don't think it was all that unusual. Many females would react as Fran did when their man takes on what they see as a dangerous job. So then, her selfishness was entirely within bounds in this case.
Where I would be more inclined to be critical of Fran is in her treatment of Jess Rider at the beginning of the story. I think that he tried to do the right thing in regards to Fran's pregnancy, but all she wanted to do was to score points off of him, and so she did not engage in a reasonable discussion with Jess. Now, in fairness to Fran, she was likely still very emotional from finding out that she was pregnant, but I think it also quite likely that she put all of the blame on Jess, forgetting the part that she played. I think I can understand how she felt, but scene with Jess could hardly be described as her finest hour. She did grow up as the novel progressed.
So then, Fran was a mixed bag for me.
> I think that she grew some in the course of the story
Agreed. I'd even go further and say she grew a lot, but that's only because she started from such a low point ...
> Where I would be more inclined to be critical of Fran is in her treatment of Jess Rider at the beginning of the story.
Also agreed. Her treatment of him was despicable. It's understandable that she'd be irritated with him, but she essentially tried to put all the blame for her pregnancy on him. I suppose in her own mind she was merely an innocent bystander?
It also didn't help my impression of Fran when King treated us to her inner dialogue; things like "shoo fly, get away from Frannie's pie" ... sometimes it seemed like listening to a seven year old.
And I think that's ultimately what makes the Stu/Fran matchup feel false for me. The problem isn't that Stu fell for her. Had he done so later, when she had matured some, that would have made sense. The problem is that he fell for her almost immediately when they met, and at that time she hadn't matured any yet.
It was a toss up for me. Both Nadine Cross and Harold Lauder. In both the book and the miniseries. They deserved each other. Though at least Nadine redeemed herself (somewhat) in the end. Still, she was a loathsome character.
shareI also hated The Kid, but not simply because he was a "repulsive disgusting person." He was, but I hated him--or I should say, his character--because his sub-plot with Trashcan Man is part of the Uncut story, and imo, I think it's one of the most cartoonish and garishishly written chapters in the entire complete novel. It stands out to me like a sore thumb in what is a story about (mostly) ordinary people who must choose either evil or good sides after a viral apocalypse.
King states in his preface to the uncut novel (I just re-read it a couple weeks ago...and I regret it now [more on that in a moment]) that when he had the clout to get the full and complete novel of The Stand published, he not only updated the story to (what was then contemporary) 1990, but he also rewrote all the sections of the novel that had been omitted. And this particular chapter with The Kid (along with some of the other "new" stuff) clashed with the tone of the story. In a word, I hate everything about this sub-plot and character. I'd like to hope that it won't be included when the new adaptation is made, but considering how our post-modern era seems to enjoy this kind of Tarantino-like foolishness when it comes to antagonists in stories, I'm betting it will be.
As for the Complete and Uncut The Stand, there are some parts of the re-inserted portions that I do like, such as fleshing out the backgrounds of the main characters more, and also having more detail about their journeys west after the plague. But I really hate the up-dating of the story to 1990, and especially how King not only changed all dates and occurrences in the original story to reflect this change but rewrote those sections, too. The tone of the story just feels slightly askew, and its style is subtly but noticeably different from King's style when he wrote his masterpieces in the 70s.
{reached space limit for post--MOVIECHAT really needs to increase the size limit for posts--3 paragraphs is too small to properly make a point}
My final thought in the above post was that I made an effort to try and get the original '78 version of The Stand but was surprised to find that it's never been re-published. The hardcover is priced way too high to consider purchasing just for reading and my library doesn't have a copy of it or the paperback of it from 1980. I might have to buy the paperback used, which I wouldn't mind if I could get it cheap, but on Amazon it's going for at least nine bucks with shipping, and I think that's too much for a used paperback book. It's almost like King has mandated that the original version should just disappear because he seems to be so in love with his revisionism of the story.
share> I also hated The Kid, but not simply because he was a "repulsive disgusting person." He was, but I hated him--or I should say, his character--because his sub-plot with Trashcan Man is part of the Uncut story, and imo, I think it's one of the most cartoonish and garishishly written chapters in the entire complete novel.
For the past half hour, I've been mentally reviewing The Stand, trying to make sure I'm not inadvertently overlooking some other character who was more repulsive and disgusting than The Kid. And I can't come up with one, not even close. So he gets the prize from me. And I agree on your other point. The entire time I was reading about The Kid I was hoping Trashy would bash his head in with a brick and end my misery, and after finishing that part of the book I wanted to take a long shower and wash the slime off.
Chad Koleslaw, the terrible chef.
shareFranny for me. Mind you, it isn't that I think she is badly written. On the contrary, I think she is very well written as a self-absorbed, attractive young woman from an upper-middle class background. She's not a bad person, and even her self-absorption isn't some great in; we all have our flaws. However I just find her monologue a bit irritating and I think she's the kind of person I'd get annoyed with if I spent much time around her.
I don't like the Kid either but there's no need for me to go into that.
[deleted]
In the book, as far as the major characters went, I have to go with the Kid. I just didn't get into his section into the story (other than the fact that he was the instrument used in the end to bring about the downfall of Flagg). I just wasn't as interested into his background as I was into the other characters.
~snip~
The Mini-Series, least favorite major character: I have to go with the Kid again, as I already said, apart from his role in bringing down Flagg, he just wasn't an enthralling character.
~snip~
[deleted]