Annoyed by Stephen King's "The Stand"

[Enrique]

Which I just finished...

The supernatural element ruined the whole thing for me. I was interested in the characters figuring out what to do, and annoyed how their actions were "trumped." Like Harold was so clever leaving the signs for people to follow, but who cares since everyone would end up getting led by their dreams to Nebraska?

And why would Harold know how to ride a motorcycle?

And why would Stu know how to cross-country ski?

And what was the point of sending spies, or sending that party of four, when (spoiler alert) made the whole thing moot? Everyone in Boulder could have sat and picked their butts and King would have taken care of the whole thing.

[InvisibleTouch]

1. Have not read that one, but...

...it's Stephen King. You're surprised at a supernatural element?

[Enrique]

4. not surprised at it

just relating how it affected my reading experience.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. It was sort of a modern Lord of the Rings.

Which admittedly works a lot better in a fantasy setting, where magic/supernatural stuff is more acceptable. The point of having them do stuff like send the party of four is to have a show of faith, and the supernatural events that follow justify that faith. It's fairly blunt, heavy-handed religiousity, which is common for King.

King is a good storyteller, but a fairly bad writer. The Stand worked better as a horrible made-for-TV mini-series than it did a book. And that said, I actually did like it, better than most of his work.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

30. I'm sorry,

but King is not only a great storyteller, but a wonderful writer. Now whether you respond to his writing is another thing altogether. But saying he's a bad writer is just wrong. There are novelists out there who wish they had a fifth of his talent.

[smoogatz]

32. Sorry. Got to disagree.

King has his bag of tricks and he's very good at them, and he's certainly managed to tap into some kind of weird, unhappy American zeitgeist--but at the sentence level, he's just okay at best. At worst he's genuinely rotten. Admittedly, I stopped reading him after Pet Sematary; maybe he's gotten better since then.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

33. Okay, then, I have to ask

You say, "but at the sentence level, he's just okay at best." Are you talking grammar? Is that the litmus test?

Because I'm talking voice, style, storytelling, pacing, dialogue, the ability to keep readers turning pages... all those things that make writing great. And King excels at all of them.

[smoogatz]

34. I'm talking about the same things--also language,

the ability to put together a sentence that goes beyond the merely utilitarian. King doesn't really have that gift. I wouldn't call him a master of style or voice, either--when I was reading him he pretty much did the same thing in every book. He was reasonably good at it, and it worked okay within the constraints of his genre, but I doubted then and still doubt whether it would hold up as well if there weren't any demonically possessed cars or whatever to propel the storyline and hold the reader's interest. In my experience of him, the standard King M.O. went kind of like this: start with the gearshift in "normal," throw in some kind of supernatural monkeywrench, then keep raising the stakes until the demons started climbing out of the cracks in the ground. Meanwhile, the unexpectedly heroic heroes pluckily find the solution, the finding of which usually requires the possession of one or more of the fundamental human virtues. All of which can be very entertaining if you like that kind of thing--and lots of people do, which is fine with me.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

35. I guess this just comes down to a matter of taste

because I think you're dead wrong with everything you've said. King doesn't always rely on the supernatural to drive his work. Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption is a wonderful example of that. And while Hearts in Atlantis does have a touch of supernatural, it's more a coming of age story than anything else, and is beautifully written and realized in every way.

But that said, even with the majority of his supernatural work he is an amazing craftsman. The Dead Zone and Pet Sematary are masterworks of ANY genre. The beauty of his works lies in his ability to create real, three-dimensional characters, which is the root of all great fiction. And on a "sentence level" his work -- even the throwaway stuff -- is and always will be excellent. It amazes me that you can't see this, but then one man's treasure is another man's garbage.

So, again, it sounds to me as if this is just a matter of taste. And I'm curious to know who you DO think goes "beyond the merely utilitarian."

[smoogatz]

36. Yeah, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I respect your ability and success as a writer, but we clearly have different taste, yes. Writers who can really do the sentence thing: Doctorow, Denis Johnson, Jeff Eugenides, Lorrie Moore, Saul Bellow, Peter Taylor, George Garrett, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, George Saunders, P.G. Wodehouse, Raymond Chandler, to name a few--but I could go on and on, obviously.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

37. Well, I won't disagree with your list of writers

There are some pretty powerful names there, but I'd be happy to put King alongside them. The only difference, to my mind, is subject matter. But then Chandler -- one of our truly great American writers -- wasn't taken very seriously because he "only" wrote "detective" fiction.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Uh, yeah. King was so out of character in his writing of that book.

:eyes:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. But, that's how fiction works -

it's not supposed to be real life. It's the willing suspension of disbelief. You made a contract with the author when you picked up that book that you would believe the story, believe all of it, no matter how different it was from real life.

That's why it's called "fiction." If it were true-to-life, it would be non-fiction...................

[Orrex]

14. But apocalyptic fiction doesn't require a supernatural or science fictional element, either

Your mention of an implied contract between author and reader isn't bad, but that contract necessarily stipulates that the reader can object to the author's treatment of this or that subject, or any other aspect of the author's involvement, for that matter.

Haven't you ever gotten to the end of a book and said "I would have preferred the protagonist to do such-and-such" or the like? What happens to the contract in those cases?

Besides, there's plenty of fiction that has no supernatural element whatsoever. King's fiction shouldn't get a pass simply because he throws in a metaphysical bad guy.

His fiction is always stronger when he underplays the supernatural aspects of it. When he gives it free rein, his story invariably suffers.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

15. Readers always object -

I'm a novelist, and the letters I get from readers would set you to laughing and wondering. A lot of them are quite marvelous, and I do cherish my readers, but some of them - the ones who tell me they didn't like that ending, or who didn't want that character to die - they really are funny.

You're reacting like everyone does.

You would have done it differently.

See, everyone is a critic. That's a whole lot easier than actually doing the work of writing the book.

If you weren't expecting a supernatural element in a Stephen King book, you were fooling yourself when you picked it up. That's his signature, his stock in trade, and I find it entertaining that you're taking such issue with it.

Tell you what - go write one that's better than what King did. Write one that's exactly what you want it to be, and then see what you think of the process.........................

[Orrex]

16. Ah, yes. Only "better" writers are permitted to criticize King's work.

I was hardly surprised to find a supernatural element in King's work; I'm simply saying that when he injects the supernatural too broadly or too readily (i.e., where his story is already strong enough without it), then the fiction suffers. What was the supernatural element in Stand By Me, for instance, or Misery? Or The Shawshank Redemption? Would any of these have been improved by the presence of a pesky snow-monster or an alien in the forest or the ghost of a dead inmate?

You seem to think that, because I lack experience at the process of writing, I am therefore not fit to comment on the process of reading. That's simply elitist nonsense.

By your assertion, every ending you write is perfect by the metric of "it's what Tangerine LaBamba" would have done. To that end, I suppose you're correct, and if you were the only one reading it, then that would be sufficient.

Everyone is a critic, and you should be glad that they are. If they weren't then no one would read your books or King's or anyone else's.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

17. Your penultimate sentence is semi-correct -

congratulations...........

[Orrex]

18. .

:eyes:

[lob1]

6. I read it when it first came out. I hated the last part of the book.

A rule of writing is that the protagonists are supposed to help bring about the conclusion of the story. The heroes had nothing to do with bringing about the ending. They could've stayed home and the same ending would've happened anyway. They became observers and not doers.

[kestrel91316]

7. You have just dissed my favorite novel. I am bereft.

[winter999]

8. Answers below:

(this is one of King's novels I've read many times - it's at the top of my "King" list)

The supernatural element ruined the whole thing for me. I was interested in the characters figuring out what to do, and annoyed how their actions were "trumped." Like Harold was so clever leaving the signs for people to follow, but who cares since everyone would end up getting led by their dreams to Nebraska?

Remember, Harold didn't have the visions. He didn't know everyone was migrating to Nebraska (and then on to Denver).

And why would Harold know how to ride a motorcycle?

He learned - this may have been addressed early on.

And why would Stu know how to cross-country ski?

Good catch - don't know many local-yockal Texans that ski. But again, he had time to learn over the Winter.

And what was the point of sending spies, or sending that party of four, when (spoiler alert) made the whole thing moot? Everyone in Boulder could have sat and picked their butts and King would have taken care of the whole thing.

The 4 were compelled to go in order to be present for the Fist of God. It was their belief that made it happen. While not exactly spelled out, that was the impression I was left with. If they hadn't gone to Vegas, the nuke would have been used against Denver.

This is a book that gets better with a re-read. You'll pick up on the "supernatural" within the first 100 pages.

I have a question - what's the significance of R. F.?

[Cheap_Trick]

11. Stu had been in the military

So he'd been to more than just Texas.

[Enrique]

21. Ralph Furley?

Thanks for the answers. I guess it's just a matter of whether a particular reader is convinced by the internal logic of the novel or not. I know a lot of people who read it and loved it.

And regarding Harold and the bike, I went back and looked for an explanation, and it wasn't there. One minute we see Fran watching Harold "inexpertly" driving a car, smashing flowers and stuff, and then when it's time to leave he has to teach her how to ride a motorcycle.

[Mad_Dem_X]

22. King does have a fascination with those initials

More than one of his villains have the initials RF. Maybe those are the initials of someone he doesn't like? :shrug:

[Lerkfish]

9. well, I'm not really sure what to say, the things you don't like are the central

parts of the plot.

it was supernatural because it was a stand against evil by good.

therefore, removing the supernatural element would have made it something completely different.

And the party of four was there to make a stand, which distracted evil so his own henchman could be his undoing.

It was a sacrifice, common concept in christian symbology.

[moobu2]

10. I thought it was great

I read it in 1979 when I was very young and enjoyed the fantasy. Now, all I remember about it basically is that it was a thick book and I loved it. The miniseries sucked.

[Cheap_Trick]

12. The only part I really didn't care for was the literal "hand of god"

reaching down to set off the nuke. I'd rather have seen Trashcan Man set it off since he was always looking for a bigger boom.

[comrade snarky]

23. That bothered me as well

Actual hand of god, out of no where. Problem solved. It doesn't get any more Deus Ex Machina than that.

To my mind that's lazy writing.

edited to add:
I enjoyed the beginning of the book, it was a good ride up until the last 100 pages or so.

[Forkboy]

25. It certainly wasn't as cool as The Buddha's Palm in Kung Fu Hustle.

:D

[MUAD_DIB]

13. The stand is one of my favorites, and it was a pretty good book by King

considering his McDonald's approach to writing (Cujo, Christine etc.) that he fell into for some time.


The stand is by far one of his best stand alone works.

[RebelOne]

19. In my opinion, "The Stand" is one of King's best books. n/t

[raccoon]

20. Good points. I liked the book, but seems to me a plague like that would be

horrific enough, without the supernatural element.



"And why would Stu know how to cross-country ski?" Especially since he was from TEXAS.

[Forkboy]

24. Supernatural elements ruin many a story for me.

But in this instance it didn't bother me at all. It's a very solid story by a guy at the peak of his game that just so happens to rely on supernatural elements to resolve it all. Another good example of a book that uses the supernatural in an apocalyptic setting is Swan Song by Robert McCammon, and that one worked for me as well (I like it better than The Stand even). If you read it you'll never hear the song "Here We Go 'Round The Mulberry Bush" the same way ever again.

[AngryOldDem]

26. It's been awhile since I read it....

...but if memory serves Harold learned to ride a motorcycle when he was with Nadine. He had no choice but to learn.

I enjoyed the edited version of The Stand. I had to read it in college, and I remember not being able to put it down. A decent good vs. evil tale. The unedited version was monotonous and proves why some authors -- notably King -- need editors.

As for the people and the signs -- no one knew that there were others out there who were having the same dreams, so I found it entirely plausible that Harold would leave signs. Also -- when the story started he was feeling pretty worthless; in a great line King says he was watching on the sidelines while his popular, older sister was "walking down the Miss America runway that was her life" (paraphrase. He was trying to establish his manliness and importance with Frannie, thus his frequent acts of bravado.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. It wasn't so much that it had a supernatural element...

but that it started off purely science fiction and then changed into a supernatural story when he didn't know what to do with it.

People call this prime Stephen King, but really I think his recent stuff is much better.

[BlueIris]

28. I hate "The Stand." It's the most overrated Stephen King there is.

It's overwritten, badly plotted and just bad. A decent idea that was wrecked in the plotting (like a lot of mid-career King).

[libguy9560]

29. I'm annoyed by King's book in general

As they're mostly tritely-written dreck.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

31. Sigh. nt