The What Are You Reading thread (now with a simpler name)

[Amentep]

4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Don't know about that. The plot made no sense.  But then again it WAS a Schwarzenegger movie. 

Okay... would you believe it was a good Richard Dawson film?

[Guard Dog]

OK THAT I can get behind! He did steal the show.

[LadyCrimson]

The Shining (yes I didn't like that movie, except Jack is always a good psyho), Running Man and Firestarter are what convinced me that Stephen King movies were usually going to be dreck, or at least only just barely connected to the source material. Carrie and Dead Zone were decent tho.

Edit: and Dawson was the best thing in Running Man, agreed. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by LadyCrimson

[Amentep]

I confess, I enjoy MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE even if I concede that King was probably correct in calling it a 'moron movie'.

So I'm probably not the right person to ask. I've liked a lot of King adaptions to various degrees. Firestarter is  big disappointment as I recall.

I think the written versions are generally superior.

[LadyCrimson]

Max. Overdrive, for me, was almost one of those films that's so bad it's good, but it missed it by thiiiiissss much.

[xzar_monty]

7 hours ago, Amentep said:

I think the written versions are generally superior.

Carrie is really good, I'm actually not sure which one's better, the movie or the book. The Shining is excellent as a movie, but it's not the book, i.e. the story has been changed around quite a bit. But it's an excellent movie, no question.

The Shawshank Redemption is an interesting case, as it exemplifies several problems that the vast majority of American movies of certain type tend to have. The movie is ok-to-good, and the acting is excellent-to-superb, but there are serious problems: the story has received some Hollywood treatment of the evil-loses-and-goodies-win variety (of course the warden has to die, of course the friends have to meet outside the prison in the end, although neither of these exist in the Stephen King original, etc.) and it also follows the age-old American movie wisdom of "violence always works, so let's show an awful lot of it". This violence thing seriously detracts from the movie's potential power. There is no question that prisons are brutal places, but this brutality and oppressiveness could have been conveyed with a couple of effective scenes that create an atmosphere, but instead we get one beating after another. And where have we seen that before? In every American movie of this type made before. (Just look at how powerfully Stephen King handles this question of violence in his original story.)

I think Peter Jackson's The Hobbit (the first part, the only one I saw) put me off movie adaptations for the rest of my life. I mean, it was awful beyond description(*). So yes, the written versions of just about everything are generally superior.

 

(*) It has to be said there were great difficulties with the story in the first place. Like, among the dwarves, essentially only Thorin has a personality in the book, the rest just tag along. But you can't have people just tagging along in the movie, because the viewer is going to actually see them, whereas in the book the reader can easily ignore them. However, Jackson butchered the whole thing nevertheless.

[xzar_monty]

Btw, the alternate version of The Shining is also very good. Highly recommended.

 

[Guard Dog]

I thought the best movie adaptation of Kings books was Cujo. That was the only one that checked all of the plot boxes without major changes. 

I've said many times I've never been a fan of King's writing. He comes up with an interesting concept, bolts a makeshift plot to the concept and resolves all of it in 50 pages. Then he pads it with 150 pages or so of superfluous writing to glue it all together and then  laughs all the way to the bank. Don't get me wrong, good for him. But he's not someone you are going to go to for interesting or memorable writing. I actually like the Bachman stories a little better because he was able to experiment with them. But one passage he wrote as always stuck with me. The next to las paragraph of Cujo changes the whole book:

Quote

Shortly following those mortal events in the Camber dooryard, Cujo's remains were cremated. The ashes went out with the trash and were disposed of at the Augusta waste treatment plant. It would perhaps not be amiss to point out out that he had always tried to be a good dog. He had tried to do the things his MAN and his WOMAN, and most of all his BOY, had asked or expected of him. He would have died for them, if that had been required. He had never wanted to kill anybody. He had been struck by something, possibly destiny, or fate, or only a degenerative nerve disease called rabies. Free will was not a factor.

Edit: I just reread what I wrote here and I think it comes off harsher on King than I intended. He is not a bad writer. Far from it. From a technical standpoint he is excellent. In the opening line of the Dark Tower he identified the Protagonist, Antagonist, setting, and central conflict and did it one sentence. And it was a good sentence. He does not leave loose plots threads and resolves all conflicts. The plots make sense. But he does not inspire you to identify with his characters. He does not put you in the story. You never forget you are reading a book. You never get invested in the outcomes. At least that is true for me. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Guard Dog

[Amentep]

I've neither read CUJO nor watched the movie.  I read MISERY but never watched the movie because I'd already lived in that space more than I wanted to.  One King adaption I was surprised I liked as much as I did was DOLORES CLAIBORNE (which I watched without having read the novel prior).  One thing with respect to the violence in SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION is that the written word has the ability to offer a type of sketchy subtlety that can't be achieved in film that I think tends to make the violence more pronounced when translated into live action.  

I can't say I've identified with King's characters much.  But if the plot hooks me, I'll still become invested in the outcome for the characters.  IT is probably the one that I could identify with the best, probably because I read it when I was around the same age as the kids in the flashback part of the store to when they were kids, and I got the character types involved since I saw them at school everyday.

I like both The Shining adaptions.  There was a boom in decent-for-King-adaptions mini-series there for awhile that was a lot of fun.  The Shining, Rose Red, Storm of the Century, The Stand, Desperation, etc.  Then there was that lousy Salem's Lot adaption remake (yeah the original mini took a lot of liberties, but I'd argue it was good on its own terms while the Salem's Lot redo wasn't).  Even the Langoliers with chewing-the-scenery-climbing-the-walls Bronson Pinchot was entertaining despite the terrible TV CGI and a thin plot (that worked much better as a short story as intended).  Seems like a lot of King stuff is either too long to adapt properly for a movie, or too short and adapted as a multi-part miniseries.

Speaking of short stories, I thought the ending of the film adaption of THE MIST was terrible.  The short story had it right leaving the end ambiguous as to the fate of the characters, in my opinion.

5 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Peter Jackson's The Hobbit

That whole adaption was wrong-headed from the start.  Jackson inherited the work that had been done when Del Toro left though, and Del Toro was given, from the impression I have, an impossible mandate to make THE HOBBIT into another LORD OF THE RINGS, which necessitated a stronger through story as they wanted another trilogy, since structurally The Hobbit is kind of a travelogue in a fantasy land with episodic adventures.  They also had to add a whole lot of character stuff that just isn't in the novel and the adaption just started wrong, because the desire wasn't to make the best adaption of The Hobbit they could.

[xzar_monty]

I haven't seen Cujo so I can't comment on that.

King is a great but very uneven talent. He's written some excellent books, but overall I feel he's written too many books and he hasn't edited them well enough (heck, if I were his editor, I would be very harsh on some of the stuff he's got down in print). I don't think he's written anything particularly good since Under the Dome, which was very good indeed -- although you have to excuse him the blatantly artificial explanation to the whole setting in the first place. But then I don't think it could have been resolved properly anyway.

King occupies an interesting place in American literature, as he's a "genre" writer whose devices are much more "literary" than those of many of his peers. He's obviously not a great American writer like Dickinson, Poe, Faulkner or Twain, but he's certainly good and the rancor he's received from people like Harold Bloom doesn't really look justified. (But then, neither is Bloom's rancor towards David Foster Wallace justified, it's just petty.)

Edited May 19, 2022 by xzar_monty

[Hurlshort]

King is the most productive writer of his age. 

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Hurlsnot said:

King is the most productive writer of his age. 

HA! Good Fun!

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, Hurlsnot said:

King is the most productive writer of his age. 

No he's not. Mary Higgins Clark, for one, was more productive. Barbara Cartland was way more prodctive. James Patterson still is, but he doesn't really count because he's a collective working under one name. Joyce Carol Oates and King are very close to each other in terms of productivity -- they are also two remarkable writers in the sense that they are both very productive and (at their best) really quite good. This is rare.

And just to remind people that there is a world outside the English-speaking one, writers like Ryoki Inoue and Corín Tellado are so much more productive than Stephen King that it's not even funny. And that's just two of them.

[Gromnir]

aside, for years we thought we disliked stephen king, until we read short stories. now admitted, is a whole lotta terrible stephen king short stories, but we were pleasant surprised by how much better king were in smaller portions.

HA! Good Fun!

[xzar_monty]

Yeah. When I said I'd be a harsh editor for him, one of the things I alluded to was that I'd cut down his literary elephantiasis. Very few of his long works really justify their size (Under the Dome does, and IT does for the most part, but stuff like The Stand certainly does not). Some of the short stuff is very good indeed. Jerusalem's Lot, for instance, is just great -- a marvelous little Cthulhu story from King. Funnily enough, it's clearly set in a different fictional universe from his novel 'Salem's Lot (which is also excellent).

[LadyCrimson]

I still love The Stand - but the original version (which again, I still have a slightly tattered 1980 copy of it) not the over-bloated extended author's cut. Nick Andros is still one of my favorite King characters.

Shawshank is an example where I liked the movie more than the written (which I found a tad dull), but mostly because, Freeman. I've always wished they'd left the film ending as Freeman on the bus without the meeting last few seconds, but I guess test audiences didn't like that.

The Mist film ending ticked me off something fierce, although up to that point I was enjoying it fairly well. I don't care if it's more "horrific", I prefer the ambiguous ending of the story.

I'm one of the few who seems to like Tommyknockers, although I'm not saying it's King's best because it certainly isn't.

I stopped reading King late 90's or something I think. Once he became so famous no publisher would dare force even a single edit on him or something, he became steadily more unbearable. Also his ... topic? ... interests shifted a bit (which is fine) and I wasn't interested in it, plus I just got older and probably don't find that type of material or style as "cool". I did try reading Dreamcatcher at some point. That was enough.

[Amentep]

I kinda liked some of the ideas in the Tommyknockers, but it didn't really come together very well.  Still I finished it which is more than I can say for some books.

I actually only ever read the author's cut on The Stand.  Someday I probably should try to read the original version.

[LadyCrimson]

I didn't read the expanded The Stand until that 90's mini-series came out and right at the first episode I was all "wtf, this wasn't in the book at all." My friend had to tell me there was some new version. Heh.

The longer version isn't bad and some of the added material is interesting in a "more background" kind of way (although all the extra Trashcan did zero for me) but as King himself said, it's not really necessary. Also, I didn't like it that he altered the setting to the new publication time period. While it's nothing major, it's kind of akin to Lucas updating Star Wars with CGI.

EDIT: I should clarify the above that when you can side by side compare the two versions, that the "uncut" is not just cut material added back in. It is a subtle rewrite altogether. That said, some might think the cut is bit too abrupt here and there if they're already used to the "uncut." YMMV.  (2nd edit: brainfart typos)

Edited May 20, 2022 by LadyCrimson

[xzar_monty]

On 5/20/2022 at 7:05 PM, LadyCrimson said:

I stopped reading King late 90's or something I think. Once he became so famous no publisher would dare force even a single edit on him or something, he became steadily more unbearable.

There was a period where his quality dropped, this is true. However, I don't buy into the editing argument at all: Stephen King wouldn't have wanted an editor like that, he's genuinely ambitious. I've got decades of experience with the publishing industry, and King's certainly counted among the "good guys" in terms of genuine literary ambition and drive, although I don't think anybody thinks he's always successful.

This editing thing is really big, I'm not sure if a lot of people know about the extent of it. I mean, books don't just appear, they really are worked on for quite some time. Example: I'm currently working on a "superstar" memoir that's only coming out in November. But a whole lot of people are already going through the essentially finished manuscript, trying to make it as good as possible, checking and fixing.

I wholeheartedly recommend that you read Under the Dome. Of these "new" books of his, it's certainly the best. It's very well written. The ending is a letdown, but surely everyone must know that from the start: he sets a scene that cannot be explained satisfactorily, and leaving it unexplained wouldn't work, either. But the yarn itself is excellent.

[Raithe]

Milton author with 60 published novels goes viral on ‘front page of the internet’ | The Star

[Guard Dog]

[uuuhhii]

the blacktongue thief

far too much exposition on the fantasy setting and not very good at it

the final fight was pretty good and not too long

struggle through the hunger of the gods 

two of the main character are just frustrating

but the third was extremely stupid and irritating

each chapter torture

Edited June 21, 2022 by uuuhhii

[Guard Dog]

Just read this at G's suggestion. She loves having me read books she likes and then discussing them:

One of the main point the writer was trying to hit was that evangelical whites follow leaders that are the exact opposite of the Christian moral ideal. Well... no s--t. But she whiffs pretty badly as to the reasons why. To her it all comes down to racism and toxic masculinity. A rather unimaginative and sophomoric explanation from someone looking down their nose at those poor deluded rubes.    

The reason IMO is that you have the left on one side that, on some issues, actually does follow the Judeo-Christian ethic but is outwardly and vocally hostile to the practice of religion, particularly Christianity. On the other hand you have the right that says the right things even though they don't actually DO right. The writer would argue it's not a cynical lesser evil choice that evangelicals are making. And while that might be true for some, IMO for most it is a lesser evil choice. Although most don't put much thought into it. They hear one side talking about faith, God, and America and the other castigating, denigrating, and vocally trying to ban people with religious convictions from the political arena. It really isn't more complicated than that. People generally are too bust living their lives to read about Donald Trump's marriages, kinks, trysts, many wives, etc. 

But, you guys all know where I stand on choosing "lesser evils".  

I love G. No doubt about that. But I really try not to engage her in pollical/social discussions because she gets really mad when hearing opposing opinions. And my political opinions don't fit neatly into any framework she can relate to. 

 

[Hurlshort]

When I met my wife over 20 years ago, she was a registered republican with a gun at the foot of her bed and I had just voted for Ralph Nader. Political sports teams are given way too much importance. 

[Guard Dog]

23 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

When I met my wife over 20 years ago, she was a registered republican with a gun at the foot of her bed and I had just voted for Ralph Nader. Political sports teams are given way too much importance. 

Completely agree!