
I want to talk about writing. There are some things that have, in my great old age and wisdom, (chuckle) begun to irritate me beyond reason. One of them is the tendency of some popular writers to become very self-referential and egotistical.
I’m not suggesting that fame has done this to them; for all I know, they were egotistical prior to becoming famous. However, there is just something very annoying about the emergence of this self-absorption when you’ve gotten to like the style and substance of a particular writer. It jars the conscience, it grates on the senses. One particular writer who has begun to make me grit my teeth and cringe is Stephen King.
I started out as a fan, with the publication of
Carrie, the first book published under his real name, and the first bestseller. I devoured each book as it came out after that one. I thought each one was great.
Between the publications of
The Shining and
The Dead Zone was one of King’s greatest and most amazing novels:
The Stand. I read the original novel in 1978; it was about a “future” in the late 90’s, not really much different from the present, except that 3/4 of the population of the world would be eliminated by a ‘super flu’ virus, and the remainder of those left would have to duke it out in a major, final showdown of good and evil. Not only was the theme universal, the characters were well-delineated, superbly fleshed-out and downright unforgettable. The action was well-paced. The dialogue was realistic and believable. The book sparkled. But, (and I credit King himself for this particular metaphor) there was something that was like biting on tinfoil when I read it.
Okay, maybe I’m being picky. Maybe I’m just not entering into the spirit of the story. Maybe. Or maybe I just demand that my writers and those who edit their works give a serious consideration to the intelligence of their readers. Mr. King made a huge—
huge—mistake in this book, upon which the plot rotates and depends, and which I could not overlook.
Mr. King made the whole plot turn on a
chocolate thumbprint in a diary. Problem was, the person who left the thumbprint, was eating PayDay candy bars. As you and 99.9% of the universe knows, PayDay candy bars contain
not one drop of chocolate. Now how did a mistake like this sneak past the editors? And why did the King actually write this blatant error? I don’t know. I can say without a doubt that it almost scuttled my enjoyment of this book when I came across this error. And what bothered me so much about this was that it was such an
easy thing to fix—yet it went through three iterations before it was fixed, and when it was, it made me angry.
First came the paperback edition of the original book: in this edition, the PayDays were changed to Milky Ways. Well, I guess that’s one way to handle it, though the mistake was never acknowledged or annotated. I supposed I could live with the change, since the plot now made sense and operated correctly. But, then came the 1990 book—the “complete and uncut” edition. The story was “updated” to the present time--this updating would also include some things that did not exist in 1978 (felt-tip markers, computers)—and one of these was the
Chocolate-covered PayDay candy bar. The original PayDay nut roll was now available with a chocolate coating, so, yes, all the Milky Ways were turned back into PayDays! It was an acknowledgement of the original mistake—and a slap to the readers of that original book, who had cringed at the original mistake. Think I’m being too sensitive? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
There was something else wrong with this edition of The Stand that had nothing to do with the candy bar debacle. This edition was “expanded” to include all the dialogue and description that the original editor had excised. Yes, all that “extra” material was put back in. And all I could say about this once-sparkling piece of writing was: "YUCK!" The book was ruined!
There is a good reason for editors. They read your stuff objectively, and they cut the crap you write: the long, unnecessary dialogues, the overblown passages—all that stuff you don’t need. Just because you’re famous, does not mean you are perfect, and dammit—you don’t need to include all that extraneous mental debris! Sometimes you should just leave well enough alone, and give your readers some credit for being able to form mental pictures all on their own. Sometimes editors know what reads best. The Stand’s original editor was pretty good. Not much that had been removed actually needed to be left in.
Perhaps Mr. King thought that it was time we were “treated” to all the contents of his files, whether or not they were actually worth reading. I, for one, became angry that this bestselling author could do this (seemingly)
only because he was a bestselling author! This was an opportunistic use of the Fame Card in my opinion.
But it did not stop there.
The next egotistical thing King did, however, was to bring out his novel
The Green Mile in serial form.
The Green Mile is a durn good story, sure. It’s well written, has good characterizations, and a plot that moves right along. So why did it need to be dragged out into a 6-part, (almost $3 apiece) pulp-serial paperback? I can’t think of any reason at all, unless King just wanted to see how far his readership would go, and how much money they would spend, in order to read his next bestselling book. In this case, he bet on the right horse—not only did readers buy, they also bought the NON-serialized book when it came out, AND the film of
The Green Mile when it came out. All this said to me was that King could not lose, no matter how much ego he showed, and no matter how self-aggrandizing he got.
Okay, I got over it. I
hated the serialization, and I only read parts 1 and 2 before giving up and waiting for the re-unified paperback (I didn’t have to wait very long—surprise surprise.) But that wasn’t the worst thing King did—the worst was
Desperation and
The Regulators. Gad—how much more arrogant can an author get? Not only had King used a pseudonym for his first three books (Richard Bachman--he even used a fake photo on the book jackets!) he also managed to weave the ”down side” of pseudonymous authorship into a novel (
The Dark Half) as well as using and re-using the same characters in half a dozen or so other books and stories. When
The Regulators and
Desperation were simultaneously published in 1996, one was published as King’s novel, and the other—the same story told from a different character’s point of view—was published under his pseudonym, Richard Bachman! This time, I was incensed. Not only were King’s readers being courted for his next novel, but also for his altar ego’s! And the stories were NO DIFFERENT. Why sell just one book, when you can sell it twice and get away with it? Double the ego, double the profit!
This is where Mr. King and I parted company as author and fan. I didn’t find this “publishing dodge” amusing. I felt used and abused, over-manipulated, and that Mr. King did not really care about his readers at all. I have not bought a Stephen King novel since the publication of
Desperation, and will not, though I have read some of them. None of them have even come close to the poignancy of
‘Salem’s Lot, the flawed but fascinating intricacy of
The Stand, the icy-fingered terror of
Cujo, or the writing excellence of
Misery,
Gerald’s Game, or
Dolores Claiborne. In fact, if you put all of King’s works in one pile, these are the only ones I think that would stand out as being truly worthy pieces of writing. The rest are just ego on paper. The unfortunately mediocre output of a writer that didn’t have to be mediocre. And that, to me, is very sad.