The Stand - Let's Discuss! *SPOILERS*

[Priest]

Absolutly - and i guess that this number will increase dramatically if the used medical environment is gone + the cultural shock + the missing ability to care for yourself
+ lonliness + hubris

etc etc ...

and because i believe that something like this (second wave) would absolute happened (if we would get on board the valar morgulis express) it would be interesting
if this jumped out of kings head or if there are any reasonable studies about that.

but however - the stand rocks

[Heather19]

Would it be ok to read the original version of The Stand, or should I read the uncut? How much will I miss out on? I have the paperback of the original, and the hardcover of the uncut version. But I was thinking for carrying around with me and taking it on vacation the paperback is much more feasible. But if I'm going to miss out on alot then maybe I'll purchase a paperback copy of the uncut one.

[divemaster]

When I first read The Stand, it was the original version. And it was the best book I had ever read. I have since re-read both versions numerous times and while the uncut version is, in many ways, very good and expands some interesting parts of the story, nothing has changed my impression of my original reading.

I didn't really answer your question, but rest assured whichever way you go, you can't be "wrong."

[jhanic]

I personally would go with the newer version--it's a much richer read than the original.

John

[Jean]

the uncut

[Ricky]

I've only read the uncut, so I'm not sure of what parts in particular weren't included in the original, but I'd say go for the uncut version since SK always says that's how he originally wanted it to be published, but it wasn't (I think because of the cost of paper).

[jhanic]

I think that the publisher, Doubleday, decided that to include the parts that were deleted would increase the size of the book and the retail cost. Perhaps it was the correct decision at the time, but it turned out wrong.

John

[Ricky]

I think that the publisher, Doubleday, decided that to include the parts that were deleted would increase the size of the book and the retail cost.

Yeah, that sounds in line with what I read. And it makes sense, like you said, for the time.

[Heather19]

Thanks guys. Maybe I'll go pick up a paperback of the uncut one then.

[Merlin1958]

Yeah, the uncut version is a bit smoother (?) and a little more fleshed out. It is, like 500 more pages, right guys?

[Jean]

Yes. I think that which is "irrelevant to the main plot", "boring for the reader", "gratuitously detailed", "superfluous subplots" or whatever else the editors might have in mind, is actually what makes King such a great writer. I remember reading the shorter version and wondering where the most important stuff had gone, things that impressed me so much, things I remember?

[Jon]

Yeah, the uncut version is a bit smoother (?) and a little more fleshed out. It is, like 500 more pages, right guys?

That's right, Happy Crappy!

[Merlin1958]

Yeah, the uncut version is a bit smoother (?) and a little more fleshed out. It is, like 500 more pages, right guys?

That's right, Happy Crappy!

"Happy Crappy"????? You having flash backs again? I had one last month, I think it was that shitty blotter acid from 1978, and it was a doozy!! LOL LOL LOL

[Jon]

Yeah...I made it in my bathtub and sold it out of my black Hot Rod when I was known as The Kid.

"Ain't that right; Happy Crappy?"

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

I have only ever read the uncut edition, but I cant imagine which 400-500 pages I would want to see cut out of the book. I think it leave but a shadow of its former self. I love the details. I would have loved the book if it were 2000 pages long.

[Shaggy]

I asked this in the comic thread, but it seems like this would be a good place too.
I haven't read the novel, but I just finished reading the Marvel comic adaptation of The Stand and I was left underwhelmed. Mainly because I felt that the characters didn't have enough agency and were led by god/mystical forces too often. My question - should I still give the novel a shot? Would it change my mind about the story?

[Odetta]

I have not read the comic, but The Stand is the best novel I have read.

[SirFolio16]

I would def. Recommend reading the novel... its amazing!!!

[Merlin1958]

I asked this in the comic thread, but it seems like this would be a good place too.
I haven't read the novel, but I just finished reading the Marvel comic adaptation of The Stand and I was left underwhelmed. Mainly because I felt that the characters didn't have enough agency and were led by god/mystical forces too often. My question - should I still give the novel a shot? Would it change my mind about the story?

I have read a few of the comics and while it is/was a valiant attempt, nothing would surpass reading the novel. IMHO One of, if not his best ever. I suggest the "Uncut" vesion as that is the version I like best. However, either will do and much better than the comics. I believe the only reason for the comics was to entice new readers to the book. JMHO

[Jon]

I asked this in the comic thread, but it seems like this would be a good place too.
I haven't read the novel, but I just finished reading the Marvel comic adaptation of The Stand and I was left underwhelmed. Mainly because I felt that the characters didn't have enough agency and were led by god/mystical forces too often. My question - should I still give the novel a shot? Would it change my mind about the story?

Never read the comic but after seeing the difference between the abridged and unabridged versions; I cannot imagine a comic doing anything but leaving a bad taste in one's mouth.

[Roden]

I finally finished The Stand. Great book, while I enjoyed it I must say I preferred Dark Tower and It. The in-depth, post-apocalyptic scenario was what kept me turning the pages. Obviously I read it pretty late in the game, so overall I found most of the concepts created by King in The Stand I had already come across before in media such as Fallout: New Vegas. Though I guess that's the sign of a great book!

[Chovy]

Finally finished the uncut version of The Stand and while it was a SUPERB read, I found the ending to be a little "Oh...really?" for me to be honest. The build-up of the storyline was getting very intense and things were getting tight-packed when bit by bit the plot sort of lost its shine and started to unravel to a mere "Kaboom!!" at the end. It wasn't the sort of "stand" I expected I suppose. The thing that really got me though was that I felt that Nick, Glen, Larry and Ralph were wasted in the story, especially Nick. He was my favourite - a lot of effort was put into the story of Nick in the beginning (I suppose that's why people thought that he would be the one to bring people out into the light) and it's a shame that he was one of the very first ones to go. A slap on the face really.
A lot of people might disagree but I personally thought that King favoured Frannie and Stu - and he wanted readers to like these two, especially Frannie. I thought I sensed him trying to explain Frannie's actions and the way she was. To be frank I didn't like her. She had this annoying, naive way of tackling issues. The only thing I remember about Frannie is her crying whenever she had the opportunity and protesting with an attitude along the lines of "Oh how could you!" "This is bullshit!" "No, you can't!" when hard decisions were to be made from the committee - again, I saw that King constantly tried to imply that Frannie was the one who constantly chipped in the question of moral values but that just seemed to annoy me more (haha) - I mean, they are dealing with crisis and that's why HARD decisions were to be made right? She also seemed to protest against the final guys making a stand because SHE might be left alone and SHE needs her man to be with her and her baby. I guess in a crisis novel I'm more drawn to female characters who tackle problems like Dayna - I actually liked the way she died, if that doesn't sound so weird!
And with Stu, nothing against him but I did think he took it quite easy - he did, after all, have the luck of missing out on the nuclear drama thanks to his broken leg (he avoids getting killed in the bombing in boulder and the confrontation with Flagg). All throughout the last few chapters of the book I couldn't let go of the feeling that Stu and Frannie avoided the twists and turns because King chose them to be MAIN characters among the main characters - no other reason.
I thought Larry was one of the few characters who grew, or developed with the story. To see him get zapped in a second was a let down for me. In comparison, Frannie and Stu seemed bland - no particular characteristics other than being nice and decent, and they get to live.
I guess a have a mild grudge with them especially Frannie haha! No particular reason, I just can't seem to wrap my arms around Frannie.
I suppose it's not the two characters that I dislike, but more of the situation. Most books, no matter how realistic, always seem to have survivors with at lease one couple - because luurrrve outlasts all kinds of hardship (don't like that sort of nonsense, not in thrillers anyway).
But overall, the book was a fantastic read and although I haven't read much of Stephen King novels, I'm definitely going to compile a list!

[rico567]

I don’t know if it’s based on a real theory or not but it certainly sounds plausible. People die every day for one dumb reason or another. I doubt it would be much different if most of the population was suddenly wiped out. There would be a lot of people both young and old that simply wouldn’t be able to care for themselves.

I looked around a bit, and as far as I can tell the theory advanced in the book is just another fictional device of King's. The interesting thing is that I found at least one reference (not on this forum) whereby someone is presenting it as if it were an actual theory, supported by research. Overtones of fiction overtaking reality, as in Borges' Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius.

[Jon]

Overtones of fiction overtaking reality, as in Borges' Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius.

I agree but the example seems a way too radical.

[rico567]

Overtones of fiction overtaking reality, as in Borges' Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius.

I agree but the example seems a way too radical.

Yes, there's not another piece of literature I can think of that would be a more extreme example of fiction subsuming reality, insofar as the encyclopædic world in Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius completely replaces the reality we know. Nevertheless, it's a valid example and the first thing that came to mind. If you have others to advance, put your quarter in the jukebox, please.