Colorado
Las Vegas
Ingoring dream and trying to survive
Dead (Captain Trips)
Other (specify)
That's obvious. I think that perhaps you are being a little under-generous to Jess. I think you're right that that is how Fran saw things, but I'm not sure the novel really gives us enough info to be certain about the man, or whether her decision really was the right one.
I still maintain that I see no redeeming qualities in Frannie for all the reasons I listed above. I can't stand her. Nor can I stand Susannah and her many iterations. Sorry, Jean, but we're on the opposite ends of this issue
Finished The Dark Tower at 6:03AM on December 21, 2009.
The man in black fled across the desert,
and the gunslinger followed.
ah! that explains it, of course... I mean, if you can't stand Susannah (I knew it before, but expelled the thought from my mind...), then any further talk about Frannie is really superfluous
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I left a (fairly lengthy) explanation as to why I hate Susannah in path's new female protagonist/supporting character thread. I think you'll have a few things to say about itOriginally Posted by Jean
ah! that explains it, of course... I mean, if you can't stand Susannah (I knew it before, but expelled the thought from my mind...), then any further talk about Frannie is really superfluous
If you need more reasons, please ask me. I have hundreds of them
Finished The Dark Tower at 6:03AM on December 21, 2009.
The man in black fled across the desert,
and the gunslinger followed.
I disliked Frannie, but not for any moralistic ideals that she did or didn't have. It just seems that there are so many well drafted characters in the Stand. So many unique and colorful, interesting characters (Nick/Tom/Trashy/Larry/Harold) That after Frannie's scene with her father, she just seemed to be a drab, lifeless character that I didn't care about.
I guess what I'm saying is that after the death of Frannies father I didn't care to read the later parts about Frannie. I was way more interested in Nicks/Toms story, as well as Larry's story, as well as the other side's story to care much what Frannie was doing.
I do realize that her part is intricate to the development of Harold, however, whom I see as an infinately more interesting character.
Sloth Love Chunk
...and you realize, of course, that all the characters you've listed are male. It raises an interesting question of why King has, apparently, been unable to create a good girl to everybody's, or at least to the majority's, satisfaction; path's new thread provides ample opportunity to discuss why.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Acually, there are several female characters that I found to be outstanding. The first that comes to mind is Anne Wilkes. She may be my favorite antagonist in any of his books. And as I said in Path's new thread, I liked Dolores Claiborne a lot. Funny that my favorite female antagonist/protagonist were both played by the same actress on the big screen, and well in both cases. My second favorite female protagonist was Jessie from Gerald's Game. (You love it Path, you know you do) I also loved Beverly Marsh, but I agree that most of my favorite characters tend to be the guys. I think part of that is just the shear number of male characters vs female characters, but it is also probably easier for a writer to create a believable character that matches his/her sex, just because men and women tend to think soooooooo differently.
Sloth Love Chunk
The Stand (cut versus uncut)
A few years back I was given a collection of SK hardcovers (approximately 30 of em. Over the years, I have made my way through most of them, however I have NEVER read The Stand. The other day, I took it with me and got about 50 pages in and realized I have the 800+ page version (1978 ). So what I am asking is, should I go out and pick up the uncut or simply go on ahead with what I have?
I have read the entire DT series, Under The Dome, Insomnia and a few of the other heavies, so I am not afraid of a book of any length.
Sorry if there is another thread, as you can see I am new. Thanks.
read the unabridged. It's better.
"So many vows. They make you swear and swear. Defend the King, obey the King, obey your father, protect the innocent, defend the weak. But what if your father despises the King? What if the King massacres the innocent? It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or another."
^Look at what I'm quoting, for it is the truth. I haven't read the unabridged version, but I can't imagine losing out on Trashcan Man's travels across the country (which is where King admits it appears most scarred). On top of which, basic character development and dialogue have been removed for the abridged version; both of which help to define King's character-driven writing style. I can see where a shortened story would appeal to some, but for your own good: read the unabridged first. The characters are fuller and, as such, the story is richer.
Finished The Dark Tower at 6:03AM on December 21, 2009.
The man in black fled across the desert,
and the gunslinger followed.
Both stories are fantastic. The unabridged is better though. I read the original because it's what I read first...nostalgia and all and I love it though. I say go ahead and read it and then find the unabridged. You'll likely appreciate both if you read that first, I think.
I would agree that the Uncut version is better.
Aye...but I advise reading both!
All that's left of what we were is what we have become.
The down side of the female characters is that none show T&A!!!
All that's left of what we were is what we have become.
This is going to be merged into the Stand thread we already have in a couple of days.
Buddy, you think you look strong? You’re wearing a cape.
thanks for the input. I didn't put it in the other The Stand thread because I didn't want to catch ANY spoilers.
good idea!
Buddy, you think you look strong? You’re wearing a cape.
Yeah, go with the unabridged version, for sure. Haven't read the cut version, but wouldn't trade the uncut version for a second. Love pretty much all the "added" stuff, plus, long or not, it feels better to me, b/c it's how SK seemed to really intend the book.
Kill if you will, but command me nothing!
The Gunslinger
Well...here comes the other opinion, which I express in a less discursive manner in a nearby Stand thread. A book does not benefit by simply being MORE- more for someone to read, more pages to turn. The original abridged version was probably the first King book I ever read (with the possible exception of Firestarter).
I had reread the abridged Stand a half-dozen times before I got a $5 box of used paperbacks that included a copy of the unabridged version. I read it, every page, and maintain my opinion that the earlier edition is the better, tighter book. I'll go further and state that whoever did the abridgement of the book did a masterful job; it loses nothing important. I found nothing revelatory, and no greater enjoyment in reading the longer book.
I should mention that I cannot abide opinions stating how an author should have written a book. That is not what I am saying here: I am stating that nothing of real importance was lost by cutting prose.
For an example, go no further than Chapter 1 of the abridged version. One of the great openings in modern popular writing: "Hapscomb's Texaco sat on US 93 just north of Arnette, a pissant four-street burg about 110 miles from Houston." (OK, I may like Gibson's "The sky above the port was the color of television tuned to a dead channel," but this is real good.) You read that page, turn the page, read that, go to the next page, and BANG! stage has been set, story starts as the plague Chevy comes weaving down the road. That's how you advance story, folks. Here's a gas station on a highway in a small town......and heeeere's your Armageddon!
Now compare that with the beginning of the uncut version, with 'ol Randy Flagg lurching around. By the time I was done with that, all I could think was "Get on with it."
NB: I feel that I must insert a disclaimer here; I am anything but a promiscuous or constant reader of Stephen King. I have read a half-dozen of his books completely (and I don't count both versions of The Stand as two, nor do I count the autobiographical book, I forget the title, nor the book about writing, nor short stories), and probably another half-dozen I have put aside because I simply lost interest....and that's it. To forestall any question about which novels I have read, that would be the one eponymous to this thread, Firestarter, The Gunslinger, The Waste Lands, The Regulators (if Bachman counts), and the much-maligned Tommyknockers.
1) It isn't just filler that was cut out -- it was substance. Stephen King himself admits that Trashcan Man's journey cross-country felt noticeably scarred by the changes. On top of his characterization and story, you miss out on a whole slew of characterization of nearly every person. Nothing that was published in the unabridged version is simply watered-down prose. Stephen King said himself that pages of the book deserved to be cut in the first place, so he didn't publish them with the unabridged. He only published the pages (400 or so) that he wished had made it to the final version.
2) Stephen King himself did the surgery. Not because he wanted to, but because he was forced to by the publishing company. I think it says a lot about his feelings about the book that he forced the publisher to allow him to publish the book as he wanted it to be the moment he got the power.
3) If the author disagrees, then I have to disagree. Stephen King writes his books primarily around the characters and then follows those characters up with stories (unlike most writers who write characters to fill a story). With most of what was cut being characterization, then how can you say nothing important was cut?
4) The book begins with a prologue about Captain Trips and its failed containment, and then moves straight onto the chapter you seem to love so much (for very good reason!): the Chevy crashing into the gas station. From what I remember, there's no break in between the prologue and gas station section to describe Randall Flagg.
Finished The Dark Tower at 6:03AM on December 21, 2009.
The man in black fled across the desert,
and the gunslinger followed.
I'm cut... I think it's sad cause from what I heard...oh...what?...oh..wrong thread.
Well said. I had similar thoughts but could never put them in word as well as you.1) It isn't just filler that was cut out -- it was substance. Stephen King himself admits that Trashcan Man's journey cross-country felt noticeably scarred by the changes. On top of his characterization and story, you miss out on a whole slew of characterization of nearly every person. Nothing that was published in the unabridged version is simply watered-down prose. Stephen King said himself that pages of the book deserved to be cut in the first place, so he didn't publish them with the unabridged. He only published the pages (400 or so) that he wished had made it to the final version.
2) Stephen King himself did the surgery. Not because he wanted to, but because he was forced to by the publishing company. I think it says a lot about his feelings about the book that he forced the publisher to allow him to publish the book as he wanted it to be the moment he got the power.
3) If the author disagrees, then I have to disagree. Stephen King writes his books primarily around the characters and then follows those characters up with stories (unlike most writers who write characters to fill a story). With most of what was cut being characterization, then how can you say nothing important was cut?
4) The book begins with a prologue about Captain Trips and its failed containment, and then moves straight onto the chapter you seem to love so much (for very good reason!): the Chevy crashing into the gas station. From what I remember, there's no break in between the prologue and gas station section to describe Randall Flagg.
Cute, perhaps the title will be changed, but come back and add some valid comment.I'm cut... I think it's sad cause from what I heard...oh...what?...oh..wrong thread.
King in an interview with Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...935980,00.htmlKing: It sort of nagged me a lot that those pages had been cut. [My publisher] Doubleday had a physically limiting factor in those days because they used a glue binding instead of a cloth binding, and the way it was explained to me was that they had so much of a thickness they could do before the glue just fell apart. And that meant issuing a book in two volumes, and they didn't want to do that. So my editor came to me and said, "We have to cut this book by 400 pages. And that's the reason why. It doesn't have anything to do with quality.
I [later] showed those cut pages to an editor and he said, "You know, we could redo this book, we could reissue it as the uncut Stand. And I actually sat down and wrote the book again. I had the manuscript on one side of an IBM Selectric typewriter and I had the pages of a book that I had torn out of the binding on the other side. And I started at the beginning and I updated the dates and wrote new material. But when I think about it, I think to myself, "Jesus, that was a lot of work."
When Robert Bloch died, the only thing that anybody really remembered about him was that he wrote Psycho, which became the famous Alfred Hitchcock movie. And whenever I'm introduced, I'm the guy that wrote The Stand. When my name comes up in the blogs these days, it's usually in relation to H1N1: "He was the guy who thought about the flu!"
I'll second what Jerome said.1) It isn't just filler that was cut out -- it was substance. Stephen King himself admits that Trashcan Man's journey cross-country felt noticeably scarred by the changes. On top of his characterization and story, you miss out on a whole slew of characterization of nearly every person. Nothing that was published in the unabridged version is simply watered-down prose. Stephen King said himself that pages of the book deserved to be cut in the first place, so he didn't publish them with the unabridged. He only published the pages (400 or so) that he wished had made it to the final version.
2) Stephen King himself did the surgery. Not because he wanted to, but because he was forced to by the publishing company. I think it says a lot about his feelings about the book that he forced the publisher to allow him to publish the book as he wanted it to be the moment he got the power.
3) If the author disagrees, then I have to disagree. Stephen King writes his books primarily around the characters and then follows those characters up with stories (unlike most writers who write characters to fill a story). With most of what was cut being characterization, then how can you say nothing important was cut?
4) The book begins with a prologue about Captain Trips and its failed containment, and then moves straight onto the chapter you seem to love so much (for very good reason!): the Chevy crashing into the gas station. From what I remember, there's no break in between the prologue and gas station section to describe Randall Flagg.
so do bears. #3 is especially important for them.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When you look at the Stand, the uncut version has stood the test of time. Consider when it was written. Consider that 10 years later King was able to get the uncut version out and update it a little bit. Of all of his works, NOT including the Dark Tower which took seven books to conclude, it is probably the strongest book he ever wrote.
He noted once that people were so enthrawled by the characters that for a while after it was released when he was doing speaking events people would ask how the characters were doing, as if they were real people. That is the depth to which the unabridged version showed the life of the characters inside the book.
I went about six years where I read the Stand every fall. I loved wrapping myself in the familar characters and sitting down to read the book like talking to old friends about past events.
You would cheat yourself of a fair amount of growth of character and definiton of story if you didn't read the unabridged. However, if you decide to read the cut version first, well then when you read the unabridged it may just shine some light on things that you wished had been fleshed out at first....
As long as you read it, in either of its forms, you should will be happy that you did. The only book that I've recentlly heard be talked about in the same sentence is The Passage
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
