I have a confession to make... I don't like Richard Bachmann. Ohh, I don't mean I don't like his writing. After all, he has the same writer's toolbox as Sai King and I love King's works. I mean him - Richard.
Do I know how crazy that sounds? Of course I do. But, there it is anyway. Why? Because Bachmann is a pessimist about human nature. There is no room for the concept of a ka-tet in his world.
Spoiler:
Eddie would have reverted to his heroin addiction, and Mia would not have kept her word to Susannah in a Dark Tower written by Sai King's alter ego. John Cullum would not have stood and been true and the rose would have been carelessly crushed by a cruel and indifferent world.
Bachmann's worlds are peopled with sad and somehow sordid characters. King's worlds admit the possibility of the heroism and helpfulness of strangers. Those are the worlds I prefer to dwell in.
Anyone else have a problem with Bachmann's outlook?
Last edited by MrsSmeej; 06-04-2008 at 11:26 AM.
Reason: Forgot to ask my question because I am an idiot.
I haven't read enough of Richard Bachman (one N) to say for sure, but I didn't like the ending to Thinner. I didn't really read the whole book or pay attention to the whole movie, but I hated the ending--in fact, that turned me off to Stephen King until I discovered The Shining.
I guess the main thing to appreciate about Bachman's outlook is that some people have that view of human nature, and that element does exist, whether we want it to or not.
Having said that, however, I agree with you to the extent that I can. I prefer Stephen King's own outlook, and it more closely resembles mine (and it's not just because I WANT to believe it that I do).
Anyway, as far as Bachman goes, he's probably an outlet for King's darker thoughts, and so can be thought of positively in that way, I guess.
I'm actually thinking of (as an experiment) reading Desperation and The Regulators at the same time, just to get a good idea not only of how those stories in particular are similar or different, but to see clearly the difference between Stephen King and Richard Bachman.
That's of course, when I get to those--gotta finish IT first, and then I'm going to read From a Buick 8 before I get to Desperation and The Regulators.
I actually have read both Regulators and Desperation at the same time John and Yoko, and Regulators is one of the few Bachmann books that doesn't hold true to my generalizations.
I read somewhere (in On Writing, I think) that King saw it as an experiment. He wanted to see what would happen if he took the same characters and dropped them in to different settings. Because he was afraid that his fans would be disappointed by two different books with so many similarities, he used the device of having Bachmann "write" one of them. I suspect that he wrote Desperation first. Once he'd created characters he liked, he found that he couldn't make them as dark as Bachmann's usual protagonists.
I actually have read both Regulators and Desperation at the same time John and Yoko, and Regulators is one of the few Bachmann books that doesn't hold true to my generalizations.
I read somewhere (in On Writing, I think) that King saw it as an experiment. He wanted to see what would happen if he took the same characters and dropped them in to different settings. Because he was afraid that his fans would be disappointed by two different books with so many similarities, he used the device of having Bachmann "write" one of them. I suspect that he wrote Desperation first. Once he'd created characters he liked, he found that he couldn't make them as dark as Bachmann's usual protagonists.
That's neat! And you've just helped me out there, for when it comes time....
And yeah, you're right--he did write Desperation first, he said he was about 3/4 of the way through that when he started The Regulators.
I like what I've read of Bachman, but you're right. With King, the good guys have a chance of winning, little kids and old people have better odds of survival, and you always know that there's somebody looking out for us.
I will compare two books that are really different- Rage (Bachman) and Tommyknockers (King.)
Spoiler:
A lot more people die in Tommyknockers, and there is a kind of horrific soul-and-entire-world danger in it, but the good guys win and the bad guys lose and the danger goes away.
In Rage, a handful of people die, in a sadly ordinary way. The killer isn't some hostile alien- isn't even really a bad guy- just a really messed up, completely sympathetic character who's lost his mind at a horribly young age.
After reading Rage, it takes Tommyknockers to cheer you up. That's awful.
I liked Rage a LOT more than Tommyknockers, though.
Exactly LemurJones... Exactly. At least the good guys have a chance.
I guess I'm more of a glass half full kind of gal... And I usually feel as if some nice person is likely to come along and top it off for me. I've always suspected that Bachmann not only thought the glass was half empty, but also thought someone had probably spit in it before bringing it to him.
Sounds to me like your cool Russian friend has good taste Razz.
I've heard that King wrote the book so that he'd have something of his that his daughter could read when she was young... That's why the sex is not explicit. I enjoyed it very much and hope you do as well.
I actually really enjoy, dark tragic stories, and therefore I like Bachman.
I agree with everything MrsSmeej said...but I loved the books anyway. When I finished The Long Walk, I closed the book and sobbed. I was emotionally exhausted and the themes in that book are pretty depressing and tragic. And of course, nothing close to a "happy ending"...but I remember that book like I read it yesterday.