|
Post by fonebone on Mar 10, 2023 19:12:02 GMT -8
Law & Order Franchise Reviews (Law & Order, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Law & Order: Organized Crime)
Law & Order "Almost Famous"
Pretty good week. Aside from the runner. That always pisses me off.
Price did two really great things. Telling the dude if he didn't take the deal he was going to do everything he could to make him spend the rest of his life in prison. What's great is the jerk believed him. The other great thing he did was saying he was gonna prosecute Max for manslaughter. I don't care how young he is or how dumb his parents are. He made a bad choice and has to live with it. Good for Price for knowing that even after hooking the Big Fish.
I thought the judge was absolutely terrible. She made so many bad calls in both the courtroom and chambers I thought it was going to turn out she was on the take. In reality the show is badly written. No judge in real life would have allowed that awful lawyer to accuse the guy on the stand of being pedophile simply to score points. It was reprehensible and every "I'll allow it" told me that judge deserves to be thrown off the bench. Similarly appalling was her excluding the video because the awful lawyer convinces her the kid is "acting as an agent of the government". Honestly, I think the real problem is bad writing, and the writers simply don't know how to write credible judges. And this has been a big problem on the relaunch so I can't even call this misstep an outlier.
The acting coach at the beginning was a perfect red herring in the sense that everything the viewer saw him do made us think he was abusing that kid. It's a pretty sweet trick the writers had an explanation for everything, even the child porn charge (done as a highschooler from a topless pic from his girlfriend). Even the outcry the officers heard from the hallway and the scenes he was practicing made him sound entirely guilty.
Something bothers me a little, and it's a problem for all television, and not just this show. But I didn't believe the idea that somebody is putting kids under contract to do Jackass stunts and nobody is doing anything about it. It seems like a problem that doesn't exist that fogey writers believe does. The show isn't just old-fashioned because of the quips the detective do bemoaning social media and how they want nothing to do with it. It's because they are making it sound worse than it probably is. These are old people fears. Maybe the showrunners need to shut off Fox News for a hot minute.
Decent week. Outside of the crappy judge (and maybe the actual unbelievable premise) I didn't have too many other complaints. Well, the runner. Always the runner. ***1/2.
Law & Order "Mammon"
The rest of the episode wasn't bad but the ending shows why I believe Rick Eid runs the show entirely without a conscience.
It wasn't entirely "Not bad" however. The chase scenes continue to annoy and confound me. Do the producers actually think we find them exciting? This iteration of the show strikes me as a bit pathetic for always going back to them.
But the episode wasn't terrible. ***.
Law & Order "Heroes"
Rick Eid wrote it and it was surprisingly decent so I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. And yeah, the ending hits and ruins the entire episode. On-brand for Eid.
I think Riley did great on the stand which is why I'm so pissed Eid did wrong by him. Just like Eid does wrong by every single person who helps either the police or the prosecution. It's pathological at this point.
Let me clarify something regarding officer cowardice. I find unwillingness to engage in a dangerous situation due to fear a lot more forgivable than cops spraying bullets everywhere due to fear. I think the reason people were so upset about the cops sitting on their hands during that Texas school shooting is because of how free with their guns cops usually are when confronted by people they perceive to be threats. But really, I think a cop being human is understandable.
But the ending is why we can't have nice things, and why Rick Eid is the worst thing to happen to the franchise since D.A. Branch on the old show. And frankly Eid is MUCH worse for the health of the show than Fred Thompson ever was. *1/2.
Law & Order "Fear And Loathing"
For once the case went all right but I can't help feeling like the outcome of Shaw's story is nothing but a defense of the Blue Wall. If the lesson is you can't fight it, that means the writers are defending it. There's no other way to read that.
The thing that pisses me off the most is both Cosgrove and Dixon tell Shaw that no matter what he decides, they have his back. And then... They don't. It's infuriating.
This show has problems. **1/2.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit "Blood Out"
They are NOT kidding about going there. That was the closest Stable and Benson EVER got.
Man, Valasco is slime. Really. But to be honest, Bruno bribing the victim for information is also problematic as hell.
Stabler and Benson COULD be a thing at some point. That actually blows my mind. SO close here. The show has taken over 20 years, but damn. ****.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit "Intersection"
While it is true that when talking to suspects Valasco is a notorious liar, after hearing that recording, that isn't something I'd simply take for granted. It's actually concerning. Considering Valasco gave the dude drugs in the previous episode, it probably means he IS dirty.
Do I want him to be? The show used to walk that stuff back. God knows they did with Rollins enough times. But I think it would be interesting to do that with Velasco especially considering he's trying to play "Good cop" with Muncie at the same time.
And I love the advice to the wife talking to the guy holding the lady hostage: "Lie". Really. Duh. Some lies are all right.
I'm glad the couple from the beginning made it through. They were really cute together.
Bruno spent the episode impressing me. He's still a little rough around the edges, but he had a better first day than either Muncie or Velasco did.
Solid week. ***1/2.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit "Dutch Tears"
I have mentioned before that Liv's gift with victims is empathy but I am struck again by the fact that Fin is able to get victims to problem-solve using reason and a bit of common sense. The guy Dutch HATES him and blames him for what happened to him, but very quickly Finn gets him to believe he's on his side. And the honesty of Fin not remembering the guy at first is also kind of impressive when there's a gun being waved in his face. If he WANTS Fin to remember him Dutch is going to have to give him a few more details.
And I like SVU because Dutch is given a tentative reunion with his daughter at the end. If Rick Eid had written the episode, he would have wound up dead.
Sort of an off-camera update for Munch in the episode. He moved back to Baltimore and bought the cop bar he used to own on Homicide: Life On The Street again. Feels appropriate.
Solid week and a nice contrast to the trainwreck of the mothershow. ****.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit "King Of The Moon"
Richard Belzer died? I had no idea. Well, they certainly picked the right episode to pay tribute to him. There aren't many Law & Order episodes I'd call beautiful, but this definitely qualified. I'm amazed at the timing that they were able to pay tribute to Richard with this.
As for Valasco, I like that unlike the Mothershow, there is accountability for cops' bad actions. But let me blunt. Him sitting on Chili's name is a luxury he should not be afforded at all. If I were Carisi, until he came clean, I'd charge him with the murder himself. Why? Because if you commit a crime with somebody else, and they murder somebody, you get charged with murder too. That's how the law works. And the show acting like him not pulling the trigger exonerates him, is another troubling recent example of the franchise's writers no longer understanding the law.
My favorite bit was him asking who they were interrogating and Fin's all, "You." Really, this specific revelation seems so huge it's kind of weird that the show has been sitting on it for a couple weeks.
Was this the first episode of Law & Order EVER to use heavy visual effects? Damn, it actually might have been. There might have been some CGI explosions here and there before this, but this was legit sci-fi effects, even if they weren't obviously big budgeted.
Another difference between this and the awful Mothershow. Carisi declining to charge Pence because he believed he was innocent is not something Price would ever do. Price has noted more than once that finding out how and why the crime occurred doesn't matter, which is the stupidest thing ever for a prosecutor to believe, and is totally on-brand what a turd of a person and writer Rick Eid is. Olivia says Carisi is using his cop instincts. But really, getting to the truth of the crime is what EVERY part of the law should actually be about.
And truly, the stuff with Bradley Whitford as Pence was by turns heartbreaking and wonderful. I don't how and why God decided to take Richard last week, so THIS perfect, tear-jerker of an episode carried his dedication card. But damn it, it nearly makes me sob even before finding out the guy who played Munch died. *****.
Law & Order: Organized Crime "Partners In Crime"
Not a very strong closing scene.
Jet is very good and I'm worried about her at the same time.
It's sort of fun to see the Task Force teaming up with Teddy Silas. It makes sense because of his deal, but he and his father were the Big Bads at the beginning of the season, and that sort of that petered out.
The good about Murphy: The scene in the confessional was chilling. The bad about him: I don't like the dog. As far as scary gimmicks and affectations go, it's kind of lame.
Decent week. ***1/2.
Law & Order: Organized Crime "Punch Drunk"
I didn't like it too much. That might surprise you. It seemed perfectly acceptable on the surface, didn't it? The reason I suspect most fans WILL accept and have no problems with it is that it is not outside of the way the rest of television treats drama. And regardless of whether viewers have been conditioned to accept the idea that people's careers are essentially ways for them to learned nursery-school level morality lessons about their interpersonal relationships with coworkers, that doesn't make it acceptable. It sucks when The Arrowverse does it. It sucks when THIS show does it.
Yes, it is very common to tie a character's emotional growth into really dumb mistakes on the job. It's also unprofessional. It also makes me think less of Jet. And her ending the episode in the trunk of a dude's car makes me think less of the show.
This is still the best Law & Order. But it's still JUST a TV show and episodes like this on THIS show (and pretty much every other show I watch and review) make me painfully aware of that fact. I never thank my TV for doing a TV thing. Because TV sucks. It always has. The best shows transcend the medium. The ones that fall into the common trappings of the medium really don't wind up impressing me that much. And the sad fact is I don't think there are too many TV shows that DON'T ever fall prey to that. What I won't do is praise episodes like this for it. **.
Law & Order: Organized Crime "All In The Game"
I'm having a hard time understanding how Murphy can be an FBI informant with all of the horrifying crimes he does. Yeah, that's part of the gag of Red Reddington on The Blacklist. But that works because the idea is portrayed as crazy and unprecedented. The guy goes around feeding live people to his dog and he's somehow untouchable. Not credible.
I'll tell you what I liked: Before they parted ways and he was killed, Seamus told Jet not to feel bad, and that she didn't do anything wrong, and that he did. He probably didn't know he was gonna die when he said it. But that has got to have been a posthumous load off of Jet's conscience anyways. It's probably why she's so upset.
I love the idea that he kept the pen gun in case he ever got into a jam. Stabler leans in close and tells him he's in a jam now.
I think the writers misread the audience in the scene where Stabler talks Bell into putting down the gun. I would not have faulted either her OR the show if she had actually just shot Murphy then and there and tried to cover it up. In fact, seeing that unraveling week by week could have been a cool arc. The writers believe I was relieved Bell didn't do an unforgivable thing. Not only do I think it would have been more dramatically interesting if she had done it, and something that could lead to a lot of great conflict down the road, but in that moment I wouldn't have found it remotely unforgivable. Part of me wanted her to simply because he deserved it. I don't think Bell pulling back is quite as righteous as the show is insisting it is. I would have been perfectly fine with the character had she pulled the trigger.
It was good, but unsatisfying. Of course, that was by design. But I don't have to like it. ***1/2.
Law & Order: Organized Crime "The Wild And The Innocent"
I thought that was great.
The thing I really responded to was how on the level both Stabler and Carver were with each other. Stabler lets him know after this is all over, he's going to jail. And Carver understands it and accepts his help to get his daughter back anyways.
But as much honor as Carver clearly has is as morally bankrupt as the other two gang factions seem. This is supposed to be organized crime? Pure chaos!
I love Stabler and Bell's scene at the end. What I hope Stabler can appreciate (and it is left unsaid) is that no matter how guilty he feels about the last time he saw him before this, because of what happened in this episode their relationship was STILL left off on a much healthier place, cop and criminal or not. That's not nothing.
I find the fact that Bruce is routinely mortified by his obvious crush on Jet all kinds of adorable. If he were a creep, the crush wouldn't be cute. Because every true feeling that spills out of him is accidental instead, it's a bit endearing instead. Think Felicity Smoak. Which is a tough dynamic to pull off with Bruce a dude and Jet a woman, but I buy it.
Great episode. ****1/2.
|
|
|
Post by fonebone on Mar 10, 2023 19:16:53 GMT -8
Stephen King Book Club (Reviews for Four Past Midnight, Needful Things, The Wastelands: The Dark Tower III, Gerald's Game, Dolores Claiborne, Nightmares & Dreamscapes, Insomnia, Rose Madder, Desperation, and The Regulators.)
Warning: The are major spoilers to the last Dark Tower novel in the Insomnia review. You have been warned.
Four Past Midnight by Stephen King
King's second collection of "Four Novellas" after "Different Seasons", one of my favorite formats of his.
Unlike "Different Seasons" it could be argued ALL of the stories here are horror, and most of then are longer than the novellas from that book. The book is nearly a thousand pages and hella long. It's a good thing I liked three of the stories. Collection Overall: ****.
One Past Midnight: The Langoliers
That is a ripping good yarn. That's the best way to describe it. King does not get enough credit for it. The excellent miniseries was also far too underpraised. This is all great stuff.
I think Craig Toomy is one of King's best villains so far. Because I feel SO much sympathy for him. As big of a jerk as he is, he doesn't WANT to hurt anyone, and he's simply crazy. The empathy the blind girl Dinah (who he stabbed) has for him is something I feel too. And I find her dire warning to Nick not to kill him because they "need him" absolutely chilling in its implications. When Brian believes Dinah used him to save their lives, as ugly as it sounds, I think Brian thinking Toomy probably wouldn't have minded being used in that way in his right mind was probably correct.
King as Narrator describing the fish in the trench to set the scene for the pressure this madman is under is great storytelling. I repeat: A good yarn. Toomy's use of the words "Scampering" and "monkey-business" in his head also give off a sense of deliberate mischief to his actions in his former life. The sci-fi crisis hits him bad because he was about to destroy everything he ever worked for out of spite, and it wouldn't let him. No wonder that fish exploded with the pressure being lessened so dramatically. And it's interesting the thing he notes about the vision of Dinah is that she showed him a look he's never gotten before: Compassion. And their connection and her being able to see from his eyes before she died is incredibly bittersweet knowing the horrible things they have done and ARE doing to each other. It's really interesting.
As far as sci-fi mysteries go, I have to say unlike "The Tommyknockers", and later "Dreamcatcher", this one holds up. It's a mystery that makes little sense as it is happening (and they are very fortunate to have a mystery writer aboard) that actually makes a weird kind of sense as it goes along. To be clear: Bob Jenkins and his teenage sidekick Albert could have been wrong in every deduction of what happened. But they operated under the assumption that they weren't and everyone was okay at the end. It's likelier than not they had the thing down to a science after all.
And you can call it unrealistic that Bob would guess the thing about the matches beforehand because it doesn't actually conform to any known time displacement theories. I prefer to think of it as impressive instead. In practice, it's shoddy as hell writing and an unlikely solve. As it is, I like Bob Jenkins for being there and for being so damn useful.
Speaking of which, one of the characters bemoaned the fact that the situation is already so bad, it's not fair they are stuck with a murderous nut like Toomy. I think it's more than fair. Not just because Dinah is right that they NEED him for Langolier bait, but because the amount of useful people on that plane who just HAPPENED to be asleep when they fell through the time loop is insane. Because Dinah's precognition, Nick's special forces skills, Bob Jenkins' deductive reasoning, and the fact that Brian is a freaking Pilot means they were lucky they were only stuck with ONE Toomy. Karma dictates they should have had four. Or maybe six, because I don't think either Albert or Laurel is entirely useless in a crisis either.
I love that one of the passengers basically sleeps through the entire thing, and the brief times he awakes he sees what's happening and chooses to go back to sleep. The one thing the other passengers have in common every time they look at him is that they envy him. What a great subversive plot-thread for King to weave throughout the story.
As main characters go, I don't much like Brian, simply because he once hit his wife. I understand that Nick Hopewell feels he has a lot to make up for for the 3 kids he accidentally killed on a mission, but I actually think Brian does too knowing that.
King connections of note: Not a ton, but The Shop from "Firestarter" is mentioned.
"The New People" at the end is about as good a description for the survivors as any. King is a cool horror writer because he doesn't usually do the "hand popping out of the grave in the last shot" moment in his stories. He usually allows his survivors actual happy endings. And that might be why his stuff is so popular while the rest of the horror genre is a bit polarizing with much of the public, I don't personally like horror that much myself usually. But I like Stephen King, his optimism, and he characters. The fact that most of his books are supposed to be scary is one of the least appealing things about to them me in general. That fact certainly isn't why I read him. King is just an innately good storyteller.
And yes, I love the ending, because it's a perfect capper and resolution to the mystery and the doubt and dread turning into joy feels completely earned. The Langoliers is one of King better, unsung stories. I'm betting some people who will read this review will never have even heard of it before. And the miniseries was great too. I think Bronson Pinchot was a VERY odd choice for Toomy, but I'm guessing that's why they chose him. Dean Stockwell was absolutely perfect as Bob Jenkins, as long as we are keeping track of that sort of thing.
The dark period in King's career is coming to a close. He still has some disappointments coming up before he fully gets out of the slump, but he's gonna get clean soon, and that's gonna help things immeasurably. In the meantime, this story is solid all the way through. *****.
Two Part Midnight: Secret Window, Secret Garden
When I first read this I did not predict the twist ending. But it's like Leland on Twin Peaks, when you reread it there can be no other answer. You feel dumb for having been surprised the first time. Really, I don't know how and why "Who killed Laura Palmer?" became SUCH a national sensation and burning mystery. Because it's super obvious in hindsight. Just like Mort Rainey essentially being Norman Bates.
And the reason I'm satisfied with this is because I can't stand Mort. He blames everybody else for his own problems and refuses take any responsibility for any bad things that have happened in his life. Ironically Shooter was created by his mind to figure out a way to let him do that and suffer for how much his personality actually sucks, but really, most people don't need to go crazy and murder their cat and two people to have a revelation about themselves. Mort Rainey is unlikable and I find him one of King's famous "bad husbands" on par with Burt from "Children Of The Corn", Jack Torrance from "The Shining", and Louis Creed from "Pet Sematary". And he would have been as crappy a husband as those guys even if he never killed anybody.
King delivers a bummer ending for a change, but since it's for a character he's gotten us to dislike, the reader doesn't object. I certainly don't.
One writing insight I liked was Mort thinking his old writing teacher's books were well-received by the critics and didn't sell for the same reason: They were incomprehensible. This rings true to me about a lot of critically loved stuff that audiences don't give two craps about. Critics love stuff that doesn't make sense because they can pretend they actually understand it and us plebes are simply too dim to. Very insightful observation there about both bad fiction and bad fiction reviewers.
It's an interesting story although far from the best one in the collection. ***1/2.
Three Past Midnight: The Library Policeman
I think this one gets a bad rap. Yes, it's a mess, and I get the sneaking suspicion King had no idea what he was doing when he wrote it (he admits as much in the forward) but King claims the story scares him, and it does me too. And I don't find too many of his stories legit scary. He compares it to Christine in starting out as a comical idea and turning into a horrifying nightmare. A couple of thoughts from me there. Nothing in Christine is as horrifying as this. The main trauma of the story is Sam remembering back when he was raped by a stranger as a little kid. There is nothing approaching that level of horror in Christine. And considering how silly the premise is, maybe some fans found that idea out of place.
But it's a mess and an interesting mess at that.
One of the oddest and most unique things about it is that the scariest sequence doesn't actually have any real tension to it. Dave telling Sam and Naomi his history with Ardelia literally has no stakes and is essentially just a conversation. But it's riveting and horrifying anyways. Similarly, King really makes you understand about the good in Dave by Stan relating the actual story of the baseballs. Cool touches like that are a King mainstay, and why he's a cut above any other horror writer you can think of. He allows the good moments to not just happen, but either be appreciated or enjoyed by the heroes. And for a guy telling creepy stories that specific touch really makes all the difference.
Not a ton of Kingverse references here, but King references himself as a writer (which sort of messes with some of the themes he later developed about Keystone Earth in the final three Dark Tower books). Also should note Sam and Naomi's happy ending is briefly confirmed at the end of the upcoming novel "Needful Things". The town the story takes place in (Junction City) however is due more much more unpleasant times ahead.
Put this down for a widely panned King book I actually liked. Other members of this club include "Insomnia" and "Rose Madder". And while we are stating unpopular opinions, I think all three of those polarizing books are better than "The Body", "Cujo", "IT", and "Pet Sematary". I tend to agree with most King fans about what his GREAT books are ("The Stand", "'Salem's Lot", "The Dark Tower", "Rita Hayworth And The Shawshank Redemption") but when it comes to both other fans, and frankly Uncle Stevie himself, I tend to have very different opinions about which books are his GOOD ones. This is a good one and the second best story in the collection. ****.
Four Past Midnight: The Sun Dog
My least favorite story in the collection. King warns us in the Foreword people looking for explanations will be disappointed. And while I'm not disappointed we didn't get explanations, I dislike King's unexplainable fiction more than stuff he puts in the work to make credible. And it's no contest. The Langoliers is precisely as ludicrous a premise as The Sun Dog. But King put in the legwork to make it believable. The "unexplained horror" in both this story and much of Night Shift and Skeleton Crew feels shoddy as hell.
The story is hardly worthless. That bears admitting because there ARE a few King stinkers I would claim that about. But I think Pop Merrill is an interesting character, and like Kevin, I like the way he talks, and how it's explained he uses "I mean to say," the same way other people use, "like" or "you know", and as a way to pause the conversation to gather his thoughts. My favorite part of the novella (hands down) is the extended chapter where Merrill goes from place to place trying to sell the camera to the "Mad Hatters". The last (Chaffee), I think got to the root of the matter best, at least as far a purchase of a supernatural object goes: As far as they could see, it's a rare example of an unexplained and singularly unique supernatural occurrence that is actually quite boring. I love that chapter, and I love how steamed the Hatters were making Pops for not being stupid enough to want to either buy or believe in a dangerous and worthless object. I enjoyed Pop's misery at the reality check that the people who he routinely "rooked" were actually smarter than him.
Kevin's an all right protagonist but he's a little square. And the fact that he actually believes he IS better than "the summer people" shows he's not really growing up right. Castle Rock is kinda of a sucky town. It's probably why Leland Gaunt sees potential in it later on.
King Connections: Kevin has a weird vision about the time Jack Sawyer visited the town of Oatley in The Talisman, and encountered an incomprehensible wino with a shopper cart accusing him of being a "Fushing Feef". Pops Merrill is the uncle of Ace Merrill from "The Body". Shawshank Prison is mentioned. Polly Chalmers from "Needful Things" is briefly seen, and the Narrator even mysteriously notes that she is a person they will need to discuss at a later date. Cujo's story is mentioned. Sheriff Alan Pangborn from "The Dark Half" appears and it's revealed his wife and son have died in a car crash.
The unresolved ending hinting at a bad end for Kevin and his father is another reason to dislike the story. I have said it before and I will say it again: A good ending can makes a reader / viewer forgive A LOT. So when I'm already not digging this story, it underwhelming me on the last page really hurts it.
My least favorite story in the collection. It is not without its good points, however. **1/2.
Needful Things by Stephen King
Stephen King envisioned this as a "Black Comedy". I don't think it's entirely successful. I am not sure how the book was received at the time, but I know the movie was widely hated for being so damn mean. And it's a mean as hell book.
Luckily, King has a couple of likable protagonists in Alan Pangborn and Polly Chalmers that you root for and care about. But how can you actually laugh at a "black comedy" where poor Nettie is wailing over the body of her dead dog or young Brian Rusk commits suicide via shotgun in front of his little brother? A Black Comedy usually means things are gruesome but actually subversive enough to be humorous too. There are some funny things in the book, like Gaunt's instructions to Ace on the cocaine reading "Snort me", or Gaunt telling the woman to gobble his crank, but on the whole, it's King taking his usual shots at small-town America and how dumb the rubes actually are. He doesn't actually destroy Castle Rock as promised. But it's still a sour as hell place to leave the town and many of those characters on.
Let me also say something about the main protagonist: Alan Pangborn is a woefully unskilled law enforcement officer. He didn't impress me in "The Dark Half". If anything, him not being able to put together the obvious until it is far too late here is far more shoddy policework than him not believing an imaginary man like George Stark could actually exist. That last bit is understandable, as frustrating as it was during "The Dark Half". Because there doesn't have to be a supernatural explanation attached to Leland Gaunt for a halfway competent cop to look in his direction and call "Shenanigans!". I think what annoys me most is that Gaunt is not some perfect master planner. He's outright careless at many points, and sloppy as hell. He could have been found out several times if things had worked against him in several different ways, and if Pangborn had been more alert. And a lot of good supervillaining is done through pure luck on the end of the supervillain. But it doesn't make me love or appreciate the dopey hero the villain spends the first three quarters of the book running rings around. But as far as Pangborn wising up goes, it's more like the first 9/10ths of the book.
I'll tell you what disappoints me a little. That Gaunt's wares are glamours and fakes. I think it would raise an interesting moral dilemma if the demanded items Gaunt sold were genuine. You can't raise the controversy of what the town's soul is worth if you are handing them junk. I think King got it into his head that the Devil is the father of all lies, and went from there. But that sure as hell is far less interesting than if Gaunt's promises were so dangerous because they were true.
King connections of note: There are a LOT of them and arguably more in this book than any before or since.
-A few references to the events of "The Dead Zone". Johnny Smith is mentioned by name as is Frank Dodd.
-The events of "Cujo" are mentioned. Joe Camber, George Bannerman, Donna Trenton, and her son are ALL mentioned.
-The events of "The Dark Half" are brought up, and we learn Thad Beaumont's wife has taken the twins and left him after the events of that book, and he drunk-dialed Alan late at night for awhile during his depression over that fact. Also some references to George Stark in a nightmare for Alan and his getting "sparrows to fly" against Gaunt in the climax.
-Alan feeling "The Coming Of The White" seems to be a direct reference to "The Dark Tower". It's amazing this book is not considered Dark Tower-related despite that. It has more to do with that story than "Bag Of Bones" or "The Regulators" at any rate just for that.
-The end mentions Sam Peebles and Naomi Higgins, the protagonists of "The Library Policeman", and informs us they've left town together happy and in love. Which is a good thing too because we see Junction City is the next stop for the thing that called itself Gaunt's malevolence.
-Roland DeBray's vulgar claim of the only thing that smells better than new car from "Christine" is brought up here. That line is too gross, memorable, and weird to be anything BUT a direct callback.
-The events of "The Sun Dog" are referenced, as is Pop Merrill's catchphrase "What I mean to say," (several times for that one).
-Ace Merrill's history with the boys from "The Body" as a kid is referenced and we learn Gordie LaChance is a rich and famous novelist upstate. If you ask me an undeserved one. I always thought LaChance was a crappy writer. I think Ace finding that situation unfair is him probably having the right of it.
-Ace did time in Shawshank. Because of course he did.
The Narrator describing the fact that Ace is the kind of Alpha who immediately is submissive to a bigger Pack Dog is great writing on King's end. As is noting the poor woman who died at the Church who never bought anything from Gaunt's shop or participated in his sick games. King getting clean was the best thing to ever happen to his prose.
Gaunt hates the word "But". And while I will concede that it's been misused over the years and a way for people to walk back horrible crap they are about to say, the reason Gaunt hates it is because it has power against everything he's trying to do. When the characters stop saying "Mr. Gaunt knows best," and say "But..." instead, Gaunt is losing. Gaunt hates the word so much because it has legitimate power against him.
I am wavering over whether I think this is a successful book or not. As a horror novel and King continuity-feast it works well. As a black comedy? It's too damn horrible to be funny. Story of King's life. ***1/2.
The Waste Lands: The Dark Tower III by Stephen King
Both good and bad. But the good is VERY good, and the bad is VERY bad.
I don't want to dwell on the bad too much, so we'll talk about it first. Susannah Dean remains perhaps the most problematic character King ever created. He takes a lot of Detta Walker's Ebonics for granted, and acts as if since he's an upstanding white liberal, he should be afforded the privilege of creating black characters who both say the ugly, offensive things she does, and suffer the humiliations she routinely does. Her rape in the speaking ring says that people gave King a LOT more slack for his horrible ideas and the way he treated women and people of color back then than he ever deserved. For years. To be honest, for the longest while, I was actually dumb enough to believe Ralph Bakshi's explanation that his racial caricatures in his work were not designed to offend people of color, and are done by someone who actually loves black culture. But like Bakshi, King's work itself at this stage of his career says otherwise. He can claim he's an ally and means no offense. The stuff he's written isn't just offensive. It strikes me as DELIBERATELY offensive, done by a white liberal who believes the fact that he votes for Democrats gives him a free pass. That's not how it actually work, Uncle Stevie. If you truly don't want to offend people of color and women with your writing, stop writing utterly offensive things because you believe you have this weird license to be deliberately offensive. It doesn't fly.
I also have a TON of problems with Gasher. I don't like the pedophile vibe he seems to be throwing at Jake. And if King truly wanted the Tick-Tock Man to be a memorable villain and make his first appearance impressive, maybe don't bring him back for a single scene in the next book and have him killed off so easily.
I mentioned there's good. Jake's stuff in New York is Aces. Take note, Dark Tower fans. This is literally the only time in the entire saga Calvin Tower is likable. King went in an entirely different direction for this loser in subsequent books, but I liked seeing him unfiltered before he actually became so damn damaging. I also love the Charlie The Choo-Choo book (I will be reviewing the picture book in an upcoming review) and all of the clues, Easter Eggs, and tie-ins to Mid-World in it. Jake's essay was hysterical, especially him getting an A+ for that disturbed lunacy. And Blaine the Mono is awesome. One of King's best villains EVER. And riddling is an attractive concept to ANY reader, and to have this insane robot obsessed with it is just great. I love the ending, although in fairness, I got into the series late (I wisely waited until it was done to start it), and I might have just been pissed if I had been left with that specific "I gotta see where this goes" cliffhanger for a few years between books.
What appears to be Randall Flagg showing up at the end must have been a HUGE moment for Stephen King fans back in the day, and King hinting him and Walter / The Man In Black are the exact same dude is a masterstroke. I would have been thrilled if I had first read that when the book was released.
Couple of interesting King connections. The Turtle Maturin is a concept created in his overrated long novel "IT". Inside View from both "The Dead Zone" and "The Night Flier" is mentioned, which is problematic, since Jake's stuff apparently takes place on Keystone Earth. Shh! Let's pretend I didn't just notice that bit.
I feel like there are a lot of good concepts and scenes and villains in the book. But King has been playing it SO fast and loose with Susannah Dean for decades, and I'm just not willing to put up with it anymore. Yes, it does wreck a great deal of enjoyment of the book for me, Uncle Stevie. It's weird that you believed writing something that offensive and ugly would NOT do that. ***1/2.
Gerald's Game by Stephen King
The 1990's is an odd period for Stephen King. He did an uncommon number of books dealing with women being hurt by men and navigating that trauma successfully. And I think the reasons he did those books were probably well-intentioned. But it's something he did so often during this period that it sort of makes me wonder what specific part of his liberal guilt latched onto that idea. Is there perhaps shame for some exploitative scenes involving women that King is ashamed of? Maybe. But that doesn't feel right either. I feel like King has always been more racially insensitive than he has been sexist. Out of problematic things King might feel the need to do penance over, this seems a little odd to me.
Gerald's Game is a very scary book. The crap with the reality of the Space Cowboy is King at his most in your face in purely terrifying the reader. The scares and jumps are not remotely subtle and that makes them all the scarier.
I mentioned King dealing with empowering abused women, and I have to say to say that if he actually researched how women themselves felt as something like that happened when they were little girls and tried to repress that memory, I'd be surprised. Young Jessie's reactions to her father could either be believable or utter b.s. invented entirely by King. I'm not sure.
What DOES feel authentic to me, is the manipulations of her father before and after the abuse. I have never wanted to abuse somebody in that manner. And if I had it never would have occurred to me to insist to the kid I hurt that we had to tell, even if it would destroy the family, and put that burden on the kid because I'd know the kid would NEVER speak up in that scenario. That idea sounds so twisted and outside of the thinking of a decent, rational human being, that it sounds totally credible. The fact that I would never ever even THINK of using that as a manipulation tactic to keep somebody's silence shows that King really is channeling an aspect of abusers most of us simply don't understand or have any context for. For that specific thing? I'm betting King himself had heard a woman describing this scenario to him and thought it would horrible enough that it would make a good anchor for the trauma of the book. And Tom Mahout making this horrible thing he did his daughter's entire responsibility is so twisted and outside of any idea I could ever ponder that it simply has to credible. This HAS to be a tactic many abusers use. It's too perfect and perfectly horrible for King to have invented it himself.
I like the fact that King, a Democrat, understands that this type of abuse, is not actually a partisan problem. Yeah, you hear a lot about Republicans politicians being charged with these crimes these days. But think of all the kids who stay silent. You realize the reason Jessie's a Republican as an adult is because her father read "Profiles In Courage" in his spare time. King, even back in the 1990's believed Republicans sucked. He's suggesting Tom's liberal leanings drove her into a lousy political philosophy as an adult simply to be as far away from him as possible.
And yes, I do find it believable that he's a Democrat. The tactics he uses are falsely empowering to Jessie and a way for him to pretend to take responsibility without actually doing so. His shtick would not be outside of something Brian Griffin would say upon mistreating a woman. And Brian Griffin is TV's famous liberal cautionary tale and punchline. And I'm impressed that King understands that this sort of thing, like racism, is not down to a single political party and movement. It's a rot that effects everyone. That's what's so insidious about it.
And it's not just Jessie coming to grips with the fact that this happened which impresses me. It's her coming to realize how tightly her father controlled and manipulated every aspect of the situation. The trauma is less shameful in hindsight and more of a disgusting con job. I like Jessie getting there.
The voices in Jessie's head are not exactly great writing, but a book with basically one character in it needs people to bounce ideas off of. Netflix made a movie out of this a few years ago and I wonder if and how the voices were dealt with. If you had asked me before the movie came out I would have suggested the book was unfilmable.
King Connections of Note: The woman in Jessie's vision in during the day of the eclipse is Dolores Claiborne. It's mentioned Norris Ridgewick is Castle Rock's new sheriff. Juniper Hill is referenced.
Gerald's Game is not a great book. But it's a GOOD book. It's a book with genuine scares and a book that deals with child abuse in a frank and intelligent way. Not bad. ***1/2.
Dolores Claiborne by Stephen King
Dolores Claiborne is an interesting novel in the fact that even though I've never seen the movie, what I've seen of the trailers and reviews tell me it's something entirely different. The movie is a Gothic horror revenge story about the awful truth of the spooky Dolores played by noted scary person Kathy Bates. The book? Is NOT that.
First of all, I can't picture Kathy Bates as Dolores as portrayed here. Not just because Dolores is skinny, but because Dolores isn't frightening, she's charming, and funny, and lovable. She's a larger than life personality. Not a mysterious woman who gives you the creeps. The last sentence of her story is "Dust bunnies? Frig ya!" Does that remotely sound like the trailers for that movie?
And there is no mystery attached to what she did. The entire book (annoyingly told without any chapter stops or breaks) is essentially her recorded confession and statement to the police given because she's on the hook for a murder she did NOT do, and needs to come clean about killing her husband to prove it. And Dolores doesn't simply get away with murder at the end. The police simply decide not to charge her, and to keep her secret. Because they ultimately agree with the reasons she did it. And so does the reader. Dolores isn't scary for that murder. She's a protective mother.
Also the bits with her recalling Vera crapping on the sheets is such fine lowbrow comedy, especially the way Dolores tells it. A book with that scene of gutbusting laughter is simply not a horror book.
It's a character study about a woman who forced her husband to stop abusing her, and when he started sexually molesting their daughter she decided to kill him. And it tackles tough and horrific themes sure enough. But in a raw and realistic way. King doesn't scare me with this book. He moves me.
I mentioned in the review for Gerald's Game that this was the period of King's writing where he stuck up an unusual amount for abused women. It's probably the best of the novels from this period of him doing that.
King Connections Of Note: The young girl Dolores sees in a vision on the day of the eclipse is young Jessie Mahout from the book Gerald's Game, of which this book is considered its companion / second half. Derry is mentioned, as is Shawshank. Little Tall Island is later the setting of the King-written miniseries Storm Of The Century (I will be reviewing the printed screenplay soon).
I see the trailers for Dolores Claiborne and it's like for an entirely different story. The book is really cool although I would have preferred chapters so it would be easier to read. ****.
Nightmares & Dreamscapes by Stephen King
Stephen King's fifth short story collection is definitely his most off-beat. It contains a great nonfiction essay ("Head Down"), a screenplay, a poem, and a freely adapted fable at the end to boot. There are some great stories here like "The Ten O'Clock People", "The House On Maple Street", "Dolan's Cadillac", and "The Doctor's Case", as well as some clunkers ("You Know They Got A Hell Of A Band"). And put me down for somebody who considers the degrading story "Dedication" one of the most appalling things King has ever written. Collection Overall: ***.
Dolan's Cadillac
This is like the perfect revenge story.
Robinson is MURDERER and I don't feel bad about his actions at all. There's a very hard-boiled edge to the story, which is a storytelling style King has always used to mixed results.
Here? He uses it to spin QUITE a yarn. ****1/2.
The End Of The Whole Mess
It's not a horror story but it IS a total bummer and I don't really like those. *1/2.
Suffer The Little Children
This is a horrible story, but it IS scary, which is what it is going for.
King Connection: Miss Sidley is sent to Juniper Hill from "IT".
King describes it as containing zero social merit and that he likes that in a story. I don't agree with him about the second thing, but it's good to see he understands the first thing about it. *1/2.
The Night Flier
Spooky story.
Richard Dees is a great character and it's easy to see why King brought him back from "The Dead Zone". The idea that he needs to practice smiling hints that he's a sociopath, which sounds about right. The guy is a pure slimeball.
That ending of the vampire's urine hitting the toilet as Dees watched it in the mirror just kills me. The story is just disturbing (and fun) on every level. ****.
Popsy
It's sort of a funny horror story, simply because the "protagonist" Sheridan is SUCH a bad guy so you think the bad things that happen to him serve him right.
I love that the vampire kid loves the Ninja Turtles. As Popsy says, like all kids do.
King Connections: Inside View is mentioned. King says in the notes accompanying the story that he believes Popsy and the Night Flier are one and the same.
Twisted. ***1/2.
It Grows On You
This Castle Rock epilogue is super boring.
King Connections: Andy Clutterbuck appears. *1/2.
Chattery Teeth
It's a fun story. Not exactly unpredictable. But fun. It's also one where the supernatural element helps the protagonist instead of trying to kill him, and that's refreshing too.
Cool. ***1/2.
Dedication
More like "Degradation".
Easily in the bottom five things King has ever written, and it's one of those things like "Rage" that as I'm reading it I'm saying, "How DARE he?" to myself. It is repellent and example of King humiliating and degrading a woman of color simply because he can. It's technically not the worst thing he's ever written. But of his short fiction? The stuff he puts in collections? The very worst.
It's so bad I can't believe King put it in a collection at ALL. If I were him, I'd be embarrassed of it, and it would be one of those MANY crappy short stories he's written that went uncollected and never saw the light of day ever again. It is vile on every level. 0.
The Moving Finger
I don't much like Stephen King's inexplicable horror stories from earlier in his career. But this one is not terrible. This is a morbid sense of humor to it, for one thing. Maybe King has stopped making the inexplicable seem like bad, lazy writing, and simply made it thought-provoking instead. Funnily enough, this probably also describes "Chattery Teeth".
I like the story. ***1/2.
Sneakers
I like this story too. I think it leaves the protagonist Tell off on a good place, even if the reader might think he's still denying a deeper part of his sexuality. Nevertheless, this ghost story works because Tell winds up taking a moral stand about it at the end, and ends his friendship with Jannings over it. Doing the right thing is never easy, especially for a guy feeling as many conflicted, confused feelings as Tell is. But I celebrate whenever a fictional character does it, and that's why I like this story. ****.
You Know They Got A Hell Of A Band
The story annoys me, not just because the ending is a downer, but because the couple never would have gotten into that fix if Clark had just put a pin in his pride and listened to his wife's fears. He's not as cruel or outright nasty as Burt from "Children Of The Corn". But his more reasonable-seeming facade cannot mask the fact that his stupidity and stubbornness are exactly as damaging.
And King may think the scenario is humorous but it really creeps and bums me out instead. I really dislike this story. *.
Home Delivery
Good zombie yarn, if you ask me.
King connections: The story takes place on Little Tall Island, the setting of both "Dolores Claiborne" and "Storm Of The Century". Because there are no zombies in the epilogue of "Storm Of The Century" set in 1999, it's safe to say this version of Little Tall exists on a different level of the Dark Tower than it or "Dolores Claiborne" does. Nonetheless, Dolores' daughter Selena St. George is mentioned by name, and unhappily it's suggested her Thanksgiving visit as told at the end of "Dolores Claiborne" wound up her only visit back to the island, but I choose to believe that's only so on this level of the Tower. Also Inside View is mentioned.
I like when the Narrator describes there can only be one of two religions on Little Tall: Methodist, or Lapsed Methodist. King seems to understand Maine Island life in a way I never will.
I didn't much care for the main character of Maddie (she's a doormat), but everything else was riveting, and a really cool take on the zombie apocalypse. ***1/2.
Rainy Season
This is another Twilight Zone story about the hellish small town that isn't what is appears, but unlike "Children Of The Corn", and "You Know They Got A Hell Of A Band", I like it. Partly because Henry and Laura are sympathetic, framing-story characters, and partly because none of the mess is actually the young couple's fault. The idea that the toads melt in the sunlight and the worry is that without the ritual they might not is a pretty great freaking hook, as are the fact that the raining toads are carnivorous with needle-shaped teeth.
King also wrote a phrase I liked when describing the dog. He said is was "a yellow dog of no particular make or model". I love that. That's downhome writing right there. King knows ALL the best Yankee sayings that I've never heard of, and part of the fun of reading him is hearing him show them off. ****.
My Pretty Pony
I tend to like King stories where there is no horror in it whatsoever, but this one is kind of boring.
First of all, it was conceived as an excerpt from a Richard Bachman book that was canned once the pseudonym was burned. And it doesn't feel much like Bachman prose, although there is a chance King might have substantially altered it once he realized it would just be its own thing.
I think the thing I dislike most about the story is that Clive doesn't seem to understand his sister is sexually molesting him. And it's such a minor part of the story that it almost feels like King thinks it's no big deal. Whatever the Bachman novel was gonna be, I doubt I would have liked it.
Fast and slow time is a thing, and the Grandfather is right that when you're older, time only goes slower during bad times. After experiencing 2016-2021, a period of time that went by for me at a snail's pace, I feel much older and wearier than I actually am. The idea that time slows down only when you are miserable is an idea that entirely holds up to scrutiny.
But I'm still not a huge fan of this story. **.
Sorry, Right Number
I hate this screenplay. No wonder Amazing Stories rejected it. The ending doesn't feel preordained, it feels cruel, and makes the entire thing feels pointless. It's like "What if the movie 12 Monkeys was actually worthless and totally boring?" The time loop you can't fix simply is not interesting in any sort of network TV domestic family situation.
King Connection: The script refers to Kate's "Pretty Pony" almost certainly an addition for its inclusion in this collection. Pretty sneaky, sis. *.
The Ten O'Clock People
Easily the best story in the collection. It seems to be loosely based on the movie "They Live!" which was based on a short story by Ray Nelson called "Eight O'Clock In The Morning". Normally I hate me some unresolved endings, but this one is delicious in not only the questions it raises, but the possibilities too.
King made the Vice-President a batman but I think he refused to say it was Al Gore in this Universe (who was Vice-President when the story was written) because he likes Al Gore. King isn't explicit, but the talking points the Vice-President in the story uses are strictly Republican. Which disappoints me a little as a fan of Al Gore. I would have loved to have seen him portrayed as an evil bat-creature secretly wanting to suck out souls. Give the South Park jerks something to actually complain about, Uncle Stevie.
The ideas and rules for the batmen are just Aces. It's speculated that America is the only country where more than a handful people can see them because America is the only country obsessed with quitting smoking. Just the ideas the story raises makes me want to see a sequel. But knowing Pearson got the Resistance in Vegas started on a high note might be enough for me.
There's a movie of this in development. It would make a great picture, but it's probably too late to have the same impact it would have 20 years ago. Simply put, there are not enough smokers or people trying to quit smoking left in society to be relatable to general audience anymore. The younger generations gravitate towards vape pens these days for the explicit reason that they probably won't even HAVE to quit them. It's a great premise that society has moved on from a bit.
I like that Pearson is the one guy who senses a rat at the meeting. And I especially like that he instantly dislikes Delray. Delray's all "We never had a chance!" The 30 batmen bankers in Vegas Pearson, Cam, and Moira smoked a year later beg to differ. And love the story ending by saying that killing batmen was like quitting smoking: you had to start somewhere.
Let me be blunt. Stephen King's decades long tobacco habit has rarely improved his writing. I find the fact that he normalizing quitters cheating and going back to the habit a bad message, which is made worse because it happened with ALL of his characters that used to smoke. And I think as King actually stopped being one of the Ten O'Clock people, he either made his main characters nonsmokers to begin with, or more admirably like with Holly Gibney, made their struggles to quit real and permanent. But really, I think the only really great story we can owe to King's butt habit is this one. People will swear by "Quitters Inc.", and while that IS a funny story, it's told by a man who believed people telling him to quit smoking had sinister motives. "The Ten O'Clock People" is just great sci-fi, and makes quitting and slipping a random coicidence, and the one thing that might slip up these ugly mothers once and for all.
It's an amazing story. If King were smart, he's write a sequel / update. If he were smarter, he wouldn't, and simply let the story's awesomeness stand. I would prefer King were a little LESS smart here to be completely honest. *****.
Crouch End
A Stephen King set in the Cthulhu Mythos. Not a huge Lovecraft fan, just due to how personally repellent a person he was, but Uncle Stevie seems game to play in his sandbox.
I guess my question is if his novel "Revival" also exists on this level of the Dark Tower. We'll see. **1/2.
The House On Maple Street
This is sort of Stephen King's version of a Narnia story by way of The Twilight Zone. The children's last name being Bradbury also hints at another strong influence. And it was really based on a painting!
The story is a real crowd-pleaser, and one of the few King stories (like "Eyes Of The Dragon" and MAYBE "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon") that I think it would be safe for kids to read. They'd get a kick out of the Bradburys sending their wicked stepfather into outer space at the end at any rate.
King's prose here is deliberately understated, and could be confused for that of a British children's author. Which is what I think he's actually channeling.
Brian screaming "My toys!" as the house took off was a pleasurably realistic reaction.
Delightful story. ****1/2.
The Fifth Quarter
Very good.
King says in the notes this story came from Bachman but I don't see it. Bachman's stories tend to have an additional repulsive element to then and this is pure good old fashioned pulp. If Bachman only wrote like this, I'd never say boo about the persona. Since he NEVER wrote stuff like this, I have license to gripe.
I love that Jagger calls the Narrator by the moniker "Beautiful." He has no idea who is out there in the dark, but knows it will rattle him. And it does.
King connections: "The Shank" is mentioned.
King as his pulpiest. ****.
The Doctor's Case
A gem.
Leave it to Stephen King, when tasked with writing a Sherlock Holmes story, to have Watson recall the single case he solved before Sherlock! If that isn't a grand enough idea, a nearly centennial Watson suggests the story has never been told before because he, Holmes, and Lestrade decided that the dead victim deserved it, and covered it up, all three becoming accessories to murder after the fact!
King is great with the characters because he suggests the reason Watson solves the case first is that because of his cat allergy, Holmes was working at an unusual diminished capacity. King cares about the franchise and tropes enough to actually give a REASON why Watson solves it first. Better yet, Holmes is supportive of his friend's first great discovery.
I like King having Watson say this adventure was truly the only time he heard Holmes say those much attributed, (but mostly apocryphal) words, "Quick, Watson! The game is afoot!"
I mention in the review for "The House On Maple Street" how unusual it is for King to write a story kids could read. This isn't actually a kids story, but if it were rated, it would get a PG at worst. King actually blanks out the one curse word uttered by Watson, just like they did back in the day.
Still King describing "Mrs. Hemphill's Home For Abandoned Pussies" shows when King DOES do Sherlock Holmes, there is still an edge to it. The "Pussy Will" joke is great because Watson can't tell if Holmes is joking, or even if he truly has a sense of humor or not.
I love this story. An absolute treat. *****.
Umney's Last Case
The premise is clever as hell, but I strongly dislike the story so much because I find Clyde Umney's personality so utterly repulsive and despicable. Just him insisting the blind kid couldn't get the operation because he was supposed to be blind forever makes me hate him. He's delusional. And we learned the kid's name is Francis and he hates the name Peoria. Just like her secretary Arlene is fed up with being called Candy and his unwanted advances on her. I'd feel worse about the spot the writer Sam Landry puts the guy in if he exhibited anything remotely resembling human emotions towards other people. Him having to toilet-train himself at the end of the story sounds humiliating. And like something that turd deserves.
Just based on the ending there is an open question in my mind if the entire story is really just the diary of Sam Landry detailing his descent into madness and disassociation. It's possible that Umney dictating the last chapter of the story is simply Landry who has gone completely insane. I like that it's up for debate. But that's definitely my interpretation.
But I can't actually like the story because Clyde Umney is such a turd. **.
Head Down
This sports article about Stephen King following his son Owen's Little League team as they try for the championship is the first nonfiction essay King has put in one of these collections. King insists it fits. I don't exactly agree. What I will say is I get why King included it and is proud of it. I have previously noted that as of this point in time, Stephen King is an utterly crappy nonfiction writer. Danse Macabre was so self-indulgent I think the proper way to absorb it would be to listen to Hank Azaria read it as a book on tape in his Comic Book Guy voice. King's stabs at introductions, forewords, and nonfiction books at this point make him seem exceptionally snide and elitist. This essay is the first nonfiction thing King has written that is not only good, but that I don't actually turn up my nose at in disgust. I don't give it full credit. The bit with the boys on the bus searching for the People magazine with the breast cancer exam photo is King as his most crass, but other than that, King tries very hard to actually be an objective reporter here, even if the team he's following is his son's.
I think King is way more objective than he needs to be which is something I admire him for. When his son Owen is beaned by a pitcher who seems cocky and thoughtless, King is objective enough to worry less about the mental state of his son, and more about the pitcher who beaned three kids and had the crowd turned against him. And it's repeated over and over again: They're only twelve. King deciding the pain of the kid who dinged his son is the interesting thing worth focusing on is why this is a damn good essay.
And Dave Mansfield and Neil Waterhouse are damn good Little League coaches. I don't believe every hoary cliche they tell the the boys. But I believe THEY believe them, which means the boys do too. Even a cynical King is able to come around there by the end.
King's expertise as a baseball reporter here is I think certainly the thing that led him to coauthor "Faithful" with Stewart O'Nan. Somehow that chronicle of the Red Sox season of breaking The Curse is even more electrifying than this. But I don't think it would have ever existed without this. King would not have had the chops to do it, much less do it right.
King says in the afterward he used to be a sports reporter in college, so maybe I am not giving him enough credit here. But he also says this IS the best piece of nonfiction he's done at this point, so I guess not.
It doesn't fit into this fiction collection very well. But this is the first, not just great nonfiction piece King ever wrote, it's his first decent one too. I get the logic of giving it the exposure of a collection. And Nightmares And Dreamscapes also contains a screenplay (also unique among collections), a poem (we've had a few of these already), and relates an ancient fable he loves that he didn't write himself (also only found in the collection). Out of all of King's short story collections, it's the most eclectic. I will argue Head Down doesn't fit it. But it fits it far better than it would any other collection. ****1/2.
Brooklyn August
I don't understand much about poetry but I do understand how much Stephen King loves Baseball. ***.
The Beggar And The Diamond
The thing I love about this fable (and I suspect it's the thing King loves too) is that is ends on a punchline. I love listening to riveting stories and finding out at the end they are set-ups to funny jokes. ****1/2.
Insomnia by Stephen King
I'm giving this a lukewarm review, but in fairness, I want to point out that this specific novel is something I tend to go back and forth about the quality of it each time I reread it. Sometimes I love it. Sometimes I don't. I believe one of the times I read it I actually cried at the ending (which is high praise from me). My ultimate opinion of the book tends to vary based upon the mood I was in when I read it. I wasn't in a bad mood this time at all. But I was in a bit of a no-nonsense mood, which happens a lot during a creative period of mine, and yeah, I kind of noticed the flaws in the dialogue this time out. And this happened to be the time I decided to put a review to paper so keep in mind this review is of The Random, rather than The Purpose.
One of the things I notice immediately after not having read it in a few years is that in the 1990's King had a different viewpoint and plan for the fictional town of Derry back then. The idea here seems to be that it's slowly healing from the horrors of Pennywise from "IT", but there is still a dangerous undercurrent to it. Books like "11/22/63" and "Gwendy's Final Task" take the stance that Derry is irredeemably rotten and nothing will ever truly change. In Gwendy's level of the Tower it seems like Pennywise was never defeated either. I have a hard time accepting King's later decision, just knowing there ARE good people in Derry like Ralph Roberts, Lois Chasse, Joe Wyzer, John Leydecker, and Dorrance Marstaller. A town with a bunch of people like this mingled in it, is simply put, NOT evil incarnate. And I accepted the judgment of the Jake Epping of "11/22/63" BECAUSE it was before Pennywise was defeated for good. But really, I'm having a hard time accepting Derry as King's version Hell In Maine. "Dreamcatcher" makes it hard too, although in fairness, that is a far worse book. But I'll review that later on.
Some of the sites I post reviews on don't allow political talk but for this review, I must offer some insights about the ideas the book is talking about. There isn't any choice. To anyone reading this review whose sensibilities I offend with the following observations, instead of telling me how wrong I am. and starting a flame war that will get us both in trouble, just know that I accept the idea that I could be wrong. The following paragraphs are wholly dedicated to the phrase "Your Mileage May Vary".
This is a book clearly from the period of King's career where he felt the need to stand up for abused and mistreated women. And as far as Helen Deepneau's arc goes, he does fine. But King's politics from this era are a work in progress. I don't think King in 2023 would remotely reach the same conclusion about Susan Day's visit to the convention center that John Leydecker does. You get the feeling King uses Leydecker as his surrogate in his disdain for somebody coming to town and "stirring the pot". Not only are abortion rights no longer as safe as they were in the early 1990's when the book was written (which admittedly King had no way of predicting) I find Leydecker's hatred of Day "stirring up trouble" lazy bothsiderism, that effected many liberals of the era. I sure as hell suffered from it and I was not alone. Bill Clinton's entire Presidency and success was built upon an idea called "triangulation" that meant accepting conservative frames and working within them so to not alienate moderate voters.
And as far as the scenario in the book as shown is concerned, that's wrong. A woman has every right to give a speech to a town without fear of there being a terrorist mass bombing. It is not incumbent on the feminist group to stay silent so as not to provoke antiabortion terrorists. In a just and free society, they should be allowed to gather and say what they want. There would be no false equivalence in reality in Helen's pained determination that if they cancel the rally the bad guys win. King is trying to get the reader to believe that winning boils down to nothing but a team sport. But when you add terrorism and murder to the mix, not only is winning a necessity, but Helen's team winning is the outcome the moral person would want. And for the record, prolifers reading this, the same would hold true if Susan Day's followers were the violent terrorists intent on murdering the Friends to Life. King tries to say "This can't happen because Derry isn't like any other town." You know what, Uncle Stevie? It is. I am also willing to bet that as horrible as you portray the people in later books, Derry is probably a HELL of a lot nicer and more civilized that MANY real-world towns in the Keystone Earth version of the United States. King conceived that Greg Stillson was the worst politician you could ever imagine. And that's why 2016 stunned him so much. When it comes to horrible things in the imagination, King knows what buttons to push. When it comes to horrible things in reality, it always turns out King thought WAY too small in hindsight.
I don't like Bill McGovern. Which is good, because I don't think King does either. The sense I get from his relationship to Ralph is that he is VERY unhealthy for him. Which leads to their final fight before McGovern croaks, and also Ralph realizing Bill was full of crap about Lois' gossipy vapidity.
King Connections Of Note: I do this for every book that has them, and most of them do. But I'll list off the couple of other King books the story references before talking about The Dark Tower connections in earnest. This is considered a Dark Tower-related book, but considering how The Dark Tower ended, it probably shouldn't be. Robin Furth is of the opinion The Eyes Of The Dragon doesn't fit into Mid-World, and must exist on a different level of the Tower. I believe the same of Insomnia.
The biggest references of course go back to "IT". Not just about mentioning that Derry is not like other towns, and that there is a darkness under the surface, but many of the characters and premises are mentioned. Mike Hanlon appears a few times, Ben Hanscomb, Adrian Mellon, and Butch Bowers are mentioned, and in my favorite bit, during Ralph's fight with the Crimson King the word "Deadlights" flashes in his mind with him having no idea (and never finding out) what it means. The Crimson King also tells Ralph there is a rich history of shapeshifters in Derry. Many of the locations from "IT" are revisited as well.
The most interesting King connection to me however is seeing Gage Creed's sneaker in Atropos' lair. It means the events of "Pet Sematary" were never supposed to happen, and as far as causing random death and destruction goes, Atropos certainly got his money's worth there.
Time to talk about the Dark Tower stuff. Roland Deschain actually has a cameo at the end and a version of the Crimson King (utterly unlike his interpretation in both the final novel and the comic books) confronts Ralph at the end. But the reason the novel refuses to fit into the canon is because King utterly changed gears and his mind about what to do with Patrick Danville. According to this book, in 18 years Patrick Danville will die saving the lives of two men, one of whom is going to be crucial to saving the Tower and the Beams. Now this might have happened later ON, but those two men are NOT Roland Deschain and Eddie Dean, as Insomnia readers might have guessed. Eddie is already dead by the time Patrick meets Roland and Susannah, and the Tower has already ostensibly been saved. If there is an additional threat Roland has missed and Patrick has to take care of later on, we don't see it. King refuses to tell us Patrick's ultimate fate in the last book, but the last time we see him he is actually alive. And I don't believe he ever saved Roland's life either. If anything, he was a hindrance to Roland's remaining Tet, and got Oy killed.
King sort of cleverly pointed out this discrepancy himself in the final Dark Tower book when Roland goes to Keystone Earth to meet the Tet Corporation for the final time. Mose Carver's granddaughter hands Roland a copy of "Insomnia" and claims out of all the books Stephen King has written, this one will probably be the key to Roland saving the Tower once and for all. And Roland, God bless his simple heart, dumps the book in the trash the second he leaves Keystone Earth. Why? Because it "feels tricksy". Isn't that the best and most infuriating way King could possibly have disowned Insomnia's connection to The Dark Tower? It's like Discordia was messing with him for that one book, and Roland knew it. But If I want to be perfectly frank, it doesn't actually impress me. What would have impressed me more is if King hadn't written himself into that corner with Patrick to begin with. He wrote himself a pretty audacious out there, no question. But it's annoying he wasn't competent enough to write "Insomnia" so it would fit in the first place.
This go-round, I see the flaws clearly. The love story between Ralph and Lois seems particularly painful to me, and I feel like a LOT of his love stories from the 1990's and early 2000's are kind of sappy, and poorly written. By the way, this includes "Lisey's Story", King's personal favorite book. What he considers empowering moments, I find kind of cringe. It's also something you can sometimes forgive. It's present in "The Library Policeman" for example, but it's such a minor part, I didn't even need to bring it up. I love that King is an optimist, and it is refreshing that a writer of scary books enjoys giving readers nice moments. I just wish the nice stuff was better written at this stage of the game. He does get better at it later on. The romance in "11/22/63" is pure perfection, and kills me dead every time. This lovey-dovey stuff here just makes me want to point my finger in my mouth and make sarcastic gagging noises. I wish I could put it kinder than that, but I cannot.
Another reason I have a hard time accepting "Insomnia" as Dark Tower canon is because even though I BELIEVE The Random and The Purpose come up again (although I could be wrong) Atropos, Clotho, and Lachesis never show up in any other King story. I might be misremembering it, but I think they MIGHT have been mentioned in either "Rose Madder" or "Desperation" as an Easter Egg for the reader (and we'll find that out soon enough) but the mention of them was I believe done in the form of the Greek sisters instead of The Little Bald Doctors. But if "Insomnia" kept the Beams up, they'd be recurring characters like Maturin the Turtle, or even Randall Flagg. The "physicians of last resort" (which is a fabulous job description for them) should not ONLY appear in JUST this book if it IS supposed to be central to the mythology of "The Dark Tower".
I'll give that a passing grade, but little more. I like it more than Stephen King does, solely because I see value in Helen's independence and getting away from the abusive Ed. I will talk a LITTLE bit more in Rose Madder's review about why King should not be dismissing the real-life women books like this and that one help just because they left him a bit creatively unfulfilled. It's actually all right. ***.
Rose Madder by Stephen King
"Rose Madder" is one of the least-favorite books of Stephen King he has ever written, but I've always liked it a lot. And part of me thinks he's being unfair not only on himself by dragging on it so much, but to its fans as well. It's been a few years since I read it last, but this time, as someone who has matured in their level of writing, I see aspects of it now that make me understand why King dislikes it. I still like it myself. But I understand why King doesn't.
Honestly, for years his disdain for the book pissed me off a little. Not because the book is great, or because I actually love it. But Stephen King has mentioned that women have come up to him and told him "Rose Madder" spoke to them so much, it was the thing to get them to finally leave their abusive husbands. And I don't care how disappointed King is in the story structure, or the fantasy mythology, as long as that is so, I'd take the friggin' compliment and consider writing the book entirely worthwhile. King not actually appreciating how important that is is why King is an imperfect ally to women at best.
I also need to point out that the book is a page-turner. With the exception of the boring 80 page chapter of Rosie inside the painting for the first time, the book is addictive to read. That is true of some of King's fiction but not his heavier stuff. This book is nearly 650 pages and it's still something to be devoured. I would not be ashamed of the book purely for that reason.
But this rereading I noticed a couple of drawbacks that would have made me uncomfortable if I were King too.
It's not just the Greek mythology allegory or tenuous Dark Tower connections that don't land perfectly. I have always thought that Norman Daniels was one of Stephen King's best and scariest villains. He's definitely in the running for most unambiguously evil. Like Annie Wilkes, Greg Stillson, Henry Bowers, Big Jim Rennie, and Brady Hartsfeld he seems to have no redeeming qualities, and fewer than those other five I mentioned for sure. And if I were King, I might dislike the book for that. Because King spends a LOT of time inside Norman's headspace in a way he didn't those other five loathsome characters I mentioned, even Brady Hartsfeld, and that had to have been hard on him. I don't mean hard for him as a writer. I mean hard on him as a person. I do everything is my power to stay away from evil characters who are realistically toxic, and those I do create I spend very little time in their headspace. Channeling a person like Norman Daniels in your writing is NOT fun. Some people might think writing villains is, and it can be. But when it comes to toxic people like Norman with mundane, base, real motivations it costs the writer a lot.
And I see King's struggles with it. For the first half of the book Norman is so damn scary and plausible, I think King spooked himself so badly, he pulled back on the realism for his own sanity. What King did midway through at the point Norman discovers the bull mask, is turn the character semi-comical. Him running around and crazily talking to the mask turns him into a parody of himself. For the first half of the book he's so horrible because he's realistic. He seems a LOT less realistic once King decided he had enough trying to believably write a person this terrible, and understand things from his viewpoint.
And if I were King, THAT'S the thing I'd dislike about the book. Remembering having to write Norman would be what left me creatively unfulfilled. But if it were me, I'd set aside every single misgiving I had about it and call the many abused women it's helped take back their lives it a damn win.
What's interesting about Rosie to me is that she is a seriously bad judge of character. Because Norman messed her up that badly. She is always shocked at how decent everyday people are, and how society sort of exists to look out for each other. Part of this outlook makes her seem naive and childish, but it's also a very good demonstration of what a number this guy did on her. Stuff we take for granted (like people being allowed to stay in a shelter for a few weeks) amazes her for existing at all. It's both endearing and frustrating.
I don't feel like Rosie's violent rage at the end of the book felt as well resolved a plot thread as it should have. I probably just noticed it this time out because when Rosie asks Rose Madder at the end if she's her, I realized for the first time that she might be thinking Madder is a future version of herself that eventually wound up trapped in the painting, and feared that maybe her life was headed towards a predestined time loop with her someday turning into this bitter, diseased, and insane supernatural creature. The rage being cured by planting the tree instead means that isn't the case, and that also makes the rage seem both pointless and too easily solved. And set up far too late to truly effect the reader.
Gert is awesome. Her pissing on Norman's face was as satisfying to me as a reader as it was for her as a person with a full bladder and no toilet. Ahhh. That felt GOOD.
I love the downstairs neighbor's gunshot wound in the arm being described as "a flesh wound with pretensions". King knows the best expressions.
King connections of note: Ka is straight out of "The Dark Tower", and the character of Cynthia also later pops up in "Desperation" (and an alternate Universe version of her can be seen in Richard Bachman's "The Regulators"). Susan Day from "Insomnia" is mentioned, and both Rosie and Anna are fans of Paul Sheldon and Misery Chastain from the novel "Misery". Sheldon seems to have gotten his second writing wind, and is still churning out Misery books, which makes me smile.
I would not have enjoyed writing this book if I were Stephen King. But considering that the book actually HELPED women who were suffering and abused, I also wouldn't ever talk smack about it and would just accept the damn compliment. ***1/2.
Desperation by Stephen King
I have always been a bit ambivalent about this novel. But upon this reading I guess I can finally admit I dislike it. It's one of King's scariest and most violent novels. But the thing that bothers me is I can't figure out what point King is trying to make. The stuff with God and the bummer ending makes the morality of the book entirely unclear. I don't mind ambiguity in fiction at all. But if you create a fictional story this gruesome and horrific, I don't think expecting a self-evident moral is out of line. If anything, that makes it MORE necessary, not less.
For a story about God, what Biblical allegory King is going for isn't clear. The Book of Job? If that's so, it's wrong because the ending isn't horrible ENOUGH. I really can't understand the message here, or what King is trying to get across about faith.
All the God stuff really rankles me for that reason. Stephen King has his share of precocious kid characters, like Mark Petrie from "'Salem's Lot", Scarecrow Joe McClatchey from "Under The Dome", and Luke Ellis from "The Institute". King is not afraid of making child characters either capable or cool, and I admire him for not giving a crap about what fandom believes about kid characters, mostly that they are all annoying.
But I DO find David Carver annoying. I found Mark Petrie's knowledge of the supernatural compelling, and Scarecrow Joe's science nerdiness relatable, and the fact that Luke was an equal opportunity genius was excellent too. David's expertise in God is not something I like or appreciate the character for.
The ties to its mirror universe Richard Bachman novel "The Regulators" are something I was always leery of. The same characters in different situations isn't as neat as King thinks it is, and makes both stories feel more like gimmicks instead of actual stories in and of themselves, with real stakes and characters for you to care about. "The Regulators" very much feels like a sick joke for that reason.
Johnny Marinville is also one of the most unlikable protagonists King has ever created. Part of that is done to keep the reader guessing on whether or not he really IS going to wimp out and be a worthless human being, but having him do horrible things to "keep us guessing" doesn't make me like the character at all.
I liked seeing Cynthia Smith from "Rose Madder" in the book, and I like that she survived this one too. She survived Normal Daniels, she'll survive Desperation. Cynthia is one of the only characters present (along with Steve Ames) to survive both this book AND "The Regulators". Many are killed in both. The rest besides Steve and Cynthia survive only one or the other.
King Connections Of Note: Besides the connections to "The Regulators", the chants by Tak seem to have some bearing on "The Dark Tower". I think the terms "can toi" meaning Low Men in "The Dark Tower" can be chalked up to an actual Universal coincidence, but Tak's chants can also be heard in the tent of "The Little Sisters Of Eluria", a prequel Roland Deschain short story found in "Everything's Eventual". The supplementary material from "The Dark Tower" Marvel Comics by Robin Furth also hint at further connections between "Desperation" and Eluria as well, although Furth herself is quick to point out those comics exist on a separate level of the Tower. Cynthia mentions her ordeal with Norman Daniels, as well her friendship with Gert from "Rose Madder". Ellen Carver is a Misery fan from the book "Misery". "The Tommyknockers" are mentioned, as general boogeymen / gremlins, rather than the hostile alien invaders they were in that self-titled book. The actual Regulators connections make this story a good example of how the Multiverse and different levels of The Dark Tower work in the Stephen Kingverse too.
I finally made up my mind about this book, (on what was probably my fifth read). I think it largely sucks. **.
The Regulators by Stephen King (Writing as Richard Bachman)
It's weird that I like the Richman Bachman half of Stephen King's two-novel Mirror Universe experiment better than King's take. Maybe because it feels more like a Stephen King novel than "Desperation" does. The ending is sweet, and outside of everything Bachman wrote before King was outed as him. I think King uses the Bachman name as a gimmick here. I don't feel like he even TRIED to channel the dude's unpleasant headspace. I feel the same way about the later (earlier?) novel "Blaze". Even "Thinner" is only recognizably a Bachman-type story due to its downbeat ending. King really hasn't written a full-on Bachman-style novel since "The Running Man". But "The Regulators" is still my favorite of the books King put Bachman's name on.
Collie Entragian's role as the disgraced but doomed cop in this Universe gives a LOT of context to the fact that Collie from "Desperation" was as much of a victim of Tak as anyone else. Clearly, he's a good guy when he's not being possessed by a demon. Same goes for Audrey Wyler and that shows why she loves her nephew Seth even though he's the one possessed here.
Johnny Marinville in "The Regulators" strikes me as borderline lovable instead of the insufferable ass he is in the Companion novel.
David Carver is killed off early here, which is surprising enough. What's a shock is making him and Pie the Carver parents, and Ralph and Ellie the kids. Even more shocking is the fact that David has no discernable personality or importance to this book, when the kid version of him is essentially Desperation's lynchpin.
Steve Ames and Cynthia Smith are the only characters to survive both books, although by the numbers, a few more survive "The Regulators" than do "Desperation". "The Regulators" also has a slightly bigger cast and a few characters "Desperation" does not. Seth Garin is not present in "Desperation", and neither are some of the neighbors like the Reeds.
King Connections 'o Note: The Multiverse idea (as well as the term "Regulators") are from "The Dark Tower", but it's mostly "Desperation" King as Bachman goes back to. Take special note, Tower nerds. "The Shining" is referred to in the Epilogue as a book written by Stephen King, suggesting both the Epilogue and Audrey's dream-space, (hinted to be on a different plain of existence) actually take place on Keystone Earth where King himself resides. This is before King had written himself into "The Dark Tower", but I think he was already planning on bringing Father Callahan into that story in the future, so who knows if that was idea here and a deliberate nod to that? It fits perfectly either way, which is something I like all my complicated / messy continuity plot twists to do.
I think my favorite parts of the books are the mid-chapter interludes of Audrey Wyler's diary. The hell she is living through it riveting and horrible, and her having to deal with the fundamentalist Hobarts is a complication that is great because the reader instantly hates them on her behalf for the right reasons. These types of people mostly consider their proselytizing harmless, but the father keeps going on and on with his nonsense, not understanding the danger he is putting himself, his son, and Audrey in. And the thing that kills me is something I love that Audrey understands. They aren't actually sorry, or interested in examining the son's behavior. They are following a script, and are entirely insincere for every bit of the forced apology. That's the thing that pisses Audrey off, and I love her for it. They are putting on a pious show and putting all their lives in danger for something they don't actually believe deep down. I know for a fact that King is not a secular man, and the Godbothering in "Desperation" proves it. But I felt like King's portrayal of fundamentalism being some sort of inconvenience that barges into and takes over our lives unasked probably has a more relevant feel now than when the novel was first published in 1997. David Carver is written to portray the positive aspects of belief in God. The Hobarts are written to portray the negative aspects. These are truly Mirror Universes in every way.
I like this book quite a deal more than "Desperation", and part of me dislikes that fact, because it's not an amazing novel or anything. It just tells me "Desperation" should have been MUCH better than it is, and that King actually dropped the ball there. ****.
|
|