Stephen King Book Club

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ****.

Wizard And Glass: The Dark Tower IV by Stephen King

As far as Dark Tower books go, the fourth was always my least favorite after the first. And the problem for me is evident here too: Mid-World is a pit, and it's a bummer to experience it without the perspectives of characters from Earths resembling ours like Eddie, Susannah, or Jake. The whole backstory of Roland's past in Mejis us qute ugly and gross on a very real level.

But can I be honest? I liked this reading of it more than I remembered, and I think I can also properly compliment the cool things about it while noting the sucky things.

The best thing is the beginning and the resolution of the cliffhanger with Blaine The Mono from the last book "The Waste Lands". Having Eddie defeat him with dumb jokes is pretty much the only possible resolution (the truckload of dead woodchucks / bowling balls joke still cracks me up) and Roland's chastened over the top pardon crying is made funny when Eddie tells him he can't help his nature, and he realizes that never occurred to him. It is a purely pleasurable opening.

But my favorite bit of that is Eddie remembering his brother told his friends he'd want Eddie in his corner in a crisis. "Because when Eddie is ON, when he's in the [f-wording] zone, he could convince the devil to set himself on fire." Let me blunt. That is the coolest compliment I have ever heard. People have said nice things in my life but nobody has EVER said anything that nice to me. And I like it because we've spent the past two books we've known Eddie believing that Eddie's adoration for his turd of a brother is unwarranted and hindering his growth as a person. That right there says that no matter what Henry's faults are, Eddie is right to worship him after all. And I don't think any of the other characters were ever really allowed to understand that. If Eddie had actually told Roland and Susannah the voice inside his head that told him how to defeat Blaine the Mono was Henry Dean, great sage and eminent junkie, they would have been shocked. It's for that reason I think it's a little bit of a shame Eddie keeps that bit to himself.

Likewise the parallels to the world of "The Stand" are interesting too because things here actually must take place in an alternate Universe from that novel. Not only was the plague widely known about and reported here instead of successfully covered up by the government, it occurred in an entirely different year. King cannily explains this by suggesting that with the weakening of the Beams, perhaps Captain Trips is infecting a multitude of Universes.

One thing I love about the flashback, (and I don't think anyone has spoken up about this) is that despite what a loathsome villain Eldred Jonas is, the fact that he and Coral Thorin truly dig each other and care about each other is interesting because it strikes me as a saving grace for a character with no other redeeming virtues. And that's freaking important to make him feel real and like an actual person. And I'm truly impressed with that this time out. Well done.

I have mixed feeling about Susan's death on the Charyou Tree pyre. As written, it's perfect drama and brings Da Big Hurt to both the reader AND Roland. And I don't know if mid-90's King understood this, but the death did not need to be as perfect as it was to have value. In fact, it's very perfection loses it a lot of credibility in my mind.

Susan goes to her deathly utterly nobly, proclaiming her love for Roland and her wish for him to brighten up the lives of all he touches after she's gone (which of course he always fails to do). It's sort of done to twist the knife for Roland's carelessness regarding not coming to her rescue. But I don't buy it.

Susan, sweetheart, the dude left you for dead for his damned Tower. You are allowed to be pissed at him. Your last thoughts are allowed to be regrets that you ever met this bastard. And maybe that would tarnish Roland's memory of Susan's perfection and virtue, but what I think it would also do is add to his guilt, which would make it worse. It's a beautiful, perfect death. It should not be. The scenario doesn't call for it and hasn't earned it. And really, that's only something I noticed this time out.

Also why does Susan HAVE to be perfect? Why is that expected of her? Roland sure as hell isn't.

The ending is not as bad as "IT", but I think it's one of King's worst endings ever. Truthfully, the flashback to Roland accidentally killing him mother doesn't suck, but all the Wizard of Oz stuff? Terrible. It makes no narrative sense, and only exists because King felt like doing a tribute to it. As a matter of fact, the speculation that the fellow Flagg exists in a story near their own is a far better meta moment than the red shoes and the green palace. It's clunky, not funny, and truly feels like King simply ran out of gas and is throwing random crap at the wall in hopes that it sticks. King rarely uses outlines, which I consider a crazy way to write, but the lucky son of a rat somehow can usually make it work. But no outlines is how the stupid final part of this book comes into being.

After the build-up at the end of the last book, Tick-Tock Man is utterly wasted here. He's killed off immediately for one thing after being being built up as some major future threat. And the sad truth is Randall Flagg is wasted too. Yes, he comes back in the last book, and yes he is explicitly identified as not just Martin Broadcloak but Walter too. But he and Roland never see each other again or get a final confrontation which always pissed me off. Would an outline KILL you, Uncle Stevie? Also pretty sure that the promise that the story of how Roland losing his mother's belt would be told and relevant to the Tower is bogus too.

Not all set-up here isn't paid off later. First mentions of Thunderclap, and the Crimson King seen in "Insomnia" is mentioned here too, and it's suggested Farson took his sigil as his own and answers to HIM. The Afterward written in 1996 shows that even before he was hit by the truck, and would turn that real-world incident into the crucial lynchpin of Keystone Earth's existence, Father Callahan from "'Salem's Lot" was already envisioned to appear in the lands near Thunderclap. The clues King speculates about for the final three books here perhaps suggest that the accident didn't actually change the subtext of the meta plans King probably already had for the franchise. What it probably did though is unintentionally PERFECT them. Ka is a wheel, folks. It always was.

King Connections Of Note: Aside from the stuff from "The Stand" and "Insomnia", the biggest connection I noticed is the fact that the Big Coffin Hunters are also referred to as Regulators.

Perfect cliffhanger resolution, crappy Wizard of Oz ending, middling flashbacks. The fourth book is a mixed bag. **1/2.

The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon by Stephen King

This is one of Stephen King's situational books. It's a book where a character is thrust in a certain unusual / scary scenario and the entire book is them getting themselves out of it. "Gerald's Game" and "Misery" are also in this high-concept genre, and so to a lesser extent is "The Mist". The premise sustains the book rather than the characters.

I frankly prefer stories where King is more concerned with the characters than the scenario, but of his situational tales, "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" is still one of his best. I care about Trisha McFarland for one thing. For another the book is a quick, brisk read and doesn't overstay its welcome (although I'd argue many of the individual chapters are too long).

God may love sports, but not necessarily the Red Sox. King writes that as a knowing baseball fan, and a (so far in 1999 when this was written) hapless Red Sox fan.

King connections of note: Only one I noticed is that Trisha first gets lost in the woods of TR-90, the setting of his last novel "Bag Of Bones". But that's the only one I noticed.

I would argue this is one of three of King's stories that could be read by children. There are a few f-bombs, but that's really nothing. This story, "The Eyes Of The Dragon", and the short story from "Nightmares And Dreamscapes" called "The House On Maple Street" are really the only King stories that I think little kids would really dig.

Solid, fast-paced novel. And the ending is pretty satisfying too. ****.