HOLY SHIT STEPHEN KING…

Oh shit. This could turn out really bad. I have to get it the instant it's out.

I think this could be a great idea, he already showed he could do a good sequel to Talisman when he wrote Bleak House.

Under the Dome was such a great return to form (or at least as close as he's likely to get) that I'm actually disappointed he's going this route. The likeliest - yet saddest - outcome is that'll it'll merely be "meh", like Black House was.

It wasnt meh, it had a genuine creepy villian called Mr. Munchin and showed the Breakers from DT, plus more info on King Crimson.
 

 

Under the Dome was infuriating.

It was for from classic King but there were moments of honest-to-god greatness and one of the best villains he's ever written. 

Not too keen on this idea.

 

There are other things he could sequelize if he really wanted to. I don't know that The Shining lends itself to this. It's a very personal character-driven story... Almost a chamber piece. And Danny Torrence is not the sort of hero you spin off into a franchise. I get too much of a sense of crass commercialism from this move. Like he's picking The Shining because of its name recognition and not because there's actually another story to tell.

 

That may sound naive... As in: Of course that's what he's doing you jackass! What's your point? But, for all his commercial instincts, King has always remained a real storyteller. And he's found organic ways to tie all his literature together in an almost Marquezian sense. He's good at world building and he's honest about it. So, I hope I'm wrong about this.

 

And I actually am not adverse to his recent work at all. If you ask me, he's done some of his best work post "retirement." I'd rank both DUMA KEY and LISEY'S STORY as wonderful, moving character pieces that are right up there with many of his classics.

 

I don't think he's "lost his touch" at all.

 

But this just doesn't sound good.

Are you talking about the ending, Nick? It was weird but it didn't ruin it for me. Overall I loved it.

DOME and CELL were the first King books I've managed to finish since the underrated BAG OF BONES.

It's been a good 8 years or so since I read The Shining, but that was one instance where I read the book first, and I ended up enjoying the movie more. I've only read a handful of King, mostly his late 70s, early 80s work (and his fantastic Richard Bachman novel The Running Man, which got really butchered in the Arnold movie), but The Shining was definitely one of his better books that I read. I think I only enjoyed Salem's Lot more (if including the Bachman books, Running Man is my favorite), so I'm very skeptical of him sequelizing it, especially because I remember his ending to the book being really cheesy. 

It was just so damn fat. So bloated.

It was long for sure, but I didn't find it to be bloated. Actually I found it to be a remarkably fast read.

 

Not really sure what to make of a Shinning sequel, but this won't be the first time he's gone back to the well. A new Dark Tower book called "The Wind Through The Keyhole" is coming out next year.

 

 

The Shining has never ranked among King's best, for me at least.  Admittedly, a lot of this comes from reading the book after seeing Kubrick's fantastic interpretation, but Danny still isn't a character that I'm just dying for King to revisit.  I'm interested to see how this new one will gel with The Shining, and also to see how it fits into the King-verse.  I'm sure Danny crosses paths with Callahan and the low-men or something.

 

 

 

Hey, remember when Stephen King said DT7 was his last book and that he was retiring...?

 

Yeah.

Ha! My thoughts exactly. I haven't been keeping up with his most recent work but I have to read this, it sounds like it's going to be entertaining whether it's good or an embarrassing disaster. Maybe that's why he's writing it? The idea is getting a lot more buzz than an original story would.

 

Apart from CELL and UNDER THE DOME (and possibly HEARTS IN ATLANTIS), has he written anything worth a damn since BAG OF BONES?

 

I couldn't even finish the first DARK TOWER book.     

Good, bad, I don't care I want this now.

He's been talking about DR. SLEEP for a while now (though this is the first mention of vampires) so he has had the idea kicking around. My point is that yes, it's a clearly commercial move but it's one that seems to have sprung organically from his brain. Doesn't mean it'll be good, but it's less crass than you're suggesting.

 

What made The Shining so compelling was The Overlook, not Danny.  Taking Danny on a different "adventure" isn't very compelling to me.  Much like taking Jack Sawyer out of The Territories for most of Black House wasn't interesting, either.  

 

But, yeah, I'll instantly buy this. 

Not sure why so many folks on other forums are getting so fucking outraged over the whole "sequel" notion -- pretty much EVERYTHING King's ever written is a sequel to everything else he's ever written, being connected by the "Dark Tower" axis, etc.

 

It's the Kubrick-factor, more than anything else, that's driving all the indignity (fans of the movie, rather than the book), but it's not like Stanley was exactly faithful to King's original text in the first place or anything.

 

From what I'm reading, Danny alone will be returning (along with, perhaps, his mother) in the new novel. Shit, King does single-character crossovers from book to book to all the time.

I stopped reading King nearly twenty years ago, with no regrets.  

Yeah put me in the camp of "this could be horrible: I'm going to buy it immediately!".

 

King can put out some really first class, page turning novels. His problem has always been that he lacks an editor. Read the original, published version of The Stand, then read the "Uncut" version. Once King got the power to tell Editors to fuck off, his novels became more and more bloated, and more bad writing and poor characterization made it into published work. I don't think this is Hubris per se, I just think King in very passionate about the characters he creates, and I also think his fame and status prevents most editors from calling him out on bad decisions.

Here's King reading some of it, describing how the vampires operate. Sounds like a Stephen King book. I'm in. http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=21197

Will these vampires play by the same rules as the ones in SALEM'S LOT? I assume it's all the same universe

 

As for this news... I found Danny Torrence to be fairly unlikable in THE SHINING. His autistic behavior and the whole concept of his 'gift' I found to be grating. I guess I can't picture the character in my head as anyone other than someone who grew up to be broken and awkward, so a Danny Torrence reunion doesn't do much to excite me. I'd much rather get an OVERLOOK prequel or something, but whatever. My expectations are not high, but I'd certainly like to have a new top quality King book to read, so I'll hold out hope for now. Whatever reviews it gets, I know  I'll be checking this out of the library once it's in print

 

 

EDIT: I agree - King needs an editor who'll stand up to him the way Lucas needs fewer yes men, but with that said,  for what it's worth I think UNCUT STAND is much better than ORIGINAL STAND (though stuff like updating the pop song references ETC rubs me the wrong way)

To be fair, the first Dark Tower book reads very differently from all of the others, even by King's own admission.

 

Full Dark, No Stars is also a good collection of stories.

 

I enjoyed Full Dark, No Stars and would be interested in checking out a Shining-sequel.

 

But, at this point I'm much more interested in his progeny's work.  I hope Fox makes the LOCKE & KEY pilot available for download.

King doesn't need an editor as much as he needs a teenager updating his dialogue and references.

It's true. Especially in regards to Under The Dome.

Snark: So he's rewriting Dead Zone by way of Salem's Lot.

Not snark: I probably suffer some form of PTSD after reading the Shining at the tender age of 13.  This will be the 1st Stephen King book I'll buy since Wizards & Glass.

Did anyone ever really believe that though...................including King himself?  The man will die in the middle of a book and it will probably end up being finished by his son, Joe.

 

 

Exactly.  The only previous details involved Danny working at a hospital and helping prepare those on their deathbeds for the afterlife.  I think there is a whole lot more to this book than vampires.
 

 

I'm assuming it is the same universe as well.  If it is set in the Dark Tower-connected universe (which Lot is apart of), there are different kinds of vampires...........and "The Tribe" could be made up of any type or a combination of them.

 

I'm guessing (though I could be wrong) that we won't be coming across any "Type One" (what Barlow was) or "Type Two" vampires in this.  "Type Threes" and definitely psychic vampires are far more likely considering the character of Danny.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_%28Stephen_King%29

 

I can say pretty much without doubt that if there's anyone above making commercial decisions, it's Stephen King. He never has to make decision based on money again. I suppose it's possible he's been persuaded by an editor/friend or something to revisit The Shining, but is Danny Torrance really such a big ticket property? I would think Pennywise would be a much bigger deal. Speaking of that, by the way, the twenty seven year cycle is about to roll around again. That would be a sequel I could really get behind.

 

But my point was: King isn't going to write a book for any reason other than he wants to. The man has had as much financial success as pretty much any novelist that has ever lived on this planet could have. His name alone is a brand. It's why he apparently doesn't use an editor anymore. He's certainly not as inclined to rewrite as he used to be. Basically, the guy has won. Artistically, I view him as Woody Allen now. The complete masterworks might be behind him, but he'll just release a new one every year, because that's what he does. When they're bad, they're harmless, and every now and then, he puts out a Midnight in Paris/Under the Dome.

Hahah Holy Shit from that Wiki entry: "All three types of vampires drink blood to survive. However, while they are immune to blood-borne diseases, they can pass them on to their victims. Due to this, in King's multiverse vampires were instrumental in causing the AIDS pandemic in the 1980s."

 

I always have to put a book down for a while if someone refers to an ass as a "fanny."

I just feel I have to point out we are talking about the man who was paid 50 000$ (or some crazy figure like that) by AMAZON.com to write a story about a demonic pink KINDLE from another dimension

I'd also like to point out that he likely would have written something that crazy anyway...........even without a 50k incentive from Amazon.  Stevie is all about killer machines.

 

BTW, what's the title?  I definitely want to read that!

 

Haha, fair point

It's called "UR". It's ok, but it also sort of partly reads like an ad for kindles. It's about a tech phobic professor who gets one, and enjoys reading on it (that is seriously like 1/4th the story)

I don't get the sudden trepidation that's arisen at this news. Under the Dome was about 50% of a good King novel, but I think it's safe to say most people around here are casual fans of modern-day King at best. Personally, I am no more or less interested in this book than I would be in an entirely original story from him -- that is, not very much. Especially since, other than the loose connection to The Shining, this is going to be virtually an original story anyway. It's not like he's continuing the story of the Overlook or something directly connected to the story of The Shining.

 

The Shining is great, but it's by no means a sacred text.

 

That's actually a shockingly apt comparison, oddly enough.  So, The Shining = Annie Hall and The Stand = Manhattan?  

 

Yes, but, if that's the case he'd be publishing novels for free, or donating proceeds to charity or some such. King has always been a very commerically focused writer. I'm not stating that as a criticism at all, I think it's great. But he certainly keeps on eye on the bottom line, multi-millionaire or no.

It = Hannah and Her Sisters??

 

Yep.  Same year, too.  The big question:  what is Woody Allen's Dark Tower?  

 

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex*

 

*But Were Afraid to Ask?

Nah guys... The Dark Tower is Love and Death...

 

Actually, let's say Love and Death is The Gunslinger and The Drawing of the Three. Hell... Let's have it go up to The Waste Lands. Then, for Wizard and Glass through The Dark Tower, you have Allen's other "experimental" pastiches. Like Zelig, Stardust Memories and September.

 

Now...

 

Presenting for your consideration: Misery = Husbands and Wives.

 

If you really want to keep things chronological, then I got nothing.

DUH!!...'Zelig', obviously...

 

The Mist = Shadows & Fog!

I'm very happy this has happened.

 

Bag of Bones = Deconstructing Henry - they're both about how it's all right to fuck women thirty years younger than you

 

Dreamcatcher = Anything Else - they're both career lowlights

I will defend DUMA KEY til the day I die. It's fatty, but powered by atypical characters and chock full of striking imagery. The friendship between Edgar and Wireman is some of the best stuff King's written in years.

I've been sitting on that one for awhile thinking it was a BAG OF BONES retread, but now I'll have to check it out.

 

It started great. But the SHOCKING TURN OF EVENTS soured me on it.