 "Remember it being better" | 2009-11-10 |
| - Reviewed By User: A3PELASDKPYI1X |
| I read this book a long time ago, so I decided to buy it again. I remembered it being better, but all in all it was a good read. |
| |
 "Strangely Beautiful, Yet Dated" | 2009-11-04 |
| - Reviewed By suspense_novelist |
Stephen King has long explored mankind's fears, particularly as they relate to the life of regular Americans. His writing is sprawling, crass, and sometimes beautiful--and in these ways he captures much of what we see in our fellow human beings. After hearing for years that "The Stand" was his best book, I plowed into these 1000+ pages with great anticipation.
The story is set in 1985 (my year of high school graduation), and follows a growing cast of characters caught up in the horror of a national, possibly international, crisis caused by the release of a super-virus that wipes out nearly all those exposed. Government error and warmongering have led to this widespread destruction, but it's the average Joes who pull together to carve out a new niche for themselves and their children--if, indeed, any children will be born uninfected. We don't know why certain people have survived. We don't really know what happens to the government or military. We are left to fill in a lot of blanks, and this adds to the claustrophobic sense of doom. These feelings are enhanced by the three-dimensional characters King gives us, such as Larry, Stu, Fran, Nadine, and Harold.
Overshadowing the entire story are two symbolic, yet believable characters--an old black woman who represents Godly good; and a shadowy figure in Las Vegas who represents evil. The lines are drawn sharply, and the writing is sometimes apocalyptic, even biblical in tone. The larger themes are expressed best through the individuals who make secret and not-so-secret choices that affect their community (another Christian theme).
As the battle lines are drawn, the story reaches a crescendo that can be surprising, yet inevitable. Hope resounds, but at great cost.
I kept thinking I'd like the book more, in light of all the great stuff I'd heard. In many ways it was fantastic. On the other hand, it felt bloated and cumbersome. The main problem, for me, is that it's a dated story. The zeitgeist of the 80s, the Cold War era, had us thinking of nuclear holocaust and End Times survival. We lived in perpetual fear of something catastrophic being caused by government abuse. We were told the ozone layer would be depleted by the year 2000 and that we would need umbrellas to go outside. (Okay, so that's not much different than the global warming themes we hear recited in the news.) Overall, though, I believe citizens in a post-9/11 America are more conditioned for large scale disaster and less focused on government solutions.
King has been accused of losing some of his touch in recent years. I wonder, looking back, if this criticism has more to do with our reading habits and a population's evolving view of society and the fears that plague it. If released today, I wonder if this book would be welcomed with as much warmth as it was in its time. It's a book of horror, humanity, and strange beauty, yet reflects the zeitgeist of another generation, and in that way it lost some of its power for me. |
| |
 "TOO FABULOUS - a must read - the BEST Stephen King book out there!" | 2009-11-01 |
| - Reviewed By mimigary240 |
| This Stephen King book was so HIGHLY RECOMMENDED to me - I had to buy it out of curiosity. What a fascinating and entertaining read...Hard to put down and deliciously perfect King writing!! |
| |
| "If I was stranded on a deserted island, this is the book I'd want with me" | 2009-10-15 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2S94GQRQVVBXY |
If I were stranded on a deserted island, and could only have one book with me, this would probably be it. It's not the most intelligent answer, but it's true.
I've read The Stand from cover-to-cover probably 20 times in the past 15 or so years. I read it for the first time as a sophomore in high school, and still love it as much today as I did in the first reading. If anything, the story has grown as I have -- I relate more strongly to different characters now than I did then. I find different parts more horrifying now, and have a greater depth of understanding of the real terrors this book holds.
Fans of King have probably already read this book, possibly many times as I have. Fans of horror will appreciate the stark and believable nightmare King weaves in The Stand. But the truly horrifying part of the book -- the realistic and very possible biological disaster that signals the decline of society leading to "The Stand" is what gives me bad dreams. It's great stuff. I would recommend it to just about anyone that isn't afraid of the dark corners of what could be, and who is open to a horror story that is equal parts science and magic. |
| |
| "One of the best books ever!" | 2009-10-12 |
| - Reviewed By User: A3RTNA9THAU2OP |
| Easily one of the best books I've ever read. Stephen King is so great with characterization. Once you finish one of his books, you know the people in them. They're like neighbors or old friends. This book is one of his better examples of this. It makes me sad to think a lot of people have him pegged as only a horror writer and won't give his work a chance. He has so much to offer. |
| |
| "The original (1980 paperback) version is certainly worth reading" | 2009-09-16 |
| - Reviewed By turningthepages |
A lot of hard work has gone into the writing of this book.
The version I read of the book is a seventh impression (1986) of a 1980 paperback, running to 734 pages, which I bought second-hand from a charity shop. I take this to be the "original" version. I was surprised to come to these reviews and find there's a different, revised version, floating around. I'm not sure it's a good idea for writers to have a second go at a book, but that's up to them. It's their property.
Anyway, my thoughts on the "original" version:
1. The book was fun, and enjoyable. For that reason, I'm happy to recommend it to other people, in the original version I read. (I can't speak for any later versions as I haven't looked at them).
2. The characterisation is not very strong. The characters are too one-dimensional. They are mostly portrayed through the aspects of personality/behaviour the story needs, rather than as more fully rounded people. (e.g. There is hardly any reminiscing about aspects of their lives beyond what the plot needs in order to move forward; they aren't engaged very much in non-plot activities.) We don't really get to know these people as people. It's all about the plot.
3. Nor are any of the characters especially likeable.
4. The plot is somewhat simplistic. (a) Virus kills nearly everyone; (b) slowly assemble a raft of good guys at place A; (c) slowly assemble a set of bad guys at place B; then (d) have interplay and a climax.
The dreams and the mind-reading things added cleverness to the plot. Chapter 26 (introducing Trashcan Man!, "my life for you") in particular was fun, and extremely enjoyable.
5. The profound ability of characters to suddenly `guess' the hidden plot as a series of `maybes' got sillier and sillier. (e.g. p.652: Oh, I was dreaming and I thought an eye was watching me). Reader gets told fact, then, lo and behold, the characters guess the fact. You can do it a few times, but it gets tiresome when it keeps happening.
6. The story was interesting up to Chapter 40, but then comes a "Boulder administration matters" chunk (chapters 40 to 50) where the reader is stuck entirely in boring Boulder for 11 straight chapters without a lot happening that excites the reader, and the book drags through those chapters. It gets interesting again from Chapter 51. Author could usefully have avoided 11 solid chapters stuck in the same place with the same dreary good people. (Good people are boring, aren't they? Why is that?)
7. There's no mention of the rest of the world and the effect of the virus there. (The world doesn't end at the edge of America, Mr SK. There are other countries, about 170 of them: presumably all affected by the virus too? It would have been nice to be given a world-picture, a couple of paragraphs at least, about non-America, for us non-Americans, but that detail is absent. Are we dead? Please let us know.)
8. No radio (as opposed to CB) is ever referred to, to find out if any survivors are broadcasting on radio (LW, MW, FM). Did the virus wipe out radiowaves as well as horses and dogs?
9. My copy (1986 seventh impression of a 1980 first NEL edition) was littered with hundreds of typos, and a few errors (e.g. Poke Freeman on page 84 becomes Poke Waxman on page 611/621). The text in the original UK paperback could have been checked over a bit better by a proofreader than it was.
10. I didn't understand why the author put this in 1980 rather than e.g. 2020 or 2050. It means anyone reading the book now is reading about a past that didn't happen, so where's the credibility? The novel is overtaken, quickly, by real time.
Anyway, the question that really matters is, whether you should read this book or not? Laws yes, you should track down a copy of the original 1978/1980 version, certainly, read it, be impressed, and enjoy. I can't speak for a revised version as I haven't read a revised version.
|
| |
Expedited Available
