‘The Stand’ by Stephen King

When I started this blog I made a promise to myself that I would try to get out of my ‘book phase’ habit. This is where I get really hooked on one author or one genre and read nothing else until I get bored and move on, which can sometimes take months. I figured, if anyone out there is actual reading this thing they’d probably appreciate a little variety, and if we’re being honest, I figured my reading habits could stand to improve with such a resolution as well. Variety never hurt anyone, and I can’t think of a better way to force myself out of my reading comfort zone and get exposed to some new and potentially amazing genres and authors.

But you know what they say, rules are made to be broken, so here we are less than two months away from my previous Stephen King post with yet another.

My mom told me to read ‘The Stand’ a while back when she heard I was interested in King, so when a copy mysteriously appeared on my nightstand a few weeks ago I had my suspicions as to where it came from and felt I should give it a try. To be honest it wasn’t really what I expected.

It was a good read in the sense that I enjoyed the experience. I found myself getting very invested in the characters’ stories and thinking about what was happening to them even after I had put the book down. With so many zombie-apocalypse-themed television shows and movies gaining popularity in recent years I was half expecting more ‘walking dead’ kind of stuff, but then again, this book was first published in 1978 (although I read the re-released 1990 version), so I guess you could say King was ahead of the fad. I also kind of appreciated the fact that the dead actually stayed dead – zombies are thrilling and all but they also give writers an excuse to lag on the depth of the story’s action. Who needs plot devices or suspense when there’s an attack by the undead every few hours? That story kind of writes itself.

That being said, I have to admit this was not a favourite. What I love about King is also what I hate about him: he writes long-ass books. I love that he gives himself plenty of room for character development and description and meaningful explanations that help expand the readers’ understandings of what happens and what will happen next, but I hate how the story seems to drag on and on.

I’m also not quite sure how I feel about how the themes of religion and the supernatural were used as the driving forces behind the story. First there were the telepathic dreams and then dark man’s ability to levitate and see through the eyes of animals and perform weird random acts of magic, but the cause of the superflu was grounded in the more realistic context of the American military base. So was it an act of God or an example of the short-sightedness of mankind? King seemed to skirt around the idea of religion without actually tackling it head on, which bothered me. If you’re going to set up an epic battle between the forces of good and evil at least commit to it and don’t pretend like it has nothing to do with the epidemic that wipes out 99% of mankind. I’ll avoid a spoiler as best I can here, but I also found this so-called ‘battle’ pretty anti-climactic.

I could have done without the ramblings of Glenn Bateman, which were a little too academically heavy for me, although I can see how his character contributed to what King was trying to achieve. I could also have done with a little more international context. It’s a huge pet peeve of mine when supposedly global issues are shrunk down and we’re made to believe America is the only country affected. If this is a global epidemic, why is the final show-down only happening in the US? Are there other leaders in other countries? Obviously this would have made the book something completely different but it would be better than pretending America is the only country in the world.

I still love King as a storyteller and I won’t say ‘The Stand’ isn’t worth reading, but I doubt I’ll come back to it any time soon.

I am however very interested in watching the mini-series from ’94 with Rob Lowe and Molly Ringwald, not who I would have chosen for Nick and Frannie, but who knows?

Here’s to the underdogs!

I was thrilled last week to be nominated by A Novel Place for the Liebster Blog Award 🙂

This is the second blog award I’ve been nominated for and I’m ridiculously excited about it. It may seem like small potatoes to some of the better-known bloggers out there, but when something like this comes up it really means something to me. With every comment and follow I receive I get a little thrill knowing that there are actual people out there reading and enjoying what I have to say, and it’s a nice feeling, so thank you so, so much.

Gotta throw in a shout out to A Novel Place btw, her blog is amazing and I always enjoy reading it. We’ve got a lot of the same tastes and she’s a very clever and funny writer who you should definitely check out.

So it sounds like this one is for bloggers with less than 200 followers, which I think is a great idea. I know of so many other great bloggers who are just starting out like myself — what better way to connect with each other and spread the love? It can be really tough getting your foot in the door in any context, but everyone starts somewhere. So for us underdogs who are still trying to build up a following I can’t think of a better way for the blogging community to illustrate the welcoming and encouraging atmosphere that I’ve already experienced first hand.

So without further ado, here are some blogs that you should definitely check out (sidenote: I don’t actually know how many followers some of these have, but I think they’re awesome so they’e getting nominated anyway, lol):

1) Adventures with Words

2) A Solitary Ramble

3) Free Page Numbers

4) Isle of Books

5) Literary Tiger

P.S. I promise a new review is coming soon – ‘The Stand’ is taking me a really long time to read, but I’ll get there, promise!

Why Libraries Suck.

I know, it’s basically book-lover blasphemy, but I think it’s about time I came clean: I do not like libraries.

I’ll give you a moment to control the shock and confusion you are no doubt experiencing as you read this – a reader who ISN’T obsessed with an establishment whose sole purpose is to supply the general public with an endless supply of FREE books? What nonsense! But seriously, hear me out.

My first issue with this whole book-borrowing infrastructure is that I like to keep my books. Even the ones I don’t particularly enjoy reading. I guess I can’t call myself an actual ‘collector’ because my books are hardly in mint condition (let’s just say ‘well-worn’ would be a huge understatement…), but my bookshelf is definitely a source of pride in my life. Whenever someone enters my room they are smacked in the face with everything I have ever read, on display for all to see, appreciate, and praise me for. ‘Wow, you’ve read all of these?’ Why yes, yes I have.
How am I supposed to impress people with my literary accomplishments if each book I conquer gets returned to some public shelf in the middle of town? You might think it’s weird, but as a nerdy, athletically-challenged child growing up I didn’t earn any trophies to display on a shelf above my bed – books are my trophies, and I’m proud of myself each time I finish something new. So is it a crime to want to display my accomplishments?

Related to that is the fact that I like my books to be worn. It shows that I’ve actually read them and they aren’t just for show – the dog-eared pages, the notes in the margins – it’s how I engage with the story and really get into what I’m reading. When I encounter someone else’s dog-ears and underlines I just get pissed off. It’s like someone else is randomly poking their head into my personal reading experience. “Oh you think this part is interesting? So did I, and I already noted it. Nothing about your reading of this page is unique, you might as well just give up now” — who wants other people’s comments popping up every few pages? No thank you.

I guess some might find it interesting to compare notes with other readers in this way, but if that’s what you’re looking for find a book club or a chat room (or a blog for that matter), leave my books alone!

Call me possessive, but I guess the point of this whole little rant is the fact that I just don’t like sharing books. And on top of everything else it’s just inconvenient trying to return them in a timely fashion (I’m pretty sure I’m on a poster somewhere in my local library, WANTED for excessive late fees. another reason I have vowed never to return).

There are plenty of blogs out there with overwhelming evidence of the fact that many wonderful libraries exist in the world: shelves full of books, plenty of comfy little nooks to sit and read. But the truth is, unless we’re talking about a room of bookshelves in my own house where each book is owned by me and leant only to close friends, libraries just aren’t my scene.

I just thank god this guy never worked at my local library, otherwise I’d be in trouble…

‘Louis Riel’ by Chester Brown

Reading this novel checked a few boxes for me: non-fiction, graphic novel, biography – all genres I’ve been meaning to read more of in an effort to expand the horizons of my literary exposure.

I doubt I would ever have encountered Brown’s comic-book biography if it hadn’t been loaned to me by a much more culturally and historically informed classmate. As a Western MIT student (that’s Media, Information and Technoculture for those of you not ‘in the know’), graphic novels were kind of my thing back in the day. Maus, Watchmen, 300 — I was enthralled and intrigued by this new form of story-telling. Plus reading them made me feel super hipster and bad-ass. But my heart has always belonged to traditional fiction and I found myself back on that one-track book-style road soon after graduation.

Obviously I knew Louis Riel was an important Canadian historical figure before opening the book, but to be honest I’ve never been all that interested in history. In theory I think it’s a really cool concept – learning from the past, the cycles of human experience and all that – but in practice I find it unbearably dull and far too political. I would imagine a more traditional biography of Riel would have fallen into the traps of boredom and politics as well, but in this case the unique style of storytelling was history’s saving grace.

While I didn’t exactly sink into this book like I normally would with a good novel, I was interested enough to keep reading (which is more than can be said for a lot of stories sitting in the ‘attempted to read but gave up’ pile on my night stand). I also felt like I got something out of the experience of reading it – whether it’s historical insight or personal satisfaction for reading something outside of my traditional reading comfort zone is undetermined, either way it made me feel good.

I think there’s really something to be said for graphic novels. I know I’ve used the terms interchangeably in this post (if I wasn’t too lazy I’d go back and change that), but they really are different from comic books. It’s basically the addition of another layer to a story. While illustrations serve a complementary function to a text, graphic novels actually use images in the telling of the story, making it that much more interesting to seek out the connections and allusions that might not be obvious at first. I think Watchmen is a great example of this technique, and I’d like to do a review on it sometime soon.

So here’s to introducing more graphic novels into my reading repertoire! Please comment if you’ve got any suggestions.

this host is annoying, but here’s a top 10 list of graphic novel movie adaptations:

‘The Descendants’ by Kaui Hart Hemmings

I’ve broken so many of my personal reading rules with this one.

First of all, I’m reading a copy of the novel with George Clooney’s face on the cover. Don’t ask why this bothers me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever – the novel is the same regardless of the cover art. But I have this personal hatred for books that use movie posters as their covers – it’s like the book on it’s own isn’t enough, readers need to know that it was made into a major motion picture starring George Clooney otherwise they won’t want to pick it up. It feels like an insult to books. (If I had bought this for myself I probably would have looked for an alternate copy, but alas, it was a gift).

Secondly and more disturbingly, I actually saw the movie before I read the book. I know, I know, I’m a disgrace to readers everywhere. Bring out the tar and feathers, I deserve it. I’m a victim of peer pressure combined with Oscar buzz and an excellent preview. I just couldn’t resist. So forgive me if this review is slightly tainted.

I’ll start by letting you know that the movie itself was really well done. I’m a huge Clooney fan (who isn’t?) and he does an amazing job in this. The girls playing his daughters were also amazing, and the story was really well presented. I find tragi-comedy such an interesting genre – two contexts that are total opposites somehow mixing together to create something that makes absolute sense, more than either could have achieved on its own. The Descendants is a prime example of this.

I don’t know if I was overly-influenced by my exposure to Mr. Clooney, but as I read the book it struck me how amazingly well-cast the movie was as well. I literally could not picture anyone else as the main character or the eldest daughter, both were absolutely perfect. Who knows what I would be saying if I had read the book first, but from where I’m standing this looks like one of those rare occasions where a film adaptation actually got it right.

Another thing I loved was the choice to present Hawaii as the backdrop to something other than a wacky vacation adventure. So often we see the beaches and lush green jungles stretched out behind some teenagers’ love triangle while they’re away on spring break, but here we see it as something else – something with history and emotion, a home that betrays its inhabitants in their time of tragedy and mourning with it’s misleadingly paradisical landscapes. I thought that was something really cool that I hadn’t encountered before.

Also I was really interested to find out that the book was written by a woman – another example of something I’m sure I’ve mentioned before but continues to boggle my mind – how does she get so inside the head of a middle-aged father of two with a gorgeous younger wife who cheats on him? When would she ever have experienced the things she describes? How could she possibly know? So confusingly believable.

If anyone has read the book but hasn’t seen the movie I’d love to hear your take, but for those of you just looking for a Clooney-fix here it is: