In Which We Discuss Creepshow and Different Seasons

I've been reading so fast I've gotten a little behind, so here, have two in one.

Creepshow was the first screenplay Stephen King wrote, if I recall correctly.  Directed by George Romero, it consists of three short stories and a framework.  Stephen King's son, author Joe Hill stars in the framing story while King himself plays the main character in one of the shorts.

Joe Hill is the little boy with the voodoo doll, and King is the one you can see in the thumbnail, behind the doctor.  While we're looking at Stephen and Joe, here's Tabitha at around the same time.

And a 2103 interview with Owen King and Joe Hill on being the children of authors and their own new novels.  And Joe's children, which I didn't realise he had, because I'm a reader, not a stalker.

My favourite extract from the interview;

How did you decide to spend your life writing fiction?
OK: I hope Joe has a good answer, because it was never like I read a book and said, “That’s what I wanna do.” It was more like I loved to read, I liked to tell stories, I practiced; eventually, it started to seem viable.
JH: I don’t think there was exactly one aha moment. But you’d come home from school and Mom would be in her room clattering away on this tomato-colored typewriter and my dad would be up in his office working on a word processor with the glowing green letters on the black screen, and they’d both be making stuff up. So for myself, by the time I was 11, 12, I’d kind of absorbed the idea that you should spend a little time each afternoon making stuff up and eventually you’d be paid really well for it.

Back to Creepshow.  It's pretty silly.  Creepy at times, very eighties, very camp.  There's also a comic book, but it's ridiculously expensive.

Now for Different Seasons.

Some people like Apt Pupil.  Some like The Body - or Stand By Me, as they called the movie.  And some just love Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.  But me, I like The Breathing Method and Sandra Stansfield the best.

Sandra is a woman in the mould of Irene Adler.  Not Sherlock's lover Irene, but someone closer to the original.  A determined, intelligent, strong woman who runs rings around the men in her life.  And, like Irene's appearance in A Scandel in Bohemia, we see her through the eyes of a man watching the man who admires her.  Not loves in a romantic way, but admires.  Looks up to.

It's Different Seasons that contains the anecdote where King's editor worries about him being typecast.  It's when they decide to publish 'salem's Lot after Carrie.  Well King is typecast, but he doesn't seem to mind.  I get the idea that you can sum up his philosophy of writing with the idea 'you take what you've got and you do what you can.  And if you can pay the bills with it, so much the better'.  He writes the kinds of books he likes.  In the epilogue of Different Seasons, he acknowledges that he isn't a great literary writer, but also that he doesn't make a habit of reading great literature.  Which sounds fair enough to me.

As we all know, Shawshank became a very successful movie.  Apt Pupil was also filmed, with Sir Ian McKellen as Kurt Dussander.

James Smythe agrees with my feelings on The Breathing Method.  He skipped Creepshow, also fair.

Now for another checkpoint, just because.  I last updated this list on the 17th of August.  The ones in red I have read previously, while the ones in blue were new to me.  I've also included the first published novels of Stephen King's wife, two sons, and daughter-in-law.  I have not forgotten about Naomi King, but since she isn't a public figure in any sense it'd be kind of weird to go and look stuff up about her.

Owen King did contribute to a collection of baseball stories in 2003, but I've decided not to count that.  Because I don't like baseball.

Carrie - 1974 -  June 15th 2013
'Salem's Lot - 1975 - June 30th 2013
The Shining - 1977 - July 28th 2013
Rage - 1977 - July 31st 2013
Night Shift - 1978 - August 28th 2013

The Stand - 1978 - March 20th 2014
The Long Walk - 1979 - March 23rd 2014
The Dead Zone - 1979 - June 2014
Firestarter - 1980 - August 16th 2014


- 06/13 to 17/8/14 - 9

Roadwork - 1981 - 23rd August 2014
Danse Macabre - 1981 - 7th September 2014


- BONUS: Small World (Tabitha King) - 10th September 2014

Cujo - 1981 - 20th September 2014
The Running Man - 1982- 22nd September 2014
The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger - 1982 - 30th September 2014

Creepshow - 1982 - 1st October 2014
Different Seasons - 1982  - 24th October 2014

- 17/8/14 to 25/10/14 - 7 (16)
 
Christine - 1983
Pet Sematary - 1983
Cycle of the Werewolf - 1983

The Talisman - 1984
Thinner - 1984

Skeleton Crew - 1985
It - 1986
The Eyes of the Dragon - 1987

The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three - 1987
Misery - 1987

The Tommyknockers - 1987
Nightmares in the Sky  - 1988
The Dark Half - 1989

Four Past Midnight - 1990
The Dark Tower III: The Waste Lands - 1991 

Needful Things - 1991
Gerald's Game - 1992
Dolores Claiborne - 1992

Nightmares & Dreamscapes - 1993
Insomnia - 1994

Rose Madder - 1995
The Green Mile - 1996
Desperation - 1996

The Regulators - 1996
Six Stories - 1997

The Dark Tower IV: Wizard and Glass - 1997
Bag of Bones - 1998
Storm of the Century - 1999 

The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon - 1999
The New Lieutenant's Rap - 1999  

Hearts in Atlantis - 1999
Blood and Smoke - 1999
"Riding the Bullet" - 2000  

On Writing - 2000
Secret Windows - 2000 

The Plant - 2000      
Dreamcatcher - 2001
Black House (with Peter Straub) -2001

Everything's Eventual - 2002
From a Buick 8 - 2002

The Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla - 2003  
The Dark Tower VI: Song of Susannah - 2004
The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower - 2004

Faithful - 2004
- BONUS: 20th Century Ghosts (Joe Hill) - Jan 2005
- BONUS: Josie & Jack (Kelly Braffet)  - Feb 2005
- BONUS: We're All in This Together (Owen King) - 2005
The Colorado Kid - 2005

Cell - 2006
Lisey's Story - 2006
Blaze - 2007

Duma Key - 2008  
Just After Sunset - 2008 

Stephen King Goes to the Movies - 2009
Ur - 2009     
Under the Dome - 2009

Blockade Billy - 2010
Full Dark, No Stars - 2010

Mile 81 - 2011    
11/22/63 - 2011
American Vampire (with Scott Snyder) - 2011

"Throttle" (with Joe Hill) - 2012
The Dark Tower: The Wind Through the Keyhole - 2012 

A Face in the Crowd (with Stewart O'Nan) - 2012
"In the Tall Grass"  (with Joe Hill) - 2012
"GUNS" - 2013

Ghost Brothers of Darkland County - 2013
Joyland - 2013

The Dark Man: An Illustrated Poem - 2013
Doctor Sleep - 2013
Mr. Mercedes - 2014      

Revival - November 2014
Finders Keepers - 2015


I've now read  16 out of 86 books, which is a big jump from the 9 I'd read last time.  It's 18.6%, which feels a lot more respectable.  It's helped that I made a rule about reading at least 25 pages a day, and once I'd hit that, I'd often carry on for quite a bit longer.

There's a lot of rereads coming up.  Christine and Pet Semetary, neither of which I remember particularly enjoying.  Especially not Christine, which I've described as 300 pages worth of plot in a 700+ page novel.  I'm going to see if the library has it; don't feel like buying a copy.

In Which We Discuss Divergence

I quite liked the Divergent series.  Well, in all candor (which would be my faction) I liked 2/3s of it.  The last third, ie, the final book, was a bit of a let down.

Here Be Spoilers for Allegiant, book 3 of the Divergent Series

Veronica Roth knew exactly how she wanted the series to end and that isn't a bad thing, necessarily.  Rowling did the same thing with great success, and other authors have done something similar.  The mistake Roth made was in railroading her characters to her desired outcome.  She forced people to act in nonsensical ways, and to carry out plans which could have been greatly improved with a moment's thought.  She forced it.

Stories are like clockwork.  You wind them up and let them go.  Roth failed to grasp that, resulting in a failure of a third novel.

I'm currently in the process of watching the first movie of what will undoubtedly be a trilogy.  For once, I hope that the films do not follow the books, that they instead create a much better and more in-character and realistic ending.  I hope they diverge from the source material right at the point where it went wrong.

Here Spoilers for Allegiant, book 3 of the Divergent Series End 
Spoilers for Book 1 & Movie Continue

When I say I'm in the process of watching the movie, I mean I have it paused at 32:11 in another tab.  Blinkbox offered me a free movie because Tesco's TV site or whatever it was is ending, and I'd been meaning to get to it so...

Oh, and I also realised that I still had just over £3 left of a gift voucher someone gave me, so I got Lovelace as well.  Two rented movie for under 50p, bargain.  I am celebrating with popcorn and gummy cherries.

Anyway, back to the movie.  So far, I'm enjoying it.  I like Shailene Woodley and Theo James as Tris and Four, particularly the latter.  He looks exactly as Four is described in the books.  I think we can forgive the fact that Tris is wearing an awful lot of make-up for a Stiff, since that comes under the same law that explains how Emma and Snow White's false eyelashes stayed on while wandering through the enchanted forest of Once Upon a Time.  I'm not so sure I like Caleb, but he won't really come into play until much later.  Very happy to see Ashley Judd as Natalie, since I loved her in Where the Heart Is and Divine Secrets of the YaYa Sisterhood (both also adapted from books!).

I quite liked the way the test played out, though I'm sure they skipped some bits and took a bit of visual artistic license with it.  I've also liked seeing the Dauntless so far; all very pulse-raising.  I am genuinely concerned for Tris' well-being despite knowing how this book ends.

Ooh, I like the futuristic tattooing style, though I miss the explanation of why Tris chose it.  I suppose it isn't important, and since the film is over two hours long anyway, it was easy to cut.  But still.

I'm also disappointed that they cut out Four taunting Tris when he threw knives at her, though the capture-the-flag sequence is a lot more dramatic than I remember it being.

I'm not a big fan of Miles Teller as Peter.  He seems impactless, to me.  Doesn't really make any impression.

Oh, here's a key bit of divergence.  Tris and Christina grabbed the flag together, Tris first, rather than Christina taking all of the glory.  I'm pretty sure the bit in the hospital didn't happen that way either.

I should reread the book to verify this stuff.

Oh, the fear landscape is different.  They only did one.  That disappoints me.

We're carrying on with this reflection thing?  Okay, that's interesting. 

A few subtle changes in Four's fear landscape.  Not sure how I feel about those yet.

Ha!  They left the hilarious bit of Tris' landscape the same.  I enjoyed that.

Is it just me or does Shailene Woodley have a voice almost identical to a young Lindsay Lohan?

I'm 90% sure that the dagger through the hand thing is new!


Why on earth would you let go when you knew you needed to grab her again a second later?

The ending seems different.  It doesn't seem to lead into an obvious sequel.  Maybe they weren't sure if they were going to be able to make the next one?

In Which We Discuss Richard Matheson

Richard Matheson, the author of I Am Legend died just over a week ago, on June 23rd.  He wrote a lot of other things, including several Twilight Zone episodes, but that's the only book of his that I've read, and that was after seeing the 2007 movie adaptation.  That adaptation went in quite a different direction from the book.  I like both stories, and I highly recommend reading the book.

I read I Am Legend back in 2007, and hadn't thought of Matheson much until recently, when I was idly browsing the graphic novels section of my local library and spotted a comic book adaptation of the novel.  That was about a month ago, and I've yet to read it, though I intend to start it at some point today.  I'd been toying with the idea of rereading the novel, and the comic seemed like an interesting compromise.

Note here; I like the word comic.  I don't want to call them 'graphic novels' simply because that phrase seems like it was coined in order to give comics a bit of legitimacy as a literary art form, and I think they have that as comics.  It's like sticking 'adult' covers on the Discworld and Harry Potter books - it's still the same story underneath.  That said, I absolutely do believe in judging books by their covers.  Short version; publishers want you to find books that you like.  They don't want to trick you, or at least, not too much.  Thus, you can usually, at the very least, tell what a publisher thinks of a book from it's cover, what category they would put it in, what books they think it resembles, if nothing else.  That doesn't mean there are no surprises; just that the cover is a rather better indicator than that phrase would suggest, and yes, this absolutely does apply to the metaphor as interpreted as applying to other objects.  Anyway, yes, I take a childish joy from using the word 'comic'.

I guess what I wanted to say here is, what a shame.  He was 87, which is better innings than most people get, but it's always a shame when people die.  He influenced a number of other creators, including Stephen King who dedicated the novel Cell  to him.  He was due to receive the Visionary Award at the 39th Saturn Awards ceremony, which was held on June 26th.  The award was given posthumously, with the ceremony dedicated to him.

In Which We Discuss People Who Confuse Me and the Ice Cream Girls

I've been reading a lot over the past few days. I've received the offer of a new job, but haven't been given a start date. The interview was about a month ago. I'd be more worried, but last Friday they invited everyone in my position to a coffee morning where we were able to ask questions and get to know each other a little. They told us they'd call this week; it's now 9pm on Thursday, and they've not, so I'm getting a little concerned again.

Anyway, to distract myself, I've been reading, and you can see what I've read in the image above.  That's from the 26th, with the top left being most recent and the bottom right being least. It's still a little too cold to laze about in the garden, but my room (I live in a shared house) has french doors opening on to it, which face west. I get all the afternoon sunlight. I also have a large window which faces east, so I should get the morning sunlight too. Unfortunately, that window also happens to face a busy road, so I never open the curtains.  Anyway, instead of lying in the garden reading, I've been building a nest of pillows at the end of my bed and lying there and reading instead.  All the sunlight and an electric blanket.  Genius.

Anyway.

 Elizabeth Buchan's Daughters had a lot of characters who really confused me.

Warning: Text Below Contains Spoilers for Daughters.

One character is a woman who married a widower with two children.  They have another child together, and, when they split up, she keeps them all.  That's the first thing that baffled me.  That makes no sense to me.  Why would she keep his children?  Would she have kept them if they'd not had a daughter together?  That's bizarre, surely?

I was going to say that I don't mean to belittle the bond between stepparents and children, but I guess I am.  I accept that adopted parents are just as true as birth parents, so why not stepparents?  If he'd died, they'd probably have stayed with her, after all. 

Thinking about it, I guess the thing that bugs me is; why didn't he want them?  Why would he marry someone, and then leave his children with her?

I have to wonder how much this has to do with stereotypical ideas of women as natural caregivers, and the whole myth of the mothering instinct.

This also reminded me of a similar event in Billie Letts Where the Heart Is, one of my favourite books.  One male character is hailed as a hero when he realises that his soon-to-be ex-wife doesn't want her daughter, and he trades his car for her, so the little girl doesn't have to live with a mother who doesn't want her.

The second thing that confused me; the middle daughter is planning a wedding, and chooses a date in the first week of September.  The youngest daughter has applied to Harvard, and, since she is British, will have to move to America.  If accepted, university will start, as it normally does, in the first week of September.  And the middle sister keeps going on about how utterly selfish it is that the younger sister will miss her wedding for the first week of university.  That seems like an insane overreaction to me.  It was an invitation, not a summons.  Secondly, I'm with the youngest daughter, Maudie; it's the marriage that's important, more than the wedding day itself.  It seems insane for her sister to want her to put herself at a disadvantage for one ludicrously overpriced day.  That said, my idea of the perfect wedding day costs less than £200, is in the clothes we wore on our first date, or some other sentimental item, and has only witnesses, no guests.  So there are many things about the wedding industry that baffle me.  Like wedding dresses.  Why on earth would you spend thousands of pounds - or even hundreds - on a dress that you will only wear once?  It's a bizarre thing to do!  If you want to look like a princess, get into Disney Cosplay, you can dress up all the time then!

Blaaaaaaaaah.

Anyway; third thing that confused me.  Several characters become aware that middle sister - Eve's - fiance is cheating on her.  And they debate with themselves about whether or not to tell her!

I've been in a similar situation before, but, in that case, the person I witnessed cheating was a very close friend of mine while her partner was a stranger.  I can understand reluctance in that case, from loyalty.  But, if you're the bride's sister, or (step)mother, then why would that be an issue?  Why would you debate with yourself for even a second on whether or not to tell her?  She has a right to make her own decisions on the matter, while in full possession of the facts.

And then, when they do tell her, she acts like they've done something wrong!  And they internalise this and apologise!  Someone telling you the truth about your partner cheating on you is not doing anything wrong, for god's sake!

Sigh.  I'm not saying that the book is unrealistic; I'm sure there are many people like that in the world, and they are equally bizarre to me.  But, rarr, these crazy illogical people.

Moving on.  I read The Ice Cream Girls, mostly because I didn't want to wait until the third episode of the televisation is shown next week to find out how it ends.  Incidentally, if you do want to watch the TV show (and you live in the UK), you can see the episodes here.  The first episode will be available for another 16 days.  The third and final episode will be shown on ITV tomorrow (Friday 3rd May) at 9pm.  I usually watch live TV here.

Warning: Text Below Contains Spoilers for The Ice Cream Girls.  

Warning:  Text Below May be Triggering re; Rape/Abuse

There's a lot more in the book than in the TV series.  Some characters are merged into one - Serena's two sisters become one, for instance, and so do her two children - and the plot moves a little faster.  One changed which improved the story was the idea that all of the past events had happened in Brighton, rather than in London.  In the book, it's coincidence that Serena and Poppy both end up in Brighton, having both moved from London.  It seems a little forced.  It's a lot more natural - and, I think, helps with the idea of them being linked to each other through the past events - if they end up back at the place where they grew up, where everything happened.

Earlier today, I was embroiled in quite an interesting conversation about domestic abuse, and here's a repeat of your trigger warning.  Someone posted the idea that domestic abuse is intrinsically linked to monogamy.  It's an interesting thought.  All of the details of domestic abuse that I know do require that people be cut off from family and friends, and from help.  Abusers typically tell their victims that what's happening to them is normal, that they deserve it, etc, and then cut them off from anyone who'd offer a reference point for how un-normal it is.  This also has the effect of cutting them off from anyone who can help.  Although this can and does happen in a relationship in which the abuser is polyamorous but the victims are not - like the relationships in The Ice Cream Girls, or as sometimes happens in marriages where, for example, one man has multiple wives.  It doesn't seem like that kind of abuse can happen in polyamorous relationships in which both partners have multiple secondaries.  However, it doesn't necessarily follow that another kind of domestic abuse can't occur, even if this particular kind can't.  I tried a few thought experiments, and the only one I could think of that would work was the idea of an abuser who was motivated by voyeuristic/'being caught' tendencies rather than jealousy/neediness.  For example, the abuser could be aroused or otherwise consider an unknowing third party to be an essential part of the abuse, and threaten the victim to stay quiet or otherwise hide the abuse.  It was an interesting conversation.  I will continue musing on it.

In Which We Discuss TV Adaptations

Recently, I've been watching ITVs adaptation of Dorothy Koomson's Ice Cream Girls.  I've embedded a TV spot which includes clips and interviews below.

I like Dorothy Koomson's books, though I've not actually read this one before.  I am enjoying the show, though. 

One thing I like about Koomson's work is that I can always rely on her to have a woman of colour in the lead role.  There's nothing wrong with white people, my mother was one, but it's nice to get away from constantly reading about them.

I have a shelf on Goodreads for books with non-white protagonists.  Yes, I know that I have full autonomy in what to read.  But you'd still expect more than nineteen books out of almost a thousand.  I'm quite strict with it, too; I only count it if the one main character is non-white, not if there's one non-white character in a quartet or something.

Another book I liked that was adapted to TV was Sophie Hannah's Point of Rescue (published as The Wrong Mother in the US) and The Other Half Lives, both from her Spilling CID series.  I have it on DVD.  I've had it for a while, in fact, but it took me several months to watch it.  Why?  I was scared.  I love those books.  I didn't want the tv series to suck.

Well, it didn't suck, but it wasn't all that great either, not compared to the books.  The adaptation of Point of Rescue was more faithful than that of The Other Half Lives, but both cut out a lot of the complications and twists of the books.  I did like Olivia Williams and Darren Boyd as Charlie and Simon, though.

In Which We Discuss Terabithia

Honestly, I prefer the film.

This may be because I saw the film first, and therefore got the full emotional impact of it. I suspect that that's a large part of it. But, I also think it's because I feel more attached to Leslie Burke as played by AnnaSophia Robb, rather than simply written. She seems more real, and more alive.

Ithink part of it is also that, in the book, Leslie is exactly what Jess needs at that point in his life. In the film, Leslie is more ambiguous, and can be whatever anyone requires her to be, if that makes sense. She's not just Jess', and that allows the viewer to feel more of a claim on the character, and feel more emotionally involved.

I also like the slight changes to the plot and the characters, many of which were necessary to bridge the gap between now and the time when the book was written.

I'm not sure how people who read the book before seeing the film would feel, but I felt that the film had more in it. I also like the way they spend longer on Jess' reaction, near the end, while in the book, that section felt rather rushed.

In fairness, I usually think books feel rushed; I read them so quickly that they seem to race past me. I read Bridge to Terabithia on the way to and from work - less than an hour.

You can read my comments on the film here.

In Which We Discuss Adaptations

There's a film that's meant to be released this Christmas - The Time Traveller's Wife. S'got Eric Bana in it.

I absolutely love that book. It's such a beautiful love story. It's long and complex too, and I've got no idea how they're going to cut it down to film length without destroying it. I don't think it's possible. I'm terrified. I think they're going to destroy one of my favourite books.