Misery by Stephen King

"Writing does not cause misery, it is born of misery." - Montaigne (King, 99)

This week we got to read Misery by Stephen King. Which is a book about a seriously unlucky writer named Paul Sheldon who is held captive by small-town bat-shit crazy Annie Wilkes. You have seen a movie about it, but you should really read the book.

And this is my copy. . . Let's just say it's not my first time to the dance. 

This book is a prime example of why I love Stephen King so much. It's no secret I love his work. In fact, a large part of why I want to be a writer is because of him. I read him for the first time when I was eight years old. My mother was desperate to get me to read and she bought me Pet Semetary and It. I thought I didn't like to read. But that was largely due to the fact that I was forced to read books in which I had no interest. I won't name them (they know who they are and what they did) but they involved kid detectives, bumbling housemaids, and babysitters. Not exactly my cup of tea. So when my mom handed me Mr. King I was over the moon. As I got older I appreciated his craft and his ability to create worlds and people I loved (wich usually die). As  a teenager, I went through a traumatic event that nearly took my life and left me in a wheelchair. It also cost me  my mother and again Mr. Kings work brought me solace in a time when nothing else could. His words and his words gave me somewhere to go when I didn't like where I was. So his work means a great deal to me. It's the reason I am here, both in this writing program and in general. I've read most of his catalog, and as you can see above I have read some of them more times than I can count. I think I'm looking at the business end of buying a new copy of Misery as mine is about two reads away from falling apart.

But I digress. I got lost for a moment explaining how and why I love Stephen Kings work. It happens. I adore the man. And I tend to ramble. But I'm sure you all know that by now. But we are here to talk about Misery so let's get down to it. 

The best part of this book is probably the most overlooked part of the book. All you have to do is take a look at the other books we have read/watched this semester to notice this one stands out. Let's play one of these things is not like the others. Psycho = dude. Church of Dead Girls = dude. the Sculptor = dude. Red Dragon = two dudes. Silence of the Lambs = two dudes. Misery =  dudette. Are you catching what I'm laying down? This book, first published in 1988, is more progressive than any of the other books/films released after it. That's right my man Stephen King was taking names and kicking feminist ass before it was cool, and that's one of the things I fracking love about that man. Instead of the cliche body builder or pudgy reject man, we get Annie. A female serial killer. When most writers in the genre are/were going with males, he was out front breaking ground and bringing up a female serial killer to level the playing field. For that, I salute him, and for that I adore him. I've often wondered why there were not more female killers in written fiction. My gut says look at the names on the books. All males. So the females in the other books are the heroes, or at least the sidekicks. Never the baddy. Enter Stephen King. I love that he made the killer female, and I love that he is still writing badass women that are both realistic and interesting (and it doesn't matter if they are the good guy or the bad guy).

Seriously guys write more lady psychos. Don't make Annie hurt you with her hammer. 

Another thing I feel compelled to mention is how well crafted Stephen Kings world is and how they all interweave together. The best example I can give for this:"It was a famous old hotel called the Overlook. It burned down ten years ago. The caretaker burned it down. He was crazy," (King, 211). Sound familiar? It should. What about the town where Annie buys her typewriter, paper, and animal feed. Sidewinder? Does that sound familiar? It should for the exact same reason. If they sound familiar it means you either know your Stephen King or you took last semesters reading in genre horror class. It's because those are direct references to the book The Shining. I love that he added that in! It connects this world to the world of Jack and Danny Torrance and creates a full world where they both live and they both terrorize people. I mean this guy. Geeze, he blows my mind with his world building. I love that he attended to those details for those of us that love to live in his world and that pick up those bits and cherish them. 

I deeply adore cross references. 

I'd also like to mention briefly the fact that a lot of this book is some serious meta on the process of writting and writing in general. From the mention of the concordance (aka the book bible on page 62) to the general brevity about what it is to write. From falling into the pages to the trouble the ever elusive IDEA. I particularly love this bit: "Becuase writer remember everything, Paul. Especially the hurts. Strip a writer to the buff, point to the scars, and he'll tell you the story of each small one. From the big ones, you get novels, not amnesia. A little talent is a nice thing to have if you want to be a writer, but the only real requirement is the ability to remember the story of every scar," (King, 237). Then on page 46 when his book is burned. . . Let's just say as writer, myself I think that was actually the worst thing she did to him. Burn a writer's book and they can't be held responsible for what they do to you. All the rules are out the window and they'll be swinging blind. 

I'm not sure why they switched the ax to a sledge-hammer in the film. . .But they are both pretty cool. 

I just adore this book. It wasn't the first read, but it reads as the first time in a lot of ways. That's one of the remarkable things about Mr. King. The longevity of his work. How it consistently stands up to rereads. I love that about his style. He's just a great writer. And before I get too caught up in this sloppy word kiss to Mr. King I would like to leave you with one final thought

". . .a writer is God to the people in a story," (King, 35-36).

Works Cited

King, Stephen. Misery. New York City: Signet, 1988. book.

Red Dragon by Thomas Harris

This week we got to read Red Dragon by Thomas Harris. Which is a book about a criminal profiler who's hunting down a serial killer who likes to bite people.

First things first. I watched the movie long before I ever read the book. So I had that coloring my read. That said after having read the book, I still prefer the film. I think mostly because of the casting. I mean come on,  it's got The Hulk/Bruce Banner (Edward Norton), Odin (Anthony Hopkins), and Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) in it. I just love those actors they were mad brilliant in the Red Dragon movie and pretty much everything else they are in. Plus watching Anthony Hopkins (whom I totally adore) as Hannibal it's just magic. That said it's maybe not as fun as watching him in this (*Contains Spoilers* Link, my favorite part is at marker 0:45.) scene but brilliant just the same. There's just something about watchign such a proper English Gentleman like Hopkins say "cool, whatever dude."

Here's the movie trailer if you haven't seen it. 

Anyway, we're not here to talk about the film. We are here to talk about the book. So let's start with what I liked. I really enjoyed the scenes with Dolerhyde. Probably more than I should have. And I'm pretty sure that I liked the Dolerhyde scenes way more than the Graham scenes. Mostly because I love the peek behind the curtain that those scenes give us as a reader into the mind of the Red Dragon and Dolerhyde. In fact, one scene with Dolerhyde made me laugh so hard I almost peed myself. The scene I'm talking about is the gas station scene in chapter 35. The craftsmanship in that chapter is mind-boggling as well. The line that made me laugh was this: "Pig. Idiot. Trash. Fool," (Harris, 244) and this one: "ass-eyes," (Harris, 244). These lines sounded so much like an angry six-year-old mixing cursing levels that I could not stop laughing. For me, it was perfect for the man-child that Dolerhyde really is to use language like this. He was so angry that he angered himself stupid. And it was brilliant and hilarious.

I also really enjoyed all the pop culture references in this book. I love when an author is in touch with what is current and what is past. The nod/reference that struck me as my favorite was this one: "You think I'm going to spot him across a crowded room? No, that's Ezio Pinza," (Harris, 42). I'm not sure if I was the only one to catch that one. But I loved it. My mom used to watch a lot of musicals when I was growing up and South Pacific was one of her favorites. I heard Some Enchanted Evening so many times I could sing it for you, by heart, right now. I won't because there's glass in the room, but I could (here's a link if you want to hear someone who's trained to sing, sing it). I love that nod. 

Those little touches make for an immersive, real read, and I love that Harris included those things. I also appreciated the nod to Beaumont's study. My science loving self thought that was all sorts of groovy.

Also, can we take a moment and talk about how Red Dragon had public teeth and killer teeth. That slays me. I love that he has his public teeth and the teeth only his victims see. That was a really nice touch, that'd hilarious and awesome. You wouldn't want to ruin your everyday teeth while murdering families. Naturally, I mean why wouldn't you have your public teeth and your killing teeth? It's a cool detail and I'm glad it was included.

Sure there were a few times when it was clear that the narrative was in love with it words but for me those passages where always in the Graham scenes and I think that's what leaf to me nor really liking Graham overly much. In fact, most of his scenes put me in skim mode. The Dolerhyde scenes didn't seem so in love with their own wordiness. Maybe that's why I enjoyed them more. This rule did not apply to the Graham scenes when Hannibal was in them. I love me some Hannibal Lecter. 

But mostly because I'm a huge Anthony Hopkins fan. 

Why are a lot of the serial killers body builders? American Psycho, The Sculptor, and now Red Dragon. I'm pretty sure there's a joke there. Not all body builders are serial killers, but most serial killers are bodybuilders. . .or something like that. I'm not a comedian, I'm a writer so whatever. But I'm wondering why they are all bodybuilders. Maybe it's the roids. It makes they crazy I guess. 

I'm also wondering why is it always a woman that messes these guys up. I mean really? Why is it always mommy issues? Why can't for once it be daddy issues? I'm tired of the "evil mom" trope in horror. It's lack of imagination and what's worse it's sexist. I mean Harris redeems himself in Hanibal Rising with Hanibal Lecter's backstory (if you haven't watched the movie or read the book, then you're missing out). But this one was a little meh, for me. I'm beyond over the whole "Mommy didn't love me enough when I was little," shtick. Its been my experience (both professionally and personally) that bad father's can do just as much damage (if not more than) bad mothers. I would just like to see gender equality in psycho creation that's all. 

Gripes aside this book was alright. I prefer the film, but I'm glad I read the book. It's definitely worth the read.

Works Cited

Hannibal Rising. Dir. Peter Webber. Perf. Gaspard Ulliel. 2007. Bluray.

Harris, Thomas. Red Dragon. New York: Penguin Group, 2008. eBook.

Red Dragon. Dir. Brett Ratner. Perf. Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, & Ralph Fiennes. 2002. DVD.

The Rite. Dir. Mikael Håfström. Perf. Anthony Hopkins. 2011. Bluray.

Psycho by Robert Bloch

     

     This week we read Psycho by Robert Bloch. I'm not going to lie my first experience with Psycho was the 1960 movie of the same name. I happen to really love the film, it's sequels (II, III, & IV the last one being my favorite), and even the tv show inspired by it (Bates Motel)...the remake...not so much. But today I want to talk about the movie. But I can't say some comparisons from the book to the film will be forthcoming. That said going into this I pretty much knew what I was getting into. So there were no real surprises.

The infamous shower scene.

     I guess the best place to start for me is how different it was from the film in one key way. And that difference is all in the description. For example how they describe Norman Bates. The author uses terms like ample, plump-faced (Bloch, 4) fat man (Bloch, 19), and multiple other ways to describe how portly Norman is. It stuck me as weird. But mostly because I was more familiar with Anthony Perkins as Norman...and he's closer to willowy than portly.

     Another thing that struck me was how well written it was. For example, the voice totally shifts and sounds completely different when it goes from Norman's POV to someone else's. My favorite shift is to the Private Investigator Arbogast. The way he's written reminds me so much of the typical cops in the films that came out of 1940's. The best example I can think of is the film Double Indemnity. There's also a pretty funny Famil Guy cutaway that pokes fun at this type of character. And the whole time I read anything about or from the POV of Arbogast I was there and I could see that type of character. It was pretty brilliantly done. He was distinct and different fully developed, and his own character. Norman was well written too. I just only wanted to mention Arbogast because it stood out so much to me.

Fast Talking High Trousers from Family Guy. 

     There were a few issues that I had with this book. And honestly it's nitpicky stuff, I'm not going to really touch on word doubles and use of the so-called "forbidden words" because they were aplenty in this text. I only bring it up because as a writing student I'm told to look for them. But as a person and an avid reader...I just can't be moved to care about such trivialities. they weren't enough to make me not like the book. And they surely were not enough to even bother with in my opinion.

     The things that I noticed as possibly problematic were lines that could have been better written. The main line I'm talking about is this one: "...all of us go a little crazy at times," (Bloch, 24). In the film it was handled much better with better effect: "We all go a little mad sometimes," (Hitchcock). For me I just think it's less wordy and more...I don't creepy, and ominous in the film. It kept the idea and lost the odd phrasing. Which goes to show how important.

     There was also the issue of how dated it feels...and I'm not just talking about Norman's house. I realize that his house was supposed to be time warped. And I dug that. I'm talking about the prices of things. Let's take the motel room prices, Seven dollars for a single and twelve for a double. Do I even have to say how old it makes this book sound for me? the last time I looked at cheap motel/hotel rooms they were about forty bucks a night...and that was for a real craphole. It would have been better if that bit had been left out and wouldn't have as obviously that it was that old.

     Those few flaws picked out. And there really were just a few and I really had to stretch to find something, anything that I didn't like about the book. Becuase I really enjoyed this book. I read it all in one sitting over three hours. I tore through it not wanting to put it down. I found it to have a great voice, flow, and character development. I really enjoyed this book as much if not more than the film.

Works Cited 

Bloch, Robert. Psycho. New York: The Overlook Press, 2010. eBook.

Psycho. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. Anthony Perkins. 1960. DVD.