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.

Cycle of the Werewolf by Stephen King

This week we got to read Cycle of the Werewolf by Stephen King. And I really don't think I need to tell anyone that when you combine Stephen King and werewolves I'm in and I'll love it. And this is book lives up to that. This was closed to my 15 read of his book. I didn't have to buy it for class because I had a first edition book that my mother bought when it came out. My mother had great taste. Anyway without further ado here are my thoughts on this book.

Can we take a minute and talk about how this book starts, "Somewhere, high above, the moon shine down, fat and full--but here, in Tarker's Mills, a January blizzard has cooked the sky with snow. The wind rams full force down a deserted Center Avenue; the orange town plowed have given up long since," ( King, 13). It starts with ever scenery and weather. Two things as writers we are told ad nauseum ad infinitum not to do. And yet here it is and by the amazing Mr. Stephen King. I'm just saying, that is pretty awesome. It gives me hope. A lot of hope.

I also wanted to talk about the style choices that are made in this book. We don't meet the main character (Marty) until page 61. That's highly unusual... But it works. This book is almost like a series of short stories based around a central theme. That in my opinion is a really cool style choice and I really like it.

*Spoiler Alert* Can we talk about how the May chapter tells you that Reverend Lowe is the werewolf. I knew reading through this time who the wolf was. I challenge others to go back and reread the May chapter and see how masterfully King tells you it's him without telling you. I mean why wouldn't you stand up and accuse everyone else in town of being the wolf when you are yourself the wolf. Also the werewolf dream. In werewolf fiction dreams are huge and usually only occur to those who are turning or are werewolves themselves. And that's why Stephen King is the man.

The last thing I want to talk about is the body count and gore in this book. Nine dead people (if you don't count the Reverend), and nine pigs... That's a huge body count and yet there is very little gore. And that makes me sad. I want gore. I want buckets and bathtubs full of blood. I want severed appendages flailing and heads rolling. In fact my only compliant is that I wanted more gore.

Over all I really enjoyed this book. I have read it before and I'll read it again. I love werewolves. I love Stephen King. In my book that makes this book a Reese's peanut butter cup. Two great taste that taste great together.

Works Cited

King, Stephen. Cycle of the Werewolf. New York. Penguin Group, 1983

The Shining by Stephen King

     So this week we got to read The Shining by Stephen King. Now I'm not going to lie, this is not my first time reading this book...in fact this isn't even my 5th time reading this book. It's closer to around the 10th read for me. It's not a secret. I am a huge Stephen King fan and I have read most of his book repeatedly. I would go so far as to say if their were a god of fiction. For me that god would be Stephen King. I love the man and his work. So I was beyond relived that this book was selected for this weeks reading. It was a very pleasant surprise. I'll try not to gush to much but anyway here are my thoughts on The Shining.

What I liked:

On Style: 

     I have heard from a few people that Stephen King has an odd writing style and I guess if you are not used to his style this may have been an unpleasant read for you. That is not the case for me though. I love Mr. King's writing style. I love his descriptions. I absolutely adore how he describes events in the book. Here are a few examples of his lovely descriptions: "Aspen leaves whirled and skittered in aimless packs across the lawn that was now nearly mowed and tended for no guests eyes." (King, 83), "She was bloated and purple, her gas-filled belly rising out of the cold, ice-rimmed water like some fleshy island," (King, 183), "Blood splattered across the wallpaper. Shards of bone leaped into the air like broken piano keys," (King, 357), and "Glass belched out onto the snow and twinkled there like jagged diamonds, (King, 362).  There are more but I'm sure you get the picture. I just love how he describes things. You can't not be there with him in those moments as they happen. The man has a way of making you see these things in a new way and I love it.

Progression of Mental Illness:

  Can we just talk about the progression of mental illness in this book for a minute? When Jack finally looses his mind it's earned absolutely (stands up, does a happy dance, and shouts "finally a book that gets it right!"). Mr. King shows us this by the repeated (and ever increasing) of acts like the mouth wiping. Okay, so yeah we all mouth wipe to some extent but this shows us that his obsessive oral fixation is gaining traction. So you are probably asking why is this important? So here's the answer. Okay, I'm going to go psych major on you for a minute. When I say oral fixation I am not talking about Freud's oral fixation. I know in literary circles Freud is used all the time. But In psych circles Freud was an impotent, sex obsessed, quack, that has been widely discredited/debunked. When I say oral fixation I mean a compulsion to touch ones mouth or place things into ones mouth as a means of comforting self stimulation (Comer). The increase in this behavior shows that Jack is loosing it. That fact that this was attended to makes my little Psychy-heart skip a beat. Well played Mr. King, well played. It also shows the escalation of his mental state. As he begins to loose it, he wipes his mouth more.

Open To Interpretation: 

     I also love how this book could be interpreted in many ways. The first way is haunted hotel. Which could absolutely be backed up by the text ten fold. But there is also mental illness and mass hysteria (here's an over simplified version on what mass hysteria is) that could be argued as well. What Mr. king did here was that he placed just enough information to back up whatever the reader wanted to see. Was Jack crazy (Absolutely), was everyone else (to some extent yes), or are there really ghosts (possibly)? This book was written beautifully to straddle that line. We get lines where we can see the psychology at work like this:

"It had nothing to do with will power, or the morality of drinking, or the weakness or strength of his own character. There was a broken switch somewhere inside, or a circuit breaker that didn't work, and he had been propelled down the chute willynilly, slowly at first, then accelerating as Stovington applied it's pressure on him," ( King, 88).

     Then we get lines where we see object moving on their own (Pick any of the elevator starts itself scenes and insert them here) that show that maybe it's not all mental. This is why it's so brilliantly written. If you want to see ghosts (or demons) you see that. If you want to see mental illness you see that too. Personally I am on the mental illness side. Not just because of the mass hysteria though. I would argue that Jack is possibly in a Dissociative Fugue state. What is a Dissociative Fugue you ask. This is dissociative Fugue: "A dissociative disorder  in which a person travels to a new location and may assume a new identity, simultaneously forgetting his or her past," (Cromer, 205). But instead of it all happening at once we see the progression of the illness that starts with him subnormal (because let's face it Jack was never mentally healthy to start with) and then ends with him taking a mallet to his face because he is clearly not there anymore. For me this really explains Jack's behavior. That said I can see how you could read this book on the level as ghosts as well. And that's why Stephen King is an amazing writer. It hit mass appeal for those with intense psychological backgrounds and for those without it.

Time Jumps:

     Another thing worth mentioning is how time is dealt with in this book. Yes, it does jump around a bit (mostly toward the end) but it didn't bother me that much in this book because it was either framed as a dream/daydream/flashback or we were strictly told what was going on while the current scene was playing out. "At the Overlook, Wendy and Danny were discussing matters of life and death with the previous caretaker," (King, 336). It flat out tells us hey I time jumped a bit but this is what's also going on at the same time in a different location. I love that he did this it shows us exactly how all the puzzle pieces fit into the story. Straub could take a lesson from King on this matter.

The Ending:

    *Spoiler Alert!!!!!* 

     Can we take a minute and look how this book ends? Who is left standing and who quite literally went down in flames? We have little Danny, his mom Wendy, and Dick Hallorann. No seriously, look at the ending. This is what sets Mr. King aside from other horror writers his ability to include nonmale and nonwhite characters as the victors. This book was written almost 40 years ago. The fact that Dick Hallorann saves the day is huge. Why aren't more people talking about this? I absolutely adore Dick Hallorann, he's a total bad ass and he's a total sweetheart. The fact that he's African American in a genre predominantly written about (and by) white men is huge. Now I can't speak to the authenticity of the character as an African American man (For obvious reasons). But I can say that I appreciate the diversity that Mr. King brings to the genre. Also if you like that the hero is African American may I suggest you read It also by King because the main POV narrator is also African American.

      On top of ethnic diversity we get Wendy who is a really strong female character. Can we take a minute and talk about how for once it wasn't the female going crazy and making bad choices???? Thank you Stephen King! Sure, she doesn't save the day but she took a lot of blows to the midsection with a mallet without wining to much. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that she too is a bad ass. This is another reason I think Steven King is highly underrated. He isn't afraid to go there, when other horror writers are just all "the women go crazy" or "all women are at fault for this bad thing that is happening" and with most other horror writers the hero is always white and usually male. Thank you Mr. King for realizing that the ladies and those of nonwhite origins can kick ass too. Also if you want to read a book where a female saves the day I highly recommend Under the Dome by Stephen King (Julia is awesome). So you can see this awesome writer is still making inroads to horror for those who are not of majority.

It's nice to see the guy loose his shit for once. 

Grammar:

     The last thing I want to talk about under my likes are the grammar choices Mr. King makes. As a writing student we are told at length to not use the word had. Stephen King really kind of flipped the bird to that rule in this book though. In fact he uses "had had" (That's right two "hads" back to back) 12 times in this book. On top of that he just flat out uses had...A lot. On page 23 alone there are 11 uses of the word 'had." So knowing this best selling popular author uses it makes me feel a lot better about using it myself. Mostly because if there was a writer I would most like to emulate in my own work it would be Stephen King. He's the shit!

And yes I know this line is not in the book. 

But who can resist Jack being crazy? Not this observer. 

What I Didn't Like:

I figured if I found something good in each book I hated or didn't like it was only fair that I found something I didn't like in a book I loved. It's nitpicky BS but I had to find something. So here's to being fair.

The Back-Story. 

Okay, so I know this book is almost 40 years old. Which probably explains the issue more than anything but here it is. I work with kids in crisis for my day job. If a kid went to the hospital with a parental inflicted broken arm that kid would be in protective custody so fast the parents head would spin. If this story happened now, Jack may never have gotten to be around Danny again, and if he did it wouldn't have been until after he went through court ordered therapy, anger management, and a time period from 3 to six months where all family members would be closely watched to make sure it was safe for Danny to return home (see I told you it was nit picky BS, but I had to find something). I had to just chock it up to abuse laws being laxer at the time this book was written then they are now. But as long as I could compartmentalize that this book is almost 40 years old it didn't bother me that much. It only annoyed me a little.

On Obedience: 

Can we talk about how obedient Danny is to his father for a minute? He's an over the top, well behaved, obedient kid. "Obedience was so strongly ingrained in him that he actually took two automatic steps toward the sound of the voice before stopping," (King, 353). I'm calling BS on that. I work with kids from age 3-18 and not one of them is anything like that. I would be out of a job if kids were actually like that. Plus lets be honest if this story where set today none of us would buy that Danny was that good of a kid. He would also be steeped in social services up to his eyebrows (but that's neither here nor there). Again though, I realized that this book is almost forty years old and little Danny would now be 42-ish years old. So I can get past it. Times have changed, maybe kids where better back then (What was that like?). It's not a major road block for me, but it does date the text. It happens, so I am willing to look the other way.

Final Thoughts:

     Over all I loved this book. I've read it before. I will read it again...probably several times. Stephen King is and always will be one of my favorite writers. I love the way he describes things, I love how differently he writes the world and I love that he brings diversity to horror as a genre. The man is a freaking rockstar, and I adore him. Sure the text was a little dated but it's old so that is to be expected. It wasn't enough to kick me out, and it wasn't enough to even bother me (not really). I only bring it up because I wanted to be fair since I ripped apart the other books we've read so far I thought I should at least point out a few potentially negative things in a book I love. As Stephen King wrote in his short story Secret Window, Secret Garden, "Fair is fair and right is right," (253).


*Also sorry if this is a little scattered. I have a sinus infection and pneumonia so I'm super medicated and half out of my mind. If it doesn't make sense lets blame the viral plague I am infected with and the meds I have to take to get over it.

Works Cited

Comer, Ronald J. Abnormal Psychology. New York City: Worth Publishing, 2007. Text Book.

King, Stephen. The Shining. New York City: Doubleday, 1977. E-Book.

King, Stephen. "Secret Window, Secret Garden." King, Stephen. Four Past Midnight. New York         City: Viking Penguin, 1990. 253-399. Book.