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.

American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis

This week we had to read American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis. A book about a crazy 1980's style sycophantic yuppie who may or may not have killed a bunch of people. The thing about this book is it's ambiguous enough and leaves room for some pretty heavy interpretation. After dragging you through some pretty depraved stuff, it then drops the hint that none of it may have happened at all. Either way this is a book about a bat-shit crazy (possibly homicidal), money and label-obsessed quintessential 80's jerk.

I'm going to start this post of by saying something that probably will not be popular...in my program or out of it. I prefer the movie. While it's equally fractured, and believe me, the narrative in this book is fractured as hell, the film is easier to follow than the book. I get why it was written the way it was. It's written in first person. and the narrator is a highly unreliable one, who is deeply disturbed (at best. I think he's probably in the deep end of schizophrenic, but that's just my humble Psychology degree having background talking.). And I understand why it was written this way. I had to be...but reading it was a chore. The film is a ton easier to track. Visually this stuff makes sense in print it's a giant pain in the ass to try and sort out. I just prefer the movie. While it's still convoluted, I think that this story is easier to pull off in film. It also helps that Christian Bale sort of has the look that may as well have 'serial killer tattooed' on his forehead. He's probably a lovely man in real life...I mean he's British so he probably is lovely in real life. . .but it is what is. He fit the role and did a good job. Plus he was easier to follow than the prose in this book for me.

I feel like this book was way longer than it needed to be. My copy was 436 pages....and half of it could have easily been cut without hurting the story. There were so many needless chapters,  one on Genesis, one on Whitney Houston, and one on Hewie Lewis and the News. . .Really?  Then there is the incessant obsession off every teeny tiny detail, and of every single action that gets old fast. It actually reminded me of when I was an aide working in the school system. The teacher told the first graders to "write every teeny tiny bit (when writing a story)." And for first graders that's a great plan. For adult genre fiction. . .That's a great way to bore your reader and lose their interest. Leave some of it to their imagination. I mean, if I had turned in chapters like those I mentioned above for my WIP I would have been told (even though my mentor is the shit) to drop them, cut them clean out because they have no purpose. And I'm not sure why they were included. They just dragged for me.

This scene works in the film because it's layered over action. It's not layered over action in the book. (Also, that moment when the last real Batman killed the next Joker. . . perfection. XD)

. . .and the Phil Collins scene. Again it's the action that makes it work here where it didn't in the book. 

Also, it's worth mentioning that story itself doesn't really even pick up until page 140. . .That's a problem. In fiction, we are told start as close to the story as possible. And this book does not by any means do that. I had a damn hard time getting into this book because it took 140 pages to really get going. That's not ideal for fiction. Most readers won't wait that long.

I think you could also very easily cut all the lists of what everyone is wearing, as well as the obsession with labels and designers in this book. I get why it was done...I mean it's first person so if the character is obsessed with it, it's an easy way to show it. . . It just strikes me as over used. I went into skim mode whenever a new character entered the room becuase I knew we were going to be told, in nauseating detail, every fiber and nuance of thier dress and where they bought it. . . As if the narrator could even know that unless he's stalking them as they shop. And I honestly just didn't care enough to want to read so much over description.

There was also several times when I got the distinct impression it wanted to be a screenplay and not a book.  It used a lot of script/screenplay words that just don't work well in genre fiction. I mean we get "panning down the sidewalk, " (Ellis, 10), "A slow dissolve," (Ellis, 12), and "dissolve into my living room," (Ellis, 27), among many others and I'm wondering why those choices were made. It's not the way typical genre fiction is written. Those are screenplay words, and to be honest, it made it kind of strange and unpleasant to read. Not because of the subject matter but because of how it's structured. 

I think it's also worth talking about how the sex scenes seemed like they were ripped straight from porn. It felt like a novelization of a porn. I don't have a problem with sex in books (I read anything. From "they kissed and woke in bed the next morning" to hardcore every detail sort of stuff. The sex stuff doesn't bother me)...It was just in the way these were written that rang as forced and fake. They were also just seemed really unnecessary in my opinion. They were forced filler. And nobody wants that.

I actually rather enjoyed the gory bits. I do love a good decapitation in a horror novel (I need therapy. Yes, I'm aware). I like the descriptions that were used. The eyes dribbling out like bloody yokes was a great visual image. . .well it was if you don't have an eye thing (but if you know someone who does have them read it and watch them squirm). But honestly it didn't stand out as special or unique in the way it was presented. Even the rat scene I've read a better variation of. To be honest there's a scene in Kiss the Girls by James Patterson that involves a snake (same premise) that in my opinion is written much better (and I'm not a big James Patterson fan, but I still recommend that book). It just didn't feel new or fresh in how it was presented. That said I still enjoyed the gore for the sake of gore factor. Because my black little heart skips a beat every time someone gets soundly thrashed. What can I say I'm a gore aficionado.

Over all I didn't hate it. . .but I didn't love it. The book was hard to get through because of its fractured to hell narrative and honestly it's faster to just watch the movie. . . And easier to understand/follow. I get why it was done the way it was. It was a style choice the the writer made. And it serves the character. . . It's just a pain in the ass to read. And I don't like it. Good idea, good character. . .but it just felt to fractured for the written word and better served as a film.

Save the time. Watch the movie. 

Works Cited

American Psycho. Dir. Mary Harron. Perf. Christian Bale. 2000. DVD.

Ellis, Bret Easton. American Psycho. New York: Random House LLC, 2010. eBook.

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.

The Wolfman by Jonathan Maberry

"Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright," - Maleva (Johnston).

This week we got to read The Wolfman by Jonathan Maberry. Which is a novelization of  the 2010 film The Wolfman. In the spirit of honesty, I should state that I saw the movie first. Because I love werewolves. A new werewolf movie comes out of course I went to go see it. Plus have you seen the cast of the film? They are brilliant actors and they nailed it. So I went into this book knowing exactly what was going to happen and how it would end.

So for me I didn't really care for this book. But I think it's important to say what it did right as well as what I didn't like. The first thing I loved in this book was (and I know you may all die of not shock after reading this) the gore. There is so much beautiful, lovely, dripping, severed, ripping, tearing, arterial spraying gore in this book. Which is not shocker for anyone reading this. I love gore, I love dismembered appendages, blood spray, entrails that have become extrails, and heads rolling across the ground...and this book has all of the lovely bits of gore and blood that my black little heart could desire. I'm not sure however if it's because the movie has just as much (sometimes more) gore or if it's a style choice though. But since the source material has a ton of gore I am going to favor the source material as the influence here. Usually in the book assigned for class we don't get a lot of gore...but not in this book. I loved the gore. I always say it's not a werewolf book (or movie) unless a head rolls across the ground. And this book didn't disappoint. That said the film gives us a couple rolling heads so again it come out on top.


And let's get on with what I didn't like about the book. There were a lot of scenes that were added to the book that were not in the film and didn't add anything other than sex and boobs. It was very obviously something the writer had stuck in his craw when he was writing the book. I have the unrated version (as well as the rated) and never is anyone in the film naked. The scene where he gets the letter in the beginning? Nope everyone is fully clothed..drunk and a few kisses but no sex acts. Then again with Gwen in home above her father's shop...nope no boob popping out, she never even gets undressed, they have one kiss then get buzz killed by the cops at the door. So it really left me wondering why the writer felt to fabricate these scenes? They serve no purpose, They don't move the plot forward, they are just there to add sex to a book (and a film) that was perfectly fine without it. Totally unnecessary addition IMO.

On top of the fabricated added sexy stuff, they cut one of my favorite scenes in the film to pieces for no known reason. And cut my favorite line from the film. Which for me was unforgivable. What is my favorite line you ask? Here it is "Never look back, Lawrence. Never look back. The past is a wilderness of horrors," (Johnston). I just love that line for so many reasons. Because for one, it's delivered beautifully by Sir Anthony Hopkins (Whom I adore). Two the scene itself is beautifully done and very meaningful to the subplot. And three because that line rings true in my life and I firmly believe that when you experience a horror you should not waste time looking back. Ever. And to have it cut from the book...makes me completely insane. For me omitting that line was like writing a novelization of The Crow and leaving out the line "Buildings burn, People die, but real love is forever," (Proyas). Also a cardinal unforgivable sin. The author added useless scenes and cut good ones. Which makes me a crabby Patty. Not cool, man, Not cool.

Another thing I wanted to note about the book and how it strayed from the film was the obsession with the moon and the goddess of the hunt. It got to the point that for me I started rolling my eyes every time it showed up. I seriously got sick of it. I get it. It's a werewolf that is controlled by the moon...now stop beating me over the head with it. In the film, we get a couple long shots of the moon (for obvious reasons) but we don't get this obsession with the book that the books felt the need to mention it every fifteen minutes. It got real old, real fast.
There are also some weird style choices made for this book. take page 8, the second to last paragraph:

"Ben heard the sound of his own death. He saw the flash of claws as they tore at him. He heard his clothing rip, heard the separate sounds of parting flesh and tendon, heard the scrape of claw on bone. He heard all of this from a great distance, detached from the pain that must be coursing through his nerves. He heard, but did not feel. The tethers that held him to the broken flesh were stretching, stretching," (Maberry, 8).

Holy word echos Batman! Also, If I were to write a paragraph where all but one line (in the paragraph) started with personal pronouns or a character name I'd get a good firm talking to in my writing program. It's also heavily filtered. Those "saw" and "heard" words making it very filtered away from the action in a moment where he could have really gone for the gut. Opportunity missed.

The POV of the werewolf and the wolfman were both very weird for me as well. I'm not sure why that was done, and while it was brief it just didn't work for me. If your werewolf is a killing machine then I don't want the writer to try and think it through for the reader. It ruins the fear element. I don't want to know what the werewolf/wolfman is feeling. I just want it to eat someone head...or arm...or leg. Dealers choice. Just don't try to put me in the werewolf/wolfman's head, it sounds contrived and unnatural.

I also thought that the use of what appeared to be raccoon footprints as section breaks was a little odd as a style choice as well. that however I will not blame of the writer. That was probably the choice of someone much higher up and in publishing. I'm not sure why it was done...but generally a raccoon does not inspire fear...and it doesn't really fit with the book either.

This is the front paw of a raccoon. Look familiar? It should it was the standard section break in the entirety of this book.

...And this is a raccoon. It's not scary and doesn't belong in this book.

In case you haven't seen it here's a trailer for the film. 

Overall I didn't hate this book. I just didn't like it. I much prefer the film version...in fact I'm not really sure why we needed a novelization of the film. I've read a few novelizations of film and they are always bad, and always worse than the film. I really wish they would stop making them. There is so much that can be done in film that can't be done in a novel. The scenery in The Wolfman film is gorgeous and looks vintage, and Gothic as crap just by existing. If you try to capture even a fraction of that in a book it drags. Not that this book even attempted to capture it. It supplanted old words and names for things in place of any real scenery or setting. And so lost one of the key features of the film (IMO). So if you are curious about The Wolfman (or you have only read the book) I heavily encourage you to watch the film. It's a thousand times better.

Works Cited

Maberry, Jonathan. The Wolfman. New York: Tor, 2010. Book.

The Wolfman. Dir. Joe Johnston. Perf. Benicio Del Toro & Anthony Hopkins. 2010. Blu-Ray.

The Crow. Dir. Alex Proyas. Perf. Brandon Lee. 1994. Blu-Ray

Alien

This week we got to watch the movie Alien starring Sigourney Weaver. I'm not going to summarize it for you though... Because if you lived through the 80's or 90's you already know what is about. If you missed those decades stop reading this and go watch the movie. I'm not kidding. Go. Everyone should see this film. Everyone. No, exceptions.

The first thing I want to talk about is the beginning of this film. There are approximately 6 minutes we don't see characters. All we get is scenery. Which in fiction we are good not to do. Ever. But here in this film it's shameless about is wanting you to notice and appreciate the scenery. I love that. It's so very wrong in fiction that it seems decadent and lovely in film. It's one of those things that film can pull off, but fiction cannot. Which is kind of a bummer.

Another convention that works in film but not fiction is the repeating scene. Specifically the 'we just woke up from hypersleep and we're starving scene.' This scene occurs in every film in this franchise. Go check. I'll wait. Even the prequel Prometheus has almost the exact scene. Which is great for a film franchise...but a big giant no-no in fiction.  If we use the same scene in every book in a series we get called unoriginal and the scene gets cut. Which I guess is maybe a filmmakers privilege. Even more so if your name is Ridley Scott. I guess being awesome lets you make that call.

One of my favorite parts of this movie is Ripley. For one very specific reason. Ripley was not intended to be a female character. She was written gender androgynous but intended to be male. But when they were doing casting they decided Ripley would be a female. And here's why that's awesome: she doesn't feel gender swapped. A lot of times in sci-fi/action/horror, the female characters that started as male characters don't seem authentically female. This is not one of those stories. Ripley may have started male, but she feels female. A strong, smart, capable female. And for that I love this film.

Can we all take a minute and appreciate that all the bad choice in this movie are made by the men. Usually in horror we get the "dumb blond running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door " type. I mean seriously it's a problem. We get girls who accidentally open boxes and release demons, girls who tell others about their dream demon allowing him to jump to others dreams, and girls who decide that smoking pot while having underage sex at camp and let a child drown and turn into a monster. But not in this film. In Alien, we get the guys making epically bad choices like: I'll just touch what's clearly an alien egg then stand here like a dumbass while it hops out and attacks me, or let's open the hatch and let the guy whose face is getting raped by an alien inside the ship, or let's cut off the leg of this unknown alien, and we can't forget the worse choice of all, we'll just let the guy who was face raped sit and eat with us, no need for quarantine. And who is the voice of reason? Ripley. Always Ripley. Because she's the shit.

Can we all just agree that if an android appears in a horror or sci-fi movie that they are going to be evil. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. That said I would still like someone to explain to me how they went from David (in the Alien prequel Prometheus) to the Ash model (in this film) of android? Seems like a downgrade to me. While he's just as culpable to Ash I much prefer the Michael Fassbender (David) android. Still evil but pretty. I'd sign up for a David android. No problem.

The last thing I want to talk about is the cat. It's no surprise I'm a cat person. I have a cat asleep behind me and one in my lap as I type this. But to be fair I love all animals I just find cats to be allies as I'm allergic to rodents. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But I digress. The point I was trying to make (ineffectually) was that they didn't go for the shameless emotional appeal with the cat in this film. They could have, but they didn't. They took the high road. In my opinion too often horror writers go for the lowbrow emotional appeal of killing a pet instead of going for a real scare. I think it's a crutch and it's never effective for me when they make the scare mostly about killing house pets. I hate that. To me, it's pandering and I'm glad they didn't go that way in this film. The cat is there it's in peril, just like the humans, but it's not the scare. Instead, its peril adds to the overall scare without the last ditch effort of emotional appeal over its death. And for that I say, "Thank you," to Ridley Scott.

The alien/xenomorph on Family Guy...because this post was way too serious and I can't let that stand. 

Overall I love this movie. I think it's awesome on so many levels. If you haven't seen it go watch it. You won't regret it.

Works Cited

Alien. Dir. Ridley Scott. Perf. Sigourney Weaver. 1979. Blu-Ray.

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 Funeral by Richard Mathesen

This week we read The Funeral by Richard Mathesen. A short story about a mortician who performs funerals for...well let's call them questionable monster types since it never says outright says what they are.

I'm not quite sure what genre this short story is supposed to be in. Because it certainly didn't feel like horror. In fact the campy nature of this short seemed almost like a kids story. It wasn't scary and at times seemed like it was written for people who don't read horror. I got serious Munsters feels from this short. Monsters as the quirky neighbors not as being scary.

It was super campy, and the monsters very cliche. I have no problem with campy monsters. I love camp....yet I didn't like this very much. I think that was for two different reasons.

The first being that I wasn't sure where or when it was set. The language made it sound old. The language also made it seem...British. I say that because through word choice it sounds way more highbrow and proper than an American song. Words like "pendium"(Mathesen, 261) "diffident" (Matheson, 263), "solicitude" (Matheson, 262), "Indeed" (Matheson, 264), and "felicitous" (Matheson, 266), among others made this sound both old a British to me.

The second thing that annoyed me in this short story was that it totally lacked character ark. Morton Silkline doesn't change at all. He's the same money grubbing guy of questionable repute on page 269 as he was on page 261. He had no ark and for me that left no real point for the story.

That said I did like the variety of creatures that appear in this short story. I'm not quiet sure what the last monster is but he's definitely unique.  Which is always awesome and refreshing. I probably won't read it again. I'm glad I read it...even if I'm no quiet sure what genre is supposed to fall into.

Works Cited

Matheson, Richard. I Am Legend. New York City: Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 1995. E-book.

I Am Legend by Richard Matheson

     The first book we read for our Reading in Genre Horror Monsters class was I am Legend by Richard Matheson. If you haven't read it it's definitely worth a read. It's about a man who is slowly going crazy set against the backdrop of the vampire apocalypse. 

What I Liked

     First things first last semester we read Hell House by Matheson...and I was not a fan to say the least. This one I liked a lot more. Overall it was way shorter and it progressed faster. 

Some Great Lines:

     One of the things that made me really like this book is that there were some really well written lines...or at least lines that stuck with me or that jumped out at me. Here are a few of my personal favorite that showcase some of the books highlights: "If she became ill, it irritated her. She was annoyed by sickness. She seemed to regard it as a personal affront," (Matheson, 39) and "Suddenly, like the eyes of a sleeper who has a definite job to do upon awakening; who does not move into consciousness with a vague entry, but with a single, clear-cut motion, knowing just what is to be done,"(Matheson, 45). I think what appeals to me the most about both of those lines is how well they show you the characters without telling you. They are so well written that you see them so vividly. I also like the first line because it perfectly describes myself when I get sick. So only a slight personal bias on that one. 

Viral Vampires:

     After having read two of Matheson's books I have noticed that he really likes to ground his horror in science. Which for my science loving self is just awesome. I definitely get the sense that he did his research on this one. I love that the vampires are viral. I love the logic/scientific explanation of the vampires. It helps make the fantastic seem real. 

What I didn't like:

Things We Are Warned About As Writers:

     I would really like to draw attention to pages 21 and 23. As I was reading these pages I noticed a repetition of the ending ing. The dreaded ing-ing. Each of the aforementioned pages have it occurring no less than 18 times each page. That's a long of ing's. when you combine that with the ly's that pop up in conjunction then it kind of makes those pages a hot mess. It's one of those things that I wouldn't have noticed before enrolling at SHU but now I can't not see it. While it does annoy me...it also comforts me. Matheson sold a lot of books so even though we are told it's wrong, it still gets through.

     Can we take a moment and talk about page 24 and the horrible word echo that for me stood out like a sore thumb. We get one sentence ending with the word consciousness and the next starting with the word consciously. Yuck. Just yuck. I don't know that I have ever read anything that had that blatant a word echo and it really got my hackles up.

Characters:

    So again I have to compare this book to Hell House also by Matheson and I am left wondering what does this dude have against women? On page 44 we get almost a tiny bit of meta on this when it says "Why do you always experiment on women," (Matheson). And honestly I was wondering why are the women always weak, evil, or victims in his books. Seriously?!?! What kind of misogynistic crap is that? Not cool Matheson, not cool. That is actually one of the main reasons I could never really say I am a fan of Matheson. When you are female, and all the female characters are bad, evil, weak, or victims, you can't really connect with the story. 

And yes I just used a meme from the film to shame the book. For which I am not sorry.

George R.R. Martin's getting it right.

And so is my spirit animal Joss Whedon. 

The Ending:

     Okay, this one is going to be short. The last three words of the book are the title. Ugh. Just ugh. I'm not sure why but it seriously annoys me when the title of the book is placed in the book. It just seems like the author was trying way to hard to make the title fit the book. Yuck. I don't like it and I really wish writers wouldn't do it. 

Final Thoughts:

     Over all I liked this book. Will I read it again...probably not. To be honest and I know this will probably get me a lot of boo's but, I like the 2007 movie I Am Legend more than the book (and it's not just because in the film I got to look Will Smith for almost two hour...although that didn't hurt he's very easy on the eyes). I prefer it because it basically sidestepped all the problems of the book. Gone is the sexism, and the above mentioned writing flaws. That said the movie did make them more zombie than vampire...but hey it worked. Anyway I am glad I read the book, and I would recommend others read it at least once, but I won't be reading it again because I can't connect to any of the characters. 

Yet another reason to love the movie: He talks to mannequins and it cracks my ass up. 

Works Cited

Matheson, Richard. I Am Legend. New York City: Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 1995. E-book.

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

This week we got to read a great Victorian era story by Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol. I was actually really excited to re read this story because I haven't read this since I was little. My mom used to read this to me very Christmas, a few pages at a time before bed every night. I think the first time she read this to me I was 6 or seven years old. And I loved it. Which probably explains a lot about me and my love of Gothic and Victorian fiction.

I'm not going to do this post the way I normally do. Generally I talk about what I like and don't like about this, but today I am just going to talk about it a little bit because it's such a wonderfully layered story for being so short.

The first thing I want to talk about is the first line of the story. "Marley was dead to begin with," (Dickens, 16). That may be the single best first line in ever. I freaking love it. You know right off the bat what this story is about. Dead folks, lots and lots of dead folks. Well played Dickens well played.

A lot of the reasons I love this time period of fiction is because of the love of language and words that is present. To put it bluntly, no one writes like that anymore. And I'm pretty sure I know the reason. The period is characterized by repetition or the same or similar words, the tangents, and the references to Shakespeare, that characterized the genre and time period. They are all things that have fallen out of favor or a frowned upon in current writing practice. I know because I have been dinged on several of these areas in my own work. But when this era is my influence and style I think I may be existing in the wrong genre perhaps. The most obvious repetition in the book is in the very first chapter. We get "There is no doubt that Marley was dead," (Dickens, 16) or some variation of that over and over through out the first chapter. I find it funny that this book is held up as great literature but this sort of repetition or word echoes are so chastised in current writing. It doesn't seem fair to me as in my opinion I feel it is beautiful writing regardless of time period. And I feel like it sets the mood.

The flip side of this story being a shining example of it's time period is that it comes off a morality tale...a heavily Christian morality tale. If you're a Christian you may not even notice. But if you were to remove that element of the story there would be nothing except an angry old rich guy who never changes. I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just noting it because for me it became painfully obvious that's what this was. It's less (if at all) about haunting and more about telling a morality tale about not being a jack-A. Label it accurately people.

I'm still not quiet sure why I had to read this story for a genre in horror class...it's not horror...it just isn't. Victorian, yes. Gothic, you betcha (fog much?). Morality tale, absolutely. But horror...not by a long shot. I mean consider that this story has been adapted for children a hundred times. By Disney and Jim Hansen. My personal favorite being The Muppets Christmas Carol. I hardly think that it would have been adapted for children if it were horror.  Sure he's haunted by ghost but in no way is it horror. If anything it's a ghostly shaming.

I'm not even sorry. Enjoy this song from The Muppets Christmas Carol.

Works Cited

Dickens, Charles. The Christmas Carol. London: Simon & Schuster, 2013. E-Book.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

This week in class we got to read The Exorcism of Emily Rose. A paranormal courtroom drama based on supposedly true events in the life of a young woman named Emily Rose. This is not my first time watching this movie, in fact I didn't have to buy a copy because I already had one. I'm a fan of one of the main actresses so of course it was already in my collection. I've seen it a couple of times but I re-watched it so that I would have specific things to talk about for this post. 

What I Liked:

Jennifer Carpenter:

Okay, so I am a huge Jennifer Carpenter fan from her days on Dexter as Dexter's foul mouthed sister Debra Morgan. I really just loved that character. Rarely do women get to be the foul mouth, and not only was Debra a foul mouth she had some of the best one liners and creative cursing I have every heard and enjoyed. She made me laugh. So yeah I watched this movie the first time because I liked Jennifer and she didn't disappoint me. She was excellent in this film in her portrayal of a woman who is definitely afflicted with something (more on that later). She's mad brilliant and I love her in this film...but I'm not going to lie I kind of missed the foul mouth. And I will always love her as Debra best. If you want to see what I am talking about and you haven't seen Dexter watch this clip here (but free warning it's fairly profane), and watch Dexter on Netflix. It's awesome and Jennifer is awesome in it.

A couple Debra non profane moments for your enjoyment. 

The Demon Eyes/Great Visual Effects:

I also really enjoyed the special effects in this film. From the demon eyes that seemed to leak black goo to the awesome make up they did on Jennifer to show her deteriorating state. I felt that it was really well done and didn't seem to over the top compared to what we've seen in movies like The Exorcist films were. They seemed plausible and realistic...well except the demon eyes. Those where just awesome.

The Scientific Approach to Possession:

Not that anyone is surprised at this point but I loved the scientific approach to this movie. My little scientific heart skipped a beat when I first watched it. I'm a big fan of trying to disprove this sort of thing. That said there are some glaring problems with this movies science. First of all the one doctor claims he would treat her with ECT more commonly known as electroshock therapy. Here's the problem with that: ECT is used only by consent and has not been used on psychosis since the 70's. It's actually used only for major depressive disorder now and never with out full consent. If they were going to use that they  should have set this back when that ECT was still used for that. Just the same I liked the effort but they should have done their research before they used that.

Accurate Depiction of SIB, Rigidity, and Destruction of Property

I really enjoyed the accurate depiction of the ailments that Emily Rose suffered. The postures and behaviors of actress Jennifer Carpenter where spot of for these sorts of manifestations of behavior. First of all I love the pure physicality of the actress. Second I work with kids who exhibit several of these behaviors and she freaking nailed it. The frozen rigid poses (I actually see this regularly), the SIB, the destruction of property, they nailed those to. To someone who doesn't work with people who do these sorts of things regularly then I'm sure it could be seen as demonic, for me I saw it as accurate portrayal of mental illness. Around 51 minutes into the film Emily Rose is frozen on the floor in a perfect representation of a behavior I have seen represented in real life as recently as this week. It was so accurate I wanted to clap. Sure it's a weird thing to enjoy but when there are so many bad representations of these behaviors out there, when you see a good one you applaud the pains they went to make it perfect.

The blackout contacts make this seem way scarier than it actually is in real life. But still awesome. 

Ending Quote:

"Once You've looked into the darkness, I believe you carry it with you the rest of your life" (Derrickson). Need I say more? That's a brilliant line and I love it. They did an excellent job with dialogue in this film in not only rang true but had a lot of profound moments. I'm not spiritual, nor religious but I really appreciated the way the words where crafted in this film. They were well thought out and meaningful. The above quote just happens to stand out to me as possibly the best one.

What I Didn't Like:

Based On A True Story:

Can we not? The film starts with "This film is based on a true story," (Derrickson) and every time I see those words I swear my ass twitches. All it took was a simple google search to find out that one Emily Rose doesn't exist, Father Moore doesn't exist, the names are pure fiction. The movie is influenced by supposed real events that occurred to Anneliese Michel in 1976, the priest is an amalgamation of a Reverend and a Priest that tried to exorcised her. Also it's worth noting that Anneliese didn't just have 1 exorcism, she had 67, she chose to stop eating (trying to fast the demons out), she wasn't forced to do so, and  it is pretty widely excepted that her whole possession was a fraud, that was heavily influenced by the movie The Exorcist that came out two years before. I also find it destroys credibility for this story that Anneliese's parents had her body exhumed and reburied in a tin lined oak casket (to make sure the demon stayed inside her dead body)...So clearly being a crazy pants runs in the family. If they were going to change so much then they should have said inspired by not based on true events. Then it would have made a little less of a Crabby Patty. 

So Not A Horror Movie:

Yeah so am I the only one who noticed this is not a horror movie. It's a paranormal courtroom drama at best. Not a horror movie. I am really annoyed with how Hollywood will slap horror on so many movies that just aren't horror (*coughs* The Village *coughs*). This is another example of Hollywood pandering to an audience that they think will make them the most money but not living up to the genre convention in a pretty big way. The whole bill it as this, when it's really that is obnoxious and I wish they would stop doing that. If you are a hard core horror fan (and I am) and you see this is the horror section, you will most likely be upset when it doesn't deliver on it's promises. Not cool Hollywood, stop doing this.

Final Thoughts:

Admittedly this film has it's flaws, but over all it's a really good film and I genuinely enjoys it. That said if it weren't for Jennifer Carpenter's performance I may not have received it so well. A lot of the flaws I was able to overlook because of her amazing physical performance.

Works Cited

The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Dir. Scott Derrickson. Perf. Laura Linney & Jennifer Carpenter. 2005. DVD.

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.