Salem's Lot?

'Salem's Lot was the one focused on vampires.

For "the Mist" he got the idea standing in line at the supermarket and sort of visualized what it would be like if a pterodactyl like creature was flying around in there. The movie was ok....

The first edition of "The Stand" was much better than the second. The made for TV movie was the first time EVER that I liked a filmed version of a good book. The second edition made me agree with his first editor who made him cut that stuff out.

I love his work, have read everything I could and still wait anxiously for the next book. He said there weren't going to be any more a few years back, that he had made enough money, and that he wouldn't be publishing anything else. When he said that he mentioned "From a Buick 8" and some other works in the pipeline, so I don't know if he has changed his mind, or if that is a long pipeline.

Check out his son's work too....

I never liked "Rose Madder" or "Geralds Game" "Deloris Claiborne" was ok. His short stories are almost all awesome. It is amazing how many of his short stories have been filmed. I think the short story is better than a full length novel for film adaptation usually anyway.

His book "On Writing" has a lot of good advice for non english majors who want to write.

The Dome will have to come out in paperback, I insist on owning Stephen King

Have any of you ever read his Richard Bachman works? "The Long Walk" is horrifying but without monsters, and I didn't even know who Stephen King was when I read it.... "Thinner" too.

The books he wrote with Peter Straub are excellent also. "The Talisman", and "The Eyes of the Dragon" and then the 15 years later sequel to"The Talisman", "The Dark House" The Gunslinger series actually took an entire generation for him to write, and I was VERY disappointed at the end.

froglipz wrote:
I think the short story is better than a full length novel for film adaptation usually anyway.

I cannot think of a counter example. Short stories have more in common with films than novels. No unnecessary characters, plot driven, minimal character development--there isn't time.

It is often fun to watch different director's versions of stories. Shane is an example, I'll take the Ford version but the others are just as valid. I know, Shane was published as a "novel" but it is written as if it were a short story and that is why it works so well.

froglipz wrote:'Salem's Lot was the one focused on vampires.





Have any of you ever read his Richard Bachman works? "The Long Walk" is horrifying but without monsters, and I didn't even know who Stephen King was when I read it.... "Thinner" too.

The books he wrote with Peter Straub are excellent also. "The Talisman", and "The Eyes of the Dragon" and then the 15 years later sequel to"The Talisman", "The Dark House" The Gunslinger series actually took an entire generation for him to write, and I was VERY disappointed at the end.

I remember "the Long Walk". It was a horrifying story for sure. I think I read that in a book with four stories in it, and one of them was about a boy who brings a gun to school and shoots his classmates, or threatens to. That story was terrifying, too, and it was a shocker because it was published in the days before Columbine. I understand that Stephen King will not allow that story to be printed any more,but I don't know it that's true or just an urban legend.

I loved his books with Peter Straub, too.

"Rage" And it was not only before Columbine, but before the other widely publicized school shootings as well. He started writing it in 1966, before any inkling of school shootings was out there. There are some under educated people who credit King for inventing the school shooting. I can imagine that King might feel a little bit like he doesn't want to capitalize on that. I don't know if it is true either.

"The Running Man" came from that same anthology

ORELIA- Salem's Lot. I started reading it but I couldn't get into it though.

I was looking over my Stephen King books this morning, and I saw "The Dead Zone" "Firestarter" and "Bag of Bones" I had forgotten how much I liked all of those books, they were fascinating with thought provoking ideas, but none of them were gory and disgusting. I guess that's why I am hot and cold about Stephen King. I either love his books, or I can't get through them. I like Stephen King, though. In interviews he seems like such a genuinely nice man. It's hard to believe such a normal, sweet acting guy could come up with some of the things he does.

He is genuinely afraid of the dark and things that go bump in the night. He always had a hard time with Hotel rooms because reaching into the dark room to find the switch he just "KNEW" that a hand was going to grab him or a claw or....

You are right some of the stuff he writes is horrifying without the gore or monsters, human nature is some of the best fodder for a good story. I like almost everything he does, he probably could write

His Richard Brachman books are pretty good. Now I am not a writer but I do not understand why he used a different name for them. Everyone that reads his books knows that it is him. Blaze is probably my favorite for the Richard books.

His Bachman books have a somewhat different flavor. They don't usually have a "monster" in them, but rather a "superhuman" They look more toward the darker side of what people can be or do, and rely less on supernatural elements, although those people sometimes have an unnatural ability or two. Blaze was good too, but try "Roadwork, Thinner, The Long Walk, Dolan's Cadillac, or Roadwork" too