Quantum Leap "S.O.S." Review (Spoilers)
Mar. 7th, 2023 07:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matt_zimmerAlso reviews for the latest episodes of The Simpsons, The Great North, Bob's Burgers, and Family Guy, the first two episodes of the final season of The Blacklist, and the novel The Regulators.
Quantum Leap "S.O.S."
The old show RARELY did Leaps that effected Sam or Al's immediate family. They saved those for special occasions. I like that big moments like those on the sequel means it doesn't live or die by the season premieres / finales. Regular episodes are allowed real emotional stakes.
Brandon Routh is perfect casting as Addison's father in a way the viewer can appreciate (but Addison cannot). Her father is literally Superman, and she doesn't know it, and could never see it. I think Routh was a VERY deliberate casting choice for that reason.
The stuff with Martinez at the end threw me, and is another pile of questions added to the ongoing mystery. What the hell is actually going on here?
I love the moment where Magic says he doesn't believe the Leaps are random, and that they are the "Moral Arc of the Universe" as described by Martin Luther King. Not to get too much into religion, but that's the way Sam Beckett saw it too. And it's clear Magic is the missing Dr. Beckett's biggest living acolyte.
I love that an episode that big, with that much at stake for Addison, didn't just occur outside of a premiere or finale. It was outside of Sweeps month too. It means the show believes delivering big, personal stories is something it should normally be doing from week to week, which is the correct mindset.
This episode highlights a plothole constantly inherent in Quantum Leap, and something that could be leveled at many episodes. But if whoever is controlling the Leaps wanted to make Ben's job as easy as possible, Ben would have Leaped into the Commander who screwed things up. It's more narratively interesting for Ben to have to change hearts and minds as an outsider. In reality, it would be better for all concerned if he Leaped into the person who made the mistake in the first place.
I loved Quantum Leap back before loving Quantum Leap was cool. And yet, it contained some very real narrative faults, that hit me wrong at the time, and have only looked even more appalling to me with 30 years hindsight. I like this show because it's everything I love about the old show, while fixing every single problem I ever had with it. Am I going there? Am I saying this iteration of the show is better than the original series? Unequivocal YES. I know the controversy I am stirring by saying that. But I say it because I believe it to be true.
That was a great episode. Quantum Leap has always been a bit of a fan favorite. And deeply flawed at the same. I love the sequel for reminding me of everything I loved about the original series, without ever once making me feel bad for watching it because it's dated and offensive. I love being allowed to love Quantum Leap again. Not being able to love this show as much as I used to actually hurt a bit. This show is a refreshing salve on that mental wound for that reason. ****1/2.
The Simpsons "Bartless"
That hit the correct emotional beats and explored a genuine problem about the series that the audience sort of took for granted. But I still didn't like it. I guess because although I love it whenever Bart is taken down a few pegs and his behavior is treated as harmful instead of mischievous, I feel like this episode couldn't make up its mind about that, and the messages it did have weren't all that credible.
I understand it was a dream sequence. But while part of me understands and believes the idea that the Simpsons would be rich, successful, and happy if Bart didn't exist, it doesn't wash. Bart is responsible for a LOT of the family's hardships (and I'd argue most of its unhappiness), but Homer is problematic person on his own with or without Bart's help. Bart's nonexistence cannot change the fact that Homer is both stupid and harmful. I can lay down much of the family's unhappiness on Bart. I can. But the fact that the parents are unsuccessful? That's mostly down to Homer. The show is kidding itself if it thought I'd ever believe otherwise.
And the idea it was a dream sequence bothered me so much because it was had by the both of them. I could have accepted it if it were Marge's, and I could have accepted it (admittedly less) if it was Homer's. But making it BOTH of theirs makes no sense, especially since neither of them are spooked by that fact, and believe they just experienced a psychic experience for the first time ever. And that's not what the episode is about, and I get that, but it makes it feel unrealistic and poorly written.
I am of mixed feelings about the idea of Bart ruining 25 library books turning out to be a net positive. First of all, it's nice to see his new teacher again. Second of all, even if Homer and Marge were too hard on him, and saw the worst in him because they dislike him, the truth is whether or not that was an actual mistake or bad action on his end, I felt like everything they said about how damaging and frustrating he is was true, needed to be said at some point, and them being wrong undercut the necessity of them actually telling Bart how impossible he is to live with. I understand on some level the show cannot let Homer and Marge speaking to their son so harshly and cruelly simply stand. But I've watched this show for over 30 years, and have been more and more disgusted as the decades have worn on that Bart's sociopathic cruelty has been treated by the writers as supposedly cute. Hearing his parent lay into him was cathartic to me as a person who hates him, and to have them have to rethink the rant and their opinion about the little creep makes me unhappy. Whether Bart's actions were a net positive for the kids and the library or not, I agree with every foul thing Homer and Marge tag-teamed him with.
I'll tell you something I liked. And it's not something the show ever bothered to do before. But I betting I'm not the first fan to notice. Didn't the Itchy & Scratchy cartoon look great? They actually animated it in a more fluid and flailing style than the show itself is animated in. The characters in the cartoons previously have always had simpler designs and backgrounds. But the animation level to the show used to be truly identical, which frankly makes it feel less like an entirely different cartoon inside the world than it should. The show put up the money to make it look and feel different here, and like an actual big-budget cartoon. And Itchy & Scratchy cartoons on the show are a rarity now, so I doubt the show saw upping their game and potentially having to do that for every potential future Itchy & Scratchy appearance is as daunting as it would have been while the characters were still appearing several times per season.
I've rambled on in this review. I feel like the episode was well-made and properly explored a long-standing problem. But I disagreed with the conclusions it reached so strongly that I couldn't actually bring myself to, you know, actually ENJOY it. **.
The Great North "Boy Meats World Adventure"
Not feeling it. Why? I think Lone Moose values and celebrates stupid things.
And you know, when Honeybee is offering comedy suggestions to Wolf, you can pretty much tune out whatever she's saying the second she advises him to remember the workshop by Carlos Mencia they attended. That joke is done to make Honeybee sound stupid and low-rent, but why would I appreciate the show doing that?
Annoying episode. *1/2.
Bob's Burgers "These Boots Are Made For Stalking"
Tina is an extremely frustrating character and I wish I could go through my TV and shake her and yell at her, and tell her what she is doing wrong.
First of all, she is absolutely right that that group of teenagers is cool. And they are some of the first cool characters ever seen on the show. There is a cool adult here and there, granted, but very few younger characters on the show.
Tina's problem and the reason she frustrates me is she misidentifies why they are cool. She thinks it must be the music or the clothing. They are cool and outside of the rest of the people at Tina's school because they are refreshingly normal and sane. That is the thing Tina is actually responding to, and I could have told her worrying about the music and the clothes is counterproductive. Those kids are cool because they talk and behave like real people instead of ill-mannered or gross cartoon characters. And stalking and hovering around that type of person is UNCOOL. Linda's means well in her advice, but she is missing the forest for the trees. Probably because Linda is so uncool herself. She can't be any help there for that reason.
I think Bob and Linda were acting TOO cool in this episode, actually. They are doing their daughter no favors by humoring her doing something this nuts. I would actually see the logic of indulging this if Tina were the type of kid who asks for so little and just this once NEEDS this. But Tina is constantly doing crap like this, as are Gene and Louise, and Bob and Linda are entirely too permissive and understanding. And that frustrates me too, especially because for the most part, Bob himself is a good parent.
Gene and Louise were revolting this episode. I give any episode where Gene creepily mentions his "wein" a negative grade on general principle. People LOVE this show, but I can't get over the fact that I seem to be the only one to complain about how gross Gene Belcher is. It's not funny or cute. It's creepy, especially with his adult voice.
So here's that negative grade for an episode that isn't terrible, but is still frustrating on every level. **1/2.
Family Guy "White Meg Can't Jump"
Gilbert Gottfried had a role on Family Guy before he died! And he poked fun at himself! The Fox airing dedicated the episode to him but the Hulu version didn't.
I like the self-aware joke of Family Guy saying it's only on Britney's side now because it's popular. And really, that's Family Guy's entire problem regarding celebrities. Some of their slams (and even compliments) have aged MEGA poorly. Not as bad as The Simpsons venerating Elon Musk. But ballpark.
The Stewie stuff didn't do much for me because I think the B story couldn't decide what it was about, which is usually why bad Family Guy stories are bad. The good thing is it WAS the B story, but still it felt a bit aimless going from conspiracy theories to Stewie with multiple personalities.
I thought the ending of Peter telling Meg he never wanted her, and them both knowingly smiling at each other was a little too dark and cynical, even for this show and those characters.
The episode was decent overall though. And looking over the rest of the night, this three star toon is the only one to get a passing grade from me, and shockingly won the night of Fox toons. I can't believe it either. That's how off their game everyone else was. ***.
The Blacklist "The Night Owl"
Aram isn't a series regular anymore? That bums me out. He looks good without the beard.
I feel like Red's secret should have been leaked LONG before this. It did not feel credible to me that the guy has been a confidential informant for 10 years, and the idea that he was working with the FBI NEVER leaked. Forget Marvin Gerard. It's amazing freaking GUS never said anything.
Red's cooperation ironically put the premise of the series on a clock. For the final season, it is at last acknowledging that fact. ***1/2.
The Blacklist "The Whaler"
Ressler continues to be the worst character on the show now that Liz has gone. Basically him telling Malick she couldn't handle it was completely unprofessional on his end. He's like "I don't want to see you get sucked into this." That's her freaking job, Ressler. You don't get to decide that for her. He's coming across as a sexist pig.
I was concerned about bad storytelling occurring with Red watching Agnes get bullied on the soccer field. But I keep forgetting the selling point of Red: Carrots not sticks. He doesn't threaten the bully girl. He pays her father's boss to move her family out of town. Stuff like that is why I like Red. It would be cheaper to throw the fear of God into that brat. Instead Red's approach is actually best for all concerned.
The show is the show is the show, and it won't really be getting any better or worse. But it does feel like it's been on the air too long. I'm glad this is the last season. ***.
The Regulators by Stephen King (Writing as Richard Bachman)
It's weird that I like the Richman Bachman half of Stephen King's two-novel Mirror Universe experiment better than King's take. Maybe because it feels more like a Stephen King novel than "Desperation" does. The ending is sweet, and outside of everything Bachman wrote before King was outed as him. I think King uses the Bachman name as a gimmick here. I don't feel like he even TRIED to channel the dude's unpleasant headspace. I feel the same way about the later (earlier?) novel "Blaze". Even "Thinner" is only recognizably a Bachman-type story due to its downbeat ending. King really hasn't written a full-on Bachman-style novel since "The Running Man". But "The Regulators" is still my favorite of the books King put Bachman's name on.
Collie Entragian's role as the disgraced but doomed cop in this Universe gives a LOT of context to the fact that Collie from "Desperation" was as much of a victim of Tak as anyone else. Clearly, he's a good guy when he's not being possessed by a demon. Same goes for Audrey Wyler and that shows why she loves her nephew Seth even though he's the one possessed here.
Johnny Marinville in "The Regulators" strikes me as borderline lovable instead of the insufferable ass he is in the Companion novel.
David Carver is killed off early here, which is surprising enough. What's a shock is making him and Pie the Carver parents, and Ralph and Ellie the kids. Even more shocking is the fact that David has no discernable personality or importance to this book, when the kid version of him is essentially Desperation's lynchpin.
Steve Ames and Cynthia Smith are the only characters to survive both books, although by the numbers, a few more survive "The Regulators" than do "Desperation". "The Regulators" also has a slightly bigger cast and a few characters "Desperation" does not. Seth Garin is not present in "Desperation", and neither are some of the neighbors like the Reeds.
King Connections 'o Note: The Multiverse idea (as well as the term "Regulators") are from "The Dark Tower", but it's mostly "Desperation" King as Bachman goes back to. Take special note, Tower nerds. "The Shining" is referred to in the Epilogue as a book written by Stephen King, suggesting both the Epilogue and Audrey's dream-space, (hinted to be on a different plain of existence) actually take place on Keystone Earth where King himself resides. This is before King had written himself into "The Dark Tower", but I think he was already planning on bringing Father Callahan into that story in the future, so who knows if that was idea here and a deliberate nod to that? It fits perfectly either way, which is something I like all my complicated / messy continuity plot twists to do.
I think my favorite parts of the books are the mid-chapter interludes of Audrey Wyler's diary. The hell she is living through it riveting and horrible, and her having to deal with the fundamentalist Hobarts is a complication that is great because the reader instantly hates them on her behalf for the right reasons. These types of people mostly consider their proselytizing harmless, but the father keeps going on and on with his nonsense, not understanding the danger he is putting himself, his son, and Audrey in. And the thing that kills me is something I love that Audrey understands. They aren't actually sorry, or interested in examining the son's behavior. They are following a script, and are entirely insincere for every bit of the forced apology. That's the thing that pisses Audrey off, and I love her for it. They are putting on a pious show and putting all their lives in danger for something they don't actually believe deep down. I know for a fact that King is not a secular man, and the Godbothering in "Desperation" proves it. But I felt like King's portrayal of fundamentalism being some sort of inconvenience that barges into and takes over our lives unasked probably has a more relevant feel now than when the novel was first published in 1997. David Carver is written to portray the positive aspects of belief in God. The Hobarts are written to portray the negative aspects. These are truly Mirror Universes in every way.
I like this book quite a deal more than "Desperation", and part of me dislikes that fact, because it's not an amazing novel or anything. It just tells me "Desperation" should have been MUCH better than it is, and that King actually dropped the ball there. ****.
Quantum Leap "S.O.S."
The old show RARELY did Leaps that effected Sam or Al's immediate family. They saved those for special occasions. I like that big moments like those on the sequel means it doesn't live or die by the season premieres / finales. Regular episodes are allowed real emotional stakes.
Brandon Routh is perfect casting as Addison's father in a way the viewer can appreciate (but Addison cannot). Her father is literally Superman, and she doesn't know it, and could never see it. I think Routh was a VERY deliberate casting choice for that reason.
The stuff with Martinez at the end threw me, and is another pile of questions added to the ongoing mystery. What the hell is actually going on here?
I love the moment where Magic says he doesn't believe the Leaps are random, and that they are the "Moral Arc of the Universe" as described by Martin Luther King. Not to get too much into religion, but that's the way Sam Beckett saw it too. And it's clear Magic is the missing Dr. Beckett's biggest living acolyte.
I love that an episode that big, with that much at stake for Addison, didn't just occur outside of a premiere or finale. It was outside of Sweeps month too. It means the show believes delivering big, personal stories is something it should normally be doing from week to week, which is the correct mindset.
This episode highlights a plothole constantly inherent in Quantum Leap, and something that could be leveled at many episodes. But if whoever is controlling the Leaps wanted to make Ben's job as easy as possible, Ben would have Leaped into the Commander who screwed things up. It's more narratively interesting for Ben to have to change hearts and minds as an outsider. In reality, it would be better for all concerned if he Leaped into the person who made the mistake in the first place.
I loved Quantum Leap back before loving Quantum Leap was cool. And yet, it contained some very real narrative faults, that hit me wrong at the time, and have only looked even more appalling to me with 30 years hindsight. I like this show because it's everything I love about the old show, while fixing every single problem I ever had with it. Am I going there? Am I saying this iteration of the show is better than the original series? Unequivocal YES. I know the controversy I am stirring by saying that. But I say it because I believe it to be true.
That was a great episode. Quantum Leap has always been a bit of a fan favorite. And deeply flawed at the same. I love the sequel for reminding me of everything I loved about the original series, without ever once making me feel bad for watching it because it's dated and offensive. I love being allowed to love Quantum Leap again. Not being able to love this show as much as I used to actually hurt a bit. This show is a refreshing salve on that mental wound for that reason. ****1/2.
The Simpsons "Bartless"
That hit the correct emotional beats and explored a genuine problem about the series that the audience sort of took for granted. But I still didn't like it. I guess because although I love it whenever Bart is taken down a few pegs and his behavior is treated as harmful instead of mischievous, I feel like this episode couldn't make up its mind about that, and the messages it did have weren't all that credible.
I understand it was a dream sequence. But while part of me understands and believes the idea that the Simpsons would be rich, successful, and happy if Bart didn't exist, it doesn't wash. Bart is responsible for a LOT of the family's hardships (and I'd argue most of its unhappiness), but Homer is problematic person on his own with or without Bart's help. Bart's nonexistence cannot change the fact that Homer is both stupid and harmful. I can lay down much of the family's unhappiness on Bart. I can. But the fact that the parents are unsuccessful? That's mostly down to Homer. The show is kidding itself if it thought I'd ever believe otherwise.
And the idea it was a dream sequence bothered me so much because it was had by the both of them. I could have accepted it if it were Marge's, and I could have accepted it (admittedly less) if it was Homer's. But making it BOTH of theirs makes no sense, especially since neither of them are spooked by that fact, and believe they just experienced a psychic experience for the first time ever. And that's not what the episode is about, and I get that, but it makes it feel unrealistic and poorly written.
I am of mixed feelings about the idea of Bart ruining 25 library books turning out to be a net positive. First of all, it's nice to see his new teacher again. Second of all, even if Homer and Marge were too hard on him, and saw the worst in him because they dislike him, the truth is whether or not that was an actual mistake or bad action on his end, I felt like everything they said about how damaging and frustrating he is was true, needed to be said at some point, and them being wrong undercut the necessity of them actually telling Bart how impossible he is to live with. I understand on some level the show cannot let Homer and Marge speaking to their son so harshly and cruelly simply stand. But I've watched this show for over 30 years, and have been more and more disgusted as the decades have worn on that Bart's sociopathic cruelty has been treated by the writers as supposedly cute. Hearing his parent lay into him was cathartic to me as a person who hates him, and to have them have to rethink the rant and their opinion about the little creep makes me unhappy. Whether Bart's actions were a net positive for the kids and the library or not, I agree with every foul thing Homer and Marge tag-teamed him with.
I'll tell you something I liked. And it's not something the show ever bothered to do before. But I betting I'm not the first fan to notice. Didn't the Itchy & Scratchy cartoon look great? They actually animated it in a more fluid and flailing style than the show itself is animated in. The characters in the cartoons previously have always had simpler designs and backgrounds. But the animation level to the show used to be truly identical, which frankly makes it feel less like an entirely different cartoon inside the world than it should. The show put up the money to make it look and feel different here, and like an actual big-budget cartoon. And Itchy & Scratchy cartoons on the show are a rarity now, so I doubt the show saw upping their game and potentially having to do that for every potential future Itchy & Scratchy appearance is as daunting as it would have been while the characters were still appearing several times per season.
I've rambled on in this review. I feel like the episode was well-made and properly explored a long-standing problem. But I disagreed with the conclusions it reached so strongly that I couldn't actually bring myself to, you know, actually ENJOY it. **.
The Great North "Boy Meats World Adventure"
Not feeling it. Why? I think Lone Moose values and celebrates stupid things.
And you know, when Honeybee is offering comedy suggestions to Wolf, you can pretty much tune out whatever she's saying the second she advises him to remember the workshop by Carlos Mencia they attended. That joke is done to make Honeybee sound stupid and low-rent, but why would I appreciate the show doing that?
Annoying episode. *1/2.
Bob's Burgers "These Boots Are Made For Stalking"
Tina is an extremely frustrating character and I wish I could go through my TV and shake her and yell at her, and tell her what she is doing wrong.
First of all, she is absolutely right that that group of teenagers is cool. And they are some of the first cool characters ever seen on the show. There is a cool adult here and there, granted, but very few younger characters on the show.
Tina's problem and the reason she frustrates me is she misidentifies why they are cool. She thinks it must be the music or the clothing. They are cool and outside of the rest of the people at Tina's school because they are refreshingly normal and sane. That is the thing Tina is actually responding to, and I could have told her worrying about the music and the clothes is counterproductive. Those kids are cool because they talk and behave like real people instead of ill-mannered or gross cartoon characters. And stalking and hovering around that type of person is UNCOOL. Linda's means well in her advice, but she is missing the forest for the trees. Probably because Linda is so uncool herself. She can't be any help there for that reason.
I think Bob and Linda were acting TOO cool in this episode, actually. They are doing their daughter no favors by humoring her doing something this nuts. I would actually see the logic of indulging this if Tina were the type of kid who asks for so little and just this once NEEDS this. But Tina is constantly doing crap like this, as are Gene and Louise, and Bob and Linda are entirely too permissive and understanding. And that frustrates me too, especially because for the most part, Bob himself is a good parent.
Gene and Louise were revolting this episode. I give any episode where Gene creepily mentions his "wein" a negative grade on general principle. People LOVE this show, but I can't get over the fact that I seem to be the only one to complain about how gross Gene Belcher is. It's not funny or cute. It's creepy, especially with his adult voice.
So here's that negative grade for an episode that isn't terrible, but is still frustrating on every level. **1/2.
Family Guy "White Meg Can't Jump"
Gilbert Gottfried had a role on Family Guy before he died! And he poked fun at himself! The Fox airing dedicated the episode to him but the Hulu version didn't.
I like the self-aware joke of Family Guy saying it's only on Britney's side now because it's popular. And really, that's Family Guy's entire problem regarding celebrities. Some of their slams (and even compliments) have aged MEGA poorly. Not as bad as The Simpsons venerating Elon Musk. But ballpark.
The Stewie stuff didn't do much for me because I think the B story couldn't decide what it was about, which is usually why bad Family Guy stories are bad. The good thing is it WAS the B story, but still it felt a bit aimless going from conspiracy theories to Stewie with multiple personalities.
I thought the ending of Peter telling Meg he never wanted her, and them both knowingly smiling at each other was a little too dark and cynical, even for this show and those characters.
The episode was decent overall though. And looking over the rest of the night, this three star toon is the only one to get a passing grade from me, and shockingly won the night of Fox toons. I can't believe it either. That's how off their game everyone else was. ***.
The Blacklist "The Night Owl"
Aram isn't a series regular anymore? That bums me out. He looks good without the beard.
I feel like Red's secret should have been leaked LONG before this. It did not feel credible to me that the guy has been a confidential informant for 10 years, and the idea that he was working with the FBI NEVER leaked. Forget Marvin Gerard. It's amazing freaking GUS never said anything.
Red's cooperation ironically put the premise of the series on a clock. For the final season, it is at last acknowledging that fact. ***1/2.
The Blacklist "The Whaler"
Ressler continues to be the worst character on the show now that Liz has gone. Basically him telling Malick she couldn't handle it was completely unprofessional on his end. He's like "I don't want to see you get sucked into this." That's her freaking job, Ressler. You don't get to decide that for her. He's coming across as a sexist pig.
I was concerned about bad storytelling occurring with Red watching Agnes get bullied on the soccer field. But I keep forgetting the selling point of Red: Carrots not sticks. He doesn't threaten the bully girl. He pays her father's boss to move her family out of town. Stuff like that is why I like Red. It would be cheaper to throw the fear of God into that brat. Instead Red's approach is actually best for all concerned.
The show is the show is the show, and it won't really be getting any better or worse. But it does feel like it's been on the air too long. I'm glad this is the last season. ***.
The Regulators by Stephen King (Writing as Richard Bachman)
It's weird that I like the Richman Bachman half of Stephen King's two-novel Mirror Universe experiment better than King's take. Maybe because it feels more like a Stephen King novel than "Desperation" does. The ending is sweet, and outside of everything Bachman wrote before King was outed as him. I think King uses the Bachman name as a gimmick here. I don't feel like he even TRIED to channel the dude's unpleasant headspace. I feel the same way about the later (earlier?) novel "Blaze". Even "Thinner" is only recognizably a Bachman-type story due to its downbeat ending. King really hasn't written a full-on Bachman-style novel since "The Running Man". But "The Regulators" is still my favorite of the books King put Bachman's name on.
Collie Entragian's role as the disgraced but doomed cop in this Universe gives a LOT of context to the fact that Collie from "Desperation" was as much of a victim of Tak as anyone else. Clearly, he's a good guy when he's not being possessed by a demon. Same goes for Audrey Wyler and that shows why she loves her nephew Seth even though he's the one possessed here.
Johnny Marinville in "The Regulators" strikes me as borderline lovable instead of the insufferable ass he is in the Companion novel.
David Carver is killed off early here, which is surprising enough. What's a shock is making him and Pie the Carver parents, and Ralph and Ellie the kids. Even more shocking is the fact that David has no discernable personality or importance to this book, when the kid version of him is essentially Desperation's lynchpin.
Steve Ames and Cynthia Smith are the only characters to survive both books, although by the numbers, a few more survive "The Regulators" than do "Desperation". "The Regulators" also has a slightly bigger cast and a few characters "Desperation" does not. Seth Garin is not present in "Desperation", and neither are some of the neighbors like the Reeds.
King Connections 'o Note: The Multiverse idea (as well as the term "Regulators") are from "The Dark Tower", but it's mostly "Desperation" King as Bachman goes back to. Take special note, Tower nerds. "The Shining" is referred to in the Epilogue as a book written by Stephen King, suggesting both the Epilogue and Audrey's dream-space, (hinted to be on a different plain of existence) actually take place on Keystone Earth where King himself resides. This is before King had written himself into "The Dark Tower", but I think he was already planning on bringing Father Callahan into that story in the future, so who knows if that was idea here and a deliberate nod to that? It fits perfectly either way, which is something I like all my complicated / messy continuity plot twists to do.
I think my favorite parts of the books are the mid-chapter interludes of Audrey Wyler's diary. The hell she is living through it riveting and horrible, and her having to deal with the fundamentalist Hobarts is a complication that is great because the reader instantly hates them on her behalf for the right reasons. These types of people mostly consider their proselytizing harmless, but the father keeps going on and on with his nonsense, not understanding the danger he is putting himself, his son, and Audrey in. And the thing that kills me is something I love that Audrey understands. They aren't actually sorry, or interested in examining the son's behavior. They are following a script, and are entirely insincere for every bit of the forced apology. That's the thing that pisses Audrey off, and I love her for it. They are putting on a pious show and putting all their lives in danger for something they don't actually believe deep down. I know for a fact that King is not a secular man, and the Godbothering in "Desperation" proves it. But I felt like King's portrayal of fundamentalism being some sort of inconvenience that barges into and takes over our lives unasked probably has a more relevant feel now than when the novel was first published in 1997. David Carver is written to portray the positive aspects of belief in God. The Hobarts are written to portray the negative aspects. These are truly Mirror Universes in every way.
I like this book quite a deal more than "Desperation", and part of me dislikes that fact, because it's not an amazing novel or anything. It just tells me "Desperation" should have been MUCH better than it is, and that King actually dropped the ball there. ****.
no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 08:49 am (UTC)I just want to say that I've recently binged your Stephen King reviews and enjoyed them a great deal!
For The Regulators, I'd add the autism representation as a plus. It's not all I'd want of it, sure, but given Herb and Audrey genuinely loving him, us actually getting Seth's perspective, and him saving everyone in the end, it's several cuts above what I'd expect from something written in the nineties!
In comparison with Desperation, I think that this book being considerably shorter (~70,000 words) helps it keep its focus better, too.
no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 09:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 09:45 am (UTC)Nice! They'll probably help me sort decide what I want to do with his stuff I haven't read yet, which is quite helpful. (Incidentally, I think I'll be reviewing a few of King's book myself at some point, in considerable depth.)
no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 11:58 am (UTC)It's cool you are doing your own reviews.