![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matt_zimmerAlso reviews for the latest episode of The Blacklist, the screenplay Storm Of The Century, and the nonfiction book On Writing: A Memoir Of The Craft.
Quantum Leap "Judgment Day"
It was a great, watershed, and yeah, bananas episode exploring things we're never seen in Quantum Leap before. And yet I was beyond disappointed with the cliffhanger. But like 30 seconds after it occurred, I was excited. Do you think the show planned the cliffhanger to be that ambiguous and underwhelming? I don't.
I'm pretty sure the initial plan was to have Scott Bakula show up in the Quantum Leap accelerator.
But he turned up his nose at reappearing because the reboot wasn't "Fun". And the original series' idea of fun was casual homophobia and Al creepily leering at women, so not too many credibility points are due Bakula from me. What I think is gonna happen is Bakula is going to hear all summer first-hand how much the fans love the show and will be guilted into showing up at the top of season 2 after all. Either that or they'll throw a ton of money at him. I have always loved the revival from the outset, but I was very much alone in my praise of the early episodes. Fans of the original series looked upon it with skepticism and even scorn since Bakula did all but give his disapproval. But the series worked overtime all season to win over skeptics and even if there are a couple of continuity holes here and there (what happen to The Waiting Room?) it feels like this show was made not just by people who loved the original series, but people who loved the premise and wanted to stretch it in new, interesting, and cool ways. And if you ask me, that episode is better than the one with Scott Bakula dressed as Carmen Miranda. And it kind of stings that an underwhelming episode like that was the picture attached to Bakula's Tweet about what the old show did right. That was corny and cringe. This? THIS is actually fun. This is Quantum Leap going in directions I wish it had been permitted to go with more seasons and a bigger budget.
Were you frustrated by that ending? It's possible it was actually so frustrating because the show is THAT determined to bring Bakula back. I guess my only real question left about it is what the frak are they gonna actually do if he says no again? ******.
The Blacklist "Dr. Laken Perillos, Pt. 2"
Things just got personal.
I'm devastated by Robert's death. And yeah, I was right that he was Raymond's Inside Man. I especially love the idea that he was delighted by the Task Force idea and considered it every criminal's dream. I loved the character because he saw things like that that way. And even though they've used him the most this season, I'm still going to miss him.
Perillos is creepy on every level. She scares the crap out of me.
I'm upset about Robert which is a good thing. It means the show effected me. It doesn't do that enough. ****.
Storm Of The Century: An Original Screenplay by Stephen King
For Stephen King Book Club I am reviewing the printed screenplay rather than the miniseries. But even though it's been a few years since I last saw it, I still suspect there will be some overlap in this review.
Out of all the TV stuff King has done "Storm Of The Century" is his favorite. And I see why he likes it. The conflict is so arch it borders on Biblical, and the downbeat ending was unusual for network television at the time. So I get the appeal. And no lie, the finished miniseries is pretty good. But I am reviewing the screenplay, and a lot of it is flawed and by extension than means the miniseries is too.
I want to take this first complaint off the table early on because it's not fair to complain about the screenplay for the miniseries' failing. But every time I read this screenplay it bewilders me how badly miscast Jeffrey DeMunn was as Robbie Beals. He's supposed to come off as a more hapless version of Big Jim Rennie from Under The Dome, but not only is DeMunn thin and not sloppy like the screenplay says he should be, but the way DeMunn played the character worked against what they were trying to get across. I felt sympathy for Beals in the miniseries I shouldn't have because DeMunn played him as a deer caught in the headlights. And the instances where he brushes up against the hero Mike Anderson's authority are played wrong too. He doesn't strike me as the thoughtless ahole he should be. He's a strict prig. And that level of anger is different enough that I feel it gives him a sense of authority with the audience he should not have. As an actor DeMunn's demeanor is TOO credible. And that makes the miniseries a LOT less effective than it should be.
But as far I know, that's really the only thing the miniseries lost in translation from the screenplay.
All things being equal however, I have to admit I don't much like the subtext to the story. I get it's a Biblical allegory, and the stuff about Legion and the colony in Roanoke is spooky and cool. But Stephen King is a writer who is inconsistent about some of his bigger themes. He often shows a small town or community being forced into an impossible position and asks if they CAN band together for the common good, or is the conflict going to tear them apart. In "The Stand" the good guys crushed it. In "Sleeping Beauties", rationality won out in the end after a hard fought battle. In "Under The Dome" sinister, human machinations made it so the good guys never had a chance. "Storm Of The Century" takes a similar jaundiced view of small communities and them facing a crisis. And I have said before that a lot of King's portrayals of small-town people boiled down to simple snobbery and elitism. And I especially feel that here. Why?
Okay, so I get Mike Anderson is supposed to be Job. And this is not something King could have known in 1999, but it's something I've become painfully aware of in the meantime. A political consensus, especially a uniform one, is purely impossible in a large group of people. No matter how rational or irrational the position, there is always going to be a not inconsiderable pushback from a small contingent in that group. And I'm saying that goes not just for political things. But for things like THIS especially? King isn't just not giving a small island town proper credit for all standing against Mike doing the right thing. It's not realistic. There would be at least a dozen people who saw things Mike's way, and that's only if I completely accepted the idea that Linoge would have scared all the rest of them.
King's problem, and the moral dilemma he sets up is that Mike's position is irrational. It's RIGHT, but the townfolks willing to give Linoge anything he wants is the rational position. What King does not understand is that a large chunk of society IS irrational, and is unwilling to do things in their own best interest. I can believe all of the parents turning against Mike's idea to stand and fight. Surely there had to be a handful of goofballs in that townhall who wanted to fight the good fight because they didn't have the same skin in the game as the parents. And I think the election of 2016 was a wake-up call for King, and I suspect if he wrote this screenplay after it, Mike would no longer be standing alone and shouting against the wind. That's not how unpopular political opinions work. In fairness to King, this idea is almost plausible to me before 2016 happened. I only notice it's bogus in hindsight. If I looked up my DVD review of the miniseries on my Dreamwidth Journal there is no doubt in my mind that specific thing totally escaped my notice. I didn't even think of it as a mistake because I had no context to understand that it was and how and why it was either. And frankly, I wish I never knew that.
The ABC King miniseries tended to have repetition of children's rhymes (IT's was of course The Itsy Bitsy Spider) and I have to say it probably isn't as spooky in practice as King thinks it is. I imagine if I rewatched the miniseries I'd react in the proper horror at the kids singing that mindlessly as Linoge is taking over their minds. If I saw the bit with a near catatonic Cat Withers singing it after have realized she bludgeoned her boyfriend to death, in 2023, I'm pretty sure I'd laugh. I'm pretty sure I'd find it stupid. Maybe the miniseries worked it out so it was scary onscreen (not impossible) but I think I'd roll my eyes in 2023. Just a hunch.
Speaking of the kids, King is able to write interesting small children. Danny Torrance from "The Shining" springs immediately to mind, as does Ki Devore from "Bag Of Bones". I think his portrayal of the kids in this screenplay sucks. And maybe it's because he knew if they were gonna cast kids this age they couldn't do any of the heavy dramatic lifting of books. You'll note that Danny and Ki were aged up a few years in their screen adaptations for this reason. But I don't like the kids because they don't feel like credible characters in their own right. All that matters is how worried the parents are about them. They aren't characters at all. They're currency. Or a McGuffin if you like that better. I would like to think that's because King was thinking ahead to casting real-life kids. But it doesn't stop them all from being generic TV brats.
I'll tell you one thing I liked about the bleak ending. I like how unforgiving Mike Anderson is with his former friends and his ex-wife. Hatch is actually miffed at the end and wants him to get off his high horse. But Mike's high horse is all he has, and all he needs to treat Hatch and Molly with nothing but hatred and contempt. It's weird Hatch is trying to reason with him at the end. Mike has every right to hate him and his wife. And I like that King gave him that moral high ground unambiguously, even if as noted before, the town hall sentiment wasn't real-world credible for being uniform. I dig how pissed Mike is.
Andre Linoge is an elegant villain. The line he says that gets me is when Ralphie asks him why he's wearing the cuffs he says, "Because I choose to." King has NEVER given any of his other characters, hero or villain, a line that simply cool and telling in its brevity. That's not how King usually writes his characters. It's not an unusual line for a different writer. But it's way brisker and cooler than King usually writes his baddies.
Mike's version of the Job story is pure Stephen King. I doubt he came up with it himself, but he always puts great stuff like that in his works. It's fabulous, especially Mike calling the punchline back in the townhall.
The cool thing about the story is as far as Biblical allegories go, there is a lot to unpack. Mike Anderson is the really the only person who outright denies what Linoge accused him of, even if cheating on a test is no big deal compared to everyone else's sins. Why is that? Hatch is present with Linoge more than any other character than Mike. Why is he the only character Linoge doesn't spill a dirty secret about? Is is because Hatch simply doesn't have one? That specific unanswered question is the kind of thing allegories like this SHOULD raise. What is Linoge going to tell Ralphie when he realizes he can never see his parents again? Will Ralphie be so under his spell at that point he won't even care? And was Molly right? DID Linoge rig the game to target Ralphie because of the fairy-saddle? It would make a sick kind of sense if he did, but to me it would be even more outrageous and unfair if he didn't. All of these are good questions to be asking.
King connections of notes: Little Tall Island is Dolores Claiborne's island, although we don't know where she is during this storm. King also has Cat reading the kids the book "The Little Puppy" and mentions it was a favorite of Danny Torrance's from "The Shining".
I think King's opinion of this was probably a little high, based on the screenplay. But I don't recall having any issues with the miniseries itself (outside of DeMunn) so maybe the execution fixed most everything else. Either way, it's imperfect. ***1/2.
On Writing: A Memoir Of The Craft by Stephen King
I did an essay about this book awhile back (because I disagreed with it) so here is an actual review. Although since I STILL disagree with it it might more accurately be called a rebuttal.
First of all, I want to acknowledge, that as a work of nonfiction, it's actually not insufferable, which if you ask me is King's entire problem with his nonfiction. He's not trying to be edgier-than-thou / too-hip-for-the-room for once. And while I don't approve of his suggestion to turn off the TV when you want to write, at least his opinion has evolved to say that as a medium it sometimes has value.
I don't write like Stephen King does. I don't regret that fact, and I have zero problems doing it. My problems with King's real-life opinions in general is how iron-clad he believes them to be, and that as a writer he is somehow entitled to speak for every single person who attempts that craft. King has deeply held convictions about all writers and creative types that I'm offended at not just because I don't recognize myself in them. But I also recognize that all writers are different types of people, and King's "one size fits all" rhetoric about the profession demeans our individuality not just as writers, but as people. There's less of that in this book than previous nonfiction books and articles. But I think a lot of King's opinions boil down to snobbery rather than insight.
There are some great tips to be found in here. I don't find him telling people how to start their process as useful. I can go weeks without writing my fiction and pick up like no time has past. Similarly, I never have to let my scripts breathe because I'm afraid I'll change them the first chance I get without distance. I do shockingly few second drafts. And outside of spelling errors, I think what I come up with is fine.
The other thing I disagree with King about is something I disagree with ALL writers about. King believes scripts need to delete "unnecessary" words. I have never EVER seen the point in doing so. Reading is FUN. And my stories are fine (to me at least) as they are. Just because it's a given in writers' courses that you must "trim the fat" doesn't mean every single writer needs to do that. I like that my scripts are wordy and unwieldy. I feel like cleaning the excess verbiage up to make it more acceptable to modern writing standards would make it sound a LOT less like my own voice. King is right that you have to take readers into account about stuff like that. But if the reader isn't there to READ, and enjoy dialogue and back-and-forths, why ARE they there? Is it possible I have enough faith in how thick my work is because I actually think it's interesting? Or does that violate another one of King's ironclad rules that he uses to speak for everybody?
I love King's disdain for adverbs though. Not because I agree that they are unnecessary, or added words for no reason. But because the examples he gave made the passages sound badly written. And it amazes in this same damn book while talking specifically about how awful dialogue attribution adverbs are, he mentions how much he loves J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books. Every time I read those books, every time there was a line that was something like "Hermione said darkly" or "Harry said loyally" I would always wonder to myself how much better these books could potentially be if the prose was written by someone with a MINIMAL speck of writing talent. No lie. They are great stories and ripping yarns. Told badly by a poor writer. King hating adverbs and showing special disdain for dialogue attribution adverbs makes me wonder how he's a fan of Rowling at all.
King also talks about his writing pet peeves, and I'm flummoxed he is actually annoyed by somebody saying the words "That was cool." I'm not saying Stephen King is uncool, but you'd really only have issues with that statement if you WERE uncool. It's such a noncontroversial statement for other people.
It's also the way real people talk, by the way. King talks about people writing and complaining about the language he uses, and uses the s-word as his main example. But he also mentions he gets grief for using the n-word. And his justifications for ALL of that boil down to "This is the language of the blue-collar rural characters I am writing, and this is their truth". I'm supposed to take that excuse at face value from a person who places such a negative value judgment against things being declared cool?
And I'm sorry Uncle Stevie, you make that excuse for the f word, or the s word, but when you start excusing hurtful racial and homophobic slurs because this is how people in you class and circle... Get the hell out of that circle. Get a new circle. There is no need for a white writer to EVER use the n-word in fiction. EVER. And while we are on the subject, a LOT of King's usage of that word, particularly in the 1980's was gratuitous, not realistic, and done on the same level of wannabes like Quentin Tarantino and Ralph Bakshi. Stephen King's repeated casual use of the n-word wasn't truthful. It was him engaging in Edgelord behavior before popular culture even understood what that was.
I mentioned the book is well written. Despite all of those previous complaints, it is. And while I believe that writers should definitely use their own process and judgment in how to begin and continue, and not worry about what King (or me for that matter) say, some of the book is damn useful.
Up until last winter when David Zaslav from Warner Discovery was writing off people's work for taxes I wanted to sell my comic at some point. Because of that, there's no way I ever will, but when I was thinking about it, I thought King's story of the composite person of Frank, and the letter they wrote for potential agents was probably the most useful thing in the book. Really detailed some excellent steps to get yourself out there, made better by the fact that King goes over that great letter bit by bit and discusses how each small thing worked in Frank's favor. Useful as hell.
I feel bad for King recounting his accident, because it IS the elephant in the room, and the nonfiction book would feel incomplete without a full accounting of it. But at the same time I realize that epilogue doesn't fit anything else King has written here, and was something he was probably pressured to write, either from the publisher, or a physical therapist. And it's good King has gotten a healthy outlook about it. But even though that accident actually improved the final two Dark Tower books, I can't help feel like it took a little out of this one.
The biographical start to the book is the part I responded best to. King isn't on a soapbox, he's just telling how he got to where he is. Some of the anecdotes are funny too. I see a lot of his genius brother David in the "Messiah" in the short story "The End Of The Whole Mess". In the afterward to "Nightmares And Dreamscapes", King claimed the character was based on his brother, but little did I know HOW much.
The unfinished story example that King uses near the end of the book intrigued him enough to finish it in a story called "1408" in the book "Everything's Eventual".
There's an amusing essay by Owen King at the end about audiobooks he used to record for his dad when he was a kid (his defense of Dean Koontz's Watchers to people who have only heard the ludicrous premise is totally fair). Joe Hill and Stephen King do a revealing question and answer section at well. And King lists a bunch of books he likes for three separate editions of the book. The book is pretty damn thorough, is what I'm saying. I don't agree with every conclusion King reaches. But he sure as hell has enough material to back up his arguments, which is more than I can say for my own brushing back on him. If you want my advice on the best way to write, it's "Don't listen to anyone else." And yeah, that includes me.
A pleasurable, and pleasurably frustrating nonfiction read. But then King has always been a pleasurable and pleasurably frustrating fictional author, so that's totally on-brand. ****.
Quantum Leap "Judgment Day"
It was a great, watershed, and yeah, bananas episode exploring things we're never seen in Quantum Leap before. And yet I was beyond disappointed with the cliffhanger. But like 30 seconds after it occurred, I was excited. Do you think the show planned the cliffhanger to be that ambiguous and underwhelming? I don't.
I'm pretty sure the initial plan was to have Scott Bakula show up in the Quantum Leap accelerator.
But he turned up his nose at reappearing because the reboot wasn't "Fun". And the original series' idea of fun was casual homophobia and Al creepily leering at women, so not too many credibility points are due Bakula from me. What I think is gonna happen is Bakula is going to hear all summer first-hand how much the fans love the show and will be guilted into showing up at the top of season 2 after all. Either that or they'll throw a ton of money at him. I have always loved the revival from the outset, but I was very much alone in my praise of the early episodes. Fans of the original series looked upon it with skepticism and even scorn since Bakula did all but give his disapproval. But the series worked overtime all season to win over skeptics and even if there are a couple of continuity holes here and there (what happen to The Waiting Room?) it feels like this show was made not just by people who loved the original series, but people who loved the premise and wanted to stretch it in new, interesting, and cool ways. And if you ask me, that episode is better than the one with Scott Bakula dressed as Carmen Miranda. And it kind of stings that an underwhelming episode like that was the picture attached to Bakula's Tweet about what the old show did right. That was corny and cringe. This? THIS is actually fun. This is Quantum Leap going in directions I wish it had been permitted to go with more seasons and a bigger budget.
Were you frustrated by that ending? It's possible it was actually so frustrating because the show is THAT determined to bring Bakula back. I guess my only real question left about it is what the frak are they gonna actually do if he says no again? ******.
The Blacklist "Dr. Laken Perillos, Pt. 2"
Things just got personal.
I'm devastated by Robert's death. And yeah, I was right that he was Raymond's Inside Man. I especially love the idea that he was delighted by the Task Force idea and considered it every criminal's dream. I loved the character because he saw things like that that way. And even though they've used him the most this season, I'm still going to miss him.
Perillos is creepy on every level. She scares the crap out of me.
I'm upset about Robert which is a good thing. It means the show effected me. It doesn't do that enough. ****.
Storm Of The Century: An Original Screenplay by Stephen King
For Stephen King Book Club I am reviewing the printed screenplay rather than the miniseries. But even though it's been a few years since I last saw it, I still suspect there will be some overlap in this review.
Out of all the TV stuff King has done "Storm Of The Century" is his favorite. And I see why he likes it. The conflict is so arch it borders on Biblical, and the downbeat ending was unusual for network television at the time. So I get the appeal. And no lie, the finished miniseries is pretty good. But I am reviewing the screenplay, and a lot of it is flawed and by extension than means the miniseries is too.
I want to take this first complaint off the table early on because it's not fair to complain about the screenplay for the miniseries' failing. But every time I read this screenplay it bewilders me how badly miscast Jeffrey DeMunn was as Robbie Beals. He's supposed to come off as a more hapless version of Big Jim Rennie from Under The Dome, but not only is DeMunn thin and not sloppy like the screenplay says he should be, but the way DeMunn played the character worked against what they were trying to get across. I felt sympathy for Beals in the miniseries I shouldn't have because DeMunn played him as a deer caught in the headlights. And the instances where he brushes up against the hero Mike Anderson's authority are played wrong too. He doesn't strike me as the thoughtless ahole he should be. He's a strict prig. And that level of anger is different enough that I feel it gives him a sense of authority with the audience he should not have. As an actor DeMunn's demeanor is TOO credible. And that makes the miniseries a LOT less effective than it should be.
But as far I know, that's really the only thing the miniseries lost in translation from the screenplay.
All things being equal however, I have to admit I don't much like the subtext to the story. I get it's a Biblical allegory, and the stuff about Legion and the colony in Roanoke is spooky and cool. But Stephen King is a writer who is inconsistent about some of his bigger themes. He often shows a small town or community being forced into an impossible position and asks if they CAN band together for the common good, or is the conflict going to tear them apart. In "The Stand" the good guys crushed it. In "Sleeping Beauties", rationality won out in the end after a hard fought battle. In "Under The Dome" sinister, human machinations made it so the good guys never had a chance. "Storm Of The Century" takes a similar jaundiced view of small communities and them facing a crisis. And I have said before that a lot of King's portrayals of small-town people boiled down to simple snobbery and elitism. And I especially feel that here. Why?
Okay, so I get Mike Anderson is supposed to be Job. And this is not something King could have known in 1999, but it's something I've become painfully aware of in the meantime. A political consensus, especially a uniform one, is purely impossible in a large group of people. No matter how rational or irrational the position, there is always going to be a not inconsiderable pushback from a small contingent in that group. And I'm saying that goes not just for political things. But for things like THIS especially? King isn't just not giving a small island town proper credit for all standing against Mike doing the right thing. It's not realistic. There would be at least a dozen people who saw things Mike's way, and that's only if I completely accepted the idea that Linoge would have scared all the rest of them.
King's problem, and the moral dilemma he sets up is that Mike's position is irrational. It's RIGHT, but the townfolks willing to give Linoge anything he wants is the rational position. What King does not understand is that a large chunk of society IS irrational, and is unwilling to do things in their own best interest. I can believe all of the parents turning against Mike's idea to stand and fight. Surely there had to be a handful of goofballs in that townhall who wanted to fight the good fight because they didn't have the same skin in the game as the parents. And I think the election of 2016 was a wake-up call for King, and I suspect if he wrote this screenplay after it, Mike would no longer be standing alone and shouting against the wind. That's not how unpopular political opinions work. In fairness to King, this idea is almost plausible to me before 2016 happened. I only notice it's bogus in hindsight. If I looked up my DVD review of the miniseries on my Dreamwidth Journal there is no doubt in my mind that specific thing totally escaped my notice. I didn't even think of it as a mistake because I had no context to understand that it was and how and why it was either. And frankly, I wish I never knew that.
The ABC King miniseries tended to have repetition of children's rhymes (IT's was of course The Itsy Bitsy Spider) and I have to say it probably isn't as spooky in practice as King thinks it is. I imagine if I rewatched the miniseries I'd react in the proper horror at the kids singing that mindlessly as Linoge is taking over their minds. If I saw the bit with a near catatonic Cat Withers singing it after have realized she bludgeoned her boyfriend to death, in 2023, I'm pretty sure I'd laugh. I'm pretty sure I'd find it stupid. Maybe the miniseries worked it out so it was scary onscreen (not impossible) but I think I'd roll my eyes in 2023. Just a hunch.
Speaking of the kids, King is able to write interesting small children. Danny Torrance from "The Shining" springs immediately to mind, as does Ki Devore from "Bag Of Bones". I think his portrayal of the kids in this screenplay sucks. And maybe it's because he knew if they were gonna cast kids this age they couldn't do any of the heavy dramatic lifting of books. You'll note that Danny and Ki were aged up a few years in their screen adaptations for this reason. But I don't like the kids because they don't feel like credible characters in their own right. All that matters is how worried the parents are about them. They aren't characters at all. They're currency. Or a McGuffin if you like that better. I would like to think that's because King was thinking ahead to casting real-life kids. But it doesn't stop them all from being generic TV brats.
I'll tell you one thing I liked about the bleak ending. I like how unforgiving Mike Anderson is with his former friends and his ex-wife. Hatch is actually miffed at the end and wants him to get off his high horse. But Mike's high horse is all he has, and all he needs to treat Hatch and Molly with nothing but hatred and contempt. It's weird Hatch is trying to reason with him at the end. Mike has every right to hate him and his wife. And I like that King gave him that moral high ground unambiguously, even if as noted before, the town hall sentiment wasn't real-world credible for being uniform. I dig how pissed Mike is.
Andre Linoge is an elegant villain. The line he says that gets me is when Ralphie asks him why he's wearing the cuffs he says, "Because I choose to." King has NEVER given any of his other characters, hero or villain, a line that simply cool and telling in its brevity. That's not how King usually writes his characters. It's not an unusual line for a different writer. But it's way brisker and cooler than King usually writes his baddies.
Mike's version of the Job story is pure Stephen King. I doubt he came up with it himself, but he always puts great stuff like that in his works. It's fabulous, especially Mike calling the punchline back in the townhall.
The cool thing about the story is as far as Biblical allegories go, there is a lot to unpack. Mike Anderson is the really the only person who outright denies what Linoge accused him of, even if cheating on a test is no big deal compared to everyone else's sins. Why is that? Hatch is present with Linoge more than any other character than Mike. Why is he the only character Linoge doesn't spill a dirty secret about? Is is because Hatch simply doesn't have one? That specific unanswered question is the kind of thing allegories like this SHOULD raise. What is Linoge going to tell Ralphie when he realizes he can never see his parents again? Will Ralphie be so under his spell at that point he won't even care? And was Molly right? DID Linoge rig the game to target Ralphie because of the fairy-saddle? It would make a sick kind of sense if he did, but to me it would be even more outrageous and unfair if he didn't. All of these are good questions to be asking.
King connections of notes: Little Tall Island is Dolores Claiborne's island, although we don't know where she is during this storm. King also has Cat reading the kids the book "The Little Puppy" and mentions it was a favorite of Danny Torrance's from "The Shining".
I think King's opinion of this was probably a little high, based on the screenplay. But I don't recall having any issues with the miniseries itself (outside of DeMunn) so maybe the execution fixed most everything else. Either way, it's imperfect. ***1/2.
On Writing: A Memoir Of The Craft by Stephen King
I did an essay about this book awhile back (because I disagreed with it) so here is an actual review. Although since I STILL disagree with it it might more accurately be called a rebuttal.
First of all, I want to acknowledge, that as a work of nonfiction, it's actually not insufferable, which if you ask me is King's entire problem with his nonfiction. He's not trying to be edgier-than-thou / too-hip-for-the-room for once. And while I don't approve of his suggestion to turn off the TV when you want to write, at least his opinion has evolved to say that as a medium it sometimes has value.
I don't write like Stephen King does. I don't regret that fact, and I have zero problems doing it. My problems with King's real-life opinions in general is how iron-clad he believes them to be, and that as a writer he is somehow entitled to speak for every single person who attempts that craft. King has deeply held convictions about all writers and creative types that I'm offended at not just because I don't recognize myself in them. But I also recognize that all writers are different types of people, and King's "one size fits all" rhetoric about the profession demeans our individuality not just as writers, but as people. There's less of that in this book than previous nonfiction books and articles. But I think a lot of King's opinions boil down to snobbery rather than insight.
There are some great tips to be found in here. I don't find him telling people how to start their process as useful. I can go weeks without writing my fiction and pick up like no time has past. Similarly, I never have to let my scripts breathe because I'm afraid I'll change them the first chance I get without distance. I do shockingly few second drafts. And outside of spelling errors, I think what I come up with is fine.
The other thing I disagree with King about is something I disagree with ALL writers about. King believes scripts need to delete "unnecessary" words. I have never EVER seen the point in doing so. Reading is FUN. And my stories are fine (to me at least) as they are. Just because it's a given in writers' courses that you must "trim the fat" doesn't mean every single writer needs to do that. I like that my scripts are wordy and unwieldy. I feel like cleaning the excess verbiage up to make it more acceptable to modern writing standards would make it sound a LOT less like my own voice. King is right that you have to take readers into account about stuff like that. But if the reader isn't there to READ, and enjoy dialogue and back-and-forths, why ARE they there? Is it possible I have enough faith in how thick my work is because I actually think it's interesting? Or does that violate another one of King's ironclad rules that he uses to speak for everybody?
I love King's disdain for adverbs though. Not because I agree that they are unnecessary, or added words for no reason. But because the examples he gave made the passages sound badly written. And it amazes in this same damn book while talking specifically about how awful dialogue attribution adverbs are, he mentions how much he loves J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books. Every time I read those books, every time there was a line that was something like "Hermione said darkly" or "Harry said loyally" I would always wonder to myself how much better these books could potentially be if the prose was written by someone with a MINIMAL speck of writing talent. No lie. They are great stories and ripping yarns. Told badly by a poor writer. King hating adverbs and showing special disdain for dialogue attribution adverbs makes me wonder how he's a fan of Rowling at all.
King also talks about his writing pet peeves, and I'm flummoxed he is actually annoyed by somebody saying the words "That was cool." I'm not saying Stephen King is uncool, but you'd really only have issues with that statement if you WERE uncool. It's such a noncontroversial statement for other people.
It's also the way real people talk, by the way. King talks about people writing and complaining about the language he uses, and uses the s-word as his main example. But he also mentions he gets grief for using the n-word. And his justifications for ALL of that boil down to "This is the language of the blue-collar rural characters I am writing, and this is their truth". I'm supposed to take that excuse at face value from a person who places such a negative value judgment against things being declared cool?
And I'm sorry Uncle Stevie, you make that excuse for the f word, or the s word, but when you start excusing hurtful racial and homophobic slurs because this is how people in you class and circle... Get the hell out of that circle. Get a new circle. There is no need for a white writer to EVER use the n-word in fiction. EVER. And while we are on the subject, a LOT of King's usage of that word, particularly in the 1980's was gratuitous, not realistic, and done on the same level of wannabes like Quentin Tarantino and Ralph Bakshi. Stephen King's repeated casual use of the n-word wasn't truthful. It was him engaging in Edgelord behavior before popular culture even understood what that was.
I mentioned the book is well written. Despite all of those previous complaints, it is. And while I believe that writers should definitely use their own process and judgment in how to begin and continue, and not worry about what King (or me for that matter) say, some of the book is damn useful.
Up until last winter when David Zaslav from Warner Discovery was writing off people's work for taxes I wanted to sell my comic at some point. Because of that, there's no way I ever will, but when I was thinking about it, I thought King's story of the composite person of Frank, and the letter they wrote for potential agents was probably the most useful thing in the book. Really detailed some excellent steps to get yourself out there, made better by the fact that King goes over that great letter bit by bit and discusses how each small thing worked in Frank's favor. Useful as hell.
I feel bad for King recounting his accident, because it IS the elephant in the room, and the nonfiction book would feel incomplete without a full accounting of it. But at the same time I realize that epilogue doesn't fit anything else King has written here, and was something he was probably pressured to write, either from the publisher, or a physical therapist. And it's good King has gotten a healthy outlook about it. But even though that accident actually improved the final two Dark Tower books, I can't help feel like it took a little out of this one.
The biographical start to the book is the part I responded best to. King isn't on a soapbox, he's just telling how he got to where he is. Some of the anecdotes are funny too. I see a lot of his genius brother David in the "Messiah" in the short story "The End Of The Whole Mess". In the afterward to "Nightmares And Dreamscapes", King claimed the character was based on his brother, but little did I know HOW much.
The unfinished story example that King uses near the end of the book intrigued him enough to finish it in a story called "1408" in the book "Everything's Eventual".
There's an amusing essay by Owen King at the end about audiobooks he used to record for his dad when he was a kid (his defense of Dean Koontz's Watchers to people who have only heard the ludicrous premise is totally fair). Joe Hill and Stephen King do a revealing question and answer section at well. And King lists a bunch of books he likes for three separate editions of the book. The book is pretty damn thorough, is what I'm saying. I don't agree with every conclusion King reaches. But he sure as hell has enough material to back up his arguments, which is more than I can say for my own brushing back on him. If you want my advice on the best way to write, it's "Don't listen to anyone else." And yeah, that includes me.
A pleasurable, and pleasurably frustrating nonfiction read. But then King has always been a pleasurable and pleasurably frustrating fictional author, so that's totally on-brand. ****.
