and that I did not want to do.’
King also notes his policy on revision (as he had in On Writing) which is to plough ahead on the
first draft, ‘my method of attack has always been to plunge in and go as fast as I can, keeping the edge
of my narrative blade as sharp as possible by constant use, and trying to outrun the novelist’s most
insidious enemy, which is doubt.’ He will then lay the work aside for months (or years) before
completing a cool revision.
He concludes by noting there were thirty-three years between first words and the completion of
the first draft of the Cycle. ‘Yet Roland would be the first to point out that such a span of time means
very little. In fact, when one quests for the Dark Tower, time is a matter of no concern at all.’
The Final Argument—The Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla (2003)
This is the fourth, and last, of the Arguments King uses to set the scene for readers at the
beginning of volumes two to five of the Dark Tower novels. At this point King chose to call his
summary the ‘Final Argument’ and does not explain why here, or in the later volumes, it was not
necessary to summarize the storyline before Song of Susannah or The Dark Tower, although he is
ready to state that the latter book would be the last in the Cycle and would be published in 2004.
For the first time King refers to the subtitles he had introduced to printings of the earlier novels
after the Revised and Expanded version of The Gunslinger was released in July 2003 (Wolves was
released in November). The titles known at that time were, in fact, a clue to the closing passages of
the final novel. They are: The Gunslinger—Resumption (as King boldly points out in The Final
Argument); The Drawing of the Three—Renewal; The Waste Lands—Redemption; Wizard and
Glass—Regard; and Resistance for Wolves of the Calla. In 2004 readers would discover the
remaining subtitles— Reproduction for Song of Susannah and Resumption (again, if you’ll excuse
us) for The Dark Tower.
As the story has progressed King has reached the point where he is ready to clearly state of
Roland’s goal: ‘At the point where the Beams cross, at the center of Roland’s world (and all worlds),
stands the Dark Tower, the nexus of all where and when.’ The italics are King’s.
It is in this non-fiction piece that King leads (or misleads, depending on which side of the
debate one falls) readers for a second time into thinking John Farson (the rebel who brought down the
Affiliation and Gilead) is also Marten and Randall Flagg (and therefore Walter O’Dim): ‘With Tick-
Tock dead, the real Wizard steps forward. It’s Roland’s ancient nemesis, Marten Broadcloak, known
in some worlds as Randall Flagg, in others as Richard Fannin, in others as John Farson (the Good
Man).’ The first instance occurred in the Synopsis for The Gunslinger and the Dark Man discussed
earlier in this chapter. There he wrote: ‘Marten, the court sorcerer who may have somehow been
transformed into the man in black he now pursues (and who, as the charismatic Good Man, pulled
down the last kingdom of light)....’
Despite this Robin Furth, King’s research assistant on the Dark Tower Cycle, has this to say
about the matter: ‘One passage in The Gunslinger hints that Farson was actually Steven Deschain’s
sorcerer, Marten Broadcloak...However, by the end of the Dark Tower series it seems fairly certain
that Farson—though mad as the Crimson King himself—was not another incarnation of the demonic
R.F., but one of his many pawns.’129
King concludes this last Argument by saying (incorrectly, in our view) that it ‘in no way
summarizes the first four books of the Tower cycle....’; and ‘These books are but parts of a single long
tale, and you would do better to read them from beginning to end rather than starting in the middle.’
While we do agree with this last opinion, it must also be said that many readers find their way best
into the Dark Tower Cycle via the second volume, The Drawing of the Three, as noted earlier.
Despite a rewrite of the first book, The Gunslinger is turgid at times and difficult to ‘get into’. Once
hooked by the tale that volume is more easily read and it is not critical that it be the first (certainly it
should be read before Wizard and Glass as it provides context to that episode).
Author’s Note—The Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla (2003)
In this two-paragraph piece King acknowledges the source for some of the material in Wolves
— Sergio Leone (as noted in On Being Nineteen Leone’s The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly was a
primary inspiration)—an Italian; and Akira Kurosawa—the Japanese director of The Seven Samurai.
He also credits the cinematic legacy of both these men, Sam Peckinpah, Howard Hawkes and John
Sturgis (sic). King notes ‘the Calla did not come by the final part of its (slightly misspelled) name
accidentally.’ Amusingly enough both the US and UK first editions of Wolves actually misspell the
gentleman in question’s name as John Sturgis in this Author’s Note—it is actually John Sturges!
Thanks are also extended to his Dark Tower research assistant, Robin Furth and Tabitha King
(‘who is still patiently giving me the time and light and space I need to do this job to the best of my
abilities.’)
Author’s Afterword—The Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla (2003)
In the first sentence of this piece, written in Bangor on December 15, 2002, King asks readers to
check the dedication page to the novel: ‘I’ll wait.’ The dedication reads, ‘This book is for Frank
Muller, / who hears the voices in my head.’ King then relates his personal friendship and professional
relationship with Muller, who read many of King’s novels for the audiobook market, including the
first four Dark Tower novels, before being permanently disabled in a motorcycle accident (he
suffered serious neurological damage and will never return to his profession). King tells us he
prepared for the final books of the Dark Tower Cycle by listening to Muller’s readings and found a
‘sense of newness and freshness’ in doing so, ‘a sense of Roland and Roland’s friends as actual
people, with their own vital inner lives.’ So when ‘I say in the dedication that Frank heard the voices
in my head, I am speaking the literal truth as I understand it.’
He then pitches for donations to The Wavedancer Foundation (addressed care of King’s lawyer,
Arthur Greene), set up by King and others to support Frank Muller and other freelance artists in a
similar situation (King donated his earnings from the audio version of Wolves). ‘Frank’s wife, Erika,
says thankya. So do I. / And Frank would, if he could.’ Donations are still being accepted. 130
Wordslinger’s Note—The Dark Tower VI: Song of Susannah (2004)
King changed his usual Author’s Note into that of a Wordslinger, the term Roland uses
(affectionately?) to describe his creator, the Stephen King character in this novel.
Barely a page in length the piece, written on May 28, 2003, again credits Dark Tower research
assistant Robin Furth, Chuck Verrill (editor of the final five novels in the Cycle, and many other King
books) and a cast from the various publishers. Also, noting the fictionalization of ‘certain
geographical details’, King says ‘to the best of my knowledge, there were never coin-op storage
lockers in the World Trade Center.’ This last refers to an important plot point that we will not ruin
here for those (shame on you!) who have yet to enjoy this particular novel. Acknowledging it is the
penultimate episode in the Cycle King ends with: ‘One more turn of the path, and then we reach the
clearing. 131 / Come along with me, will ya not?’ And, we did.
Contributors’ Notes—The Best American Mystery Stories, 2004(2004)
King’s short story Harvey’s Dream was originally published in The New Yorker for June 30,
2003. It’s second anthology appearance was in The Best American Mystery Stories, 2004, 132 edited
by novelist Nelson DeMille. In the Contributors’ Notes section DeMille writes a short paragraph
about each author (he says of King, ‘He’s written a lot of novels and short stories...Some aren’t too
bad, and a couple really kick ass.’) and publishes their short notes about their tale. The anthology is
currently in print and will be available from usual dealers when it is not.
King says he wrote of waking from a dream in which he didn’t want to answer a phone call
because ‘I knew—positively knew, the way you sometimes do in dreams—that someone wanted to
tell me one of our children was dead.’ He went straight from bed to word processor and wrote this
somewhat derivative story ‘at a single go.’
Author’s Note—The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower (2005)
This piece, written on 21 August 2003, completes King’s commentary on the Dark Tower Cycle
in the novels themselves (subject, of course, to some new piece in a future collection or revision). In
fact he seems a little embarrassed, noting that sometimes ‘I think I have written more about the Dark
Tower books than I have written about the Dark Tower itself.’ He describes the ‘ever-growing
synopsis (known by the quaint old word Argument)’133; and the afterwords (‘most totally unnecessary
and some actually embarrassing in retrospect’).
King reveals that Michael Whelan (illustrator of The Gunslinger and The Dark Tower) had
bluntly suggested to King that the original afterword for this novel, light-hearted as it was, was
jarringly out of place. Taking another look, King realized Whelan was right and tells us the first half
of that original piece was included in On Being Nineteen in editions of the first four Dark Tower
novels.
Having made this change King contemplated leaving Roland’s discovery at the top of The Dark
Tower as his last word on the Cycle but claims to have realized he ‘had one more thing to say, a thing
that actually needed to be said. It has to do with my presence in my own book.’ He immediately
expresses his dislike for the ‘smarmy academic term’ that covers such matters—metafiction; and tells
us he is in the story ‘only because’ he’d known (consciously since writing Insomnia in 1995;
unconsciously since Father Callahan left town in ‘Salem’s Lot) that ‘many of my fictions refer back to
Roland’s world and Roland’s story’; and that since ‘I was the one who wrote them, it seemed logical
I was part of the gunslinger’s ka.’
King’s idea was to somehow unify all his fiction under the Dark Tower’s umbrella and
expresses the hope that readers (and critics, one presumes) won’t see this as pretentious but in fact ‘a
way of showing how life influences art (and vice-versa).’ Referring to Roland’s being forced back on
the wheel of ka (or fate) King says, ‘I hope that the reader will see that by discovering the Horn of
Eld, the gunslinger may finally be on the way to his own resolution. Possibly even to redemption. It
w as all about reaching the Tower, you see—mine as well as Roland’s...You may not like what
Roland found at the top, but that’s a different matter entirely...I wasn’t exactly crazy about the ending,
either, if you want to know the truth, but it’s the right ending. The only ending, in fact. You have to
remember that I don’t make these things up, not exactly; I only write down what I see.’
He goes on to note that the Stephen King character in the novels is ‘not very’ real, although the
one Roland and Eddie met in Bridgton in Song of Susannah is ‘very close to the Stephen King I
remember being at that time.’ He also notes he has fictionalized the geography of western Maine and
asks readers/fans not to ‘drop in and say hello’, requesting respect for his family’s privacy.
Finally, of the odyssey that is the Dark Tower for characters, writer and readers alike, he says,
‘I thank you for coming along, and sharing this adventure with me. I never worked harder on a project
in my life, and I know—none better, alas—that it has not been entirely successful. What work of
make-believe ever is? And yet...I would not give back a single minute of the time I have lived in
Roland’s where and when. Those days in Mid-World and End-World were quite extraordinary.
These were days when my imagination was so clear I could smell the dust and hear the creak of
leather.’
Afterword—The Colorado Kid (2005)
Many King fans, and those of ‘hard core pulp crime’ novels, were disappointed by ‘The
Colorado Kid’, a short unsolved mystery that was somewhat inaccurately promoted by the publishers.
However, there is no doubt it is a delightful stand-alone King tale. Sensing controversy King notes in
his five page Afterword, written on January 31, 2005, ‘Depending on whether you liked or hated The
Colorado Kid (I think for many people there’ll be no middle ground on this one, and that’s fine with
me)’. He concentrates on the nature of ‘mystery’—the rest of the piece details the idea that set King to
writing this tale (a newspaper clipping about a girl found dead on a Maine island in mysterious
circumstances); the mystery King finds inherent in island communities; his lack of interest in a
solution but rather the mystery of this tale (‘… if you tell me I fell down on the job and didn’t tell all
of this story there was to tell, I say you’re all wrong’); and the nature of the unexplained mysteries of
our existence and the lives we lead.
Introduction to ’Salem’s Lot—’Salem’s Lot: Illustrated Edition (2005)
This new Introduction was written on June 15, 2005, at Center Lovell. A previous
Introduction, for the 1999 Pocket Books edition, serves as the Afterword to this edition of the novel
(and was reviewed earlier this chapter). The two pieces are effectively bookends and should be read
in tandem. In a small, but very interesting point, King reveals that the reason the novel’s original title
was changed to ’Salem’s Lot was ‘because my wife, Tabby, said that Second Coming sounded like a
sex manual’.
King returns here to the technophobia that informs so much of his fiction (Trucks, The Stand,
Maximum Overdrive and The Mangler are but the most obvious). In fact, in October 2005 King said,
‘I just like telling stories. And if there’s one message that comes up again and again, it’s “Love
conquers Fear”. And if there’s one concern that comes up again and again, it’s “Don’t trust the
technology—it may not be your friend.” 134 He says that it was his intent to reflect a view opposing
that of Stoker’s Dracula, which glorified technology as the antidote to the Count’s evils, ‘I saw
myself and my society at the other end of the technological rainbow, and set out to write a book that
would reflect that glum idea.’ Despite this, as noted in the previous Introduction/ Afterword, the
characters rose up against the author’s will and delivered ‘a surprisingly optimistic book.’
Finally, King claims he now holds on to only one of the many ideas he’d once had about fiction
—the first, ‘one I’ll probably hold onto until the end: it’s good to tell a story, and even better when
people actually want to listen.’
And that is as good a way as any to close any chapter on Stephen King’s work, if it were not for
this last:
Untitled—Cell (2006)
This short untitled piece, effectively an Author’s Note, is simply signed ‘S.K.’ King thanks his
longtime editor, Chuck Verrill; researcher Robin Furth (Furth also supported King on the last three
Dark Tower books)135 and Tabitha King. He also notes he’d taken liberties with geography; and that
although, to the best of his knowledge FEMA hasn’t appropriated money to provide backup
generators for cell phone transmission towers, many such towers do have their own generator
backups. 136
LATER COLUMNS—
THE POP OF KING
That is the true magic of novels, which often possess more strength (and reality) than their
creators suppose: They see into our secret hearts.
—From The Pop of King: My So-Called Admirer.
After years of occasional contributions in the summer of 2003 King fully committed himself
again to writing a regular column, this time for EntertainmentWeekly magazine. Through 31 March
2006 nearly fifty The Pop of King columns had been published and King was continuing to contribute
regularly. Entertainment Weekly had previously published a number of King pieces, including letters
to the editor and such important articles as The Reel Stephen King and How I Created Golden
Years…and Spooked Dozens of TV Executives.
King appears to be enjoying his relationship with the magazine, agreeing to allow an excerpt
from his novel Cell in the magazine’s 27 January 2006 edition. The feeling appears to be mutual; as
this was the first time in Entertainment Weekly’s history they had carried fiction!
One of the main reasons you are holding this book is King’s involvement in popular culture. As
this volume shows, King is not only a major part of American popular culture; he also feeds it through
commentary in his non-fiction. The majority of these Entertainment Weekly columns focus on film,
television, music and books, as is to be expected in this type of magazine. The space provides King a
blank canvas on which to deliver the same type of material as in a good deal of his other non-fiction.
Janet Maslin, in reviewing Faithful for The New York Times called The Pop of King ‘the savviest
pop-cultural criticism this side of William Goldman’s.’
The columns can be accessed in any number of ways. Each is available on Entertainment
Weekly’s web site, if you are willing to spend time searching, as not all are easily accessible and
many are listed under different titles137 from that used in the magazine. To access them via this
method one has to be a subscriber to the magazine, or input an America Online screen name and
password (EW and AOL are both part of the same conglomerate). One can also subscribe to the
magazine or buy it from the newsstands and read the newest installments, which appear every three
weeks or so. Older issues can be accessed at most significant libraries; and copies can be purchased
from used magazine dealers. A good percentage of these columns are reprinted in the Australian
equivalent of Entertainment Weekly, Who (both are owned by Time Warner). For details of the Who
reprints, see our Bibliography section.
The Pop of King: Ready or Not, Here I Come (August 8, 2003)
‘So here’s what happened, best that I can figure. A couple of months back, the editors at
Entertainment Weekly asked me to review Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and either
liked the review itself or liked the fact that it was written in longhand,’ King writes, opening for his
first The Pop of King column. This references his review, Potter Gold, published in the July 11,
2003 issue (see our Book Reviews chapter).
Here, King covers recent movies, music and books he has either liked or disliked and writes
about each. As far as films go, he says he ‘loved’ Terminator 3 and liked (but did not love) 28 Days
Later. He also disliked Anger Management and hated both Antwone Fisher and The Life of David
Gale.
As to music King writes, ‘the fact is, I don’t have much use for pop music, and I refuse to listen
to any musical artist who goes by a single name. Beyoncé? Go away. Jewel? Out of my face. Ashanti?
Quit it. The only exception to this rule is Eminem. I love Eminem, partly because he’s funny and
savage, but also because he still admits that underneath it all, there is a person named Marshall
Mathers.’
On books, he is positive about Donna Tartt, Elmore Leonard (‘but...he was a lot better 10 years
ago’), Stewart O’Nan (later to be King’s co-author on Faithful), Peter Robinson, Peter Abrahams and
Dennis Lehane (his early novels). He also believes the immensely popular The Da Vinci Code by
Dan Brown is ‘garbage’.
This column is listed as The Tao of Steve on Entertainment Weekly’s web site.
The Pop of King: Always, They Come Back (August 22-29, 2003)
This column deals with the film Freddy vs. Jason, and also functions as commentary on the
franchises for this specific style of horror movie. King tells us the original incarnations of A
Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, and Halloween all ‘scared the hell’ out of him, but none
of the subsequent sequels were that good.
He asks why yet more of these sequels are made and why consumers still go to see them: ‘The
answer is simple: because schmucks like me keep going to see them. And why? Because the fear
generated by a good horror picture is a drug, and as any junkie will tell you, you go on chasing the
high long after the high is gone’.
Also: ‘When it comes to horror franchises, the second-to-last gasp is almost always the “combo
movie,” and this summer we have, for better or worse, reached that point with Freddy vs. Jason. And
I’ll be first in line. I mean, in my heart I know it’s gonna be terrible, but I’ll still be there. After all,
it’s not the final twitch in this evolutionary process: That’s the comedy.’
While King does not actually review the movie in this article (he had not seen it, yet), he writes,
‘maybe it’ll be good.’ He closes, ‘No matter who wins, it’ll be a good fight.’
The Pop of King: The Best Book You Can’t Read (September 19, 2003)
King opens, ‘My gig at EW isn’t writing book reviews, but I can still state with a fair degree of
certainty that Ron McLarty’s The Memory of Running is the best novel you won’t read this year. But
you can experience it, and I’m all but positive that you’ll thank me for the tip if you do.’
He goes on to give a brief description of the novel and explains several publishers turned it
down. It finally found a home at Recorded Books, which used McLarty as a reader. King urges
readers to ‘visit www.recordedbooks.com/ and buy or rent the CD or cassette version of the
book...This is why I say it may be the best book you won’t read this year’—there is no print version.
King feels that if enough people bought the audiobook and enough fanfare was generated, the
novel may make it between covers. He closes, ‘you’ll do the stuff good novels are supposed to make
you do—laugh a little, cry a little, maybe ride (or jog) an extra time around the block in order to find
out what happens next. You’ll also discover a fine American voice...and actually get to hear it talking.
Do I want some of the credit if this nice thing happens? You know I do. Tell ‘em Steve sent you.’
Viking (one of King’s previous publishers) almost immediately signed McLarty to a deal and
published The Memory of Running in hardcover in December 2004, to positive reviews. The jacket
even carried a blurb from King! Penguin issued a mass-market paperback in December 2005.
This piece is listed as Listen Up on Entertainment Weekly’s web site.
The Pop of King: In My Book, It’s No Contest (October 3, 2003)
This column is shorter than the others, as it mainly represents what King designated as his first
annual ‘Hollywood Babble-On Competition.’ Winners of this contest (sponsored by King and
Entertainment Weekly magazine) were entered in a draw to win one of twelve signed copies of his
then newest novel, The Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla.
He lists fifteen movie quotes and the reader was to write the name of the movie the quote was
from, and then take the first letter of each title to spell the name of an important American sports
landmark, past or present. He then asked readers not to spoil the contest by posting the answer on the
Internet: ‘If you’ve got the answer, DON’T be a wiener! KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!’ He promises the
answer to the question will appear in his next column, to be published three weeks later (it was
actually delayed, see Do Movies Matter? (Part 1) below).
The Pop of King: No Pain, No Fame (October 24, 2003)
This column sees King turn an eye to the way our culture worships celebrities. He relates a
story, in which he took his son Owen to a boxing match in 1988 and saw the paparazzi go wild at the
joint arrival of Madonna and Sean Penn. ‘I got a good look at the expression of horror on Penn’s face.
It was the face of a young man who’s finally beginning to understand what he’s gotten himself into.’
‘This memory comes back to me whenever I hear that a soft-news press pool has hired an
aircraft to get pictures of a “celeb wedding,” or when I see front-page tabloid photographs of some
celeb who has either put on a lot of weight (indicating heartbreak) or lost a lot (indicating cancer, and
necessitating use of the word brave, as in BRAVE [INSERT CELEB’S FIRST NAME] FACES
CANCER WITH HELP OF EX-WIFE... AND GOD!)’, he relates.
He also deals with the current hot celebrities: ‘Bennifer,’ the ridiculous name the media coined
for Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez as a couple; and pop singer Michael Jackson; saying that while
being a celebrity certainly has its perks, it also has drawbacks.
The Pop of King: Do Movies Matter? (Part 1) (November 14, 2003)
This is the first of a two-part piece dealing with the state of popular film in America at the time:
‘Of course movies matter. But, you might ask, do movies really matter? Do they matter the way great
books do, or great plays like “King Lear?” This ephemeral medium that you can look right through,
and that burns in an instant if you touch a match to it? That rots away in 30 years if not carefully
cosseted and cared for? That happens before you in a constant now, and allows for no going back or
stopping to think, and that is—unlike stage plays—always exactly the same? My answer is you bet
your sweet round fanny.’
King contends that most movies really don’t matter—at least in the artful terms he set forth at the
beginning of the piece; and provides a list of a few good films he had seen during the past fifteen
years— The Usual Suspects, Fargo, There’s Something about Mary, Sling Blade, Frequency, The
Matrix, Stir of Echoes, American Beauty, Wonder Boys, The Sixth Sense, High Fidelity, L.I.E., Inthe Bedroom, Cinema Paradiso, Iris and Mystic River.
He closes, ‘Chew on those, and we’ll finish our discussion of why movies matter next time,
okay?’ It is reported at the bottom of the column that Entertainment Weekly received 8,505 responses
to the First Annual Hollywood Babble-On Competition (see In My Book, It’s No Contest above) and
the names of the twelve winners are revealed (the answer to King’s quiz? Candlestick Park).
The Pop of King: Do Movies Matter? (Part 2) (November 28, 2003)
This is the second of a two-part column dealing with the state of popular film in America (see
directly above). King opens with some film history: ‘It’s said that in the ’60s, when Francis Ford
Coppola was but a lad, he found himself working on one of Roger Corman’s pictures. According to
legend, Coppola convinced Corman, a low-budget junkie, to let him make his own film on the side
using Corman’s equipment and crew. The film Coppola then made (in nine days) was Dementia 13.
For mood, atmosphere, and plain old gut-churning horror, 13 makes Psycho and Night of the Living
Dead look tame. Dementia 13 is a movie that matters.’
King says he’d become frightened that he had lost the feeling that movies mattered. He’d seen
two movies recently, one that mattered and one that did not. The movie that did not matter was
Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill, Part One: ‘It’s certainly well made, and the story garners some of our
interest as it goes along, but dull is still dull, isn’t it?’
The film that changed King’s mind that movies can still matter was directed by Clint Eastwood:
Дата добавления: 2015-11-04; просмотров: 28 | Нарушение авторских прав
| <== предыдущая лекция | | | следующая лекция ==> |