I finished Stephen King's "The Stand" a few days ago. It's been nearly fifteen years since I last read it, and I remember being distinctly disappointed the first time around. I've spent all these years wondering why people consider "The Stand" his best work. Maybe it wasn't horror enough for me--even now, I wouldn't classify it as horror. (It's closer to fantasy than anything else. Richard Matheson is an obvious influence, but I also see shades of J. R. R. Tolkien.) And, yes, it's a bloated work--I remember thinking that the book was very slowly paced, that King took his time advancing the plot. (Even King seems to have recognized this: it isn't until a bomb kills off a major character that everything starts moving again.)
Fifteen years later, I'd forgotten much of "The Stand." I didn't remember The Kid, a psychopath whose scenes with Trashcan Man are the novel's most suspenseful. I didn't remember that Randall Flagg, King's most famous villain, isn't in much of the book at all.
I also didn't remember--or perhaps didn't appreciate--how enjoyable and moving "The Stand" really is.
I'll be the first to admit that King isn't a very good writer. He has a tin ear when it comes to dialogue (does anyone really say, "You know this, don't you"?). He often doesn't know what to do after the Big Event--"The Stand"'s plot comes to a screeching halt after Captain Trips has wiped out 99.9 percent of the American population. His themes and symbolism aren't very subtle (a frail old black woman leading the good guys versus a young white man leading the bad guys). The romance isn't very convincing--it's unclear why Stu and Frannie fall in love, or why Harold pines for Frannie. (For what's worth, King has never been good at love stories: he almost--almost--nailed it in "Wizard and Glass," but "Bag of Bones" and "Lisey's Story" fell flat.) Many of his books don't age well--they're trapped in the years they were written, as evidenced by the pop culture references and dialogue. And King doesn't give his characters much free will, especially in "The Stand." The characters are vividly drawn, but they're ultimately pawns in a one-sided chess game. (At one point, Abagail Freemantle, responding to Nick's admission that he doesn't believe in God, says, "Bless you, Nick, but that don't matter. He believes in you.")
Despite its flaws, "The Stand" is a testament to King's strengths. He's at his best when he has a large cast of characters to play with. And he's a master at characterization--he gives the good guys lots of flaws, and the bad guys some redeeming qualities. (Trashcan Man and Lloyd Henreid are pretty sympathetic bad guys. Let's face it: a villain with no good qualities isn't very fun to beat.) It's clear King is emotionally invested in his characters, since he's willing to sacrifice plot and pacing at the expense of fleshing them out just a bit more.
The result is that, despite its length, I didn't want "The Stand" to end. (Yes, the climax sucks--I haven't changed my mind about that--but I think King backed himself into a corner, and he wasn't going to win no matter what.) By the end, I'm rooting for most of the characters. I want Lloyd and Harold to redeem themselves. I want Nadine to fight prophecy and defy Flagg. I want Stu to reach Boulder before Frannie's child is born. I want each character to stop being pawns and start taking control of his or her own destiny.
Some of them do and some of them don't. We may feel controlled by outside forces, but we're largely in control of our own fate. Some of us resign ourselves to destiny, and some of us take control of it. I think the idea that we have free will is largely what makes "The Stand" such an enduring book.
Fifteen years later, I'd forgotten much of "The Stand." I didn't remember The Kid, a psychopath whose scenes with Trashcan Man are the novel's most suspenseful. I didn't remember that Randall Flagg, King's most famous villain, isn't in much of the book at all.
I also didn't remember--or perhaps didn't appreciate--how enjoyable and moving "The Stand" really is.
I'll be the first to admit that King isn't a very good writer. He has a tin ear when it comes to dialogue (does anyone really say, "You know this, don't you"?). He often doesn't know what to do after the Big Event--"The Stand"'s plot comes to a screeching halt after Captain Trips has wiped out 99.9 percent of the American population. His themes and symbolism aren't very subtle (a frail old black woman leading the good guys versus a young white man leading the bad guys). The romance isn't very convincing--it's unclear why Stu and Frannie fall in love, or why Harold pines for Frannie. (For what's worth, King has never been good at love stories: he almost--almost--nailed it in "Wizard and Glass," but "Bag of Bones" and "Lisey's Story" fell flat.) Many of his books don't age well--they're trapped in the years they were written, as evidenced by the pop culture references and dialogue. And King doesn't give his characters much free will, especially in "The Stand." The characters are vividly drawn, but they're ultimately pawns in a one-sided chess game. (At one point, Abagail Freemantle, responding to Nick's admission that he doesn't believe in God, says, "Bless you, Nick, but that don't matter. He believes in you.")
Despite its flaws, "The Stand" is a testament to King's strengths. He's at his best when he has a large cast of characters to play with. And he's a master at characterization--he gives the good guys lots of flaws, and the bad guys some redeeming qualities. (Trashcan Man and Lloyd Henreid are pretty sympathetic bad guys. Let's face it: a villain with no good qualities isn't very fun to beat.) It's clear King is emotionally invested in his characters, since he's willing to sacrifice plot and pacing at the expense of fleshing them out just a bit more.
The result is that, despite its length, I didn't want "The Stand" to end. (Yes, the climax sucks--I haven't changed my mind about that--but I think King backed himself into a corner, and he wasn't going to win no matter what.) By the end, I'm rooting for most of the characters. I want Lloyd and Harold to redeem themselves. I want Nadine to fight prophecy and defy Flagg. I want Stu to reach Boulder before Frannie's child is born. I want each character to stop being pawns and start taking control of his or her own destiny.
Some of them do and some of them don't. We may feel controlled by outside forces, but we're largely in control of our own fate. Some of us resign ourselves to destiny, and some of us take control of it. I think the idea that we have free will is largely what makes "The Stand" such an enduring book.