Just a conversation-starter of a post tonight, some things I've been thinking about lately.
Take a book like my favorite of King's, Duma Key. Here are some different King readers and what they might think of it:
READER ONE: The every-book-must-be-judged-as-if-it's-King's-only-book reader. In many ways I admire this reader. Imagine having the ability to wipe one's mind and memory and enjoy each work as if it was the first? I don't know if this reader truly exists, but such a reader might respond to Duma Key differently than the others will look at. He or she might like it but not necessarily find it to be the best King he or she ever read. Maybe the characters don't grab them, maybe the whole ghost-ship/ ghost-arm business doesn't seem as iconic as something like The Shining or something. * Maybe Wireman's banter is too much, maybe some of the side-plots seem like they could have been cut.
* I realize this reader is hypothetically disallowed from making comparisons just from being in this category, but there's some wiggle room. Let's say someone had the ability to temporarily suspend all previous biases and/or expectation for the length of each book read and then afterwards could compare/ contrast it to others. This is an ideal reader/ ideal juror, but just for the sake of argument.
READER TWO: The King-must-never-repeat-himself reader. This reader is bound to be disappointed - in King and by life, frequently. I have a feeling this reader would see Duma Key as some kind of retread of previously-explored themes, just in Florida, a painter instead of a writer, a ghost-pirate instead of some creature of the Prim, a lost arm instead of some other injury, etc.
I sound a little down on these types of readers, but they exist and their viewpoints and tastes are as valid as anyone else's. There's something to be said for experiencing something once and then moving on; to them, perhaps, revisits are too close to leaving money on the table as far as new experiences, new vistas to been, etc.
READER THREE: The mega King fan. The Constant Reader and then some. In theory, this person loves every and anything King writes. In practice that works out to the popular favorites but few of the weirder ones. Is this judgmental? Or even accurate? I really don't know. For the sake of this post, though, this person exists. To this person, Duma Key could never be King's best; I mean, no one ever freaking talks about it! This person would never trust his or her own taste in soft drinks, much less popular fiction/ favorite authors.
This reader will magically discover Duma Key is a masterpiece when the right adaptation comes along. Again, I might sound unduly harsh, but I kind of find these readers adorable and in a non-patronizing way. (Okay the soft drink crack was a little harsh; I apologize, Reader(s) Three). There is a great deal of real comfort in loving things in groups, and outliers sometimes threaten that feeling. Consensus is not a bad thing; it can be a positive, calibrating thing.
READER FOUR: The mega-King fan with a twist. This reader doesn't love every King - the guy's only human, for starters, and no one can write as many novels as he has without flubbing at least a couple, and two, no two people are ever going to agree one hundred percent on which books work and which don't - but more often than not finds something to like - and often love - in even the throw-away-iest of King. This person might not howl with delight at every Dark Tower easter egg, but he/ she notices them. Likewise with any of King's go-to motifs or characters, settings, themes, structures, etc. It's enjoyable to this reader to notice that stuff, and to stack them against one another.
This IMO is the reader that probably responds most positively to Duma Key. The bits in the book that have precedent or analogs in others aren't objectionable just for being there, for one; they're opportunities to put like against like in the King head canon. And that's where Duma Key thrives. Everything listed as a "been there, done that" by Reader Two up there would strike Reader Four upon reflection as the best example of each of those.
Okay, one's mileage may vary there. I should stop and regroup. It's not that a King novel is simply the sum of various parts that are interchangeable, novel to novel. It's only that he builds from the toolkit so well described in On Writing. You can compare tool to tool, bit to bit, here and there, in a fashion. They don't each have to be superior in Duma Key, it might just be one section or component works better towards the ultimate doom and redemption of that book. (Awaiting just beyond the big-ass storm that ends so many a King book. And yet! Again, here, the storm is organic to the story. Not so in many of those other places.) And likewise, they don't all have to add up to a tangible sum greater than the sum of any other King novel, if such math was widely agreed on which it isn't.
READER FIVE: The all-the-above-is-overthinking-it-but-I-like-what-I-like reader. This person may or may not like Duma Key, who knows? I think it would depend on what he or she read last or what mood they were in. Which is to say: like all of us.
Have I made a hash of this? I'm about to throw open the floor, and I'd like your thoughts. Are there other Readers? Does any of this make sense? Let's ruminate.
Are the are any King books you perceive a different reaction from each reader? It's the main question I've been chewing over the last few days, amidst a mental landscape otherwise preoccupied with this:
What, for example, might each reader mentioned above think of Joyland? Or Storm of the Century? Ideally, here I'd have a breakdown of every-damn-thing with imagined responses from the five readers. Alas, the ideal and myself rarely meet.
Take a book like my favorite of King's, Duma Key. Here are some different King readers and what they might think of it:
READER ONE: The every-book-must-be-judged-as-if-it's-King's-only-book reader. In many ways I admire this reader. Imagine having the ability to wipe one's mind and memory and enjoy each work as if it was the first? I don't know if this reader truly exists, but such a reader might respond to Duma Key differently than the others will look at. He or she might like it but not necessarily find it to be the best King he or she ever read. Maybe the characters don't grab them, maybe the whole ghost-ship/ ghost-arm business doesn't seem as iconic as something like The Shining or something. * Maybe Wireman's banter is too much, maybe some of the side-plots seem like they could have been cut.
* I realize this reader is hypothetically disallowed from making comparisons just from being in this category, but there's some wiggle room. Let's say someone had the ability to temporarily suspend all previous biases and/or expectation for the length of each book read and then afterwards could compare/ contrast it to others. This is an ideal reader/ ideal juror, but just for the sake of argument.
READER TWO: The King-must-never-repeat-himself reader. This reader is bound to be disappointed - in King and by life, frequently. I have a feeling this reader would see Duma Key as some kind of retread of previously-explored themes, just in Florida, a painter instead of a writer, a ghost-pirate instead of some creature of the Prim, a lost arm instead of some other injury, etc.
I sound a little down on these types of readers, but they exist and their viewpoints and tastes are as valid as anyone else's. There's something to be said for experiencing something once and then moving on; to them, perhaps, revisits are too close to leaving money on the table as far as new experiences, new vistas to been, etc.
READER THREE: The mega King fan. The Constant Reader and then some. In theory, this person loves every and anything King writes. In practice that works out to the popular favorites but few of the weirder ones. Is this judgmental? Or even accurate? I really don't know. For the sake of this post, though, this person exists. To this person, Duma Key could never be King's best; I mean, no one ever freaking talks about it! This person would never trust his or her own taste in soft drinks, much less popular fiction/ favorite authors.
This reader will magically discover Duma Key is a masterpiece when the right adaptation comes along. Again, I might sound unduly harsh, but I kind of find these readers adorable and in a non-patronizing way. (Okay the soft drink crack was a little harsh; I apologize, Reader(s) Three). There is a great deal of real comfort in loving things in groups, and outliers sometimes threaten that feeling. Consensus is not a bad thing; it can be a positive, calibrating thing.
READER FOUR: The mega-King fan with a twist. This reader doesn't love every King - the guy's only human, for starters, and no one can write as many novels as he has without flubbing at least a couple, and two, no two people are ever going to agree one hundred percent on which books work and which don't - but more often than not finds something to like - and often love - in even the throw-away-iest of King. This person might not howl with delight at every Dark Tower easter egg, but he/ she notices them. Likewise with any of King's go-to motifs or characters, settings, themes, structures, etc. It's enjoyable to this reader to notice that stuff, and to stack them against one another.
This IMO is the reader that probably responds most positively to Duma Key. The bits in the book that have precedent or analogs in others aren't objectionable just for being there, for one; they're opportunities to put like against like in the King head canon. And that's where Duma Key thrives. Everything listed as a "been there, done that" by Reader Two up there would strike Reader Four upon reflection as the best example of each of those.
Okay, one's mileage may vary there. I should stop and regroup. It's not that a King novel is simply the sum of various parts that are interchangeable, novel to novel. It's only that he builds from the toolkit so well described in On Writing. You can compare tool to tool, bit to bit, here and there, in a fashion. They don't each have to be superior in Duma Key, it might just be one section or component works better towards the ultimate doom and redemption of that book. (Awaiting just beyond the big-ass storm that ends so many a King book. And yet! Again, here, the storm is organic to the story. Not so in many of those other places.) And likewise, they don't all have to add up to a tangible sum greater than the sum of any other King novel, if such math was widely agreed on which it isn't.
READER FIVE: The all-the-above-is-overthinking-it-but-I-like-what-I-like reader. This person may or may not like Duma Key, who knows? I think it would depend on what he or she read last or what mood they were in. Which is to say: like all of us.
Have I made a hash of this? I'm about to throw open the floor, and I'd like your thoughts. Are there other Readers? Does any of this make sense? Let's ruminate.
Are the are any King books you perceive a different reaction from each reader? It's the main question I've been chewing over the last few days, amidst a mental landscape otherwise preoccupied with this:
 |
| Thanks to The Truth Inside the Lie for the screencaps. |
I should mention each of the readers is me. You might think I stacked the deck for Reader Four, since Duma Key is indeed my personal favorite. But I consider myself lucky with that one - had I read it later in my King's Highway re-read, towards the end, let's say, would I have been in a more Reader Two or Reader Five mode? Or maybe even Reader Four.
ReplyDeleteReader One is probably the most impartial. And that I'll alas never be.
I've probably been each of those types at various points. And of course, one's stances shift over time, so a Type 1 might be a Type 2 tomorrow; or it might even vary from one book to the next, or one author to the next.
DeleteAnother potential type of reader is one who feels an urge to try to actively understand their own responses to the books. A rare breed!
(1) Very darn good. This is just the kind of subject matter that's sort of been a constant preoccupation in just about all I'm thinking about when it comes the making of art and its reception. Warning, this could have to be a multi-part response.
ReplyDelete(2) I think you're correct to raise the question of types of readers, and what, if any, levels they fall on. The best contribution I can make, however, is that, from what I've observed, any given person can only go so far into any book or film to the extent that their own interest in the subject allows.
I think that's the key shared trait in all this, interest. As an example, I could never have got into King if I hadn't spent my formative years growing up with an interest in Horror fiction that started small, and then matured until the time was right. King was someone I read about before diving into, and in this instance, it seems to be a case of curiosity rewarded for the most part.
However, it would be absurd to believe others have this same level of interest.
(3) Because of this necessary element of interest that I tend to feel that while you are right to suggest multiple levels of reading interest, I also feel that some kind of simplification can be made in terms of dividing readers from non-readers.
You mention the type where, once they've read the novel, they'd rather move on. To my mind, this is a perfect example of someone who probably isn't all that much of a reader to begin with. The train of thought in this type might be that they've already had the experience, the judgment being that a book is more like something just to check off on a list. This amounts utilitarian stance on reading that I maintain is counter to the very nature and function of fiction, even of the minor variety. For example I may not think "Duma Key" is King at his best, yet even I am willing to admit that it's worth a study in terms of seeing what works, what doesn't, and why. This read it once type probably couldn't even get to that level of thinking.
To be continued.
ChrisC
Continued from last post.
ReplyDelete(4) I'd like to introduce a distinction to one of the categories, if I may. A variation on the read-it-once-type could be the sort of reader who does not object to the idea of sequels as a rule. However, they are aware that creativity itself can have diminishing returns unless the right elements are in place. These readers are more than willing to go back multiple times to the books and films they love, though they might be leery when a continuation is attempted.
This marks out another curious trait of the sort of reader I'm thinking about. They may carry the idea in their heads that certain works, ones they believe to be great, are the way they are precisely because their is a level of what can only be described as a certain artistic integrity to the whole thing which any continuation or unnecessary tampering would just spoil.
This kind of reader could then be described as not a read it once type, but rather I suppose a Value of Art type. I don't know whether that is just another form of Art for Art's sake, and I'm not sure how much it matters. However I do know its the category I would most use to describe myself.
(5) In terms of King repeating himself, I have found at least a handful of instances. These are "Doctor Sleep", and the "Hodges Trilogy", all books try to fulfill promises that don't even seem to be there for the making. I find them all to be ultimately dull and unimportant affairs. With the Hodges stuff its easy to brush off and move on. "Doctor" Sleep" on the other hand is interesting. I seem to be one of the few who found himself one of the many on that book.
I recall it started out with rave reviews, only for the pendulum to shift toward the negative over time. In that sense there's a weird, unexpected sense of catch-up going on that was surprising. Either way, it doesn't elevate that particular novel in my estimation. I came away thinking the whole thing was a bad idea, and that opinion hasn't changed in any fundamental way.
However, what separates books like Duma Key or "The Outsider" from this criticism is because I think both are instances of King looking for new ways of expressing old, familiar tropes and concepts, and doing it in a way that is a copy and paste job. I believe he was able to carry off this exercise successfully with "Outsider" in a way he couldn't quite manage with "Key".
If i had to give a reason why this should be so, then the best suggestion I can give is that somehow material in Key didn't quite fire his imagination in the way it did in the latter novel. The inspiration just didn't seem to hold up for the author in the older book. Whereas in "Outsider", even if its not top tier King, I'm stilling willing to argue that the mind who did the composing of it was definitely inspired and having fun while it was going on the page.
To be concluded.
ChrisC
(6) I kind of have to apologize for not being as able to answer or address all the questions raised in this post. I think a lot of the reason for that is cause I'm still trying to make my own way through the very topic itself. I guess that means I can only go so far, right now. Apparently this is something that happens. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteAll I can do for now is circle back to my first point and leave one final addition. The add-on is merely this. The need for interest also dictates the extent of any given readers willingness to even consider thematic textual matters. From what I can tell, this is not a preoccupation of the great mass of the audience, and it probably never will be. A perfect example of this is the level of interest in films from the Golden Age of Hollywood.
As an example, there's you're response to an Orson Welles TV movie review I did. It demonstrates at least a good deal of interest in entertainment from an older era. That's all well and good. Indeed, there are even ways in which it could prove valuable to posterity. The trouble is it doesn't change the fact that this was interest that had to be constructed over time.
This is an interest which many other will not be able to acquire, and the reason for it seems to be lack of any positive early exposure to this type of storytelling. I can recall growing up with clear memories of my parents exposing me to the likes of "Amadeus", "Lawrence of Arabia", and Humphrey Bogart and the Marx Brothers". In fact, I can provide a clip that serves as a perfect snapshot of the kind of entertainment I grew up with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fnWFX1DlkM
What is shown is an interesting combination of the then new (for the 80s) mixed with a great helping, even a predominance, of the old. While the viewer is surrounded here and there by the new, the older forms of entertainment somehow find a way to shape, mold, and often overshadow the contemporary.
THAT was the formative artistic environment I grew up in. I was always surrounded by the detritus of earlier eras in everything I read or saw. This moulded my mind in a way that sort of allowed it to favor and leave room for a host of films and books that most of my age gap would probably now have to take what amounts to an arduous training regimen just in order to gain even the faintest level of interest and understanding of the material provided above.
ChrisC.
(3) "You mention the type where, once they've read the novel, they'd rather move on. To my mind, this is a perfect example of someone who probably isn't all that much of a reader to begin with." True. This whole paragraph is spot-on; makes sense to me.
Delete(4) I can see that. It's tough to put into words.
(5) "I believe he was able to carry off this exercise successfully with "Outsider" in a way he couldn't quite manage with "Key"." Au contraire, monsieur! But I hear you. Hell, most people feel that way, I bet; DUMA KEY just hits me in all the right places, I guess.
(6) "The need for interest also dictates the extent of any given readers willingness to even consider thematic textual matters. From what I can tell, this is not a preoccupation of the great mass of the audience, and it probably never will be. A perfect example of this is the level of interest in films from the Golden Age of Hollywood." I agree with this, too. Some people just don't have the interest in that stuff, the evolution/ history of the genre, etc. It's no superiror thing, just yeah the difference between a civilian and a grunt, or something; just a different level of involvement. My buddy puts it as some people are "seekers," others are "knowers," others are "receivers," etc. I can see a lot of overlap in his descriptions and my own. (This particular friend, by the way, is a total Reader Two. One and done, movie or book. Great memory, too, I can mention scenes from anything we've seen, knowing he's seen it only once, and he always remembers the exact scene and what happens around it.)
That TNT clip you posted is great. What a treasure trove YouTube can be. You're right, too, or I had a similar experience: for me, perhaps my interest in the art of the past can be traced simply to my parents showing (and re-enforcing) things FROM the past. I saw Doris Day movies, Hayley Mills movies, 60s TV, old Looney Toons and Merrie Melodies, etc. routinely growing up. It was all on a concurrent track to all the other wonderful 80s input going in my head, too, but it's funny: I have that Marty McFly thing ("I was into 80s music in the 50s!") When I think of the 80s, I tend to think of a lot of 70s and 60s stuff simultaneously.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments and feedback, dude.
"When I think of the 80s, I tend to think of a lot of 70s and 60s stuff simultaneously."
DeleteYes, now compare that with the way the decade is handled in contemporary programming that is either set in, or else tries to tackle the legacy of that period. They certain surface details correct. However I don't think I've seen any show (lookin' at YOU "Stranger Things"!) where I could say the filmmakers were able to pay attention to the quality and aspect you just listed.
I can't help thinking its a weakness on their part. Though, to be fair, it is just possible that it is not the decade itself, so much as filtering what they were going through at the time. The 80s as an epoch was just something that was happening in the background for them. Whatever they were going through probably left them no time to stop and see the sights.
At least there's one way of looking at it.
ChrisC.
One final thing, I don't know if this helps, however I did come across this interesting bit of info:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1239697605606682626
I'm not sure, though it could just mean there's starting to be at least a glimmer of light near the end of the Lincoln Tunnel. Fingers crossed, I guess.
ChrisC
To me, I always have looked at it as 3 types of viewers. The casual, The devout, and the dedicated. The casual is a mix of type one and two as you describe. They read a book or two by King, like him or don't, and if they like him read a few more before growing bored and moving on. This is the greatest audience, and perhaps the most important. There thin interest decides the classics of a given author and his decline, because once they move on conversation does as well. Many casual readers read King in the 80s (70s-early 90's as well), that's what matters to the cultural consensus and why books like duma key or joyland after that point don't receive as much attention.
ReplyDeleteThe devout are readers that don't stop at a few but become fans that read many if not all of kings work. Problem is they feed from the casual well. There ultimate opinions are from the popular consensus. So The Shining is a classic but Duma Key isn't because everyone knows that. These are your readers three. Thing is they matter a lot because these are the people still talking about The Shining that get the casual reader to read the book in the first place. The devout turn the casual to the devout, creating a base for an author like King but limiting his appeal to a handful of the dozens of books he's written
Then there is us, the dedicated. We've not only read everything by King, but have opinion the go against the grain. We like the despised Insomnia or The Tommyknockers because, for whatever reason, they clicked with us and the general consensus didn't affect us. We're probably the most knowledgeable and diverse of the three groups, but the least practically useful. We probably both agree The Shining rocks, but I've seen you defend the regulators and you've seen me defend desperation. Both opposite sides on that coin, and since we don't agree the casual won't really consider our opinion but instead go with the devout's loud but agreeable position.
I suppose this describes readers less and fandom more, but I think we are about on the same page. All three groups are equally important to the continued legacy of any form of art, let alone Stephen King.
I like your breakdown. Particularly the relative importance of each group.
DeleteOne thing, too, is that the dedicated group as you describe them is not something that can be passed down from generation to generation. But they leave behind markers to follow for the devout group, once the casual conversation becomes about something else.
I suppose, like any ecosystem, each part of it is more important than we sometimes realize.
I think I got no choice except to applaud this categorization. It seems to have taken the initial premise of the blog post and found a way to streamline it in so that any layman (or casual) can understand.
DeleteThinking it over, it seems like I fall in a kind of middle ground between the devout and the dedicated. I tend to view both Regulators and Desperation as standing on equal footing. Conversely, Bryan here is not so hot on "Bag of Bone", whereas I tend to regard it as one of King's best ever. In that sense, I seem to be more in line with the casual consensus, at least as it exists at the moment.
On the other hand, there are traits in my thinking about King's work that could place me more toward the devout, such as being a fan of the Mick Garris and Tim Curry adaptations, although the latter does share some overlap with the casual and the dedicated. Where I break off, however is when I admit to liking forgotten works like "Rose Red" or "Dreamcatcher".
The result, in my case, at least, seems to be a mixture of the two camps somehow able to occupy the same space in my critical thinking, at least as far as King is concerned.
ChrisC
And really, had I read Bag of Bones before I read Duma Key, would I have felt the way I feel about the latter about the former? I think I felt Bag of Bones was a lesser version of Duma Key, that they both fall in the same slot on the King thematic/ approach wheel. But like I say up there, I consider myself lucky that I read it in the order I did, because I might have shrugged off Duma Key otherwise, or not liked it as much. Whereas I've read it 6 or 7 times now and I get an enormous amount of it.
DeleteBag of Bones also has that adaptation which is rough going, not that I hold that against the book, just I watched it before I read the book.
I'm not anti-Bag of Bones, though! One of these days I really look forward to reading it again.
(1) "The every-book-must-be-judged-as-if-it's-King's-only-book reader. In many ways I admire this reader."
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't be my cup of tea, personally, but I do kind of see how it has hypothetical appeal. No author like King can really have a one-book-at-a-time analysis, though. I mean, you *can*, but if you do, I'm not sure you're getting the full picture. And yet, one could counter-argue that it's easy to descend into a seeing-the-forest-instead-of-the-trees situation.
(2) "The King-must-never-repeat-himself reader. This reader is bound to be disappointed - in King and by life, frequently."
I know readers like this exist, but why they'd be drawn to King is a mystery to me. And anyways, for a prolific artistic, repeating oneself is perhaps not only inevitable, but desirable. By judicious repetition, one can permit others to form a sort of three-dimensional image of one's viewpoints by providing multiple surfaces to bounce off of. Take King's many writings on addiction, for example; you'd think he'd never find anything new to say on the subject, and yet he frequently does. Still! With only a keep-moving-forward philosophy, such things couldn't happen, and King's body of work would be woefully less rich because of it.
(3) "The mega King fan. The Constant Reader and then some. In theory, this person loves every and anything King writes. In practice that works out to the popular favorites but few of the weirder ones. Is this judgmental? Or even accurate? I really don't know."
I think it probably IS accurate. My personal experience is that many readers who'd slot into this category are sycophantic and are therefore unable to think outside the box of whatever is commonly accepted in their experience of fandom. I have some leanings in this direction myself, although at this point I can break away from them pretty reliably. But there are some fans that, unless they've seen it written somewhere with multiple backing sources that "Duma Key" is King's best book, they won't even consider the notion. This type of fan is also apt to compare King to Shakespeare or Dickens, because, like, they read some smarty-pants say that and it sounded good. I'm being snarky, but, like you, I kind of admire fans like this; they seem like they get a lot of enjoyment out of their fandom, and that's not a bad thing.
(4) "This reader will magically discover Duma Key is a masterpiece when the right adaptation comes along."
Oh, man, ain't that the truth? And Duma Key is a prime candidate for just this sort of thing.
(5) "The mega-King fan with a twist. This reader doesn't love every King - the guy's only human, for starters, and no one can write as many novels as he has without flubbing at least a couple, and two, no two people are ever going to agree one hundred percent on which books work and which don't - but more often than not finds something to like - and often love - in even the throw-away-iest of King."
I believe we have arrived at the type which fits me.
"With only a keep-moving-forward philosophy, such things couldn't happen, and King's body of work would be woefully less rich because of it."
DeleteAbsolutely. There are a few artists who can pull that sort of thing off. (David Bowie or Miles Davis or Bob Dylan come to mind: each project is a reinvention of sorts.) King could, too, probably. But: I'm glad he didn't. Like you say, it allows for a different sort of triangulation of theme.
(6) "Awaiting just beyond the big-ass storm that ends so many a King book. And yet! Again, here, the storm is organic to the story. Not so in many of those other places."
ReplyDeleteI don't know that it ever consciously occurred to me how frequently big storms factor into King books, but they kind of do, don't they? And the fact that I never thought about it argues for feeling that King does them successfully. Or that I'm a shite reader. Maybe even both!
(7) "The all-the-above-is-overthinking-it-but-I-like-what-I-like reader."
I reckon this is probably most people. And it's probably a sensible stance. All of them are, really; "you do you" is by no means the worst advice one can give on things like reading.
(8) "Have I made a hash of this?"
Nope.
(9) "Are the are any King books you perceive a different reaction from each reader?"
Hmm...! That's a great question. The first thing that comes to mind is "Roadwork," which seems to be entirely off the radar for many, and actively objectionable to at least a few. The last time I myself read it, I thought it was great.
I think you could maybe argue that "The Breathing Method" lands reliably differently for different readers, as well. Maybe "The Gunslinger" belongs in that grouping, as well.
Great food for thought, that's for sure!
(10) The Truth Inside The Lie says you are more than welcome to the screencaps. Hoard 'em like you would hoard toilet paper! Watch out for the Walkin' Dude...
(6) The storm thing sometimes annoys me. (Like Joyland.) It's such a forced-end to any story. It's a good way for an author to get out of a jam, but I think King has used it way too many times. This is another feather in Duma Key's cap; the storm is part of the danger/evil.
DeleteGot to run for now but I shall return to respond further...
Those are good choices for books that might hit each reader differently. And ROADWORK, yep, most definitely.
DeleteI guess there wasn't as much I wanted to circle back to as I thought early this morning - I just liked thinking about the three you mentioned from the POV of each reader. Good choices.