I didn't have much to say about this book when I reviewed it the first time, but my opinion had fallen a bit by the time I reviewed it again in 2019:
"It's tough to tell what the point of writing an unsolvable mystery is outside of a classroom exercise of some kind. King's at a point, both careerwise and talentwise, where he can write such a thing and get it published and even make it compelling. But why would he want to? And how could anyone tell if he succeeded or not? He famously derided Nicholson Baker's Vox as a meaningless fingernail paring, but what is this, then? I can only assume there's something here I'm missing."
Still fair, I feel, but as a result of this re-read, I’m going to bump this one up, from 63rd (of 65) to 46. I’ll get to why that is momentarily, but there it is up front. Lest we forget, though, this is not some King's Highway adjunct project, but another episode of:
Also, I’ll break from previous entries in the Hard Case Crime Chronicles and delve into plot details and spoilers, below. |
2005 HCC-013-I |
There'll definitely be at least one more of these (King's Later comes out in early 2021) but the Hard Case Crime Chronicles will be slowing down for the foreseeable future. Like From Novel to Film or Friday Night Film Noir or Twilight Zone Tuesday or any once-frequent-feature here at the Omnibus, the HCCC will join the Legion of Inactive Series. I don't really consider these series "closed" in that I exist in a permanent state of wanting to take up any old series and continue; hell, I'm still plotting storylines for fan-fic comics written with friends from the 80s, in some part of my brain. (True story.) So, same with Hard Case Crime Chronicles. I mean, I'm keeping the books. Which is actually part of how the project was a failure.
I had two objectives: (1) to read the fifty-ish Hard Case Crime books on my shelf to (2) determine whether or not I was keeping them or donating them. I failed the first part by thirty-five books so was unable to determine the second part. On the other hand, I enjoyed myself, mostly. So hey. I'd not like to make a habit out of enjoying failure, but it's a victory of sorts (not the scoreboard - or electoral college - kind) when it happens. Because reading’s cool, Beavis.
So let's jump in. First, the new cover. Great composition, but the girl needed some work. (The shoulders, the left leg: ugh.) This juxtaposition of idyllic seaside Maine with murder works well, and it’s the sort of thing that specifically holds anchor for King. As he mentions in the afterword, the islands off the coast of Maine like Monhegan or Cranberry fascinate him with their “contrasting yet oddly complimentary atmospheres of community and solitariness.” It’s a fascination that has minted mucho dinero for El Maestro Rey, and much readerly delight among his fans.
He’s also sketched out the Maine-r of the American species many times. He does here as lovingly as anywhere, although he burns off some of the good will he engenders by indulging a bit too much. He’s tried this sort of thing (two locals relaying a long quasi-mythological tale as interrupted and augmented by their folksy mannerisms, their unsurpassed empathy, and their wisdom) many times in other places, but I’d say the way he does it in The Colorado Kid is mostly a net-positive. Some of the broader strokes work better (“That in the winter the wind on the mainland side of the island was sometimes a terrible sound, almost the cry of a bereft woman, was a thing she did not know, and there was no reason to tell her” than others “Then they were all laughing. Stephanie * thought she loved those two old buzzards. She really did.”)
* Stephanie/ Stephen. Draw your own conclusions. At one point, the other two characters kid Steffi – “That’s pretty good. You should be a writer.” I do not suggest Steffi is a one-to-one avatar for the author (what Grant Morrison has called the “two-dimensional diving suit”) any more than Vince or (the other guy) is. But are the author’s characters / inner monologues cracking on him? i.e. is that what his characters are telling King, the faithful transcriber/ excavator of the characters in his stories? Yes. In other places in the book as well.
A parable is delivered in the first chapter re: the monetary ecology of a closed island community and perceptions vs. reality that probably doubles as King’s statement on the Schrödinger’s Mystery aspect of The Colorado Kid itself. Vince answer’s Steffi’s question (“will (the waitress) know who put the money in her purse?”) “If she didn’t know, would that make it illegal tender?” They might as well have put a picture in after that chapter of everyone looking directly at the reader.
Speaking of the pictures, there are plenty new ones in the second printing. I didn't include them all below and can't provide specific credits since neither the publisher (Charles Ardai, in his intro) nor the author in his Afterword, nor anyone at the respective sites for the book (for shame!) or wiki, did, except to state that one or two of them are by Kate Kelton, the actress who played Jordan on Haven (allegedly based on TCK) and others are by Mark Edward Geyer, Paul Mann, and Mark Summers.
Paul Devane in foreground, whose father-in-law's cigarette habit provides an important clue. |
I assume this is the Colorado Kid's widow? Kinda vampy, eh? |
I also don't recall Steffi wearing a mini-skirt and pumps. Then again, I don't recall her looking as shown on the original cover. I'm the kind of dumb animal who says "hey wow, legs!" either stupid way. |
I like this one. Don't mind Herman up there, my desk gargoyle; he was helping hold the book open for me. |
The Russian coin that does not exist in our world. (Is that President Chadbourne on the $5 bill? Does that look like Lincoln to you?) |
This reminds me of that scene near the beginning of Blue Velvet: "Yep. That's an ear all right." |
Let's chat about the mystery, shall we? I took note of a few things while reading:
- "Tea for the Tillerman" comes up more than once, in one of those flashes of inspiration from Steffi that seem rather conspicuously placed. She at first thinks it's Al Stewart, then remembers it's Cat Stevens. It's Cat Stevens in our world, but as other things suggest, this whole takes place in another. The lyrics suggest tea for the tillerman and "steak for the son." Our mystery dead man does have a piece of improbable steak lodged in his throat. How or why, who knows? This is a tantalizing line of inquiry, but I can make nothing of it.
- "This has been a long time coming" or "Lidle's got it coming" are what the (unreliable drunk) tillerman hears from our possible-mystery-dead man as he crosses the sound. What does this mean? Zero clue. Who is Lidle?
- The time difference between CO and ME is two hours, and the final sightings of Mystery Dead Man (Cogan) are 10:30 am CO time and 5:30 pm ME time.
- The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is referenced. Is this a clue? Is there anything in the plot which speaks to TCK?
- The pack of cigarettes has only one missing. Twenty cigarettes come in a pack. Twenty minus one is FFS obviously the dude went Todash.
- No Starbucks in 1980, nor Blockbuster, yet both are mentioned. And there apparently is no such Russian coin as the one Cogan has, the Chervonetz. These are deliberate clues, so we must accept the idea that this is an alternate timeline/ dimension than the one we inhabit. Steffi and Vince make no mention of the incongruity of Starbucks/ Blockbuster, so they too inhabit one we do not. These are not minor things, I'd say. (Would it make the story/ mystery more compelling if they had? That is to say, if they were of our timeline, where these things are incongruities? I think so. Instead we're left with another mystery. Unless: the Colorado Kid is actually from our own future-present and somehow warped into the 1980-Maine of the titular story. That's what I lean to.)
That brings me to my only real problem of TCK. Which isn't so much a problem with the book itself but with King's remarks about it. He originally suggested that there is a solution. Then he started saying, well, there only might be; "my solution," (he says) "is supernatural." This annoys me. Is King's solution only one of many solutions? It's one thing to say "hey some of my fans might not like my not solving this one" and another to be all "maybe there is one; maybe there isn't." You either included the clues needed to solve the mystery, or you didn't.
And "supernatural" covers so much ground that it muddies the point of the perfectly readable but to-what-purpose what-ifs in which the novel engages. What's the point of eliminating the impossible to arrive at the improbable if "gone Todash" is ultimately the answer even though you need to go beyond the book to even get the clue? Does it undermine the whole point of living our lives in cogent defiance of the nightmare-fuel-of-unknowns that existentially envelop us all? To borrow from King's allusion at the beginning, it decreases the purchasing power of the legal tender in circulation.
I said this is a story about telling stories, but really the plot is even simpler: it’s simply a story about the day Steffi joined the staff ("crossed over the river") of The Weekly Islander. Tea for the tillerman. All the relevant details to tell that story, to achieve that goal, are present in The Colorado Kid. As Vince says, life is 99% mystery and 1% conceptual re-framing to stay sane. Then again, this is drama, folks. I can’t see why it can’t be both a meditation on the stories we tell ourselves and how we use them to accept/ exclude and a puzzle box with a more traditionally satisfying conclusion: The Mystery of the Riddle’s Enigma plus Steffi solving it, even if she (or the reader) is unaware she's done so.
Actually, I guess such a book would probably look something like The Outsider. King's the one who gets us into this mess by the Starbucks/Blockbuster thing. I think when it comes to whatever mysteries remain in King's works, we likely have gotten all the answers we're going to get. It's frustrating, but that's life.
Perhaps there's a lesson there.
"And on the mound the little boy who had been pitching held his glove up to one of the bright circles which hung in the sky just below the clouds, as if to touch that mystery, and bring it close, and open its heart, and know its story."
Herman is happy to have helped. |
(1) "I’m going to bump this one up, from 63rd (of 65) to 46." -- A respectable leap up the charts!
ReplyDelete(2) "I’d say the way he does it in The Colorado Kid is mostly a net-positive." -- I agree that it's a bit much at times, and I also agree that the cumulative effect is somehow a win. I think it comes down to the fact that King is really trying to say something -- or maybe just hint at something -- beneath the page with this one. I feel as if it reads very much like the work of a guy contemplating the end being a tangible thing. Both existentially and professionally; he was still recovering from his accident when he wrote it, and was contemplating retirement. Whether that adds up to a satisfactory story is debatable, but I think he had his teeth in something behind the scenes.
(3) "* Stephanie/ Stephen. Draw your own conclusions." -- Proof I'll never be anything but an amateur; this never crossed my mind! Or if it did, it flew out of it again.
(4) I find myself wishing the interior artwork hadn't been as salacious. I get it for the cover(s); that's how you get the rubes to pick it up. But I kind of expect the interior art to be more representative of the work itself, and none of the stuff with the cheesecake drawings really serves that purpose. I don't dislike any of it all that much, but that's not high praise, is it?
(5) "I'm the kind of dumb animal who says "hey wow, legs!" either stupid way." -- I mean, me too, obviously. In our defense, long lady legs are a damn fine sight. May as well try to not appreciate a sunrise!
(6) I like Herman! I don't have a desk gargoyle for that, all I've got is a stupid tape dispenser.
(7) I think I think it's supposed to be Lincoln on the fiver, but can't swear to it either way.
(8) "Who is Lidle?" -- Lidle Lovlett, noted country/eastern singer on level 4968.
(9) I can't see any connection whatsoever between this book and "Harsh Mistress." Granted, it's been a long while since I read that. I'd love to get back into Heinlein someday.
(10) "Twenty minus one is FFS obviously the dude went Todash." -- You've read "Song of Susannah" more recently than I have. How does that book's idea about walk-ins mesh with this book?
(2) The presence of oblivion in our lives and how it can lurch towards you then back away again, having made its inevitable presence known to you, can do a number on a fella! I suppose The Colorado Kid is a respectable philosophical takeaway from such an encounter.
Delete(3) It's the kind of possibly-no-thing I wonder if I might not be making something out of. And yet, it's how I was taught: if a writer's main character is a variation of his/her name, it means something. It fits to a general read on the book, though, of King being groomed (as a writer, as a Mainer-r, as a participant and officiant of mysteries) by two idealized versions of his Uncle Oren/ college professors.
(4) Agreed.
(6) Herman was happy to participate. He's lobbied for a bigger part on the whole McShow. I've asked the producers.
(7) It's nothing to hang a theory on, as it's pretty much impossible to tell, and of course had anyone BUT Lincoln been on it, DeVane would certainly have said something. But I just like thinking President Chadbourne is going to be the mystery-solver in any such situation.
(8) Nice. lol
(10) If we accept that the Weekly Islander level of the Tower is an alternate dimension of some kind - and I can see no other explanation given the deliberate Starbucks/ Blockbuster clue, and the Russian coin - then is Cogan walking in from our dimension? Through some portal in Colorado? And yet, his wife mentioned the Blockbuster too? I lean towards Cogan being from some future-present of our own and stepping in to the book, somehow, but of course, it could be anything.
(3) No, I think you're dead on the money assuming that there's got to be some sort of purpose there. I mean, *maybe* there isn't; but I think assuming it makes sense.
Delete(7) That President Chadbourne business deserves further development. I like "The Reploids," I wish it wasn't so obscure.
(10) Maybe he walked into (onto?) another level and then came back? Through a small thinny or something? The whole walk-ins thing might not be applicable at all, but for some reason it feels like it's right.
(10) I sincerely hope that King is the sort of fella who leaves "Ready Player One" instructions with his estate after his death, and one such instruction is a riddle about solving the Colorado Kid. Or maybe even just the solution to it.
Delete(11) "Steffi and Vince make no mention of the incongruity of Starbucks/ Blockbuster, so they too inhabit one we do not. These are not minor things, I'd say." -- I cannot conceive of the idea that King would have been unaware Blockbuster didn't exist in 1980. MAYBE Starbucks, but certainly not Blockbuster. Nor would an editor have let those go. So yeah, I think it's definitely a purposeful thing.
ReplyDelete(12) "This annoys me. Is King's solution only one of many solutions?" -- I think King was still in the mode where his Tower mythos had overwhelmed him creatively and caused him to make some iffy decisions. As with many of those things, I'm of a split mind on the subject. On the one hand, from a Tower-centric standpoint, an occurrence like this is perfectly logical. And King doesn't push it TOO hard, I think; if you know, you know, and if you don't know you'll mostly not even tip to the fact that you're missing anything. Still, I kind of wish that the whole of the book could be as mysterious to me as it is to its characters. I've talked myself into being okay with that, because I can experience it vicariously through them; but still, I think I resent being an insider on this one, at least to some mild degree.
(13) "Actually, I guess such a book would probably look something like The Outsider." -- Ooh, now there's an interesting thought! You're onto something there for sure.
(14) Too bad this series is going on hiatus! As with the others, of course, you always have the option of starting it up again if the mood strikes. Not a bad set of options to have on tap.
(11) And he's confirmed over the years that it wasn't a mistake, so we must take him at his word and see it as THE clue from which to proceed. However, it doesn't help much.
Delete(12) I'm fine with King putting the Tower stuff wherever he wants. As we've discussed, sometimes it's an eye-roll, sometimes it's cool, but here, I don't see much going on (besides the 19 in the cigarette pack which isn't much) to suggest a Tower read. EXCEPT his damn cagey, equivocating remarks in recent years. That's what annoys me. The book is fine where/ what it is, it's King's suggestions after the fact that first there's an answer, then oh well MAYBE there's an answer and MAYBE it's supernatural, that unnerve me. Seems like a form of cheating.
(13) I thought so, too! Like oh, the book I'm describing is kinda the second half of The Outsider. That's what The Colorado Kid might look like if Steffi kept digging. (Or perhaps the "If It Bleeds" novella.)
(14) There'll be a few more! Definitely Later, and most likely 4-5 of the ones I had planned. It was those Quarry books that derailed me. I thought reading/ doing them all together would be fun, but it ended up annoying me and the author's reaction(s) even more. I'd shrug it off if I had a huge yen to keep reading pulp-noir/neo-noir but I can feel my energies gathering in other genres for the immediate future.
(13) Let's all agree NOT to give King the idea to rewrite this as a Holly novella.
Delete(13) I'm waiting for you to tell me that she shows up in the new Stand series.
Delete(1) Everything Bryant says about the Tower connections seems to be on-point as far as I can see for this book, I'm afraid. I don't know if I'm as bugged by this as you. For me, it's a bit more ironic and puzzling.
ReplyDeleteMy thinking is, you write a story claiming it to be about "the inscrutable". However, you then go on to a finish off a series that pretty much provides all the answers, making it anything but "inscrutable". Then you try the same hat trick again. The idea it gives off is that of a writer who wants to leave the door open for mystery, yet is often a bit too sure of his own answers to put up with mystery for very long.
If that's the case, then, it is what it is. Whatever gets you through the night, etc. It's still just possible to wish he knew better than to try and equivocate when it serves no real purpose...
...What the hell was I even talking about?!
(2) This whole post makes me wonder. Does anyone know if King has read anything by Vladimir Nabokov? The reason I ask is because the more I think it over, it almost sounds as if King is trying to mimic the kind of story Nabokov used to write. I know he's famous as the guy who wrote a book that Kubrick turned into a movie featuring James Mason.
However, that was just one book. It's the only one people seem to know him for. He wrote a lot of other stuff, however, and most of it seems to fall into whatever category "Colorado Kid" falls into.
The more I read of Nabokov, the more apparent it becomes that he's the kind of writer who actually likes writing the kind of novel that is also something of a puzzle box. The best example of this is called "Pale Fire", and its structured and set up as a commentary on a poem which may be something else entirely. Yeah, this is why Nabokov used to be the darling of the Ivory Tower for a brief span of 15 minutes. I've heard critics describe him as an enchanter, magician, and something of a riddle master. Critics even like to publish book length keys to his books. The one that sticks out to me at the moment is "Vladimir Nabokov: Poetry and the Lyric Voice", for what it's worth.
I guess my question amounts to is there any indication King has read Nabokov, and ids trying to copy that kind of writing in his own works? I know he referenced VN in "The Things They Left Behind". Is there anything else? I am sort of curious about this. As for Nabokov, the best place to start is probably his collected short stories. That's where it's possible to find a series of vignettes that tend to carry the same flavor as "Colorado Kid". Read stories like "Gods, or "The Seaport" and see what you think.
ChrisC.
(1) "What the hell was I even talking about?!"
DeleteOne of us is going to have to keep track of that...!
ALl kidding aside, I don't really feel "bugged" per se by it. I just think it's something beyond ironic when (as you say) a writer delivers an inscurtable mystery and then equivocates after the fact. Either King wrote it as a mystery that was never meant to be solved, or he wrote it as a mystery that, however difficult or opaque the details, the solution lies therein, as he first said. To change that after the fact/ over time is less than jake.
(2) I don't know if King read Nabokov. Probably. I've never heard of any Nabokov influence on this book or King in general but I certainly wouldn't discount the idea, makes sense to me from the little I understand of the author. He just came up in this book of colected obituaries of 20th century movers and shakers ("A Torch Kept Lit") by William F. Buckley Jr. (They were friends; the Buckleys were friends with everyone. Except the Vidals.)
One of these days I certainly mean to get there. The big stumbling block for me with VN is some of his fans, alas. Which is unfair to the author and to any fans of his who weren't the worst kids in my English program at college (and after). Like I say, can't hold that against him. But anytime I think of reading him I think of this one particular dude who was telling me, waving his cigarette around outside Horace Mann hall, about the Nabokov seminar he was taking and how the writer was playing a game with the reader, "and he will win, rest assured." He was just so smug and annoying about it it turned me off.