The Stand

I first read the original version about 25 years ago. Enjoyed re-reading the story, especially this unabridged edition. It was as good as I recall the first time I read it.

It would be King's best book, hands down, if it wasn't for that ending. I felt completely betrayed by the ending of the book. I know it's King's weak point (go read the reviews for the Watchtower series - there are a lot of crabby readers who felt that he had wasted years of their lives on how he ended that one), but this one really felt like “well, I've got all my characters to this point, I've really built this plot up, now what?” At least there weren't any giant spiders......

I thought I might want to stop when it became too religion-oriented, after the superflu rid the planet of 99% of ppl, but King leaves always sthg for us to want to know... Still, not life-changing.

It was a reasonably enjoyable read, I did read the extended edition which I did feel was a bit too long but I guess its for people who enjoyed the regular edition. Some really great characters I particularly liked Tom Cullen. What spoilt it for me is that major plot points were decided by dreams or visions or whatever it seemed like a bit of cop-out a little bit too far fetched at times.

I haven't read Stephen King since I was in high school when it seemed everyone was carrying around a dog eared paperback of Cujo or Christine. It felt odd revisiting King on my ipad, the paperback covers having become such an iconic part of my adolescence.

The Stand is one of those books, like the Lord of the Rings, that seem to engender repeated readings and I know several people who've managed to plow through this weighty thing more than once.

I read the unabridged version published in 1991 weighing in at 1200 pages. Apparently this makes it longer than Moby Dick or War and Peace and caps off my post apocalyptic trifecta after finishing The Passage and The Twelve. You can see how much of a debt Cronin owes King.

Stephen King is a storyteller. I loved how much time spent on the early days of the virus, gleefully recounting each expired life as well as introducing the characters we would explore the post-virus world with. With it's heft he can really create wonderful, fleshed out arcs for each character. The Larry Underwood pre-virus is escaping from his drug debts and hiding at his mother's in New York. Stu Underwood is working a calculator factory and helping out at the gas station. Harold Lauder is a marginalized teen, mostly invisible and largely enraged. These characters and more get a nicely paced progression into the people they become. Maybe it all comes together a bit too neat, but as with the best road trips it's not the destination but the journey there that's the thing.

I loved it so much.

I'm still a tad uncertain about Stephen King. Sometimes I see him as a misunderstood genius on the verge of literary greatness; sometimes he strikes me as a hack genre writer with no filter. The Stand didn't help me solidify my opinion, not that my opinion on the issue should matter. Regardless of King's talents, I found The Stand to be a mix of good and bad.

The good
King is an excellent storyteller. He also understands characterization. Combine those and you've got a really entertaining novel.

The Stand is a great story. The idea of taking the book of Revelation, retelling it in a way with a government-spawned plague at its center, and throwing the few remaining people together is phenomenal. The dreams, the cross-country trek, did I mention the plague—all these things add up to a really great story. And the characters. Sure, some seem a bit too cliché, but they're memorable. They bring many different elements to the table, and when you throw them together in a plague-destroyed setting one summer, there are bound to be fireworks. Glen Bateman, Larry Underwood, Tom Cullen, Lloyd Henreid—these are characters I will likely always remember.The badKing probably should've accepted the cuts his editors made. The Stand, the uncut and unedited version, is way too wordy, and too much story. In his preface, King mentioned how, in the first published 1978 edition, the story of The Kid was largely cut, along with Franny's confrontation with her mother. Yeah, there was a reason for that. The meetings that take up half the book, complete with the meeting's minutes in their entirety was too much. Town Hall Meeting after Town Hall Meeting. And did I mention The Kid? Horrible, horrible character and unnecessary story added to a book that otherwise made sense—in a supernatural way. Save him for a short story, or better yet, just trash him.The not-so-prettyThe dialogue. Who talks this way, happy crappy? Over half the characters are either hick or speak their own language. Now, this may be in part due to the time inconsistency. Yes, that big inconsistency that really makes this novel off-kilter. The Stand was published in 1978. The novel is set in 1990. Okay, so we're dealing with the future. But the book makes many references to things that happened between 1978 and 1990—Reagan, Bush, Madonna, etc.—so either King is the most accurate prophet I've come across, or he updated the text. Big mistake in my opinion. The anachronisms drastically stand out. Yes, we're talking ten years. Big deal, right? But it is. Something happened between 1978 and 1990 that shifted culture drastically. Don't believe me, watch Forrest Gump. Better yet, check out the top music hits of 1978 and compare it with the top hits of 1990. Looking at those clips, it's more than music, more than style: in the 1990s, America was finally making an attempt at multi-culturalism. By the standards of 1990, the views expressed in The Stand are embarrassing. And don't get me started on King's treatment of black people in the novel.So, all in all, a great story with memorable characters, but I think I would've enjoyed this better in its original form. For my next attempt at King, I think I'll go with [b:On Writing|10569|On Writing|Stephen King|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1348431774s/10569.jpg|150292]. I'm curious about his views on editing since he clearly lacks (ignores?) his own internal editor.Earlier I mentioned the great characters. You may have noticed they're all men. I could add more to my list of great characters and the list would still be exclusively male. Apparently the plague has largely wiped out the female populace, and those left behind really aren't that instrumental to the plot. Franny, Nadine, Dayna, Lucy—they're straight out of Dickens—to be adored, and if needed, to serve as catalysts for the adventure the men have gotten into. At least the sexism was doled out in equal measure to the xenophobia.

What an incredible adventure. It's the longest and most detailed book I've ever read so far. In the beginning you have this ultra detailed and frightening story of the death of almost all mankind. In the middle it gets a bit slow but picks up again at the end.

Finally finished the book... It was reeeaally long, maybe the longest book I've ever finished (1421 pgs). Really enjoyed it though, especially Harlod Lauder's character, maybe because I can identify with the character myself. I also found myself empathising with quite a few of the characters. This loses a star from me for the ending, it was a bit of a let down for me. But overall, really solid epic post apocalyptic fantasy novel. Next up, The Lord of the Rings :

This was silly, laws yes, this was silly. M-O-O-N that spells “why did I listen to all 800 hours of this thing.” I mean, I'm a sucker for the post-apocalypse and unnecessarily long, epic novels but for goodness sakes, large portions of the plot revolve around hypnosis and magic dreams

Good, but not as good as I hoped it would be. (I'd give it 3.5 stars if that were an option.) King does a remarkable job of handling so many characters spread out all over the US, but I was bothered by the fact that sometimes the narration is very much focused on the thoughts of one characters only to be interrupted by an outside narrative voice (which I would call King's voice, even though that wouldn't be entirely correct.) And some of the dialogue–I'm not sure if it's dated or just plain bad–but I had trouble believing it, which is disappointing considering the effort King put into realizing his characters. The parts that dealt with the spread of the superflu were great: scary with a nix mix of the major characters and smaller vignettes showing the effects elsewhere.

Good, but not as good as I hoped it would be. (I'd give it 3.5 stars if that were an option.) King does a remarkable job of handling so many characters spread out all over the US, but I was bothered by the fact that sometimes the narration is very much focused on the thoughts of one characters only to be interrupted by an outside narrative voice (which I would call King's voice, even though that wouldn't be entirely correct.) And some of the dialogue–I'm not sure if it's dated or just plain bad–but I had trouble believing it, which is disappointing considering the effort King put into realizing his characters. The parts that dealt with the spread of the superflu were great: scary with a nix mix of the major characters and smaller vignettes showing the effects elsewhere.

This book, which I most recently read for The Grand Stephen King Experiment on TannerWillbanks.com, has been a favorite of mine since I was young. I read it for the first time when I was in 8th grade and have returned to it multiple times over the years. This is the first time I've read it in over a decade and was impressed that it still resonated as deeply as it does. I adore this book.

I used to enjoy reading Stephen King a lot. I find his tales to be gripping and well written. I chose this book for my review of personal reading that formed part of my higher English exam. The theme was conflict. That was in 1991.

I just listened to it again and enjoyed it once more. It's quite an appropriate tale for the current swine flu climate actually! It follows a bunch of survivors of a superflu virus, devised by the US Government, that wipes out the large majority of the US population (no other part of the world ever gets mentioned, a shortcoming of the book in my opinion; it could at least have been glossed over). The survivors split into two groups, the first gathering around Mother Abigail, the goody, and the Dark Man, the baddy. So you see the margin for conflict?

Of course the goodies win, but it's SK's style and skill at character building and dialogue that makes the book worth reading. He's an astute observer of the human psyche and the characters are easy to relate to, even if they are all from a completely different culture to my own.

This book is worth reading, if, like me, you have always wondered about the story. I wish I had read it as a kid; I think I would have enjoyed it more when I was going through my Stephen King phase at age 12 or so. My book club read it, and there are a lot of things I think we can discuss: How dated is this book? What is wrong with Stephen King's post apocalyptic vision (I just think the social structure is farfetched), how has this book affected stories in its wake (Lost, for one seems heavily influenced by it). And is he saying he believes in God and the Devil as portrayed in this book? Overall, however, it was a disappointment. So many people have read it; I just thought it was going to be a more captivating story. Instead it mostly dragged.

Ho conosciuto solo tardivamente il “Re”. E proprio con questo romanzo. Sono stato attratto dalla trama “apocalittica” della vicenda. Ma all'interno, ho trovato molto di più.

Chi denigra Stephen King, l'accusa che gli viene mossa è di essere troppo prolisso, beh in questo libro per me lo è stato troppo poco. Questo è uno di quei libri che quando cominci a leggerlo, arrivati a sera, non spegneresti mai la luce. E' facilissimo innamorarsi dei personaggi delineati in tutto il loro spessore, è difficilissimo non sentirti partecipe della catastrofe che colora tutto il libro. Ti ritroverai a camminare per le strade deserte di New York, nella ricostruzione di Las Vegas, dentro laboratori militari abbandonati dopo la catastrofe... troverai amici e la voglia di ricominciare.

In ogni caso una storia apocalittica di dimensioni bibliche: King gioca a fare l'angelo sterminatore facendo piombare il mondo in piena apocalisse riducendo al dieci per cento la popolazione mondiale, e la cosa gli riesce molto bene. I momenti in cui ci dipinge davanti agli occhi la fine del mondo sono incredibilmente coinvolgenti, così come tutto il libro, peccato solo, come sempre, per il finale. Ma gli amanti del re sanno bene che questo ormai è il suo punto debole e dobbiamo accettarlo.

Per concludere, un libro meraviglioso, forse il migliore di King per quanto mi riguarda insieme alla saga di Roland il Pistolero, a chi mi chiede un consiglio su cosa leggere di quest'autore, consiglio sempre questo con il consiglio di non farsi spaventare dalla mole delle pagine.

I read this in college when the unabridged version was re-introduced. It really shook me up in a way. It seeded my mind with the what-if horror factor of our existence on this planet. It's fiction, and yet, it seems completely plausible especially now that we are experiencing a H1N1 flu epidemic.

Great characterization interwoven with a modern-day setting and mythical/spiritual creatures. Tends to be a bit ‘wordy' but I loved every word of it.