Updated Bookshelf; Is it Not Beautiful?

So I may have been reading other stuff for a while and avoiding ol' Uncle Steve, but that doesn't mean I've let my collection slide.

I'm almost as proud of this bookshelf as I am my kids. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I've never been prouder of any bookshelf I've owned.

As you can see, it's pretty fully up to date, even adding Joe Hill's comics, and Rocky Wood's Stephen King: Unpublished, Uncollected, which I'm considering part of this collection, even if King didn't write it himself.

I've added all the non-fiction after years of insisting King's non-fiction didn't interest me. Some of it has had to be in digital form only, such as Guns and A Little Silver Book of Sharp, Shiny Slivers, and I don't have a copy of Ghost Brothers of Darkland County, which in part I feel like I should get, but in part balk at the amount I would have to spend for it, when it's really more a John Mellencamp CD than it is a King "book".

If one looks closely on the drum at the right, you'll see the copy of Esquire magazine with "On Slide Inn Road" within it. I feel like I'll probably get to the end of this before King publishes another collection, so I can remain as up to date as I have tried to be thus far.

If one thing does kinda make me shake my head it's that this shelf makes it seem like I haven't gotten far at all in my reading. The last book I finished was Dolores Claiborne, which, if you can see it, is just before the mammoth copy of Nightmares and Dreamscapes. That's...not even two shelves worth. Out of five. Of course, I've actually read most of the third shelf in the past, and will be re-reading it now, but the world of Shelves 4 & 5 are going to be almost entirely new to me. I say almost because I read the first four volumes of Locke & Key, and the story The Cat From Hell, which was contained in Just After Sunset.

Still excited to be on this journey!

Binging Uncle Steve

Working quiet night shifts gives one a lot of time to kinda just do whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't involve leaving your post, so for the last several nights, I've been binge-watching nothing but Stephen King adaptations.

I'm gonna confess something that you may find hard to believe; prior to doing this, I had seen comparatively few Stephen King movies or TV series. I'd seen quite a few, but nowhere near all that was available, and even after this weekend I've got a lot to go. Why had I only watched a handful of them? I'm not sure. I think some of it had to do with preferring the books to the films, which is a little odd coming from a guy whose blog was once all about adapting King's works into films, but I also think that was part of my motivation.

So many of the existing King adaptations tended to catch the letter of King's works and miss the spirit entirely. They suffered from lazy translation from page to screen, bad casting, directors who didn't take the work very seriously, and of course, they tended very strongly to ramp up the cheese. The whole purpose of this blog was to go back and do it right this time. This seems to be happening anyway, though I would strongly have preferred my approach of connecting the films to each other. But cest la vie.

Anyway, I had seen the "big ones", so to speak, but in many cases it had been years since I'd seen them last. I saw Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Shining (multiple times now), Christine, Pet Sematary and others that were more recent like The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and of course the films that have been released since I started this blog (some of them, at any rate). But as my blog's focus has changed, I thought I'd better catch myself up on these films and talk about them as I go. I'm a lot behind now, considering just how many I've watched, but here goes nothing.

Carrie (1976)

Of course, I'd seen this before, but I'd forgotten almost everything except Sissy Spacek's performance in the title role and Piper Laurie's unhinged performance as her mother, Margaret. For instance, I'd forgotten how the opening sequence, set in the girls' locker room of a high school, is basically what feels like an hour's worth of slo-mo pans past naked teenage body after naked teenage body, finally focusing on Carrie herself, the camera lovingly panning up and down her nakedness as she runs her hands all over herself, including one shot that I'm sure is meant to evoke masturbation. The whole scene felt pervy to me, almost voyeuristic. I'm no prude, and yes, I'm certain all these girls were in their 20's, or maybe even 30's, but they were meant to be high school age, and the camera spends a lot of time showing us as much of their nudity (including full frontal) as it can before the story starts. Some may think this scene is meant to symbolize Carrie's sexual awakening, but she's not actually undergoing a sexual awakening, or at least, not in any way that has to do with sexual desire or expression. Anyway, that's all I'm going to harp on. (Another thing I forgot; Edie McClurg is in this movie. As one of the students. Edie McClurg, who played countless Karens throughout the 80's and 90's. And no, she doesn't look young or un-Karen-esque here.) Otherwise, the adaptation is pretty straight-up, with the only real difference being how obvious it is that Carrie is attractive. The weight issues and acne she had in the novel have never transferred to film, despite three (count 'em, three) adaptations. I experienced again, however, the feeling I had the last time I watched it, in which I was very much on Carrie's side when she finally snaps, being less afraid and more "you go girl" because nearly everyone in the movie except Sue, Tommy and Ms. Desjardins (Ms. Collins here) is just horrible to her. The novel sold the horror aspect of this scene much better, by letting us into Carrie's head a little, letting us know that she was literally ready to kill everyone, but the movie shows us some pretty bad people who mistreated a quiet, shy girl, getting just what they deserve.

Salem's Lot (1979)

Another I'd watched before, and I have some very mixed feelings about. I guess I don't mind all the composite characters, or changing the characters of Straker and Barlow to be all but unrecognizable from the novel, but I still wonder why it spent so much time for its first like hour and a half on the various subplots around town. I checked the time at the "look at me, teacher!" scene and realized the movie had less than an hour left in it, and Barlow hadn't even been seen yet! I get the idea that we're supposed to care about the town before it all goes to hell, but did we need all that with Cully Sawyer, his wife Bonnie and Mr. Crockett? That's like a third of the movie devoted to that subplot. Some didn't like how Barlow was made non-verbal and more like Max Schreck's Nosferatu rather that the erudite, terrifying mastermind of the book. I understand this was on purpose because at the time, the idea of vampires as being overtly charming old-world types was becoming cliche. Nowadays the cliche is that vampires are tortured lovers. Straker was re-written so that he could be played by James Mason, who is fine here but failed to give me the creeps, which book Straker did. Matt Burke (Jason Burke here, played by Lew Ayers) has his role cut down but that's nothing compared to Father Callahan, who's practically not even in the movie, barring a couple of scenes. But those scenes of Ralphie Glick floating outside windows...man, that shit will stay with you forever. Very well done there. Ultimately, I don't dislike this adaptation, but I feel like it could have been better, and from what I understand, the 2004 adaptation is actually much worse, which I can believe, but I'll see when I get there. I hear Gary Dauberman (who wrote the screenplay for It) is getting another adaptation of this going, and I hope this time it can finally capture the spirit of the book, which I feel this film falls well short of.

The Dollar Babies

Curiosity brought me to this; I have now watched four of the more "historically important" Dollar Babies, primarily to see what they were like but also because they have become cult favorites over the years. Specifically, I watched The Boogeyman, The Woman in the Room, Disciples of the Crow and The Lawnmower Man, and I was...almost impressed. I'd been told the Dollar Babies were all basically on the level of student films and were clearly made on budgets that barely deserved to be called "shoestring", but what I got were some pretty well-made, if definitely low-budget, short films. About the only one that made me think of some guy with a camcorder filming in his back yard with a few of his friends as actors was The Lawnmower Man, which appears to be more an adaptation of the 1981 comic than the original story, seeing as the LM is given the name Karras, and the dialogue comes almost word for word from the comic. The sound quality in the copy I saw was very poor, and the film quality was almost as bad, grainy and fuzzy. The one scene showing the LM's goat-like feet was embarrassingly awful (he's clearly wearing furry slippers). Andy Clark's performance as Karras is a little off, in that the LM is supposed to remain folksy and chummy, even as he's getting ready to sacrifice Harold. Clark's becomes malevolent at that point, laughing maniacally and everything. And honestly, he's not fat enough. The LM is supposed to be so morbidly obese that his weight alone is unsettling. Clark is just...kinda stocky. I did enjoy Disciples of the Crow, and it didn't even seem that low budget. Eleese Lester and Gabriel Folse are much more in tune with the tone of the original story than Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton were, and more believably redneck as well. I feel like it also copped out on the ending, but I need to go back and re-read the story to see if the ending I remember is the real one. My recollection is that Burt and Vicky don't make it out alive, but I could be wrong. But I deeply enjoyed The Boogeyman and The Woman in the Room. The latter, of course, was directed by Frank Darabont, who would go on to direct The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile to Oscar nominations for Best Picture, as well as just make a name for himself in Hollywood in general. This early short shows his skill, and his ongoing working relationship with actor Brian Libby, who appears in a majority of his films, including Shawshank and The Mist. I'm not sure what to say about it other than that it was well-made, well-acted on all fronts (though special mention must go to Dee Croxton) and deservedly a cult classic. The Boogeyman, I've read, is the first Dollar Baby of them all, and it's out-and-out horror. I've talked about the short story on this blog before, and again, I think it could make a good feature, but I did enjoy the film, which was appropriately moody, with a nice score, and a terrific performance from its leading man, Michael Read. Because I don't think much of Lester Billings, the character, having him played by a bald, rat-faced man was the correct approach. We're not supposed to like him, and we don't. Read is pretty good at playing scumbags. I wonder why his acting career went nowhere after this? Bert Linder is okay as Dr. Harper. I enjoyed the way the film kept you guessing right up until the end whether or not Lester was crazy, and killing his kids himself, or if the Boogeyman was real. The kids playing Lester's doomed children were pretty convincing as well. I do recommend this double-feature, which can be watched on YouTube for free.

Cujo (1983)

Yes, this is one I had not seen before. For whatever reason, I was sure I wouldn't enjoy it, even after reading the book. I was wrong; it's very good, even if not entirely flawless. Danny Pintauro wrings out my heart as poor young Tad, who thankfully does not meet the same fate here that he does in the book, though it's a close call. Dee Wallace is a powerhouse of an actress, giving a performance I didn't know she was capable of, and making me wonder why her acting career seemed to fizzle along with the 80's. Apparently King himself thinks her performance is the greatest in any adaptation of his work, including Kathy Bates in Misery. I can see why, even if I don't want to go that far myself. Bates was just on another level, but Wallace is great here. The way they make up Cujo as he goes rabid is...simply gross, but in a good way. A rabid dog is scary, but Cujo is nightmarish. If there's one thing I wished, it's that we had more scenes of him before the rabies hits. One of the heartbreakers of the book was that Cujo was a big lovable old pooch that was adored by all, and then he turns into a monster. Also, there's no mention of Frank Dodd, for obvious reasons, and Sheriff Bannerman is kind of a walk-on here.

The Dead Zone (1983)

No, I don't know how it's possible I didn't see this movie until this week. Hell, I even own a copy. Actually, that might be why. I'm notorious for buying movies I then never watch because I know I own a copy and can watch it at any time. It's kinda nuts that a movie that Stephen King wrote the novel of, that David Cronenberg directed and that Christopher Walken stars in, is not even kind of a horror movie and instead is a heartfelt drama. I've discussed the book at length before, and the movie doesn't change much (substituting a hockey game for a celebratory dinner, creating the now famous scene where Walken cries urgently "The ICE is gonna BREAK!" Walken is excellent here, earning rave reviews and apparently Oscar talk, though he ultimately was not nominated. None of the quirks we like to make fun of about his acting style are really on display here. The one issue I had was also present in the book, and that concerns the villain, Greg Stillson, (Martin Sheen), as a politician who's about to win election to the state legislature in a landslide, and has his sites on the Oval Office. I still think it would have been more effective to portray him as a man that everyone instantly likes and trusts, even Johnny, until he shakes his hand and gets a vision that a future plan, executed with the best of intentions, goes horrifically awry. As it is, Stillson is just a sneering villain who only sorta dials it down when in the presence of voters. But he is more understated than in the novel.

Christine

So John Carpenter didn't end up directing Children of the Corn, as was the plan, and took this one instead. It's the only time one of the masters of horror filmmaking worked with the master of horror writing, and the result is...not bad. Not great, either, but that's mainly because Christine is probably a 7 out of 10 even as a book. I liked Keith Gordon as Arnie Cunningham, though it was plainly obvious that he is an attractive young man they tried to make look dorky. I could not understand why they hired an actress as beautiful as Alexandra Paul, and put her in the role of the girl all the guys at school want, but then put her in these frumpy mom outfits that do nothing to flatter her. I was also more on Arnie's side when he started standing up to his parents, even if that was supposed to be a sign that he was going bad. It's not that cut and dry; his mother really is a controlling bitch, but later in the film when Arnie basically tells both his parents to go to hell, we're supposed to be worried about him but instead it's more like he finally grew some balls. Now let's talk about Christine herself; there's a question among CR's if Christine is just an evil car or if somehow she's possessed by the spirit of her owner, Roland LeBay. It could go either way, but the book always made me think that LeBay and Christine were kindred spirits who fed each other's evil, not that Roland made her what she was. This movie has her start off murdering people while still on the assembly line, but to me, even her origins should be mysterious. I'd like to think of her as one of the Low Men's cars, gone rogue.

Children of the Corn

God, this movie is fucking dumb. Based on a short story, the expansion mostly happens thanks to fleshing out the villainous Isaac, who in the book gets like one page, and a mostly passive role. Here, played by actor John Franklin, whose growth was stunted and who was actually 25 while filming this, even if he looked about 10, Isaac is an evil minister right out of a Nathaniel Hawthorne story, and he's truly something to behold. His henchman, Malachi, played by Courtney Gaines, is also an interesting character to watch, as long as he keeps his mouth shut. Malachi, who has this odd, gargoyle-like face, is a very frightening character when used as a silent killer, but when he starts talking you realize that Gains isn't much of an actor. Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton are our leads here, and they've been turned into yuppies we're supposed to sympathize with. The movie is fairly boring, has some awful pacing, and ends on a very lame note.

Firestarter

I've heard King really doesn't like this one, and I don't know why because there's nothing really wrong with it. As an adaptation, it's very faithful, and Drew Barrymore gives a powerhouse performance in the lead role of Charlie. George C. Scott is very good, as is Martin Sheen (again!), though ultimately the experience of watching it was...meh. It was a bunch of nice pieces that added up to a rather forgettable whole. I understand there's a plan to remake this with (gulp) Zac Efron as Andy. I try to be fair when judging actors. I know that being a heartthrob doesn't automatically mean you can't act, and honestly a lot of recent heartthrobs are trying to shake off that status and turning in some great performances (hello, Robert Pattinson). But Efron, while I think he probably is a better actor that I'm giving him credit for, doesn't excite me about this new effort. Also I doubt anyone will top Drew Barrymore.

There's lots more movies to talk about, but I'm getting kinda tired, so I'll go over the rest in a Part II post.

Anatomy of a Creepshow Segment

"Or if ya wanna make friends at the ATM, you do the..."

This weekend has been Creepshow Weekend at Casa de Blogger, as I've spent time watching, or in one case re-watching, all the titles in that now-famous series, except for Creepshow 3, which I refuse to acknowledge as part of this series (I mean, seriously, Stephen King wasn't involved, George A. Romero wasn't involved, Michael Gornick wasn't involved, Tom Savini wasn't involved...in what way was that a Creepshow film? It didn't even have the comic book transitions and the Creep didn't show up!).

On the watch list were Creepshow, Creepshow 2, Creepshow the Shudder series and Creepshow Animated Special, the last of which I've already talked about.

I feel like the TV series has honored the spirit of the original in every important way. The ode to classic EC Comics, the appearance of the Creep, the involvement of King himself and Joe Hill, even just as writers allowing their material to be adapted, the embrace of comic-book cheese, etc.

Having refreshed my memory of all this, I thought I'd break down what makes a Creepshow segment.

Downer Endings: In nearly each case, the resolution of a Creepshow segment ends with a death, punishment of some sort or just a general feeling that not everything is okay. If there are exceptions to this rule, it's still kind of a sad ending, or at least one in which no one really gets what they hoped for. The only exceptions that I see are "House of the Head", "All Hallow's Eve", "Skincrawlers" and "By the Silver Waters of Lake Champlain", though in each case I can think of something that makes it less than happy. Little Evie is clearly traumatized by what happened with her dollhouse, and her resolution, apparently, is to pass on the curse to someone else. The Golden Dragons may get their revenge, but it doesn't change what happened to them, and now it's implied they'll never see each other again. Henry may not have suffered the horrific fate of Dr. Sloan's "treatment", but he's still the fat loser he began as. And while Rose, Joseph and Leigh may be rid of a terrible person, and had some personal vindication for their departed husband and father, they're still broke, and have no proof they can show anyone of Champy's existence.

Deserving Victims: This one isn't as hard and fast, but it's still true of most segments. If you don't survive it, chances are high you didn't deserve to. Real stand-outs here are Richard from "Something to Tide You Over", Upson Pratt from "They're Creeping Up on You!", Sam Whitemoon from "Old Chief Woodenhead" and, to a degree, his goons, Annie Lansing from "The Hitch-Hiker", and from the series, Carla and Alex from "The Man in the Suitcase", Billy from "The Companion", Lester M. Barclay from "Times is Tough in Musky Holler" and Chet from "By the Silver Waters of Lake Champlain". Possible exceptions include the Grantham family from "Father's Day", who don't appear to be guilty of much more than being rich assholes. Hank is only part of the family thanks to marrying in, and doesn't seem to be a bad guy at all, but he's the second victim, and we don't even see the horrible grandchildren's deaths. Bedelia, having murdered her father, certainly earned her death, though. Other exceptions; Jordy, even though he brings all his troubles on himself, and the Spruces, who aren't killed in a supernatural way, and it's their deaths that bring the Karmic deaths of their killers later on. The four teens in "The Raft" aren't exactly deserving, oddly enough except for Randy, who for a brief moment we believe will survive. They're seen doing weed, though, and for such sins in a horror film, one must pay. I would also suggest that Harry and Becky could fall under that category, as they were engaged in an affair, even if the man being cheated on was a monster. None of the victims from "Gray Matter" deserve it at all, and neither, really, does Blake from "Twittering From the Circus of the Dead", unless all teens are deserving of death for being bored and snarky. But they're the true exceptions within the series. "All Hallow's Eve" even changes the ending to make the Dragons' final victim a very willing participant, rather than just a new kid who tagged along, as in the comic.

Embrace the Cheese: The concept behind Creepshow has less to do with scares and more to do with paying homage to the horror comics of yesteryear, such as Ghosts, Twisted Tales and especially Tales From the Crypt, and as such ramp up the, well, comic nature of these stories. Colors are loud and glaring, we often get tonal backgrounds to heighten the feeling like we're watching a comic, the effects are practical and deliberately not very realistic, designed to look more like a comic panel than anything real, and blood is plentiful, even if it does look like colored corn syrup. The returned dead are always dripping with comical amounts of gore and blood, which look nothing like actual blood and gore. On an acting level, there's always a good amount of overacting, even from established veterans having the time of their lives.

Did It Even Happen?: Another non-rule, but a frequent theme. Did anything we see actually happen, or was it all in the victim's mind? Jordy Verrill is entirely alone with everything happens to him. In the story we get an ending POV from the plant beings, but in this one, for all we know he dreamed it all while dying from radiation poisoning after letting the "meteor shit" splatter on him. Pratt may very well be going crazy (the way he sees Mr. White may be another clue to this; whenever we see White outside his door he seems normal enough, but the image of him through the peephole is weird and distorted, and a bit threatening) and letting his mysophobia rage out of control. Even Richard may be dreaming the return of Harry and Becky. In the second film, I wondered throughout the last segment if Annie Lansing really was being pursued by a ghost or if she was just going mad, but the ending seems to confirm it was all real. This happens occasionally in the series, as well, particularly "The Finger", seeing as nobody sees Bob except for Clark, who's not exactly the most stable person. For that matter, "The Companion" leaves some room for this, given that Harold is the only one who finds the old farmer's letter, and even the ending could just be him killing Billy himself, while hallucinating the Companion.

One aspect of the film I don't hear referred to much is what Creepshow 2 does to the Creep himself. now, at the time, the first film was all we had, but the TV series returns to that version of the Creep; a desiccated Mummy who never speaks but has that trademark evil laugh, while in the second film, not only is the Creep far more verbose now, he also looks very different, more like a vampire with a scrotum-like chin. And this time he's not a puppet but Tom Savini in heavy makeup. Did this go over well at the time? I was a child, so I didn't hear about any backlash.

Actually, the first time I even heard of Creepshow was in a TV spot for the second film, in which the Creep invites us to come see it, and promises "And of course, I'll be there!" I can't find this TV spot anywhere, and I wonder if I imagined it.

All told, I'm a fan of the Creepshow franchise now, and I really hope it continues.

Blogging from the Streaming Service of the Dead

For modern horror and Stephen King/Joe Hill enthusiasts, Shudder appears to be a sort of one-stop shop!

This is especially true if you're a "King of the Hill" fan, not only because Shudder is where you can watch the TV adaptation of N0S4A2 but also because of the new(ish) Creepshow TV series, which has adapted a couple of stories by the King father/son duo, and more, I'm certain, are to come. The first episode adapted one of my favorite early King short stories, "Gray Matter", while the season finale adapted Hill's "By the Silver Waters of Lake Champlain". I haven't seen much about Season 2 yet, other than that it was greenlit, but if I had to call it, I'd say we'll be getting at least one King or Hill story per season.

Where was this show when I was skipping short after short due to them not being long enough to make a film?!

But in the meantime, we have the CreepShow Animated Special, which is a must-watch for any King or Hill fan. Two stories, one a King adaptation, the other a Hill, done as "motion-comics" instead of live-action adaptations or fully animated productions, and for some reason, the format here just works.

The first is an older King story, "Survivor Type", which I've talked about several years back, and which was initially in development as a regular live-action installment, but no one could really figure out how to make it work in live form. Jon Bernthal, an actor I really appreciate, was scheduled to play Dr. Richard Pine, the title character, but in the animated version, Kiefer Sutherland provides the voiceover, and if I hadn't checked the credits, I'd never know it, because he puts on this voice like a middle-aged, New England Italian-American. Really, voice-over was the only way to do a story like this one, since the original story was done as if it was the found journal Pine kept while stranded on an island after a shipwreck. I recall enough of the short story that I think it was literally used as the script, altered only a little, if at all.

Sutherland really sells it as Pine, a surgeon who deals coke on the side and ends up on a deserted island while running from the authorities. He's determined to live until he's rescued, eating gull and drinking from gallons of water he has with him. He's also got some kilos of cocaine, and very early on he injures himself, leaving him without the use of one foot and a need to eat. I don't want to get into too much detail here, and honestly, I've talked about it before, but the story's title comes from Pine asking himself over and over how badly he wants to live. It's a really gross story, and seeing it played out, even in motion-comic format, is nausea fuel of the best kind.

The idea of making this a motion-comic, rather than a standard animated story, somehow makes the effect of watching it even creepier. There's only the one voice, our increasingly mad narrator, and the movements are minimal and stark, like watching a mime act or shadow play. I really think it works better than it would have if fully animated. With just the one voice, sharing Pine's journal and putting in every inch of his desperation and growing insanity, somehow it fits the mood perfectly.

The format also serves the second story, Hill's "Twittering from the Circus of the Dead", which I've not read yet, but based on what I know about it I'm pretty sure it once again uses the story, with little alteration, if any, and gives us some semi-animated pictures to go with it. The result is maybe even better than "Survivor Type" and certainly more out-and-out horror. The artwork here takes a step up, becoming even more gruesome. What I really liked was the uncertainty of the ending. The story keeps going as long as she's alive, but that's no guarantee she lives to tell the tale, considering she's telling it in real time.

The young tweeter here is Blake, voiced by Joey King (no relation) who kinda over-acts a bit but not to a point of distraction. She's on a road trip with her family, and they're each getting on each other's last nerve. Then, mainly as an excuse to get out of the car, they stop at a curious attraction called "Circus of the Dead", and...man, Joe Hill has a twisted mind, and I love it! The way it's presented, with Blake certain the show is just a show even as it becomes undeniably real, is one I've seen done poorly in the past, but here it's done well, with Blake's initial boredom and later irritation showing us why she was so willing to believe that what she's seeing is "all part of the show"...even when her brother volunteers to be part of an act.

I gotta say, the creators behind this show really found the perfect medium in which to tell these two stories and it opens up all kinds of possibilities as to what can be adapted next! Gan knows there's a wealth of material out there, just from King and Hill alone, to say nothing of the multiple other horror greats out there. The horror anthology series is back, and I'm glad to see it!

The Missing Pieces

I'm unable to find the following, many of which I know are out there somewhere, and I'm dying to add them to my collection, even if only digitally:

• The Land of 1,000,000 Years Ago
• Thirty-One of the Classics
• The Pit and the Pendulum
• The Undead
• Trigger Finger
• The Star Invaders
• Code Name: Mousetrap
• The 43rd Dream
• She Has Gone to Sleep While...
• Woman with Child
• The Killer
• Dino
• General
• The Furnace
• Mostly Old Men

Sorta weird to say this but literally everything else I have access to somewhere. Even a lot of older stuff that's hard to find.

I understand that some of these are probably impossible to find, and others like The Aftermath and Sword in the Darkness exist only in like one place and you need King's personal permission to read them. That's probably never going to happen for me, but I know that at least everything from The Star Invaders on down in that list is available somewhere to somebody.

Please let me know if you know where I can find these.

Jhonathan and the Witches

What better way to start off a new approach to the blog than to start at, essentially, the very beginning?

I don't know for sure if this is literally the first time Stephen King ever tried writing a story, but it is the first one recorded; a little faerie tale called "Jhonathan and the Witches", written in 1956 by a 9-year-old Stephen King.

To be honest, the mere concept of this has me sorta chuckling to myself. It's really a funny idea that I am able to read words King wrote this young in his life, and it's only possible due to special collector's book that specifically went collecting the earliest (known or available) writings from a number of big names, including John Updike, Joyce Carol Oates, Michael Crichton, Gore Vidal and even Isaac Asimov. It's a pretty cool idea.

And thanks to this book, we have the earliest writing of Stephen King we're ever likely to get. I had a big smile on my face the entire time I was reading it, not because it was so extraordinarily good, but because it reveals that one of the most renowned authors of our time was writing the sort of thing we would expect from a little boy when he was a little boy. Nothing about "Jhonathan and the Witches" suggests a budding bestseller. It's about as simple and silly a tale as you're likely to read. If I'd been his teacher, he probably would have gotten a B, maybe even a B- due to poor spelling, grammar and sentence structure.

The story involves a cobbler's son in generic medieval times, with Jhonathan deciding to ask the King if there's work for him. Before he can get there, he rescues a rabbit from hunters, and the rabbit turns out to be a fairy in disguise. The fairy grants Jhonathan three wishes to be used whenever Jhonathan needs them.

Now, why is Jhonathan spelled the way it is? I don't know, but I strongly suspect it was because King, at age 9, didn't know how to spell it.

Anyway, the King, who is "in a very bad mood", and decides that the only work he'll give Jhonathan is the unenviable task of ridding the kingdom of three terrible witches.

You can probably guess from the equal number of wishes and witches how this story concludes. The one thing I'm going to point out is that at one point, Jhonathan is given clues on the witches' strengths by an unseen, unexplained voice. Knowledge the character needs just at the time they need, without explanation, it is a pretty Kingian trait, though here it's implied that it's the voice of the fairy, who apparently can impart that knowledge without it being a wish used up.

Like I said, this story is unretouched and unedited from when pre-teen King wrote it, and thus, it reads like something a child wrote. It's not particularly revealing or amazing. The King who would go on to write The Stand, Pet Sematary and It is not on display here. But am I glad I read this? You bet your life I am.

If you're a King fanboy like yours truly, it might behoove you to order First Words from Amazon and have a read of this yourself. But really I only read this to be a completist. If it's out there to be read, and King wrote it, I want to read it. So I have no regrets, but if you just like reading King's professionally published fiction, then there's really no need to go digging for this.

In 1959, King would write two "self-published" stories; a short story called "The Land of 1,000,000 Years Ago" and a novella called "Thirty-One of the Classics". I've never unearthed these. If you've read them, or know where they can be read, please alert me.

Two more stories written around this time, "Jumper" and "Rush Call" would be "published" in his older brother's self-created magazine "Dave's Rag" and are collected in Secret Windows, which I now own. After those two come the short stories collected in a "self-published" short story collection called People, Places and Things. I will be speaking about the "Dave's Rag" stories and as much of PP&T as has been recovered in these next posts.

And From the Ashes..."Adapting the King" Becomes "Word of the King"

 

At this point, I'm pretty sure I'm just shouting into the void, but alas, my obsession with the writings of King, and lately, his son Joe, have reared their head again and I have decided that this blog should come back, but with a twist.

It's no longer a Stephen King Casting blog. I'm not saying I will never again suggest that a book or story I've read by King couldn't make a decent movie, but if I do that, I likely would just make a cast list on mycast.io and link it, rather than doing a whole post just casting it.

I've changed my approach entirely to what I'm reading and why. For a long while, I didn't care to read King's non-fiction or even talk about it, but then I started reading through a copy of Danse Macabre and folks, I'm ready to take the plunge and just try and read anything of King's I can get my hands on. And I'll talk about it all here.

I'm not going to start over from the beginning, necessarily, and I won't always talk about everything in chronological order, either. I also don't promise to keep everything strictly King-related. I won't just randomly talk about whatever's on my mind, it will have something to do with horror lit, or films, and I'll likely keep it to a minimum, but some things I definitely plan to talk about include (but are not limited to:

• Work of King that is older and harder to find
• Comic adaptations of King's works
• Film and television adaptations of King's and Hill's work
• Joe Hill's comics and his publishing house, Hill House Comics
• My thoughts on my read-through of these men's entire body of work (that I can get ahold of)

Stay tuned!