What are you currently reading?

[srboone]

Well, another rule I was taught to follow as an English Literature major was to never assume that something is a mistake; give the author the benefit of the doubt, let it play out. Shortly thereafter, I learned about the unreliable narrator conceit.

[srboone]

There's a mistake in Hell Hollow that I noticed when I read it; it didn't make any sense to take it as intentional, so I chalked it up to an oversight by the editor. I don't have the book with me (I'm at work), but I believe it's on either page 163 or 169; a character's name is "Chuck" and it's written as "Chick".

[gsconquest]

I've been working my way through some ebooks on my new Kindle. Just finished up Draculas by Wilson, Konrath, and Crouch, then went through Endurance, Origin, Disturb, and Horror Stories all by Konrath. I also managed to squeeze in Bleed by Ed Kurtz. Now back to physical books for a while...

[jester05jk]

There's a mistake in Hell Hollow that I noticed when I read it; it didn't make any sense to take it as intentional, so I chalked it up to an oversight by the editor. I don't have the book with me (I'm at work), but I believe it's on either page 163 or 169; a character's name is "Chuck" and it's written as "Chick".

I just started that earlier, I'll have to look for it.

[bookworm 1]

Finished Mr. shivers it was ok.Then read fear me by tim curran.That was a great novella.Now reading Bryan smiths Bloodrush.So far so good.This and fear me are also
from delirium books.I joined the 2012 book club they offered last year and picked up 5 other books from them.The books are all hard cover and are smaller then a
paperback books. . all are signed and limited to 150 copies.You can get the digital books through there web site.dark fuse.So far I am really happy with them.

[srboone]

Finished 11/22/63. Not my favorite of King's books. I was very disappointed in it. In fact, when I was asked by someone who saw me toting it around if it was worth reading, I told her "No," as much as it pained me.

Here are my reasons, if you are interested. There are spoilers in here and if you plan to read it at all, I urge you to not go further.

Spoiler!

Are you sure you want to do this?

Spoiler!

Really?

Spoiler!

I warned you...

Spoiler!

Ok...

Spoiler!

Last chance...

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Ok...

11/22/63 is King's most schitzophrenic book. On the one hand, it seems to be written for his legion of Constant Readers, while tackling a subject that critics can point to as a book of his that is about a serious social subject. However, these two charactersitics are kept jarringly separate within in the narrative.

King does so well with his narrative concerning his ficitional characters, that when he introduces his historical figures, his prose dries up, probably because he knows he can't take too many liberties with the truth. He would be savaged for that. The only time King's narrative comes alive after introducing the historicals is when they actually interact with his ficitionals (most of the time the ficitionals are observing the historicals). When Jake opens his front door and sees Marina Oswald distraught because she can't find her hubka, it's as if a shot of adreneline has been administered, giving momentary life to a lulling story.

Another example is with the name "Jimla." King's best works include phrases and words that a character repeats over and over in his/her mind to the point of insanity, not fully understanding what the meaning is until the shocking revelation. Here, the Yellow Card Man calls Jake "Jimla" when he first crosses over and that phrase haunts Jake...for the first half of the book. Then it's dropped after the explanation that it is a cheer for the quaterback of the football team of the high school he teaches at. King doesn't pick the name back up until the last section, but by then it just seems to be an attempt to tie up loose ends.

I felt like "Jimla" was King flipping the bird to his Constant Readers: So sorry, but I have more important things to do here. But thanks for reading all 850 pages!

Then there's time travel. There are no hard-n-fast rules governing it, and King does introduce a new twist here at the end of chapter 3: every trip down the "rabbit-hole" is a reset, so the changes you made on your last trip are undone. This becomes mindboggling without the idea of multiple realities, which King acknowledges at the end. And it fits with his DT overview. But how does the birthing of new time-strings affect the health of the DT? We don't know. But I digress. The complexities of time-travel are not King's focus here and his explanation of the Yellow/Green/Orange/Black Card Man seems vaguely pat and ordinary--in other words, something that I had guessed already. I would have liked King to explore the relationship of Al Templeton's suicide and the Card Man's suicide. Or maybe what might happen if someone else found the rabbit-hole and used it. Would Jake be trapped in 1958 forever? Maybe that's how the Card Man came to be.

The example in an earlier post I gave of King's narrative being inconsistent is telling: Jake may not be an unreliable narrator, but he is a sloppy one. And King's narrative unity is just as sloppy.

For all of this, the denouement to the book is King at his best. The last 130 pages of this book are as exciting as anything he's written. But I had to slog through 700+ pages to get there.

Dark Tower references are here, but not overt. It can be read outside the timeline of the series. Which expresses my overall impression of 11/22/63: After his 2003 National Book Foundation award, it became apparent that any discussion of late 20th century American literature must include a section on King. But since most of his works have been brought into the DT canon, which ones should be discussed. 11/22/63 seems to be King's stab at a critical and social relevance that can exist outside a DT discussion. But if that's what he wanted, he should have just tried to write for his critics, and left his CRs out of the picture. The book would have been more consistent at any rate.

Next up is Samson and Denial by Robert Ford. Never read anything by him, but Paul at Thunderstorm Books sent it to me free of charge.

BTW, I don't regret travelling to Dallas to see King converse about the book and I don't regret buying another trade HC so I don't finger and thumb my signed copy. I don't regret reading it either.

[Dan Hocker]

Finished 11/22/63. Not my favorite of King's books. I was very disappointed in it. In fact, when I was asked by someone who saw me toting it around if it was worth reading, I told her "No," as much as it pained me.

Here are my reasons, if you are interested.

That's interesting, as I've come to understand that the majority of "King fans" think this is one of the better books from what they call the "New King" books.

[srboone]

I don't know what "New King" books are; and besides, this is just one man's opinion. The possibility exists that I could be wrong, but possibility and probablity are two different things.

Afterthought: If "New King" means "21st-century King," then From a Buick 8 and Lisey's Story would be the best "New King" books (with 1922 close behind).

[JDar.]

After struggling the last three months to find a decent read, I've just finished two fantastic books that I highly recommend: John R Little's chapbook SARAH'S STORY and Kurt Newton's serial killer with brains, THE BRAINPAN CONCERTO.

Hopefully my luck will continue with Michael McBride's BLINDSPOT. I'm only a few pages in and I'm hooked already.

Jan

[Dan Hocker]

I don't know what "New King" books are; and besides, this is just one man's opinion. The possibility exists that I could be wrong, but possibility and probablity are two different things.

Afterthought: If "New King" means "21st-century King," then From a Buick 8 and Lisey's Story would be the best "New King" books (with 1922 close behind).

I think "New King" refers to post accident. As most people I've talked to feel his style dramatically changed afterwards. I don't personally know though, as I've only read the DT series and haven't really had the time to branch out yet.

[theenormityofitall]

I think "New King" refers to post accident. As most people I've talked to feel his style dramatically changed afterwards. I don't personally know though, as I've only read the DT series and haven't really had the time to branch out yet.

That's interesting. I've heard the term "New King" before but wasn't sure what it meant. I don't think it was the accident though; even before that most of his books weren't that great, besides, once you reach a certain age you're creativity starts to vanish and I think that happened to King a long time ago. But not all of it since I really liked FDNS and some others he's done recently. Well, now that I think about it, getting hit by a van like that would probably change you're way of thinking. I mean, to escape death like he did.

[Dan Hocker]

Yea I don't know, like I said I'm mostly just repeating knowledge I've picked up elsewhere.

[theenormityofitall]

But it must be true...don't know what else it could possibly refer to.

[srboone]

Dreamcatcher was his rehabilitation novel; it was definitely one of his grimmest and nastiest; the original title of the book was Cancer--Tabby nixed that. All four buddies in DC had horrible things happen to them and had wished for death at one point. And the one that survived was the one who actively pursued death. The accident also made him think seriously about completing the DT saga--some say that he rushed it. And, of course, 11/22/63 can be seen as a quest to cheat death (I couldn't help but think of it as King's take on the Final Destination franchise.) But Lisey's Story stands out as a life-affirming love story in his post van-tackling carreer. But I don't know about a style change in his works.

[peteOcha]

Shivers I, at the last story now.Then on to Shivers II. Great stuff!

Any plans for Shivers VII yet??