The Stand *spoilers everywhere*

nyarlothothep

Just finished reading this book. Initial thoughts

1. It was reasonably good throughout, however I found the denouement to be a little underwhelming, all the dark man really does is scare people in dreams and influence Harold to carry out a botched bombing attack. I would have preferred all out war.

2. Fran Goldsmith has to be one of the most annoying characters ever. I know shes portrayed as the heroine but she comes across as conceited in her treatment of Harold, selfish (for example in the way she is kind of implied to resent having Rider's baby, (there is a line in there in the book which suggests this), also in the way she pretty much handles discovering shes pregnant with Rider, and overly emotional. eg she had a good cry, the amount of times I had to read that line, anything sets Fran off for a good cry, yawn. I dont care about your emotional tribulations, they're bland and sentimental go away. In fact her conversations with Stu had to be the worst parts of the book, they were just boring plain characters.

3. Best characters were Harold Lauder and Nadine Cross, I think they embodied the struggle between good and evil in most people. In fact I felt sorry for them both, Harold had a sh1t past and Nadine was forced through destiny to be with Flagg, of course they both had choices but when the conditions were already set for them those choices become incredibly difficult to make.

4. I found the committee meetings could be cut in half, this is where the story seriously lagged. King states that he wanted this to be his LOTR, well the meetings reminded me of that bloody feasting segment in LOTR which went on for 200 pages and put me off completing LOTR for 3 years!

5. Some statements were a little bleh, like Batemans condemnation of science and rationality. If anything the superflu came to pass due to a total lack of rationality.

6. Randall Flagg was consistently portrayed as being totally evil. Granted this is good but it gets tiring when you read for the umpteenth time "Randall was really scary and evil, really really scary, where he walked grass turned to weeds etc."

Conclusion: Overall a good book but not excellent. Its a page turner, the characterization for Harold, Nadine and Underwood is a masterclass, the plot does tie up nicely at the end too, I just would have a preferred an epic battle. 7/10 imo.

sxt

It is the first book that i ever wanted to read again and did, i look forward to reading it again

This book amazed me both times, it may not amaze me third time round



For that alone,,,,I would give it 9.5 /10

Kayly

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Just finished reading this book. Initial thoughts

1. It was reasonably good throughout, however I found the denouement to be a little underwhelming, all the dark man really does is scare people in dreams and influence Harold to carry out a botched bombing attack. I would have preferred all out war.

2. Fran Goldsmith has to be one of the most annoying characters ever. I know shes portrayed as the heroine but she comes across as conceited in her treatment of Harold, selfish (for example in the way she is kind of implied to resent having Rider's baby, (there is a line in there in the book which suggests this), also in the way she pretty much handles discovering shes pregnant with Rider, and overly emotional. eg she had a good cry, the amount of times I had to read that line, anything sets Fran off for a good cry, yawn. I dont care about your emotional tribulations, they're bland and sentimental go away. In fact her conversations with Stu had to be the worst parts of the book, they were just boring plain characters.

3. Best characters were Harold Lauder and Nadine Cross, I think they embodied the struggle between good and evil in most people. In fact I felt sorry for them both, Harold had a sh1t past and Nadine was forced through destiny to be with Flagg, of course they both had choices but when the conditions were already set for them those choices become incredibly difficult to make.

4. I found the committee meetings could be cut in half, this is where the story seriously lagged. King states that he wanted this to be his LOTR, well the meetings reminded me of that bloody feasting segment in LOTR which went on for 200 pages and put me off completing LOTR for 3 years!

5. Some statements were a little bleh, like Batemans condemnation of science and rationality. If anything the superflu came to pass due to a total lack of rationality.

6. Randall Flagg was consistently portrayed as being totally evil. Granted this is good but it gets tiring when you read for the umpteenth time "Randall was really scary and evil, really really scary, where he walked grass turned to weeds etc."

Conclusion: Overall a good book but not excellent. Its a page turner, the characterization for Harold, Nadine and Underwood is a masterclass, the plot does tie up nicely at the end too, I just would have a preferred an epic battle. 7/10 imo.

I really enjoyed this book when I read it many years ago.Its one that stays with you, isnt it?
I'd agree with most of what you say..I particularly remember feeling very sorry for Nadine.
Loved the tv mini series..so bad it's actually good, and I have a special affection for Tom Cullen...( "M O O N , that spells Tom"!!) . I read all of the earlier Stephen King novels, but really feel he's lost the plot in last ten years. In his earlier books he was an amazing storyteller...IT and CUJO also come to mind, though I think The Stand will always be my favourite.

nyarlothothep

Kayly wrote: »

I really enjoyed this book when I read it many years ago.Its one that stays with you, isnt it?
I'd agree with most of what you say..I particularly remember feeling very sorry for Nadine.
Loved the tv mini series..so bad it's actually good, and I have a special affection for Tom Cullen...( "M O O N , that spells Tom"!!) . I read all of the earlier Stephen King novels, but really feel he's lost the plot in last ten years. In his earlier books he was an amazing storyteller...IT and CUJO also come to mind, though I think The Stand will always be my favourite.

My laws yes, I forgot the mention Tom, hes another character I thought ranked among the best and most interesting, in the respect that even though he was mildly retarded he had hidden depths to his personality in being a seer of sorts. Apparently his new book under the dome is meant to be a return to form.

candlegrease

I agree with a fair bit of OP's post. Its a great book, 8/10 IMO, but they way people go on about it you'd swear it was extraordinary.

I agree, Tom Cullen was probably the best character. The whole Larry Underwood thing of him trying to be a nice guy or trying to make up for his mistakes got tedious after a while.

Didn't find how they killed off the other crowd very satisfactory, was a bit anticlimatic and somehow felt like a cop out.

The best passage IMO was the scene where they had to leave Stu behind because of his injury.

Gneez

It sounds exactly like it was portrayed in the mini-series of the The Stand from the 80's

edit: from which I remember most Flagg being acted by an 80's denim perm guy with a Michael Schumacher chin and had a cheesy grin all the time, and Harold as an overly angsty nerdy guy with thick glasses, It's not aged that well.

indough

the series was made in the 90's, the story is set in the 80s so it was never going to age well. it is incredibly cheesy though, and the end is crap (just like the books). i dont know how anyone could feel sorry for nadine tbh, she acts like a spoilt idiot running off to flagg just because she gets shown the door after ages of rejecting larry herself. now harold i felt sorry for. the best scenes in the book involve the dog, his fight with flagg and when he comes back to help stu

Paddy Samurai

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Conclusion: Overall a good book but not excellent. Its a page turner, the characterization for Harold, Nadine and Underwood is a masterclass, the plot does tie up nicely at the end too, I just would have a preferred an epic battle. 7/10 imo.

I loved the Stand and all its characters,but for me Swan Song by McCammon is a better read and is a lot more satisfying overall.There is lots on discussion online about which is better.

Both novels are long, sweeping novels of good and evil. The primary difference I noted was the way in which each author got rid of the bulk of society. Mccammon used nukes -- something of a cop-out in my opinion. King used the rather innovative devise of a "sper-flu." Years ahead of Swine Flu or SARS, he imagined a world wide plague that would devastate the countryside.
.
By the way, note the importance of black women in both novels. In Swan Song it's Sister Creep, and, of course, in The Stand it's Mother Abigail. God is also a main character in both novels!
.
Of interest: King does not use nukes to end the world, but they do play a critical part in the plot. It is Trashcan man who brings the nukes to Vegas, and God himself who pushes the button.
.
King never moves into high places. He doesn't concern us too much with the government (except when Stu is taken captive). The story is told simply from the views of the main characters. But Mccammon takes is right into the oval office and Air Force One.
.
Brian Schwartz at You're entitled to my opinion writes, "It’s not hard to see the influence of Stephen King. There are too many parallels between The Stand and Swan Song. That does not diminish the power of this story, its characters, or the barren wasteland that is America after it is nuked. While the stories are similar, the characters are remarkably different. Besides, a tale can be retold in a number of ways and be enjoyable."

.
I do wonder if Mccammon was inspired by The Stand. So which one's better? Why bother -- both are worth multiple readings.
.
Craigs Book Club rightly notes, " Epic in scope, Swan Song approaches 1000 pages. This may turn some off, but the pages are full and not a word is wasted. Fans of The Stand may scoff at the similar plot, but I can say that, even as a fan of The Stand myself, I was able to lose myself in this horrible world and forget all about Stephen King's.
"

youcancallmeal

candlegrease wrote: »

Didn't find how they killed off the other crowd very satisfactory, was a bit anticlimatic and somehow felt like a cop out.

This is King's problem, doesn't know how to finish a book properly, Dome

The Dome ending was a real kick in the teeth after 1000 pages!

. Despite that I have read the Stand at least 3 times, maybe 4? Definitely in my top 10 books of all time. Probably because first time I read it I was young and engrossed by the story. Good vs Evil and the Apocalypse, so obvious but so effective. I wonder if I read it now for the first would it have the same affect?

Be||e

I agree with a lot of the OP's points.

I read the extended version during the year and knew next to nothing about it beforehand. On finishing it, and reading various threads here, I was surprised to see how much love there is for it!

I thought it had a strong beginning but as others have pointed out, the ending was poor. So much time was spent developing the characters and it frustrated me that they weren't given a satisfactory send off. For example, much was made of the build up of trust between Larry Underwood and the boy Leo. But at the end, when Larry didn't return, no reference was made to how he would cope with the loss etc.

Not that I expected everything to be tied up in a pretty bow, but the ending seemed very rushed in comparison to the immense detail at the start.

I also found it irritating how easily most of the men and women fell into the traditional roles of their gender - the women keeping house and cleaning, while the big strong men decided their future and went off to fight. There are some memorable characters though - Tom Cullen and Trashcan Man in particular for me.

Overall, I did enjoy reading it and it was certainly a page turner. However, I thought it was one of Stephen King's weaker books and I can't see myself ever returning to it.

Mr.Nice Guy

I finished the extended version of the book recently myself so I thought I'd add to this thread. Overall I'd agree with the sentiments expressed and would agree that it was disappointing certain elements were not tied up near the end. I'm not sure how much he plotted out for the final moments of the book but some elements disappointed me like:

- Larry not getting to see Nadine in her pregnant, zombified state. Like the OP I too really liked the Nadine character and was hoping for a better conclusion to her and Larry's relationship. As I recall they find Harold dead and assume the same has happened to Nadine. No one knows the torment that she was put through by Flagg.

- The whole spy thing seemed a gigantic waste of time. Two of the three die and Tom doesn't exactly learn anything of note. That whole aspect of the story seemed a missed opportunity to me.

- Larry never mentions he was in a band! Come on, it was a perfect opportunity while the four were walking to the west for him to blurt it out. Would have been a cool moment to share with the lads.

- Seemed weird that Trashcan Man essentially won the epic struggle when he was a Flagg loyalist. Felt like Mother Abigail and everyone gravitating towards her was irrelevant in the end and three of them perished in fairly needless circumstances thanks to her, unless them being a distraction for Flagg was the whole point. That seems a bit weak to me.

Overall though I enjoyed the book. It seemed a daunting read at first but I got into it and found I liked a lot of the characters such as Larry, Nadine, Nick and Tom.

I also think the return of Julie Lawry to the story near the end was outstanding. Forgot all about her and it caught me out of nowhere. Again though, just wish more had been done with the spying element.

MagicMarker

To me, the first third of the book is immense. Not knowing anything about the book beforehand I didn't even realise there was going to be anything supernatural in it and for that first third there wasn't much of a hint of it, apart from some dreams of Mother Abigail. But when she was introduced as a real person things took a dip, at one point there's pages taken up of her walking 5 miles to get some fúcking chickens, I never thought it would end!!!

In short, first 30-40% are immense until Mother Abigail comes into the picture, middle 20-30% meh, and from the time they all get to Boulder it gets immense again.

Whoever did the casting for the 1994 mini-series should be shot. I watched the first two episodes and couldn't force myself to watch anymore, Sinise was good though.

calex71

For me Flagg was a better character when he popped up in Kings other books

Necronomicon

I read this for the first time last year, and I loved it. I don't agree with all of the OP's points (thankfully Fran didn't grate on me, at all really) but I do agree with the sentiment towards the ending. It was just a little anticlimactic; the book builds towards a war that doesn't really transpire. The deus-ex machina resolution to the conflict didn't do justice to the wonderful build-up in the previous several hundred pages.

I did, however, quite enjoy the the remainder of the book with Stu and Tom trying to return to civilisation. During the scene where he was left behind there was a line "they never saw him alive again" which was quite impactful; and retrospectively quite clever when you realise whose death the line was actually referring to.

MagicMarker

Necronomicon wrote: »

During the scene where he was left behind there was a line "they never saw him alive again" which was quite impactful; and retrospectively quite clever when you realise whose death the line was actually referring to.

Stu's......?

Necronomicon

MagicMarker wrote: »

Stu's......?

But Stu didn't die...

When I read the line, I figured it was telling me that Stu was going to die - I didn't expect that the reason they wouldn't see him alive again was because they were the ones that would die.