I almost forgot Different Seasons, if that can be called an 'early' work. Loved every semicolon of that atypical book, especially "Apt Pupil" and "The Body". "Apt Pupil" is a tour de force which could have been made into a great movie. Stand by Me, on the other hand, is a must-see for every Bradbury afficionado. The boys are simply stunning!

APT PUPIL was made into a movie, wasn't it. Or is that movie from another story?

I definately see how STAND BY ME is reminiscent of Bradbury, you can almost smell those "grasstains".

Who directed that movie?

[This message has been edited by grasstains (edited 09-23-2004).]

Rob Reiner. He's done some great movies - Spinal Tap, Stand By Me, Misery, The Princess Bride. (And some other supposedly great ones that I haven't seen.) His range is tremendous. I wish he'd do some Bradbury!

Phil
www.bradburymedia.co.uk

Apt Pupil was made into a movie by Bryan Singer in 1998. Brad Renfro is always a treat to watch and was definitely the right choice for Todd, but Ian McKellen's performance as Dusander is less than convincing--I would have prefered a more realistic Nazi like the ones you get to see in The Grey Zone, say. What you get here is way too 'Indiana Jones' for my liking.

As far as Stephen King goes, you can love or hate him. Sometimes at the same time. Couldn't help thinking of "The Shining," one work of his I really liked, another case in which the first movie really violated the book. If you want a case of an innocent person dying unnecessarily and horribly, check the movie, and then note how same character DOESN'T die in the book! Stephen King later filmed his own version, which improved on the old film in some ways and was in other ways not as good.

I don't know about King's abuse history, but there is an interesting story that when Stephen was four, his mother found him at home when he was supposed to be at a friend's. She was very upset at the friend's mother for allowing such a young child to undertake such a dangerous journey alone. When she inquired into it, it turned out that the friend had been struck by a train and was "so bad they had to pick up the pieces in a peach basket." It would be fascinating to learn whether anyone witnessed the accident, because no one seems to know whether Stephen arrived on scene after it happened, saw it happen, or, who knows, maybe was there and pushed the kid! He never told his mom anything including how he got home.

As far as other abuse, well, his father's leaving the family obviously had a profound effect on Stephen. Many, many of his stories have a child and a mother battling alone against a monster, which in some cases may be the father. (See "The Shining" again.) He also may well have been exposed to school bullies as both a student and a teacher. Not to make light of more severe sufferings, but anyone who has served as an English teacher in America qualifies as an abuse victim.

This may open another whole can of worms and bring down a storm of wrath upon my head, but, unlike *some* people, I'd actually rather have interesting discussions than polite but boring ones. From having seen the movie only of "Sleepers" (1996), not having read the book, and having read reviews only of other works by the author, Lorenzo Carcaterra, not the books themselves, I would be willing to absolutely swear that Carcaterra is a victim in denial of molestation by at least one priest.

Okay: RAPE WARNING. Read no further to avoid disturbing details.

The movie contains a long disclaimer at the end. In short: no one in the state can find any record of an accident such as the one in the movie, which the author claims was a real-life incident which resulted in his being detained for a year in a juvenile facility where he was subjected to the most hideous abuse, the most horrendous part of which was sexual. Teachers at his Catholic school were very disturbed by the author's claims. He was absent from school only 19 days; where'd he find time to spend a year in prison?

Look at key story incidents. The chief bad guy, played by Kevin Bacon, claims no knowledge of Christianity or its symbols, asking the boy, "What is this sh!t?" on seeing a religious medallion. "It's Mary. The mother of GOD." "Well, I don't care whose mother it is; take it off." He also asks what a rosary is for, then forces the boy to pray while being molested, which of course results in the boy, as an adult, being unable to seek consolation in the things of religion. (There's a great depiction of a post traumatic stress incident in a church which would probably induce panic in real-life sufferers.)

The priest, Father Bobby, played by Robert De Niro, does everything to help the boys, and is extolled by one of them as having "love like as a father unto his children." There is also a teacher who comes to the detention center by day, utterly ignorant of what takes place at night, who offers guidance to the boys.

To me, this whole thing just SCREAMS priest abuse. Children in the Catholic church are taught to regard a priest as a direct representative of God, carrying God's authority. It is so absolutely unthinkable that one should commit such a horrible crime as sexual abuse against anyone, especially a child, that many victims go into total denial and don't speak of it for decades. Even when they do, until recently little or nothing has been done about it, which must be much like being an innocent person unjustly imprisoned while the guilty go free.

So a writer who cannot reconcile past trauma invents a story in which the chief monster/molester is a person utterly devoid of any knowledge of Christian religion in any form. The chief hero/rescuer is the priest, who, in real life, should have been the figure of trust. The teacher represents the faculty at the Catholic School, who were presumably ignorant of the crimes being perpetrated by one or a small group of priests. I have no proof, but does this theory make sense?

I have heard of many authors (Stephen King among them) who look back at their novels and realize they were writing about themselves the entire time. Sounds like Carcaterra may fall under that category.

Having recently read his memoir "On Writing," Stephen King repeatedly stressed the need for an author to tell the truth. Don't sugarcoat it, don't dress it up, just tell the truth. I have read maybe a dozen of his novels, and, if nothing else, he tells it like it is. Most authors, including Bradbury, haven't written much in the way of rape or abuse or anything so terrible. I think King receives an undue amount of flak for dealing with these subjects. In his own (paraphrased) words: "For those who look down on me for writing what I write, I can only shrug my shoulders. It's what I have."

King won the Distinguished Contribution to American Letters award in 2003, joining the ranks of Faulkner, Emerson, Eudora Welty, and Bradbury, among others. I hope he keeps doing what he's doing.

Probably almost any author is writing their own experience or viewpoint. True genius lies in being able to write about oneself in such a way as to render the experience universal. Why some books are cherished as classics while others, seemingly equally good, fall by the wayside I am still struggling to determine.

Okay, I've submitted an inquiry to the Official Stephen King Message Board. We'll see what, if anything, results.

Stephen King's moderator comments that's the first time that theory has been brought to her attention!

King is one of my favorites! I've read almost all of his books. The Stand is one of my favorites, but i also like the Dark Tower series. I still haven't gotten around to reading the seventh book in the series, but I will hopefully read it soon. Another one I like is The Talisman (with Peter Straub). The sequel (Black House) is good, but not as good as The Talisman.

I'd have to disagree with the people who say that writing about nasty things dminishes King's writing. The theory about King having been abused as a child doesn't seem to fit either.

Every time I've seen a nasty thing in one of King's books, it's been for a reason. For example, in the novella "Apt Pupil"
(spoilers ahead)


the main character fantacizes and does a lot of disturbing things. At one point he thinks about raping a girl with a gun. It is stressed that he gets sexual pleasure out of violence. The story is all about the corruption of the boy , the despair of his mentor, and the troubled relationship they weave. These sorts of disturbing scenes are needed to develop the characters and show plainly the terrible changes their relationship is causing them. The story's theme is disturbing, and without disturbing incidents it wouldn't work out.

(spoilers for "The Dead Zone" ahead)

Another example comes from the book "The Dead Zone". the villian (if you can call him that) of the book is Greg Stillson. A large part of his character is his extremely short temper. He's apt to go into fits of blind rage without much provocation at all. One of the first things Greg does in the story is brutally kill a dog that ran barking after him. Not only does the scene inform you of his mental illness, it also impacts your view of him early on, so you never truly learn to like him through the story. If the reader really learned to like Greg and felt a lot of compassion for him, the ending wouldn't work as well.

quote:

Originally posted by grasstains:
The thing with Stephen King is this....

In every novel I've read by him a completely innocent person dies, and usually a horrible death. It's often a child and many times he'll kill off his most interesting or coolest character.

One word...
Clarisse.

[This message has been edited by MechanicalHoundTrainer (edited 11-17-2004).]

[This message has been edited by MechanicalHoundTrainer (edited 11-17-2004).]

Call me narrow minded but i hate stephen kings books. Theres quite a difference between terror (which i think bradbury is excellent at invoking in his readers) and horror, which is just gore and nasty stuff that draws people in but really does nothing for the plot. ITs kind of the same as terror equaling suspense, which i consider one of the most important factors in a "horror" book. ive heard that kings dark tower series isnt so much into the usual perverted/gory stuff so maybe those are good, im not gonna bother with them until ive read eevrything else worthwhile.

stephen king must have gotten abused or something, otherwise there goes any excuse he has at all for adding in the nasty sh!t he does. i dont see where his influence by bradbury fits in.