I have been reading Bachman (currently Rage), and, guess what? It’s been a revelation to me, a diehard Constant Reader since 1977. Ironically, 1977 was the copyright year for Rage, but I didn’t read the book then, nor was I aware at the time who Richard Bachman was, let alone that the name was a pseudonym for Stephen King.
I became a passenger on Stephen King’s fright train with the reading of Carrie, and, as you would expect—if you’re a Constant Reader, that is—I became hooked on horror. From Carrie on I read each new book more or less as it appeared in print.
The amazing thing—from my perspective, at least—is that during this time it never occurred to me to read Bachman. I remember viewing The Running Man and Thinner, and liking both films. But the inspiration for these films, the books from which they had originated, was alien to me.
Time passed. Segue to the SKMB and my participation there. One day while perusing the new posts on the Board I noticed a thread whose central topic was Rage. The impression I got from the discussion was that the person who posted the thread did not enjoy the book because, and I paraphrase, the work was “unpolished, rude, offensive and yet tense at the same time.”
My interest piqued, I said, “Wait up.” (We used to say “Wait up” in the sixties.) Except for unpolished, “rude and offensive and yet tense” is precisely why I read Stephen King. Arguably in his best work Stephen King’s writing is at fever pitch, bold, intense, visceral, unapologetic—surprisingly creepy and grossed out. His best horror writing has what I would call the “ick factor”--rude and offensive and yet tense. (No doubt other writers of horror have the “ick factor” but not to the degree it is evident in early King.)
In cinematographic terms, his freight train of horror has the visual power and impact of Unstoppable and Von Ryan’s Express put together. In other words, the writing in his early works-–and the Bachman books in particular—have the special qualities I’ve mention above.
In conclusion let me say that I have been hooked on SK writing all over again. (Yes, Virginia, it is possible to become hooked on Stephen King’s writing twice in one lifetime.) Rage, The Running Man, Roadwork, The Regulators, Thinner, Blaze—this is Stephen King writing before the hoopla, the hype, the mega-deals and well-deserved fame. These books are, as he states in “Why I Was Bachman": “honest novels … honestly meant … and written with an energy I can only dream about these days…”
Energy, indeed. The Bachman books represent the Stephen King I love to read. Quintessential King, if you will.
Thank you again, Mr. King, for this second time around, and that never-ending train ride.
I became a passenger on Stephen King’s fright train with the reading of Carrie, and, as you would expect—if you’re a Constant Reader, that is—I became hooked on horror. From Carrie on I read each new book more or less as it appeared in print.
The amazing thing—from my perspective, at least—is that during this time it never occurred to me to read Bachman. I remember viewing The Running Man and Thinner, and liking both films. But the inspiration for these films, the books from which they had originated, was alien to me.
Time passed. Segue to the SKMB and my participation there. One day while perusing the new posts on the Board I noticed a thread whose central topic was Rage. The impression I got from the discussion was that the person who posted the thread did not enjoy the book because, and I paraphrase, the work was “unpolished, rude, offensive and yet tense at the same time.”
My interest piqued, I said, “Wait up.” (We used to say “Wait up” in the sixties.) Except for unpolished, “rude and offensive and yet tense” is precisely why I read Stephen King. Arguably in his best work Stephen King’s writing is at fever pitch, bold, intense, visceral, unapologetic—surprisingly creepy and grossed out. His best horror writing has what I would call the “ick factor”--rude and offensive and yet tense. (No doubt other writers of horror have the “ick factor” but not to the degree it is evident in early King.)
In cinematographic terms, his freight train of horror has the visual power and impact of Unstoppable and Von Ryan’s Express put together. In other words, the writing in his early works-–and the Bachman books in particular—have the special qualities I’ve mention above.
In conclusion let me say that I have been hooked on SK writing all over again. (Yes, Virginia, it is possible to become hooked on Stephen King’s writing twice in one lifetime.) Rage, The Running Man, Roadwork, The Regulators, Thinner, Blaze—this is Stephen King writing before the hoopla, the hype, the mega-deals and well-deserved fame. These books are, as he states in “Why I Was Bachman": “honest novels … honestly meant … and written with an energy I can only dream about these days…”
Energy, indeed. The Bachman books represent the Stephen King I love to read. Quintessential King, if you will.
Thank you again, Mr. King, for this second time around, and that never-ending train ride.