New trend in SK works

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

raggedyman79

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2013
126
602
41
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States
As I was reading Mr. Mercedes, I noticed SK made several references to his own works as works of fiction, including Christine and It (more accurately, the film versions of the novels). At the time, it only briefly caught my attention, but I brushed it off since he was trying to place that novel in a more "real-world" setting, where he might be referenced as a part of that world; however, as I was reading the first few stories here I noticed that he's done the same thing. In "Mile 81", he refers to Christine again. I know it's not a major thing, but does it take anyone else out of the work when he does this? I love the in-world crossovers, like when Bev and Richie had cameos in 11/22/63, but it just seems a little self-congratulatory to refer to his works in this manner, not to mention redundant since he's doing another "spooky car" reference. I know he's done it before; I think The Dead Zone refers to Carrie as a work of fiction. I think maybe it would bother me less if it was one of the other fifty works he's created, rather than the precise one he referenced only two books ago. Thoughts from the peanut gallery?
 

AnnaMarie

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2012
7,068
29,564
Other
It never seemed self congratulatory to me. I suppose it could be like a placement ad (like drinking a can of Pepsi-cola and making sure the camera catches the full name and smile when a character drinks). However, I assume anyone drinking in this book has probably enjoyed all the others already.
 

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
As I was reading Mr. Mercedes, I noticed SK made several references to his own works as works of fiction, including Christine and It (more accurately, the film versions of the novels). At the time, it only briefly caught my attention, but I brushed it off since he was trying to place that novel in a more "real-world" setting, where he might be referenced as a part of that world; however, as I was reading the first few stories here I noticed that he's done the same thing. In "Mile 81", he refers to Christine again. I know it's not a major thing, but does it take anyone else out of the work when he does this? I love the in-world crossovers, like when Bev and Richie had cameos in 11/22/63, but it just seems a little self-congratulatory to refer to his works in this manner, not to mention redundant since he's doing another "spooky car" reference. I know he's done it before; I think The Dead Zone refers to Carrie as a work of fiction. I think maybe it would bother me less if it was one of the other fifty works he's created, rather than the precise one he referenced only two books ago. Thoughts from the peanut gallery?
Hmmmm - let's see - this peanut from the peanut gallery thinks this is not a "new" trend.

It also depends on your point of view in terms of whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. I do not think it is self congratulatory. Everyone who has ever met him says that Stephen King is not pretentious and in fact comes off as quite humble.

After writing so many books I guess you cannot help but recall the previous ones. I don't have a problem with it and some people love to see things like this - they call them "Easter eggs".

When I read 11/22/63 I had not read "It" yet so the reference to Bev and Richie went right over my head.

...and this thing about precise one he referenced only two books ago - are you reading them in order?

You could always switch to Dean Koontz and his psychic dogs if it gets on your nerves a lot! :dog::wink:

p.s. I think not_nadine and king family fan said it best up above.
 

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Go Neesy. Nice post.
:bashful::a11:
Thanks

I guess it depends on whether one is an optimist or a pessimist :umm:
:facepalm:
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
55
sweden
Partly he does it for us CR,s out there but it is also a way of catching how people think. And some of his characters has become iconic and then he uses it, like Christine, to carry a message. Just as he in earlier books could use other books, or music, or advertisements. I dont think it is selfcongratulatotry at all. Just a way of, in one word, transmitting a message that could have eaten up many more words if not for that reference.
 

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Partly he does it for us CR,s out there but it is also a way of catching how people think. And some of his characters has become iconic and then he uses it, like Christine, to carry a message. Just as he in earlier books could use other books, or music, or advertisements. I dont think it is selfcongratulatotry at all. Just a way of, in one word, transmitting a message that could have eaten up many more words if not for that reference.
Wow! great observation - I never thought of it that way.
 

FlakeNoir

Original Kiwi© SKMB®
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
44,082
175,641
New Zealand
I love SK, y'all, and I didn't mean any harm by the original post. So thanks for making me feel like a simp, Neesy.
I guess you did ask for thoughts from the peanut gallery though and so Neesy perhaps just gave hers?

I think it's fine to either like, or not like that Stephen references his own work...
 

Rrty

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,394
4,588
I'll tell you what I find a little weird about the practice, although please understand, to me, I don't have any problem with it, it's just something that crosses my mind when this sort of thing happens (raggedyman, I think your opinion is valid, and I am glad you expressed it).

If King references It as a work of fiction in another novel, doesn't that essentially negate any mythical value attached to It in King's fictional universe as a whole? Let me state again it is no big deal, as far as I am concerned, it is meaningless, because we're just talking fiction; as I get older, I really don't care or think too much about this kind of stuff. But I find the original post an interesting one, so this is why I am bringing the subject up.

To stretch out what I am saying, I at one time did not like how King linked some of his books together. As an example, wasn't Pet Sematary referenced in both The Tommyknockers and Insomnia? The problem with that is, unless it was the goal from the start to do that, it somehow dilutes the value, in my eyes, of all those works of fiction because they bleed into each other and affect each other's rules. Is the Dark Tower therefore responsible for all the supernatural goings-on in Sematary? I thought it was simply the unexplained power of a preternatural place of interment...but it is possibly not? Instead of each book being unique unto its own, nope -- it's all the Tower. As a matter of fact, I might point out that characters from It appearing in the time-travel novel kind of ruins It in a sense, doesn't it? If there were to be a sequel to It and time travel was suddenly thrust into the mix of the deadlights, would readers like that? Logically, there's no problem to that (i.e., if you have a shapeshifting spider that comes from space as your main villain, then anything goes), but we all know that, for some odd reason, you just can't do that sometimes (as an example, if the new Star Wars film had time travel, fans probably wouldn't like that, just as a sequel to Back to the Future featuring aliens would likewise be received poorly).

King's practice is fine if all of this were to be the case (which I don't believe it necessarily is, although I do not keep track of all the Tower connections). I just think this is an area where academic discussion on King's bibliography might center on, if one is so inclined. Might make an interesting thesis (assuming someone hasn't already written it). Like I say, though, I don't think too much about these things that much these days. If you had said to me years ago Disney wanted to remake the original Star Wars, I would have been shocked. Now, I realize how silly that is; Star Wars could be remade with a new cast, and the world would continue to spin (please note: I do not believe the movie is being remade, this is just a hypothetical example).

Excellent point, raggedyman, I see what you are saying.
 
Last edited by a moderator: