What version to start with?

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • Hot Topics is on indefinite hiatus.

  • The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Friday and 8:30am ET Monday.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Coyo-T

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2016
67
314
#1
So, at the risk of losing my Fan Card, I've never actually read The Stand. (I have seen the TV miniseries.) I currently have both a copy of the 1980 version and the 1990 "uncut" one and am not sure if I should read the '80 one (which the miniseries was technically based on) and save the uncut version for later down the road, or if I should just jump into the uncut one. As I am currently going through a massive backlog of books to read so I can donate them (because it actually is possible to have too many books- when all of your shelves are sagging because you have books piled on top of each other, additional stacks on the floor and no more room in the house for another bookcase, you have to ask yourself some hard questions) I am thinking I will read the '80 version first so it can be donated and hold onto the uncut one for later (as I will likely keep that one, anyway.) My question for the forum, though, is whether there is a great enough difference between versions to justify reading both, or if it's just a matter of dates and some pop culture references in addition to the expanded material. Does anyone have some insight on this?
 

not_nadine

Comfortably Roont
Nov 19, 2011
29,378
137,450
Behind you
#3
I was different. I loved the original. I guess because I did not know that there was more...

I read the un-cut as well, mostly to skim to new parts, because I had read the book so many times.

Can't go wrong with either one.

~edit~ Except for that Payday bar. That will always bug me.
 
Last edited:

Moderator

Ms. Mod
Administrator
Jul 10, 2006
47,463
122,421
Maine
#8
Hi Coyo-T, I'd say the newer one should be the one. If Mr. King felt it necessary to revise and add to the original then you must discount the old and jump on the new and improved. It would be cool to read them back to back and see what the flavour changes were. All the best, mal
In this case it worked the other way around. The majority of what was published in 1990 had already been written and submitted to the publisher for the 1978 edition but they cut those parts out so reading the 1990 version is how he intended it to be read.
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
81,011
307,816
56
Cambridge, Ohio
#10
So, at the risk of losing my Fan Card, I've never actually read The Stand. (I have seen the TV miniseries.) I currently have both a copy of the 1980 version and the 1990 "uncut" one and am not sure if I should read the '80 one (which the miniseries was technically based on) and save the uncut version for later down the road, or if I should just jump into the uncut one. As I am currently going through a massive backlog of books to read so I can donate them (because it actually is possible to have too many books- when all of your shelves are sagging because you have books piled on top of each other, additional stacks on the floor and no more room in the house for another bookcase, you have to ask yourself some hard questions) I am thinking I will read the '80 version first so it can be donated and hold onto the uncut one for later (as I will likely keep that one, anyway.) My question for the forum, though, is whether there is a great enough difference between versions to justify reading both, or if it's just a matter of dates and some pop culture references in addition to the expanded material. Does anyone have some insight on this?
...and yet more advice.....I read the original, then the un-cut....I found it to be the best for me, because the restored portions added even more zest to an already tasty word salad.....
 

mal

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2007
3,401
18,405
56
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
#11
In this case it worked the other way around. The majority of what was published in 1990 had already been written and submitted to the publisher for the 1978 edition but they cut those parts out so reading the 1990 version is how he intended it to be read.
Thanks for the info Ms. Mod. I guess he did not have editorial control way back when. With his spanning career does he now have the clout to say "No. I like it this way better."? I would hope so.
 

Coyo-T

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2016
67
314
#14
Wow, lots of opinions! Thanks for the input; I think I'm leaning toward starting with the '80 version, for the "historical" value if nothing else (as this and the original '78 one would be the versions most people were originally familiar with.) It also moves it up in my backlog "queue", as I'll probably donate that copy and keep the uncut one to read later.
 

skimom2

Just moseyin' through...
Oct 9, 2013
15,668
91,910
USA
#15
I personally think there is a big difference. I hated The Stand that first came out. When they added back in all the content Stephen wrote to begin with, I really liked the story.
And I'm just the opposite :) I love the original Stand. I read the longer edition once and I wasn't impressed. What was cut the first time was done properly. I agree that there is a big difference, though.
 

Doc Creed

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2015
14,829
65,816
United States
#16
And I'm just the opposite :) I love the original Stand. I read the longer edition once and I wasn't impressed. What was cut the first time was done properly. I agree that there is a big difference, though.
I definitely think the editor made the right decision the first time. That was not an easy task.
Having said that, the follow-up was a great gift to his fans. If there ever was a book that deserved to be 1100 pages it's The Stand...an apocalyptic novel with enough characters to fill three school buses!
 

Moderator

Ms. Mod
Administrator
Jul 10, 2006
47,463
122,421
Maine
#17
Thanks for the info Ms. Mod. I guess he did not have editorial control way back when. With his spanning career does he now have the clout to say "No. I like it this way better."? I would hope so.
Doubleday claimed it would not be economically feasible to publish the original manuscript as readers would not want to pay for a book at the price they would need to charge to cover production and make a profit. It was early in his career but we'll never know for sure if that would have been the case in 1978.

As for editing, his manuscripts are still edited and when he agrees with the suggestions Steve will make them but if it's something he feels more strongly about, that doesn't happen.
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
28,344
115,493
Spokane, WA
#18
Doubleday claimed it would not be economically feasible to publish the original manuscript as readers would not want to pay for a book at the price they would need to charge to cover production and make a profit. It was early in his career but we'll never know for sure if that would have been the case in 1978.

As for editing, his manuscripts are still edited and when he agrees with the suggestions Steve will make them but if it's something he feels more strongly about, that doesn't happen.
Steve's got enough 'clout' to tell someone to take a hike if he feels that excising a portion of one of his books would diminish it. But, he also smart enough to know that the editor just may be right and allow something to be taken out.
 
We’ve created a Stephen King Library action for the 
			  Google Assistant and skill for Amazon Alexa. It'll give 
			  you a personalized reading recommendations based on your 
			  answers to a series of questions—so what are you waiting 
			  for? Find out which Stephen King book you should read 
			  next!