HugoNebula t1_jddsdbl wrote

Both, at the time, excellent and interesting authors of the genre, King's easy-going populism and Straub's literary mastery. Unfortunately, The Talisman exhibits neither of these qualities, remaining resolutely humdrum and bloated, and wholly unremarkable. Black House is, if anything, even worse.


HugoNebula t1_jcok1ms wrote

King doesn't remember writing the book these days (that may be his age as much as anything), but he recalled it well enough in interviews at the time, just after Cujo was published. Regarding that scene specifically, he relates writing it and shocking himself (King, as you may know, doesn't write detailed outlines for he books, just writes it as he goes) and just sitting there, thinking it over. Eventually, he decided to carry on and see where that plot point took him.

I think it makes the book—the entire thing seems to be a critique of the destruction of the nuclear family and a treatise on karma.


HugoNebula t1_ja7nfuy wrote

>My first was the shining, which i would rate a 8/10. So maybe, King is just not my style and i was lucky with the shining.

I think you could pick any of King's first half-dozen or so books (and all of the initial Richard Bachman novels) and have a pretty good time, rewarding your time and interest. After that, maybe another half-dozen equally strong reads, as long as you avoided the novels veering into fantasy (and I would include the Dark Tower series in this).

Fairy Tale comes in the twilight of a very long career, when most folk would just retire. King can't not write, so he'll continue to be published, but he's written very little of real worth—certainly compared to his heyday—for almost two decades now.


HugoNebula t1_j9zb0p6 wrote

Curious how it is that almost every downvoted comment here also contains criticism of—or indifference to—McCarthy's book. Astounding how our supposed literati of intellectual giants seem utterly incapable of engaging in good faith debate or unwilling to defend a criticised work in favour of hit-and-run cowardice.


HugoNebula t1_j9xxg1i wrote

The Road is quite beautifully written, and about as bleak as you could imagine, but like most 'literary' works dipping their toes into genre, it's a tired and unambitious retread of far lesser known, generally lesser-regarded, but ultimately more satisfying and original works: you could look to Earth Abides, by George R Stewart; A Canticle For Leibowitz, by Walter M Miller Jr; I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson; The Postman, by David Brin; or much of Ballard's early work—The Drowned World, The Drought, The Crystal World.

If you do fancy reading outside of the genre specific, and into literary writers making a better fist of venturing into the post-apocalyptic, you could do worse than Russell Hoban's Riddley Walker, Emily St John Mandel's Station Eleven, PD James' The Children of Men, or Nevil Shute's On The Beach.


HugoNebula t1_j6mf14z wrote

Again, it's a scale for maximising profit. As mentioned elsewhere, all of these formats cost relatively the same amount to print and bind, so the earlier, more expensive formats make more money for the publisher, and offer the consumer a choice, both in format and early access.

Usually, the hardback and the larger paperback are released together, the paperback being slightly cheaper. Then the B-format paperback comes some time after that. There used to be an A-format, or 'mass market' paperback that was the cheapest of all, but those have fallen out of fashion.


HugoNebula t1_j6j33a7 wrote

> If anything it just reduces potential profit on release for the new books.

Literally the opposite—publishers make more money off the readers who will pay more to have a book straight away, or prefer the quality of a hardback. It divides the audience for a book into tiered payments, and makes more money off those happy to pay more.