Stephen King Fans discussion
2nd Round of King Books
>
RAGE- Book 4
Ben wrote: "To me, it really felt like Stephen King had been asked to write The Breakfast Club, and when they got the results they were too shocked and abashed to give it a green light, and so they said "let's ask this John Hughes fella to give it a shot". But I'm warped like that. "I was reminded of that movie too when I was reading the story. The Breakfast Club with a dark twist.
Ben wrote: "Well, I just finished (because I was still behind and finishing last month's book), so I'll add to what I've read here already. I had my copy of the Bachman Book (the big trade copy version) that I..."It's funny, I mentioned The Breakfast Club in my review. I do think Hughes hit the teenage angst thing closer to the mark than SK did with Rage.
My ranking of the books we've read so far:1. Salem's Lot
2. The Shining
3. Carrie
4. Rage
Hi,I am sorry for running late this month, but I was able to read Rage this weekend and post my review if you are interested in reading it:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I chose not to discuss the book being banned in my review and whether or not that was a good thing. I felt that was better left to these Community boards for discussion.
It's been a very long time since I read this book and it sparked a lot of thoughts. Since I am older I am finding my perspective changing a bit and for some reason I really sensed a lot of raw anger in this books. Not just from Charlie, but from a lot of the characters. It seemed like a very twisted version of "The Breakfast Club".
Now, I am on to "The Stand". Lot's of reading ahead. But good reading!
Scott wrote: "Hi,I am sorry for running late this month, but I was able to read Rage this weekend and post my review if you are interested in reading it:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I ch..."
Good review Scott. It takes a lot into account including the history of the writing and King's attitude at the time. King himself admits that in writing as Bachman he wanted to have a harder edge, so you pretty much nailed his attitude. I do think that even in this early work we can see King's growing skill as a writer. His talents may not have been fully developed, but he is still more powerful and insightful than most writers ever get.
I agree with you about King's developing skills. The book shows that he had the ability to move well from the current moment to a past memory and back again. His pacing was also pretty fluid, and the characters had depth, especially the students. I think that his growing talent was on display and there was some really memorable moments. It just wasn't as polished and tight as it could have been. But then again,he was writing this as a young and learning novelist, not the polished and experienced writer he developed into. But his voice was certainly coming out...
I also think we need to keep in mind that this is Charlie Deckers’s version of what went down.
I find it interesting that Richard Bachman was created relatively early in Stephen King's career. That he already felt typecast into a certain type of writer and felt the need to prove himself. I know JK Rowling tried something similar but it was much later in her career. Though I suppose she has a lot on her plate with a 7 book series.
BTW it took me over a decade to convince my mother that the Shawshank redemption had no "weird stuff" in it and that she would enjoy it. So typecast he most certainly is.
Marc-Antoine wrote: "I also think we need to keep in mind that this is Charlie Deckers’s version of what went down."As Charlie is the narrator we don't have much of a choice but to take it at face value. The fact that he was/is crazy and admitted it falls in to the Catch 22 scenario.
You would be surprised the number of people who don't know Stephen King wrote The shawshank redemption. and even fewer know it by it's full title.
LOL. I prefer the ending of The Shawshank Redepemtion to Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. Normally not a fan of the Hollywood ending but in this case, I loved the characters too much!
Here is a test for you, go out to people who are not Stephen King fans and ask the who wrote the Green Mile. See how many get it right.
Maria wrote: "LOL. I prefer the ending of The Shawshank Redepemtion to Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. Normally not a fan of the Hollywood ending but in this case, I loved the characters too much!"Frank Darabont, really understands the strengths and weaknesses of King very well. He never strays far enough from King's text to change what made the story work in first place but is not shy about getting rid of the excess baggage or the parts that don't work. Darabont also changed the ending of The Mist, an equally good decision that King also endorsed but one that unfortunately gets a lot of flak from his fans.
Aditya wrote: "Maria wrote: "LOL. I prefer the ending of The Shawshank Redepemtion to Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. Normally not a fan of the Hollywood ending but in this case, I loved the characters to..."It's been a long time since I have read the mist - I have forgotten the ending!
The book was fantastic the movie not.
mrbooks I agree with you about the book, I haven't seen the movie.
Murray don't waste your time or money. I am set on one thing the movie and series if you make one should end like the book. This does not.
I actually love the movie. Sure it ends different than the book, but since I'm not really a huge fan of the book ending, I'm completely ok with that.
I think the movie ending is much better than the book, plus they remove an awful sex scene from the book that makes no sense. The movie in this case is a bit better than the book. The book ending is shrouded in ambiguity, the movie ending enveloped in bleakness, neither one is popular with the avg Joe. I personally think a story as long as The Mist deserves a concrete ending, so maybe that's why I feel the movie one is better. But I am pretty sure I read somewhere King felt the movie ending is better.
Back to the Rage topic, I find that many people dislike this novel, going as far as to hate it. I thought it was very good. When I discuss the reason why people dislike it, they often mention the fact that King wrote Decker to be kind of cool, and some of the students start taking his side. But the book is supposed to be a glimpse into Charlie’s mind, how could it be any other way? It’s the way he sees things, of course in his mind he can’t be the bad guy. I find King did this very effectively.
Possibly even too effectively, which is the reason King also decided to take it out of print...
Marc-Antoine wrote: "When I discuss the reason why people dislike it, they often mention the fact that King wrote Decker to be kind of cool, and some of the students start taking his side."I don't think Charlie is cool at all. I don't like him and can't relate to him, which is one of the reasons I don't like the book. And yes, it does bother me that all of the students (except one) take his side, mostly because I don't understand their motivation to do so. Another reason I don't like the book.
I don’t think Charlie is cool, but Charlie Does. I also don’t think the students really took his side, but it was Charlie’s perception that they did. What I’m saying is that we have an unreliable narrator.
But if the students didn't take his side, why did they assault Ted?
I’m thinking that is Charlie’s version of events, not the actual way it would of went down.
Femmy wrote: "But if the students didn't take his side, why did they assault Ted?"Okay, I'll repeat my old premise. Charlie is anti-establishment and Ted IS the establishment. Kids of the time hated symbols of power and authority. (And college kids of the 60s/70s hated it even more and King is one of those kids.) Charlie's work is to wipe out people who represent authority. "Show me your pass, Charlie..." Bang! You're dead.
Katie wrote: "Monique wrote: "I’m waiting for mine to come in the mail"How did you find a copy that's not $300?"
I found mine on amazon for about $5, it was in the Bachman books, it was one of four stories in the book.
Aditya wrote: "Surprised to see no one touch on that aspect of the book being banned. Just got a couple of questions regarding how most of you feel about censorship, feel free to opine if you got the time.1. Ho..."
I don't agree with banning books. I make it a point to read all the books on the "Most banned" list. However, I don't really consider this book banned. It was the author himself that decided he didn't want to sell the book anymore. This wasn't a group that is trying to stop people from reading it.
I understand why King decided he didn't want to publish it anymore, people feel guilt even when they aren't guilty. However, I also agree with you. I think if someone read this book, and said, this sounds like fun, and they were motivated to attack, then there were already problems there, and something eventually would have made them snap. In the end though, King made a personal decision, and it was his to make.
Femmy wrote: "But if the students didn't take his side, why did they assault Ted?"The thing you need to remember this is Charlies Narrative, It will only show Charlie is a good light. Charlie only concession to his failings is his stomach problems.
mrbooks wrote: "Femmy wrote: "But if the students didn't take his side, why did they assault Ted?"The thing you need to remember this is Charlies Narrative, It will only show Charlie is a good light. Charlie onl..."
Okay but the fact that the class attacked Ted (as reported by Charlie) and he hasn't come out of it (as reported by the hospital) suggests that there is some credibility to what he says.
Nick wrote: "mrbooks wrote: "Femmy wrote: "But if the students didn't take his side, why did they assault Ted?"The thing you need to remember this is Charlies Narrative, It will only show Charlie is a good li..."
There's credibility that Ted was attacked sure, but was it really by the other students as Charlie reports, or did Charlie do it himself? That's the thing that we can't really say for sure.
In the end, I think Rage is a classic case of the unreliable narrator. As such, everything he presents inside of that classroom becomes questionable at best as truth.
Tim wrote: "Nick wrote: "mrbooks wrote: "Femmy wrote: "But if the students didn't take his side, why did they assault Ted?"The thing you need to remember this is Charlies Narrative, It will only show Charlie..."
I'll be honest I never thought of it that way at all. But it is possible.
I’m loving this discussion, and everyone’s insights.
Nick wrote: "Okay, I'll repeat my old premise. Charlie is anti-establishment and Ted IS the establishment. Kids of the time hated symbols of power and authority. "Nick, yes, I agree with your theory. But Marc-Antoine is offering a different theory (the students didn't side with Charlie) so my question was my effort to explore his theory a little deeper.
Marc-Antoine wrote: "I’m thinking that is Charlie’s version of events, not the actual way it would of went down."Okay, so what do you think actually happened in that class? Why was Ted catatonic? Was he assaulted at all?
Also, what about the letter from Charlie's "friend" in the end? It's obvious that it was from one of the hostages, and that what happened in class created a lasting bond among the students and with Charlie.
mrbooks wrote: "The thing you need to remember this is Charlies Narrative, It will only show Charlie is a good light. Charlie only concession to his failings is his stomach problems."Tim wrote: "In the end, I think Rage is a classic case of the unreliable narrator. As such, everything he presents inside of that classroom becomes questionable at best as truth. "
I disagree that Charlie is an unreliable narrator. There's no indication that his account is unreliable.
In my understanding of this "unreliable narrator" writing technique, it's a tool which an author uses with a specific reason or purpose (to increase tension in a suspense novel, for instance), and the narrator's unreliability is always exposed by the end of the book.
For example, Gone Girl, where the husband's and the wife's versions of the history of their marriage are very different. Later on, we discovered that (view spoiler)
In The Girl on the Train, the main character was drunk during a crucial event, so her memory is unreliable. In the end she did remember and the readers are told what really happened.
In Rage (and in Carrie), there's no indication that another version of the events exists.
Femmy wrote: "Marc-Antoine wrote: "I’m thinking that is Charlie’s version of events, not the actual way it would of went down."Okay, so what do you think actually happened in that class? Why was Ted catatonic?..."
The letter ate end was from Charlie’s friend. He was not a hostage in the classroom. Charlie talked about him though throughout the book. He was the friend that protected him from bullies while growing up. I can’t remember his name. I’d have to go check the book.
I don’t think Charlie is an unreliable narrator.I posted earlier (way back on the first page) that I thought the students seemed to behave akin to having Stockholm Syndrome. I like what Nick was saying about the era this book was written and anti-establishment sentiments of the time. That would make sense that the students could easily identify with Charlie and trust him.
I feel like what the students did to Ted affected him more on a psychological level. He probably already had some kind of issues and the entire hostage experience and the other kids ganging up on him put him over the edge.
I don’t think we are going to get the answers to exactly what happened to Ted. I feel like Ted epitomized bullies (remember Charlie was bullied) and it’s like what happened to Ted was justice for all kids who have been bullied.
Nancy wrote: "The letter ate end was from Charlie’s friend. He was not a hostage in the classroom. Charlie talked about him though throughout the book. He was the friend that protected him from bullies while growing up. I can’t remember his name. I’d have to go check the book."The letter didn't have the name of the writer. At the beginning I thought it was from his best friend (I can't remember his name either), but the letter ended with: "There are a lot of us pulling for you, Charlie. Pulling hard. People haven't forgotten. You know what I mean. You have to believe that." I think the writer is referring to what happened in class.
I agree a bit with both of the main theories. I think Charlie is at least a bit unreliable in that this is first person narrative from a seriously mentally disturbed individual. Having said that, I also believe that there was a bit of Stockholm Syndrome going on. Much of that had to do with when the novel was set. Like Nick says, kids were pretty ripe for anarchy at that time.Saying Ted represents the establishment is also spot on. I think the fact that Ted was presented (and presented himself) as pretty perfect, only to have revealed that he was NOT is why the kids attacked him. Ted would never have admitted to what happened between him and Carol (?), but having the beans spilled about him made it even worse.
So there is a poem called My Last Duchess by Robert Browing, and somehow over decades it popped into my mind and I remember my high school English teacher saying that this was the first instance in which the reader gradually begins to realize that the narrator is out of his mind... this was the first instance of an unreliable narrator. Of course, later we got Turn of the Screw and the Haunting of Hill House. But even in those cases, it could be argued that maybe those narrators really weren't crazy and maybe there really were ghosts in those places. I guess what I'm getting at is that there doesn't have to be clear proof that the narrator is unreliable. It's often part of the design of the story to leave the reader guessing. Still, I really thought King presented a coherent individual in Decker with at least internal logic in the things he said. He didn't read like someone who changed the events in the classroom at all, though I do think that it is possible that he did, just not likely. Ted Jones condition is clearly defined as "flatline catatonic state with some signs of deterioration." So I'm not sure if it's a mental reaction or a physical one, not sure what "they fell on him," means. As for the final letter, It is from Charlie's friend because he signs it Joe Mc K. And he does say "a lot of people are pulling for you hard." And Sandy Cross asked him to say 'Hi'. So she can't be totally terrorized by Charlie. On the other hand, the final chapter in which Charlie talks about the yearbook, he's quite gone there... really gone. As much as I like this book I do think there is a disparity between the cool customer Charlie seems to be in the book and the kid who is constantly humiliated and who embarrasses himself in front of other kids. Not sure how that transition occurs unless it happened when he decided he didn't care anymore and whacked the teacher with the wrench. Bottom line, I think King's intention was to portray a kid who had a certain kind of logic to the things he did and the way he viewed the world.
Nick wrote: "So there is a poem called My Last Duchess by Robert Browing, and somehow over decades it popped into my mind and I remember my high school English teacher this was the first instance in which the reader gradually begins to realize that the narrator is out of his mind... this was the first instance of an unreliable narrator. Of course, later we got Turn of the Screw and the Haunting of Hill House. But even in those cases, it could be argued that maybe the narrators really weren't crazy and maybe there really were ghosts in those places. I guess what I'm getting at is that there doesn't have to be clear proof that the narrator is unreliable."Oh I forgot about the crazy character as the unreliable narrator.
But again, the authors of these books use the unreliable narrator for a specific purpose, which is to get the readers guessing and there are usually clues about the characters' craziness. No clear proof, but there are usually indications and clues. It's the whole point of these stories. Are there really ghosts, or are they only in the characters' imagination/craziness?
I haven't read the books you mentioned, but I read a novel where we follow a character's story living in a remote house and interacting with a roommate and experiencing odd things. In the end, it seems that the roommate doesn't exist at all and probably was part of the character's craziness. So the strange things that happened to her were probably part of her imagination too. (The book was (view spoiler).)
So in the end the author shows us that the character is unreliable, through the non-existence of the roommate.
I don't get that vibe in Rage. I don't think SK intends for readers to be guessing about what really happened. I don't think that's the point of the book at all.
Nick wrote: "As for the final letter, It is from Charlie's friend because he signs it Joe Mc K."My copy doesn't mention any name at the end of the letter. Strange. Is it a publishing error?
Nick wrote: "As for the final letter, It is from Charlie's friend because he signs it Joe Mc K. And he does say "a lot of people are pulling for you hard." And Sandy Cross asked him to say 'Hi'. So she can't be totally terrorized by Charlie."I agree that this indicates that the students really did take Charlie's side in the classroom and continue to sympathize with him.
Nick wrote: "Not sure how that transition occurs unless it happened when he decided he didn't care anymore and whacked the teacher with the wrench. "Yes, I think that's when he changed. At that moment he realized that violence gives power to the doer.
My copy of the book, the letter is also signed by his friend. I think when Ted is described as having flat-line catalonia just means it is unchanging or static. Usually Catalonia can last hours or days not months. People who are catatonic have psychological problems like schizophrenia or depression or even psychological trauma. Which is why I think Ted already had issues and the students pouring ink on him etc just pushed him over the edge. Psychological trauma.
Femmy wrote: "Nick wrote: "As for the final letter, It is from Charlie's friend because he signs it Joe Mc K."My copy doesn't mention any name at the end of the letter. Strange. Is it a publishing error?"
Must be an error. Which version did you read?
I have the Bachman Books edition from 1985 by Plume.
I have the Bachman Books edition from 1986 by Signet.
At the end of the introduction by King in The Bachman Book, he says”“Both The Long Walk and Rage are full of windy psychological preachments (both textual and subtextual),...”
Stephen King Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
The Bachman Books: Four Early Novels by Stephen King (other topics)The Red Tree (other topics)
The Girl on the Train (other topics)
Gone Girl (other topics)
No argument here! I'm a big John Hughes fan. But to me that's what it struck me as. So many similar elements, aside from the multiple murderer. Big detail, though.