Horror Aficionados discussion
Novels
>
The Stand: Which Version is Better?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Grant
(new)
Jun 27, 2011 12:27PM
For those of you who've read both, I'm curious which version of the Stand is better--edited or unedited?
reply
|
flag
I've read both, and IMO, the unabridged version is the best. King's vision as it was intended to be.
Can i get an AMEN? Damn Gatorman you are all kinds of right today! LOL
I don't remember the differences I read both so long ago.
The more words the better (limited to this fantastic book)! Have you all been reading the comic as well?
Throwing in my 2 cents, I'd say the unabridged is better. There's an entire subplot about a character named 'The Kid" that you never even get a whiff of in the edited version. It's a huge book anyway, whats a few hundred more pages? :)
I've only read the unabridged version. I would have to say, though, that it's better because there's something like 400 pages restored in it. I can't imagine this book without them.
Exactly Jason I've actually avoided the abridged version for fear it would be mangled compared to the unabridged version. Meghan I read the first book of the comic and stopped because it didn't do the book justice in my mind.
Okay, I'll probably get flamed for it, but I like the original (shorter) version more than the updated unabridged version. My reason: it was the 3rd book by King I'd read (after Carrie and Salem's Lot) and it was just out in paperback and I couldn't put it down. Maybe if I'd read the long version first. Also didn't really get into the "updates" attempted to reconcile the later decade of publication.
I've read only the full version and I liked it very much and it was also the first novel from King I read. The details were perfect and the level of stress at times was amazing and thrilling - you don't even feel the +1000 pages.
I think back to some of the less plot centered bits at times too like when Tom and Nick get stuck in the barn during a tornado. The level of tension there was great.
Amanda wrote: "Exactly Jason I've actually avoided the abridged version for fear it would be mangled compared to the unabridged version. Meghan I read the first book of the comic and stopped because it didn't d..."
What I liked about the comic was seeing the images coming to life... some characteristics I really agreed with and some not... was not a fan of the early renderings of Fannie... bit it was fun to reread the book in bite size pieces, savouring it, instead of just devouring as I always seem to when I read.
What? You're discussing The Stand and Maciek is not here? He loves the unabridged version, which I think he read in 1 hour.
I just bought The Stand. It will be a awhile before I read it but based on this post I bought the uncut version!
Aloha wrote: "What? You're discussing The Stand and Maciek is not here? He loves the unabridged version, which I think he read in 1 hour."It was, in fact, 15 minutes on my morning commute, the same one on which I've read The Lord of The Rings because the red light was long. I also personally abriged the book for a shorter commute but I've heard that this version is out of print now.
You probably read The Stand in the time it took you to pick your nose at the traffic light.
No, that was when I wrote it. That's why the flu plays a major role in the book.
That sticky residue between the page covers was probably a sale gimmick.
Exactly! Not that anyone had anything to do with it, most certainly not me.
I read The Stand when it first came out and haven't read the unabridged version. I am curious about what was cut out though. Someday, someday...
I read the original long before the unedited version was published. When that version came out, I skimmed through it, and didn't really like how it now ended. Seemed like a cliche - "He's not really DEAD!"
Maybe there's a devoted King fan somewhere who has a site that details what was cut from the original?
Will wrote: "I read the original long before the unedited version was published. When that version came out, I skimmed through it, and didn't really like how it now ended. Seemed like a cliche - "He's not reall..."Will, it's not a cliche because it fits in with where King takes the character in the Dark Tower series. Don't know if you've read any of those books.
Ah, okay. I tried reading the first book in that series but wasn't into it at all. Now, I know people who've read the whole thing half a dozen times but know nothing of his horror works... which depresses the hell out of me, for some reason.
Will wrote: "Ah, okay. I tried reading the first book in that series but wasn't into it at all. Now, I know people who've read the whole thing half a dozen times but know nothing of his horror works... which de..."I agree, that is sad. Probably because the Dark Tower is much more fantasy and some of those fans aren't into the horror stuff.
And I'm a little fantasy, a little scifi, and a little horror, plus all the other stuff thrown in. Too bad I only have one short little life to devote to them all, and I'm doing that poorly. I've given up trying to be a specialist.
I think it may depend on how 'into' the book you are. When I read the abridged edition, I was so immersed in King's world that I didn't want to leave. But not everyone may feel that way. I haven't read the unabridged edition yet, but I may have to give it a try.
what a waste of time, needed about at least 500 pages cut.
The unabridged version was hard to get through. I should have read the abridged version. I'd likely have a higher opinion of the work.
I've only read the Complete and Uncut version I can't imagine reading the edited version.
I've read both and I enjoyed the uncut version the most. King may be verbose, but his characters are so human and I enjoy them so much, that I don't care.
The original (unabridged) is my 2nd favorite King book. The Complete and Uncut (expanded) version is my least favorite King book. The 1978 original (which is the standard that the term "unabridged" is based on in relation to the work--unless they are to be considered two seprate works--since it was published first) is a tighter, more focused morality tale. The stuff that was restored and the new scenes King added, while giving it an epic feel, just weigh the story down. I liked some of the material about Frannie Goldsmith (they make her a more sympahtetic character); but the ending cheapens the sacrifice made by Larry, Glen and Ralph and the chapter with the Kid just added an unnnecessary gag reflex.
I understand that it supposedly fits into the DT cycle of stories a little better now, but in Wizard & Glass, Roalnd's ka-tet finds itself in Captain Tripps-ravaged Topeka in 1986, not 1996--which should not have happened since W&G was penned AFTER The Stand was revised and if the C&UV is now the version he wants people to read (which I assume he does since the original is OOP).
The C&UV is what made me lose interest in reading King books for a long time. I went from a Constant Reader to a Sporadic Reader becaue of this vanity project. (I have since become a Constant Reader again--thanks to stunning masterpieces like From a Buick 8, Lisey's Story, and The Colorado Kid.)
