Talk:Stephen King/Archives 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Stephen King. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Columnist

I added that Stephen King is also a columnist, as he was for quite a time writing the last page for Entertainment Weekly.

Mistakes pertaining to guns

Stephen occasionally makes mistakes when writing about guns,I have put them in the article twice and twice they have been removed as 'irrelevant information.'They may seem irrelevant to a liberal from Kommiefornia,but they are obvious and significant to millions of people who know about guns.Dean Koontz makes no such mistakes in his books.Deleting this information was nothing more that a cheap political stunt.Imagine,the author of the Gunslinger series makes mistakes writing about guns and it's 'irrelevant.Finally,I am continuously amazed by the rudeness of people who are safe behind a keyboard.LAcameraman,you should take your liberal politics somewhere else.Saltforkgunman 02:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I guess I should have read this rather agressive note from you before I replied in earnest on your Talk page. For the record, this was my reply:

"Hello. Thanks for the note on my talk page regarding the reversions of your additions to the Stephen King biography.
I agree with you that Stephen makes errors when it comes to accuracy of the depiction of firearms in his stories. That has no relevance in a biographic entry about an author, however. It is just as irrelevant to state that he erronously describes the color of Nike shoes or that he describes amplitude modulation wrong in three stories... None of this is relevant in a biographical entry. It has nothing to do with politics. In fact I was trained by law enforcement officers in weapons handling for motion pictures and am very savvy when it comes to firearms of many kinds. Your comment was an interesting note to make, but it has no place here. Perhaps you can start an article on firearm inacurracies presented in modern media? That would actually be a very interesting article. The obvious entries would be talking about "endless" ammo in Hollywood weapons, the endless need to cock weapons in movies - especially semi automatics that have already been fired in the same scene. It could be a very interesting article. My deletions had nothing to do with politics or any personal attack. It was merely good editing. All the best LACameraman 09:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well...Thats nice.I reckon it would have no place in the bio section,but I put it in the writing style section as a point of intrest.I mean,the creator of the most revered gunslinger in the world of fiction,makes a few mistakes writing about guns and it's not relevant?Okay.I am willing to let it be.When I first came here I said I probably wasn't going to engage in these retarded edit wars I read about.And it's not important enough.Best to you too,Cameraman.Saltforkgunman 01:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Why in God's name are the Dark Tower books referred to twice as the Gunslinger books? I'll fix that now. Also, I request that if the person who wrote that section ever writes again, they please put a SPACE in between their punctuation and the next word in the paragraph. I'm going to fix that, too.

I don't think this is relevant information to put in a biography of Stephen King. Many novels have small factual errors and other inconsistencies. Unless King's errors are particularly notable for some reason, this doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. Rhobite 22:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool,Rhobite.You keep on fixing my mistakes.I'm glad for the help.Saltforkgunman 01:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Biography header

Whoever keeps adding "WWW.StephenKingSciences.com" to the biography section header, please don't. There's an "external links" section.Bjones 00:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Death of Steve's Mother

Stephen's mom died after Carrie was published. She had it read to her before she died (while she was on her deathbed.). It says so in On Witing. Theslash 02:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be best if you cited the page in the article. -- LGagnon 03:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

On A&E Biography they say that she only read the manuscript, was aware that it was going to be published but died before actually publication of Carrie by Doubleday.

Also they state that she died of lung cancer rather than uterine cancer.

"Shortly after its release, his mother died of uterine cancer. She had the novel read to her before she died".

In the introduction to the new printing of 'salem's Lot, Stephen King says that his mother died just before the original publishing of the book, so she probably did read Carrie.

King's mother was not alive to see the full publication of Carrie. In the into to 'salem's Lot he says that his mother would have regarded it as "trash."--NYKenny 12:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

stat

Does anyone have any idee how much Stephen kings books have been sold ? In the US and worldwide ?

Often?

Stephen King's books often appear on best sellers lists? How about all of his books have made the best sellers lists!? 01:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a good piece of information, except for the part where that isn't true,

two things

"Shortly after his accident, King wrote the first draft of the book..." -what accident? there's no other mention of that.

Well, if you look very closely, there's a little section there called CAR ACCIDENT. Try reading that. Gilulit 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"this will be his first time writing for the comic book medium" "This is not the first time he has written comics though." -is it or isn't it?

There was a comic adaptation of "Creepshows" (1982) Plume Publications with art by Berni Wrightson. LACameraman 20:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, there was a comic adaptation of "The Lawnmower Man" by King and Walt Simonson in 1981 for Marvel Comics "Bizarre Adventures" and "Popsy" was adapted for Innovation Comic's horror anthology "Masques" (both referenced in "The Stephen King Universe" pp. 297).

"current" projects

I think we should take out the paragraph on upcoming projects, as it dates this article and necessitates continuous revisions. This information is available on external websites, I'm sure. 64.185.149.11 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Casey

I agree with the removal of this section. LACameraman 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay. It keeps the site current and the great thing about Wikipedia is revising. --NYKenny 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing a book in the List

I know it's not a new book, but in 2004, the Publisher Little Simon released "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" in a pop-up book edition. It's pretty interesting, check it out. January 5, 2005

Although it's noteworthy to point out, as it does indicate a first in the King world, there have been so many versions and reprints of King's books, I think it might be dangerous territory to start to include some. I question the inclusion of the "Gunslinger" as a revised work in this list as well. LACameraman 20:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The revised Gunslinger is a substantively different work from the origina; (as is the expanded version of The Stand, also mentioned in the list). I don't think any of his other books have been revised to the extent that those have, and I'd argue they're notable enough to appear in the list. The pop-up of Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon isn't, though. Brendan Moody 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Its a seperate work, and should be included. We're not just talking new covers or whatnot.--CyberGhostface 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

12.208.243.12 has linkspammed every King related article with a link to http://www.king-stephen.com/ I have removed a few of them myself. -- LGagnon 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Writing Style

I'll be working on this throughout the week - but if anyone (especially the original author) can help to give specific citations for the quotes that appear in this section - that would be great. LACameraman 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Films and TV

I'm having a hard time with the line written here "disgusted with the treatment most of his work had gotten in film" as it is complete supposition without a direct quote from King. This is more of the writer's opinion than King's and I'm not sure (unless there is a quote I am not aware of) that King would state it quite that way. Thoughts? LACameraman 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. It's not only unsupported here, but probably unsupportable: King has been very complimentary of many films based on his work, from Carrie to Cujo. Unless someone produces the quote "I am disgusted with the treatment my work has received", I'm deleting this false motivation behind Maximum Overdrive. Chris Stangl 01:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The line might be a bit hyperbolic, and probably should have been removed.

That being said, it's well known that Stephen King has not admired most of the screen adaptations of his work, especially those that he does not participate in directly.

The Shining probably being the foremost example of this. 72.68.162.27 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is patently untrue that King has not enjoyed the majority of film adaptations. Any number of interviews in Bare Bones bear out that for years he was only unhappy with The Shining and the only "dog" in his opinion was Children of the Corn. He has even alternately indicated pride and said he "fucked up" Maximum Overdrive, so any further evaluations of King's opinion in this section need to be sourced direct quotes without POV from the editors.

By the by, this entire section is pretty paltry for a man with hundreds of films adapted from his work, and multiple books devoted to the subject. I'll try to get busy expanding it this evening. Chris Stangl 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not he objects to the "majority" of screen adaptations is a matter of dispute.

However, I don't see how that assertion is any more absurd than your demonstrably false statement that "The Shining," at least, in its original incarnation, is the only one he objects to.

Stephen King usually supports adaptations of his work that adhere faithfully to his original work-no matter how shoddily they are done-while he denounces screenplays that veer from his writing, no matter how well they are produced. I merely invoked "The Shining" as an example because it probably illustrates this tendency better than any other motion picture based upon his work. 72.68.174.163 01:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All I write above is that as of period the Bag of Bones interviews cover, the only films King was singling out for real complaint were The Shining and Children of the Corn; i.e. not even a majority for that brief era. I don't at all know that it's "well known" the author only supports adaptations in which he participates. His praise for Misery, Cujo, Shawshank, Carrie and Green Mile, made without his involvement, and sometimes veering wide of their source material, is very high. Either way, we seem to agree that illustrating a "majority" argument would be difficult and probably useless, so I wouldn't sweat the small stuff. Chris Stangl 02:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography Deletion

An unnamed contributor added The Talisman 3 (tentative) to the bibliography. There is no official word on a third book in the series, only rumors. LACameraman 09:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Influences: Richard Matheson?

I was surprised that the section on King's influences did not mention Richard Matheson. The back of some Richard Matheson books features the following quote from Stephen King: "The author who influenced me most as a writer was Richard Matheson." I have been unable to find the original source for this quote. Googling it just brings me to pages quoting the back covers of the Matheson books. I would be curious if someone could verify this.

I was very surprised by this, as well. I remember reading in On Writing Mr. King talking about his major influences. He said Richard Matheson was the writer that influenced him the most. I've been trying to find this passage in the book, but haven't been successful. Next time I reread it, I will be sure to make note of it. --Drev19

Added Matheson as influence

I've had correspondence with King when I was younger and Matheson's "I Am Legend" is cited with giving him the inspiration to write horror. I'm 100% positive that this is correct (and the back of Matheson's books corroborate it). I'm sure there is reference from King directly, but I can't find the letter that I was sent back ten or eleven years ago. Liontamarin

New article

I just submitted an article on the poem Paranoid: A Chant, which was immediately tagged for merging into Stephen King. I'm a little confused, there are articles for nearly all of the stories collected in his anthology books. Why is this one marked for merge or delete? Also the adaptation was removed from the article - which makes it even more of a stub. Thoughts? LACameraman 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fact Check?

"In 2002 King announced he would stop writing. He has apparently abandoned this idea, however, as he has written several books since."

From what I can remember, this was taken from a King interview that was later demonstrated to be a hoax. Can anyone prove or disprove this? Gershwinrb 05:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

- It was not a hoax. The first to break the news was the September 27th issue of Entertainment Weekly. Stephen officially announced his impending retirement, after he finished up his Dark Tower series. He has since revised this, but has made it clear he is slowing down his publishing.

Stephen's official response to this question is on his website http://stephenking.com/pages/FAQ/Stephen_King/retired.php - captured 2/28/06.

However, I would venture to say the statement above has no place here. LACameraman 08:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why, LaCameraman? He DID announce his retirement. He has since resumed working. Removing that statement is like omitting his date of birth because he's no longer a newborn. After major trauma, a patient assumes that after weeks of bones knitting and months of physical therapy, that they've recovered as much as they are going to. In fact, it takes years for one to fully regain his physical stamina. Writing is very demanding, physically, and King thought he needed to retire. As he has regained stamina, though, his ability - and compulsion - to write has returned. As writers age, they typically produce richer work, which is understandably produced more slowly, so King may never be as prolific as he once was - but he may well continue to be more and more productive. ClairSamoht 16:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Clair - perhaps my objection is merely in the rather slanted tone the comment was written. If perhaps it was written: King announced his official retirement in 2002, but has since revoked that announcement and explains "I'm writing but I'm writing at a much slower pace than previously... I'm not a kid of 25 anymore... I'm 55 years old and I have grandchildren, two new puppies to house-train and I have a lot of things to do besides writing and that in and of itself is a wonderful thing but writing is still a big, important part of my life and of everyday." (ref: http://stephenking.com/pages/FAQ/Stephen_King/retired.php - captured 2/28/06) - that then makes it a verifiable fact, as opposed to a kind of off-color opinion. If you feel it should be added in, I think some form of the above works. Agree? LACameraman 09:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The "victims" Quote

The version quoted in the Article comes from a TV interview, but I cannot remember where or when this interview took place. I believe the "Stand" reference covers it. Michael David 13:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ruth

It seems that Ruth should be introduced. Her name appears in 2nd sentence of the biography section: "Ruth raised King and his adopted older brother David by herself". Who is she? Is Ruth her first name or last name? Also it seems strange to refer to Stephen King as "King" and his brother as "David", but maybe this is standard.

I agree with this, as "Ruth" just suddenly appears in the article. I would chnage it, but do not have a source to refer to regarding this. Panastasia 17:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Quibble with sentence

I changed the sentence, "He also writes stories that cannot be considered horror..." to "He also writes stories outside the horror genre..." A slight difference, yes, but I think it's debatable that stuff like The Shawshank Redemption cannot be considered horror at all. It's outside the genre, but it still has horror elements. It's not like King chose to write a romance or something.

By the way, I'm still looking for feedback on the Richard Matheson connection (see above), yet no one's responded. marbeh raglaim 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry, probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pet Sematary

Hi, I was just wondering whether Pet Sematary could be considered linked to the Dark Tower series on the Stephen King page, as there is a reference made to it in Insomnia (Gage Creed's sneaker is found in the home of Doc #3 - sorry, can't remember his other name - Doc #3 being part of the Random, which is a part of Ka, and so on and so forth). Ordinarily I wouldn't consider this to be enough, but as Salem's Lot is also said to reference the Dark Tower series (as the character of Father Callaghan appears in the series after Wolves of the Calla), I think this is fair.

Basically all of King's works are referenced in Dark Tower somewhere, it acts as a sort of multiverse for his other works (and a fair bit of other literature besides), so it isn't anything special about Pet Sematary. JoshuaZ 04:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's probably not an issue of "fairness", but of keeping the Dark Tower-linked book list useful to the casually interested. The astute reader will find several tiers of links between books and stories, from direct crossovers of characters (Father Callahan, Dinky Earnshaw) and visits to worlds (The Stand), to second-hand de facto links (if A and B share space in a book, and B and C in another, then A and C are linked). The Constant Reader will probably realize at some point that every King work can be logically connected in this manner: once Father Callahan enters, every Castle Rock and Derry story is roped in along with it, for we know the geographical relationships of the towns. Once IT is connected, The Shining is, too (young Dick Halloran passed through Derry). Since Tommyknockers can be connected via bona fide first-tier-DT-linked The Talisman, Regulators, and Insomnia, that means all stories about The Shop are sucked into the thinny: Firestarter to Golden Years. The few that cannot be accounted for (like, I dunno, "Beachworld" for example) are safely covered by the concept of an infinite number of parallel universes. You see where I'm going with this? The Wikipedia reader needs to know that Insomnia will greatly illuminate The Dark Tower, not that Golden Years can be linked fourth-hand to the series. It's probably best if the Wikipedia list reflects those designated "Dark Tower related" in King's own lists. Chris Stangl 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture references

The "Popular culture" list is reaching critical mass. The list is absurdly long - nearly as long as the rest of the entry- and of questionable usefulness. Is there a reason every "Family Guy" or "Just Shoot Me" joke about King needs to be explained in detail? Given that King is the best-selling novelist of the last half century, and a major cultural touchstone, the list could be infinitely expanded (can you imagine, for example, a "Popular culture references to The Beatles" list?). Might we find some way to summarize this? Or criteria for keeping it pared down? Chris Stangl 22:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Second. Also, some of references are a stretch GuyFromChicago 18:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose a brief paragraph explaining the depth and breadth of King references in popular culture (and high culture, for that matter). A new article may of course be created to preserve the list, and for those with interest in the topic to expand it to their heart's content. As it stands the list is neither definitive nor useful to the article. A model for reference might be the Star Wars main article, which has such a sub-section, but also a separate article called List of cultural references to Star Wars and a short explanatory article, Cultural impact of Star Wars. Chris Stangl 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support that, too. The list is just going to keep on growing. If we don't change it from a list to prose, it will be the one area newbie wiki editors will continue to contribute endlessly. LACameraman 00:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone support making an entirely new article on popular culture references of Stephen King and his works? It certainly seems like it could merit it's own piece - which would allow people to list the references here (handy for someone, I'm sure) and not clutter this article. LACameraman 02:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We'd talked about it so much that I just went ahead and did it. I threw in a prefunctory 'graph on cultural influence, but there's room for much more valuable information than a list. New article moved to List of cultural references to Stephen King. Chris Stangl 02:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Right on. Now that's WikiBold. Good work. LACameraman 02:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Characters' increasing economic status

"King fans note that the relative wealth of King's characters has risen through the decades, but not as precipitously as King's
wealth itself: His earliest works (Carrie, The Shining, The Stand, as well as much of the work in Night Shift), deal with working-
class families struggling from paycheck to paycheck in minimum-wage jobs.  Late-1980s work involved middle-class people like
teachers and authors  Late-1990s work sometimes dealt with airplane pilots, writers and others who can frequently afford a
second homestead."

Why I deleted this passage: Something about this section in the King bio has always bothered me. After actually bothering to compile a list of the careers and relative economic status of King's main characters, I've determined this is simply inaccurate. I think the section on his writing style and subject matter is woefully underwritten, and could use more material like this, but the above just isn't true. King has written in fairly steadily about blue collar working characters, teachers, and writers through his career, with doctors and other professionals as consistant runners up, and a sprinkling of the very rich and powerful and very poor throughout. I can share my detailed findings if anyone requires "proof". Chris Stangl 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Stephen King

Someone with a lot more knowledge on Stephen King's books needs to make a template that we can put on all of his books/stories. It's just begging for one. -- 70.152.225.17

Are you sure we need this? It'd be a bit massive. -- LGagnon 14:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerns for such a template should be size and usefulness. For example, there is an acceptably brief template for Robert A. Heinlein novels at the bottom of related articles, which is just a quick list of all the relevant books. However, for comparison, look at a Buffyverse-related page, and check out the massive, unwieldy, useless template which lists hundreds of articles. Would the purpose be better served by making sure all relevant articles are linked to Category: Stephen King? Surely between the main article, the "Novels by" and "Short Fiction by" pages, there are enough indices of the work on Wikipedia. It seems like energy would be better spent cleaning up the utter mess that is the main King article. Indeed, why bother with a template for 50 pages of mostly stubs and poor articles? Chris Stangl 02:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be massive! Iolakana|^(talk) 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor Correction

Some discrepancies in the Richard Bachman section as to the appearance of himself and his wife in the Dark Tower series. Fixed them. 66.227.226.251 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC) C.M.

External links

I removed quite a few external links recently, and the removal was reverted without discussion. I've reverted that, and brought the issue here for discussion. The original version contains 21 external links; regardless of the individual quality of each I think that's too many. WP:EL mentions "a small section containing a few external links."

Beyond that, a number of these links seem inappropriate in various ways. There appear to be quite a few fan sites; the style guide recommends only one. Some are about more specific topics (The Dark Tower, The Talisman, Dollar Babies) and might be more appropriate on the pages for those books/series. One is not in English. Others don't seem to have useful encyclopedic content. (I could be wrong about any of these; if I am point it out.)

I'm not desperate to have my version of the external links section be the final form; if some of the links I've left out seem highly relevant and appropriate just say so. I just want the external links section to represent a useful encyclopedic resource. Brendan Moody 00:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Brendan - I saw the deletions that you made the other day and I have no objection with your edits. Each of those sites, in and of themselves, seem to be pertinent - but the list as a whole is extremely redundant. I think your refined list of links is quite sufficient. When you have a subject as prolific as Stephen King, it's hard to limit the connections, but I feel you did a solid job of cutting down the list. I'm sure it will be a constant battle, however, as each of the purveyors of those sites will attempt to relink their work to this article. I support your cut list. LACameraman 08:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bachman article merge

Might the Richard Bachman ex-article be massive enough (and I believe might be expanded) to deserve its own main article, with a brief version on the King bio page? I am torn, but the story is long, involved, and interesting, and the Bachman history could potentially hold its own weight as an article (it certianly did for a long time). Chris Stangl 01:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris - at first I didn't think that was a good idea, but thinking further there is a lot more information that could be included on Bachman and it would seem fitting to have a separate article with a strong link between the two. I would be in support of a separation to a new article on Bachman. LACameraman 06:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a demerging as well.--CyberGhostface 20:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

With no objections, I'm on the case. Chris Stangl 01:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bachman movie

something should be added about the fact that the film version of "The Running Man" was credit as based on a book by richard bachman. it's notable that at least one of the bachman books was successful enough to merit a film adaptation (albiet a very lose one) before he was revealed to be SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.104.34 (talk • contribs)

Actually it was released in 1987, two years after King was exposed...--CyberGhostface 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you know of information that if you feel is worth adding to Wikipedia, you should add it yourself. Don't ask permission. Since you're asking for a vote, though, I don't see why this is at all important. Chris Stangl 22:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Part at the end about Dolan's Cadillac

I always got the impression that it is more a homage to 'The Tell-tale Heart' than the other Poe story listed (the hallucinating progagonist, the continued assurances to the reader that he is sane, ect).

Please add current discussion to bottom of Talk pages. Do not forget to sign Talk comments. Feel free to change "Dolan's Cadillac" article if you have a reference... or if a passage that should have one does not. Chris Stangl 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this?

And, according to FamilyGuyFiles.com, Koontz was also in a car accident (hence the joke - Brian runs over a person, thinks he is Stephen King, but gets back in the car when it's Dean Konntz), but no mention in this article? WTF? Hbdragon88 04:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember that episode! That was a great episode - he actually backs up and runs him over again. By the by, I've noticed that Stephen King's article is much more detailed. MasterXiam 02:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's on List of cultural references to Stephen King. Foday 10:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

King Versus Koontz

File:KingvsKoontz.jpg

The conflict of Stephen King Versus Dean Koontz

The Family Guy episode brings up a good point. The Stephen King versus Dean Koontz conflict. Although subtle, the rivalry between these two does exist and is noted by fans. The name Koontz does apear in a few of Stephen King's novels including IT and Desperation where Koontz plays mean or just plain silly characters.

Shortening

I did an edit of the whole piece and shortened it a bit--it's still over WP's recommended limit, which seems to me like a wise guideline both for readers and editors. One part that seems like it could and should be spun off into its own article is the section on Richard Bachman.

I'd also be in favor of getting rid of the quotations section, just retaining the Wikiquotes link--none of the quotes here are particularly notable.

There's also the option of spinning off the bibliography, which often happens with long author articles. (It could be combined perhaps with the list of short fiction.) Nareek 11:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I cut the quotation section. I've also made a Stephen King bibliography article via cut-and-paste, and if there are no objections I think that material should be cut from the main article. Nareek 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a new article for Richard Bachman. If this makes sense to people, we should cut the Bachman section down to a paragraph or so and put in a "main" link to the new article. Nareek 03:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Movie Versions

"Unlike some authors, King is not at all troubled when a movie based on his work differs from the derivative work itself, and is often pleased with film adaptations of his work. He has contrasted his books and its film adaptations as "apples and oranges; both delicious, but very different." This seems to contradict the information on The Shining page, where it says King was very dissatisfied with Kubrick's adaptation, and worked on the mini-series version that came out in '97 because of this Pnkrockr 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What contradiction? If you haven't noticed, it's pretty mainstream to think Kubrick movies are pretty sucky. In fact, I think you could have easily gotten up a lynch mob from the people exiting movie theatres when "Barry Lyndon" came out. ClairSamoht 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You should go edit the Stanley Kubrick article--it falsely says that Kubrick "is widely considered one of the most innovative and influential filmmakers in cinematic history." Nareek 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

I reverted an edit that not only restored the bibliography (which has been moved to its own article) and the quotation section, but also put back spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, etc. I have to assume that this was done in error. There were a couple of recent edits lost through the reversion, unfortunately. Nareek 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what page is the bibliography? It's not linked. --Jamdav86 19:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Magnum Opus

I can understand the impulse that deleted three of the four works listed as King's "magnum opus"--how many magnum opuses can one author have? But I'm not sure that The Dark Tower really works as King's magnum opus--or that any of his works would, really.

Wikipedia defines magnum opus as an artist's "best, most popular, or most renowned achievement". I think it's safe to say that The Dark Tower is not King's most famous work; it wouldn't be the top answer on Family Feud. Is it his most renowned, which I take to mean most critically acclaimed? I don't know about that; it seems to be more of a cult thing.

That would leave "best". And, well--I don't want to start any fights, but I really love some of King's novels, and I couldn't get past the first couple installments. (And I really wanted to like them, too--they were hard to find in those days, so they had considerable cool factor.) Suffice it to say that I found them extremely self-indulgent--you certainly don't have to agree with me, but I'm not sure we would find any consensus that the series is King's "best" work. In short, it seems very POV to name The Dark Tower as King's magnum opus.

But what would replace The Dark Tower? If it were up to me, I'd say The Shining, but I don't really see that as being less POV. I sort of feel like we ought to drop the category--or if people don't want to do that, maybe we should go back to having four magnum opuses.

(If you Google "Stephen King's magnum opus", you overwhelmingly get hits that relate to The Dark Tower--but that's overwhelmingly because someone wrote a book called The Dark Tower: Stephen King's Magnum Opus.) Nareek 04:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that proof enough? Source it to that book and it would be fine. --Jamdav86 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's proof that somebody thinks The Dark Tower is King's magnum opus--I don't think it's sufficient for Wikipedia to state unequivocally that The Dark Tower is King's best, most famous or most renowned work. Nareek 11:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Book sales

Does anyone have any reliable figure on how many copies of his books that have sold throughout his carreer? Entheta 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)