they lived happily ever after.
The End.
I don't know what you think, but for me, that version's a loser. The story is
there, but it's not elegant. It's like a Cadillac with the chrome stripped off
and the paint sanded down to dull metal. It goes somewhere, but it ain't, you
know, boss.
I haven't restored all four hundred of the missing pages; there is a
difference between doing it up right and just being downright vulgar. Some of
what was left on the cutting room floor when I turned in the truncated version
deserved to be left there, and there it remains. Other things, such as Frannie's
confrontation with her mother early in the book, seem to add that richness and
dimension which I, as a reader, enjoy deeply. Returning to "Hansel and Gretel"
for just a moment, you may remember that the wicked stepmother demands that her
husband bring her the hearts of the children as proof that the hapless
woodcutter has done as she has ordered. The woodcutter demonstrates one dim
vestige of intelligence by bringing her the hearts of two rabbits. Or take the
famous trail of breadcrumbs Hansel leaves behind, so he and his sister can find
their way back. Thinking dude! But when he attempts to follow the backtrail, he
finds that the birds have eaten it. Neither- of these bits are strictly
essential to the plot, but in another way they make the plot they are great and
magical bits of storytelling. They change what could have been a dull piece of
work into a tale which has charmed and terrified readers for over a hundred
years.
I suspect nothing added here is as good as Hansel's trail of breadcrumbs, but
I have always regretted the fact that no one but me and a few in-house readers
at Doubleday ever met that maniac who simply calls himself The Kid . . . or
witnessed what happens to him outside a tunnel which counterpoints another
tunnel half a continent away-the Lincoln Tunnel in New York, which two of the
characters negotiate earlier in the story.
So here is The Stand, Constant Reader, as its author originally intended for
it to roll out of the showroom. All its chrome is now intact, for better or for
worse. And the final reason for presenting this version is the simplest.
Although it has never been my favorite novel, it is the one people who like my
books seem to like the most. When I speak (which is as rarely as possible),
people always speak to me about The Stand. They discuss the characters as though
they were living people, and ask frequently, "What happened to so-and-so?" . . .
as if I got letters from them every now and again.
I am inevitably asked if it is ever going to be a movie. The answer, by the
way, is probably yes. Will it be a good one? I don't know. Bad or good, movies
nearly always have a strange, diminishing effect on works of fantasy (of course
there are exceptions; The Wizard of Oz is an example which springs immediately
to mind). In discussions, people are willing to cast various parts endlessly.
I've always thought Robert Duval would make a splendid Randall Flagg, but I've
heard people suggest such people as Clint Eastwood, Bruce Dern, and Christopher
Walken. They all sound good, just as Bruce Springsteen would seem to make an
interesting Larry Underwood, if he ever chose to try acting (and, based on his
videos, I think he would do very well . . . although my personal choice would be
Marshall Crenshaw). But in the end, I think it's perhaps best for Stu, Larry,
Glen, Frannie, Ralph, Tom Cullen, Lloyd, and that dark fellow to belong to the
reader, who will visualize them through the lens of imagination in a vivid and
constantly changing way no camera can duplicate. Movies, after all, are only an
illusion of motion comprised of thousands of still photographs. The imagination,
however, moves with its own tidal flow. Films, even the best of them, freeze
fiction--anyone who has ever seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and then reads
Ken Kesey's novel will find it hard or impossible not to see Jack Nicholson's
face on Randle Patrick McMurphy. That is not necessarily bad . . . but it is