This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1jlallred2000
Just a tip: if you are on instagram use #foliosociety and besides pictures of existing books you will find that quiet a few artists who do illustrations for upcoming titles post early versions of their work. For example there are many posts featuring proposed layouts and artwork for War Horse. There are also a couple posts relating to the Shining - with early images of the artwork - coming out later this year.
6HuxleyTheCat
>3 JustinTChan: Not really when one sees what a splendid job Folio made of Dune.
8foliomusthave
This was confirmed (obliquely) on Twitter yesterday, and it's clear now that the second of the sneak peak illustrations (for books due in May 2016) contained in the Feb email newsletter is The Shining, as housefulofpaper guessed. http://www.librarything.com/topic/219618
9squarecirc
I was hoping that Folio wouldn't do Stephen King. There are already so many presses producing Stephen King titles. Subterranean Press has already published a very high quality illustrated version of The Shining (which I have bought). Cemetery Dance is also planning to publish The Shining. Maybe PS Publishing will do one too. Now Folio? How many versions of The Shining do we need in a span of a few years? Besides I don't think Folio can top SP or CD in terms of production quality for this book.
10jroger1
>9 squarecirc:
Publishers watch what other publishers are doing. It isn't unusual for FS and EP to publish the same titles at approximately the same time. Different artists, different formats, different bindings - sometimes it's hard to choose.
Publishers watch what other publishers are doing. It isn't unusual for FS and EP to publish the same titles at approximately the same time. Different artists, different formats, different bindings - sometimes it's hard to choose.
11squarecirc
"Different artists, different formats, different bindings - sometimes it's hard to choose."
That is exactly what I fear. I may just get them all!
That is exactly what I fear. I may just get them all!
12sir.david
I've never heard of Subterranean Press, Cemetery Dance, or PS Publishing, and have never purchased an Easton Press book. If the Folio Society (my local bookshop) releases The Shining it'll be a definite purchase for me. I'd hate to think Folio would fail to release a title just because a publisher I'm not aware of might also be planning to publish a version.
13JuliusC
>9 squarecirc: I like the production quality that CD has on their SK books but the other books they publish is less impressive. Now if Folio comes out with a signed SK LE, it's hard to imagine another publisher out doing Folios production quality in LE's.
>3 JustinTChan: Agree, didn't see this coming.
>3 JustinTChan: Agree, didn't see this coming.
15jroger1
>14 EclecticIndulgence:
Perhaps what you are noticing without realizing it is that King rarely uses an adverb. He says they are almost never necessary and detract from the flow of the narrative. When he is tempted to use one, he restructures the sentence.
I find most of King's stories compelling and easy to read, but I am one who believes that a writer who is not easy to read is not a good writer. Concepts can be difficult and plots complex, but the language should flow easily and pleasantly. By this criterion, Joyce, Faulkner, and Henry James are three of the worst novelists ever to write in the English language.
Perhaps what you are noticing without realizing it is that King rarely uses an adverb. He says they are almost never necessary and detract from the flow of the narrative. When he is tempted to use one, he restructures the sentence.
I find most of King's stories compelling and easy to read, but I am one who believes that a writer who is not easy to read is not a good writer. Concepts can be difficult and plots complex, but the language should flow easily and pleasantly. By this criterion, Joyce, Faulkner, and Henry James are three of the worst novelists ever to write in the English language.
17JuliusC
The first SK book I've read was Carrie. I wasn't too impress but it wasn't bad either. Then I read Revival started out pretty good really had a lot of potential but slowly lost me half way through. I did enjoy reading The Secretary of Dreams v2 from Cemetery Dance. I'm looking forward to reading Salems Lot, I figured he must be popular for a reason so I'll try to read more of his "older" works. CD's double day series should be a good way to expose myself with some Kings work.
18sdawson
>17 JuliusC:
Regarding SK,
My mom (who is 75 now) was not a fan with his early horror (or any horror for that matter -- outside of Poe) But she fell in love with his Gunslinger series (Dark Tower), something quite different. I have yet to read them myself. So if one is not a fan of his early work, perhaps his later work would suit one.
I do have fond memories of Salem's Lot, but I was a teenager back in the 70's when I read it, and I love a good vampire story. I haven't read it in 35 years, so don't really know if I would like it as much now.
Regarding SK,
My mom (who is 75 now) was not a fan with his early horror (or any horror for that matter -- outside of Poe) But she fell in love with his Gunslinger series (Dark Tower), something quite different. I have yet to read them myself. So if one is not a fan of his early work, perhaps his later work would suit one.
I do have fond memories of Salem's Lot, but I was a teenager back in the 70's when I read it, and I love a good vampire story. I haven't read it in 35 years, so don't really know if I would like it as much now.
19klarusu
>14 EclecticIndulgence: I read a lot of King when I was 13 or 14 when the horror took precedence. When I returned to him as an adult I couldn't get over how bad the writing was. That said, a lot of people do enjoy him, though it befuddles me somewhat, so maybe this is a potential earner for the FS that will subsidise some of the less obviously popular choices that we all enjoy. For old times' sake, I'm still tempted by The Shining but I think I'd have to revisit it digitally first to make sure I didn't have the same reaction as to the others I tried a second time.
20podaniel
>19 klarusu:
My exact experience--although I think I was a slow learner (reader?) and did not stop reading King until I was 18.
On the positive side, if FS is publishing The Shining maybe that means Flashman is not too far off from also receiving the FS treatment.
My exact experience--although I think I was a slow learner (reader?) and did not stop reading King until I was 18.
On the positive side, if FS is publishing The Shining maybe that means Flashman is not too far off from also receiving the FS treatment.
21scratchpad
I know that comparing film with book is foolhardy and probably entirely inappropriate but can someone reassure me that the film is not faithful to the book because, if it is, the book's a no, no for me.
Films often inspire me to read the books. Kubrick's pretentious and overblown effort left me cold. I wonder what King thought of it?
Films often inspire me to read the books. Kubrick's pretentious and overblown effort left me cold. I wonder what King thought of it?
23jroger1
>21 scratchpad:
King didn't like the movie partly because it was set in a different hotel than the book. He set the book at the Stanley hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, where he actually lived while writing it. He also thought the movie did not portray some of the characters as he wrote them. Because of these misgivings, he was instrumental in helping to prepare a TV movie many years later that was filmed at the Stanley.
In fairness to Kubrick and the studio, all film adaptations of novels have to make compromises - money and practical considerations dictate the location, actors' strengths and limitations influence the character portrayals, and the simple fact that it is not possible to sqeeze an entire novel into two hours without leaving some things out.
Actually, it was the movie that stimulated me to read the book. I loved Jack Nicholson's portrayal as the evil caretaker.
King didn't like the movie partly because it was set in a different hotel than the book. He set the book at the Stanley hotel in Estes Park, Colorado, where he actually lived while writing it. He also thought the movie did not portray some of the characters as he wrote them. Because of these misgivings, he was instrumental in helping to prepare a TV movie many years later that was filmed at the Stanley.
In fairness to Kubrick and the studio, all film adaptations of novels have to make compromises - money and practical considerations dictate the location, actors' strengths and limitations influence the character portrayals, and the simple fact that it is not possible to sqeeze an entire novel into two hours without leaving some things out.
Actually, it was the movie that stimulated me to read the book. I loved Jack Nicholson's portrayal as the evil caretaker.
24brother_salvatore
>21 scratchpad: King always described the novel as "hot", whereas he thought the film was "cold." They are quite different beasts, similar stories but with some big differences. I really enjoyed the novel, mostly for it's exploration of alcoholism (which it's sequel Doctor Sleep explores more explicitly and thought it more moving). I found the ending of The Shining a little goofy with the whole topiary thing going on, but found it compelling nonetheless. I've never been a huge King fan, but decided to take up some of his stuff a couple years ago, and though he isn't the greatest writer, he is a strangely compelling storyteller and creates characters that your end up caring for a lot.
25brother_salvatore
On another note, I was able to visit the Stanley Hotel last year and get the full tour. It was fun, even with all the Shining touristy stuff going. It's in a beautiful part of the Colorado Rockies and hope to return soon and spend the night in the same room that inspired King to write the Shining.
26JustinTChan
>4 cpg:
>6 HuxleyTheCat:
I'm sure FS would do a good job, but:
1) Subterranean Press already did their own version of 'The Shining' (large print run). Gift edition is relatively cheap considering it's technically
"limited." I could barely sell my copy for a little more than your average FS book.
2)Horror is very well represented in the small/fine press world. There's Cemetery Dance, Gauntlet, Centipede Press, Charnel House,
PS Publishing, the list goes on. As good as FS is, not sure why King and his publishers would choose them over any of the above, unless
they think FS can manage a larger print run. But then I don't know what the actual demand for 'The Shining' is these days. The Sub Press
edition took a surprisingly long time to sell out.
>6 HuxleyTheCat:
I'm sure FS would do a good job, but:
1) Subterranean Press already did their own version of 'The Shining' (large print run). Gift edition is relatively cheap considering it's technically
"limited." I could barely sell my copy for a little more than your average FS book.
2)Horror is very well represented in the small/fine press world. There's Cemetery Dance, Gauntlet, Centipede Press, Charnel House,
PS Publishing, the list goes on. As good as FS is, not sure why King and his publishers would choose them over any of the above, unless
they think FS can manage a larger print run. But then I don't know what the actual demand for 'The Shining' is these days. The Sub Press
edition took a surprisingly long time to sell out.
27JustinTChan
>14 EclecticIndulgence:
>15 jroger1:
I actually enjoy Stephen King for his style. I don't care much for his plots or his killer cars, the silliness of which
tend to obscure the fact that he is damn good at saying exactly what he wants to say and in an interesting way (often
more interesting than the subject deserves). Try explaining your favorite book to a total stranger (who hates reading) and
you'll see how hard that is. Then ask that stranger for some spare change, and you'll realize there's got to be something
more to a man who can sell alien butt-monsters and rabid elevators to people who probably read two books a year.
>15 jroger1:
I actually enjoy Stephen King for his style. I don't care much for his plots or his killer cars, the silliness of which
tend to obscure the fact that he is damn good at saying exactly what he wants to say and in an interesting way (often
more interesting than the subject deserves). Try explaining your favorite book to a total stranger (who hates reading) and
you'll see how hard that is. Then ask that stranger for some spare change, and you'll realize there's got to be something
more to a man who can sell alien butt-monsters and rabid elevators to people who probably read two books a year.
28jroger1
>25 brother_salvatore:
I spent a few days there, too, several years ago. The tour didn't take us into King's room because someone was staying there. I wonder what the charge is and how far ahead you would have to reserve it.
I spent a few days there, too, several years ago. The tour didn't take us into King's room because someone was staying there. I wonder what the charge is and how far ahead you would have to reserve it.
29scratchpad
>27 JustinTChan: Couldn't agree more. The ability to write plainly but interestingly, to steer a plot with strong narrative drive towards a satisfactory ending, and do this with an economy of words, is not to be belittled. Popular reading culture recognises this (but not all the time).
30St._Troy
>26 JustinTChan:
"As good as FS is, not sure why King and his publishers would choose them..."
I've always wondered how this process works. Is there a reason an author wouldn't say 'yes' to any and all offers, given that they essentially just watch the cash roll in for saying 'yes'? Obviously authors wouldn't want to look bad, but given that these are all established houses, etc., that doesn't strike me as a significant risk.
I imagine an author could take a personal interest and decide "this is what I'm releasing this time," or perhaps choose a smaller press to his/her liking, then hold off on any other releases of the same work through other presses during that time frame to protect the smaller press' sales (for instance, if King had declined a 2016 FS Shining because of the upcoming CD Shining in order to assist CD).
I can generate guesses as to what might go on with author approval, but for those who know more about this than I do (virtually all of you), what do you think? How is it?
"As good as FS is, not sure why King and his publishers would choose them..."
I've always wondered how this process works. Is there a reason an author wouldn't say 'yes' to any and all offers, given that they essentially just watch the cash roll in for saying 'yes'? Obviously authors wouldn't want to look bad, but given that these are all established houses, etc., that doesn't strike me as a significant risk.
I imagine an author could take a personal interest and decide "this is what I'm releasing this time," or perhaps choose a smaller press to his/her liking, then hold off on any other releases of the same work through other presses during that time frame to protect the smaller press' sales (for instance, if King had declined a 2016 FS Shining because of the upcoming CD Shining in order to assist CD).
I can generate guesses as to what might go on with author approval, but for those who know more about this than I do (virtually all of you), what do you think? How is it?
31HuxleyTheCat
>30 St._Troy: It would depend upon the deal that an author has with a publisher: if they've signed exclusivity (which may vary depending upon territory) then it is irrelevant what the author wants if their publisher is not of the same mind. Having said that, I recall hearing that Philip Pullman approached Folio to publish HDM. Each publisher will have to decide how Folio publishing an edition of one of their titles will affect their own sales and will negotiate a fee depending upon that. Now that Folio is no longer a 'club' but is a general publisher in more direct competition, they will be having to pay more to publishers for rights, which is one of the reasons for what some here have termed The Great Folio Price Hike.
32St._Troy
King's main issues with Kubrick's Shining were:
- the treatment of the character of Jack Torrance, who begins the book as a sympathetic character whose love for family is obvious (and this love never 100% leaves him) but who begins the movie as a cold oddball, removing a tragic story arc
- the treatment of the character of Wendy Torrance, making her more powerless (King said the movie version "was just there to scream"), in a portrayal King called misogynistic (I wouldn't go that far; one needn't dislike or disrespect women in order to make certain choices in creating a film or any other work)
- the book is "hot," the film is "cold"
The first two are pretty much beyond doubt; the third is stylistic and interpretive, a bit hard for me to explain (you can find this, and King's full thoughts on Kubrick's film, with a small amount of Googling), but I get it.
As a reader/viewer, film adaptation changes are expected and aren't a big deal, but when King says "that's not my book" (although, really, novelists should be ready for this to happen; movies aren't books) he's pretty much right, despite the retention of the surface "troubled family vs. empty haunted hotel" dynamic. I imagine lots of people who read The Shining saw Kubrick's movie first; such readers were in for a surprise (and a treat, in my thinking).
As for what's better, that's up to you (I prefer the book, but then, this is LT).
Kubrick's film, taken as it is without regard for the source material, is a masterpiece, or at the very least, visually striking and noteworthy for its use of imagery, color etc. in the way that his films often were.
- the treatment of the character of Jack Torrance, who begins the book as a sympathetic character whose love for family is obvious (and this love never 100% leaves him) but who begins the movie as a cold oddball, removing a tragic story arc
- the treatment of the character of Wendy Torrance, making her more powerless (King said the movie version "was just there to scream"), in a portrayal King called misogynistic (I wouldn't go that far; one needn't dislike or disrespect women in order to make certain choices in creating a film or any other work)
- the book is "hot," the film is "cold"
The first two are pretty much beyond doubt; the third is stylistic and interpretive, a bit hard for me to explain (you can find this, and King's full thoughts on Kubrick's film, with a small amount of Googling), but I get it.
As a reader/viewer, film adaptation changes are expected and aren't a big deal, but when King says "that's not my book" (although, really, novelists should be ready for this to happen; movies aren't books) he's pretty much right, despite the retention of the surface "troubled family vs. empty haunted hotel" dynamic. I imagine lots of people who read The Shining saw Kubrick's movie first; such readers were in for a surprise (and a treat, in my thinking).
As for what's better, that's up to you (I prefer the book, but then, this is LT).
Kubrick's film, taken as it is without regard for the source material, is a masterpiece, or at the very least, visually striking and noteworthy for its use of imagery, color etc. in the way that his films often were.
33scratchpad
>32 St._Troy: You have gone some way to persuading me to give the book a chance, thanks for that. It might, however, be the last chance as although my experience of King is limited it has had mixed results: Misery was too relentless, 11.22.63 too long and Joyland too uneventful. I did however find his book On Writing extremely good and his books, at least those I've read, are consistent with the advice he gives, which may seem paradoxical given my responses to his actual writing. Mmm...
34St._Troy
>33 scratchpad:
Interesting that you didn't like Misery; I felt like I was the only reader not to go wild over that, and many readers who dislike his longer things eat that up because it's relatively compact (which is not to say you should have liked it, of course).
I haven't read 11/22/63 or Joyland; I'm kind of a lapsed King fan, although I still quite enjoy some of his older things like Salem's Lot, The Dead Zone and It. He definitely continued to do interesting things, but not always of interest to me I guess. I've missed most of his recent material; I think the most recent things I've read are Revival (interesting, fine, not bad but not great) and Dr. Sleep (very good, worth reading, but not one of his classics). I'm curious about his Bill Hodges trilogy, but, alas, not enough to try it out.
The Shining seems to be a safe one to recommend to anyone with some interest in checking King out. Generally I think it's fine; my only complaints are that a lot of it seems very predictable, but to be fair, I've read it at least 4 times, and if I see something coming, maybe it's because I've read it so many times (stare long enough, you see the pixels).
King does enjoy his spoilers (inspiring me to coin the term "kingspoiler"), but that's another conversation. But I should at least recommend to anyone new to Salem's Lot - skip the prologue until you've reached the end, then go back. You will thank me.
Interesting that you didn't like Misery; I felt like I was the only reader not to go wild over that, and many readers who dislike his longer things eat that up because it's relatively compact (which is not to say you should have liked it, of course).
I haven't read 11/22/63 or Joyland; I'm kind of a lapsed King fan, although I still quite enjoy some of his older things like Salem's Lot, The Dead Zone and It. He definitely continued to do interesting things, but not always of interest to me I guess. I've missed most of his recent material; I think the most recent things I've read are Revival (interesting, fine, not bad but not great) and Dr. Sleep (very good, worth reading, but not one of his classics). I'm curious about his Bill Hodges trilogy, but, alas, not enough to try it out.
The Shining seems to be a safe one to recommend to anyone with some interest in checking King out. Generally I think it's fine; my only complaints are that a lot of it seems very predictable, but to be fair, I've read it at least 4 times, and if I see something coming, maybe it's because I've read it so many times (stare long enough, you see the pixels).
King does enjoy his spoilers (inspiring me to coin the term "kingspoiler"), but that's another conversation. But I should at least recommend to anyone new to Salem's Lot - skip the prologue until you've reached the end, then go back. You will thank me.
