June's SK Flavor of the Month - Danse Macabre

Okay, Danse Macabre is the book for June.

I last read it... ten years ago? I remember liking it quite a bit and finishing it within a day. We'll see if that happens again.

I've always wished he would release a revised edition or companion book with his opinions on horror in the last (nearly) thirty years.

Ah, good. I have this one on hand.

I have this one too. Hopefully I will be able to start it next week.

Looking forward to this, will probably start it later in the month but I've read it a few times before and always fly through it.

I second the wish for a revised edition, I think someone needs to pull the big man up on it - it is well overdue.

Started it today.

I've only read the intro(s) and the first chapter, but King has already summed up why (some) people like horror stories pretty well.

He's also got me wanting to add Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still, John Frankenheimer's The Prohecy and Earth Versus the Flying Saucers to my Netflix queue. (To be honest, the first two are already in there, but now I wanna move them up.) This book is going to jam my queue completely full I can tell.

Hi all, I thought I'd take part in this month's flavor. I have to confess I wasn't particularly impressed when I read it last year, but I figured it might be fun to give it another shot among people with a different perspective on it. Or at the very least make for some interesting discussions.

While reading the first chapter, I got a little intrigued over the title and how King uses it as a metaphor in the first chapter. Per wikipedia, the Danse Macabre is a late-medieval allegory on the universality of death, which featured a personified death leading several skeletal figures to the grave. They appear in part to have been inspired by the Black Plague and were meant to inspire penitence and a turn from worldly things.

Anyway, what's interesting to me about this chapter is that even though King describes fear as a universal emotion, his emphasis here is on fear and anxiety taking place in the social and political realms. He doesn't introduce the book with some fright he got from a scary-looking tree or a nightmare, but with the fear that rippled through the theater when Sputnik was announced. (And he goes on to mention the JFK assassination.) To a larger extent than other authors, King has always been interested in the social dimension of horror.

hi jseger,

which version of Invasion? (bet yer gonna say the B&W one) and wow, I never knew that was written by Jack Finney? I have Time and again by him. For some reason I always thought the movie was based on Puppet masters but now I remember *that* movie as well. I'll have to check out the book by Jack at some point.

Carlos,

Glad you are on board this month. Thanks for the heads' up on the wiki entry for danse macabre. I'm familiar with the pictures of the skeletons dancing with death, but never before noticed that they are supposed to represent people from all walks of life and the universailty of death. Reading that, I can see why King chose that as a title for this book.

I read through Tales of the Hook last night. I appreciated King detailing the difference between terror, horror and revulsion.

I do think he tends to wander pretty far afield in his chapters. He started off talking about the division of fantasy and science fiction and sort of wandered in to the discussion of the 'three levels' of scary story. But the book is so conversational in tone that for me anyway, it works. It feels a lot like you are sitting at a table with King, having a few beers and discussing a subject he knows a lot about and cares about deeply.

Beeg,

I have both the original '50's version and the '70's version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers in my queue. The '70's one is near the top of my queue, but I think I may have to move the original up a little higher.

By the way, I saw the Nicolle Kidman remake and it wasn't bad. It wasn't a classic the way the '50's and '70's versions are, but I liked it better than the '90's version anyway (though that version gets better reviews).

It's funny that you thought Invasion of the Body Snatchers was lifted from The Puppet Masters. Until recently I didn't know much about Heinlein. So when the movie of The Puppet Masters came out, I thought it was an unacknowledged remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers!

BTW: I picked up a copy of Jack Finney's original Body Snatchers, though I haven't read it yet.

Loved loved loved the 1978 version - it's one of my personal cult classics, the BW one is kinda cheesy, the 90's version just plained sucked and I wasn't wild for Nicole's version, it was just ok.

Donald Sutherland is The Puppet Masters as well

jseger, it´s definitely conversational, though it strikes me this time around as not just digressive but aggressively digressive. While talking about monstrosity, there are (separate) page-long digressions about obesity and acne. Digressions which King attacks with the sort of enthusiasm you might see in an over-caffeinated, sleep-deprived teenager. So, there may be something a little stronger than Ol' John Barleycorn being consumed around the (hypothetical) table.

What's striking to me with this reading is that I think it works better as an insight into King's horror fiction than as a critical look at the horror genre overall. It struck me how much King talks about his own youth, the movies and fiction he consumed, and the social and political climate of his early years. (especially, the conservatism of the ´50s, the rapid social change of the '60s) At the time, it grated on me as Baby Boomer navel gazing, but I think he refers to it so much because it is so central to the fiction he writes.

Of course, King's fiction is one that resonates with a lot of people, so I think those insights are valuable, but it's still good to be conscious that King's is not an unbiased perspective.

I'm about halfway through "Tales of the Tarot," where King is talking about vampires and sex. I find it interesting that he opted to mostly leave the sexual element out of 'Salem's Lot since he felt that after the Sexual Revolution, that aspect of the vampire myth seemed pretty well spent. I wonder what he would say nowadays, given the later success of Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire, which, whatever its merits, obviously struck a chord and pretty much gave birth to the whole Sexy Vampires sub-genre.

I also think it's too bad he leaves out Carmilla (by Sheridan Le Fanu, Stoker's paisano) in the literary genealogy of Dracula. It's a fine novella which Stoker drew on pretty heavily for his own work.

#12 - I also think it's too bad he leaves out Carmilla (by Sheridan Le Fanu, Stoker's paisano) in the literary genealogy of Dracula.

Yeah, I agree. Carmilla was a curious omission.

I find it interesting that he opted to mostly leave the sexual element out of 'Salem's Lot since he felt that after the Sexual Revolution, that aspect of the vampire myth seemed pretty well spent.

I was chuckling on the inside as I read that. I think King gives John/Joan Q. Public a LOT more credit than they deserve.

I am glad though that 'Salem's Lot wasn't erotic. I am sick of 'sexy' vampires. I can definitely see why the connection is made and why they are popular. But so many of those books seem to come off as a perverse sort of romance novel.

That was one of the problems I had with Francis Ford Coppola's brilliant version of Dracula. Don't forget that the same Count that weepingly proclaims 'I love you too much' had no problem with stealing a baby to feed to the weird sisters or raping and murdering Lucy.

Blah! Erotic vampires my foot!

I have to admit I have a soft spot for FFC's Dracula, mostly because I saw it at or near the height of my fascination with Gary Oldman as an actor. I think bits and pieces of it are intriguing, even brilliant, but agree that turning it into a tragic love story was a mistake. (There's a particularly off juxtaposition

As for sexy vampires, well, aside from reading Rice's Vampire Chronicles up to The Tale of the Body Thief, I've never been tempted by that particular strain of fiction. I think the sexual element is inherent in the modern vampire myth, so that even when it's downplayed (as in 'Salem's Lot) it's still to some present, even if only subtly. (That is one objection I'd have to King's designation of zombies as being like vampires, but that's probably not worth dwelling on.)

I have to admit that I cringed when I flipped to "An Annoying Autobiographical Pause." I. Considering the autobiographical nature of the book so far, why are you setting aside a whole section to it? II. Is it necessary to be so coy about it, when chances are the sort of person reading this book will not find more information about you annoying at all?

Ironically, this has turned out to be my favorite section so far. In part, I think King falls back less on the "Uncle Stevie" persona. I have to admit, not having followed King for years, I'm not that familiar with it, but in this book at least, I find it a little grating. Part of it is that overcaffeinated sense, that makes me want to sit him down and ask him kindly just to stick to the point. And somehow it sometimes comes off as sort of clever in a superficial way. (I imgaine I'm in the minority in this one.)

Anyway, the Pause feels a little more sincere and connected with me a little more strongly. So far King has been emphasizing the conservative nature of the horror story--the need to see monsters invoked then banished--but here he brings up something so primal that it often gets overlooked: a sense of wonder. I liked the dowsing story, even thought it would seem to have nothing to do with horror, in the way King talks about that sense of the "lines of power" of the world. I think even if you don't take that notion literally, it is still powerful.

Also interesting is the way King denies the possibility of childhood trauma as contributing to his writing horror. On the one hand, I can't help but wonder if there's some denial going on. (Yes, he took the dream of the hanged man and put it in 'Salem's Lot because it makes for a cool scene. But surely he's wondered, at least once, if that was a normal dream for a child of that age?) Then again, what makes an author interesting isn't his ability to whinge on about their childhood but their ability to transform it into something more universal. I'm reminded of something I read recently about John Updike, that he said in interviews or conversations, he often got the impression people were interested in finding out who he was. He thought this was odd, having already provided them a pretty thorough answer in his published works.

Short post. (I'm writing it while at work. Shh!)

I've so far worked my way upto (but not yet read) The Glass Teat.

After my post yesterday I went to Amazon and ordered the two disc set of FFC's Dracula. (I'd avoided buying it for years because it was a bare bones release and I knew they would put out a nicer addition.) Stupid love story or no, it is a fantastic movie. I wonder what King would say about it?

As for An Annoying Autobiographical Pause, I really enjoyed that chapter as well.

I think he was saying that it isn't fair to look at childhood trauma and use that as an excuse for why he writes horror fiction. After all, all children have some sort of childhood trauma, yet they don't all become horror writers.

Not all horror fans have some tragic event in their past that leads to an interest in the macabre.

Oh! Back to work!

I’ve just finished the parts of Horror Fiction dealing with The Ghost and Peter Straub’s Ghost Story. I realized two things reading this section:

1. I really need to reread Ghost Story. That is an excellent book that deserved all the praise King heaps on it.

2. Peter Straub readily acknowledges that his admiration of ‘Salem’s Lot was a large influence on Ghost Story, which Stephen King admired so much that he wrote this long section about it in Danse Macabre.

I’m pretty sure that this was the start of their mutual admiration society and I wouldn’t be surprised then if Danse Macabre led directly to their collaboration: The Talisman.

I'm in the middle of the big Horror fiction chapter and will probably finish the sucker today.

I haven't liked this book as much as his others. I just think he is talking about too much that I'm unfamiliar with. That's helpful in the sense that he is naming books I am really interested in reading like Rosemary's Baby, Ghost Story and Something Wicked This Way Comes, but overall his long discussions aren't holding me.

I wouldn't say it's his non-fiction because I always like his introductions and forewords when he discusses his books and I loved On Writing.

I think it would be neat if he did another one that was more current to now. Something where he talks about his favorite horror books, films, and even television programs since the 80's. I also wouldn't mind reading a non-fiction book of his where he analyzes all the movies that have been done about his books. We could find out which ones he likes and dislikes and what his role in the process was for each film.

I thought this would be interesting because I saw an interview with him on Borders.com or something where he was asked about his favorite movie that was based on his book or something like that. He gave a long answer during which he gave the impression that he didn't like The Shining by Kubrick very much and preferred the TV mini-series better. After reading this book though he seems to have liked Kubrick's version and I just assume he like the mini-series better as an adaptation to his story because it followed it closer (even though that's just a guess because I haven't seen the mini-series).

Reading through the book, it is pretty dated. If you're an oldster like me (okay, I'm 37) who can remember the seventies and eighties the book ought to give you a heady dose of nostalgia and maybe remind you of some books and movies that should be checked out again, or some books you wanted to read back then, but then forgot about.

However, if you are younger and can't remember stuff like Dark Shadows then the book probably does come off as unfamiliar.

I enjoy reading the book, because even in his non-fiction he still has the gift for the gab and I enjoy his writing persona. As Carlos has fairly pointed out though, it isn't for everybody.

I do wish he would do a companion book. Hey, in 2010 he could cover the 80's, '90's and '00's. That would give him another thirty year block. That would be cool.

See if he thinks stuff like The X-Files, American Gothic, Supernatural, Millennium and Lost have made TV horror any better than it was.

I also wouldn't mind reading a non-fiction book of his where he analyzes all the movies that have been done about his books.

That's what I thought Stephen King Goes to the Movies was going to be. The little essays he wrote were the best part of that book.

Aha! I finished this monster! No I get to go knock out a review.

Anyway, reading his section on haunted houses has prompted me to make Edward Lee's Flesh Gothic my next book. (Doesn't that title just ooze luridness?)

That's what I thought Stephen King Goes to the Movies was going to be. The little essays he wrote were the best part of that book.

Yeah I basically just read all the introductions in the bookstore and then set the book down again because that was the only new stuff in it.

I finished the book today and my opinions didn't change much. I'll use it as a reference tool for some book and movie suggestions, but I'm not sure I'll ever read it again. Maybe in like ten or twenty years when someone starts another 'read all of stephen king's books in order of release.'

I wasn't going to participate this month, but I started DM last night. Am still in Tales of the Tarot, but I get the distinct feeling I'm not the audience for this book. I'm 41 (well this Friday I'll be 41) and a lot of it strikes me as baby boomer smug. Oh...you weren't ALIVE when Kennedy was killed/Sputnik was launched...well. I did see an instant parallel though to 9/11 and that mass-consciousness event which is even bigger than the one the boomers are so strangely possessive.

The old horror stuff is just campy to me. People were actually scared by men in bug suits on diminutive sets? Hokey monsters and silly aliens. Mad Scientists. It's fun, but scary? Nah.

Modern stuff doesn't scare me either, so I think it's just me. A companion book would be great though. I'd love his take on the slasher films of the 80s and the Americanization of Japanese horror in the 90s and 00s. The longstanding franchises that came along after DM was published. That would be fun and a bit more relevant to me.

Just started, I've read the intro and first two chapters. This will be my third read and I'm still enjoying it. It is very conversational in style. His obvious love and enjoyment of the genre is contagious.

Like a lot of people here, I'd like to see a new book on the last 30 years of horror (or even an updated version of this book with some new chapters - when you think of the re-release of The Stand and Salem's Lot, this is one author who'd get away with it). BUT re-reading this, I agree with CarlosMcRey, that it is just as much about SK's personal take on the horror genre - and he is a product of the times he grew up in. I think an updated version would be quite different, less personal with an unintentional "outside-looking-in" view, although still interesting.

The social and political elements of horror are discussed in the documentary An American Nightmare (I think that's the name), which is much more recent, and comes up in many other horror documentaries (eg Wes Craven talking about Vietnam in the Last House on the Left extra). It seems quite standard now. Was SK ahead of his time publishing Danse Macabre, or did he just catch the zeitgeist?

Rstuckey and Bookmarque - I agree, not everything in the book is relevant to me age-wise. Having said that, it still provides a fantastic background to the modern horror genre. I don't think it's baby-boomer-smug really - we can all come across that way when talking about the times we grew up in - and no, jseger, I don't agree you are an "oldster" at 37 (I'm not far off and I won't have it).

Well, I finished yesterday. I think I appreciated it a little better than on my last reread. Last time, I was pretty irritated towards the end of it and ended up giving up on it about a hundred pages before the end of it. (My justification at the time being that just because a 350 page book takes up 500 pages is no reason for me to feel obligated to read past the 350-page mark.)

The section I gave up on was the "The Last Waltz," which put me off with the introductory story about his conversation with the reporter. I was pleasantly surprised once I got past that exchange to find the story about his writing of The Stand was pretty interesting, and that segued nicely into wrapping up most of the themes he had been working with.

But the exchange with the reporter was an example of one of the aspects I found most irritating about the book: too many instances where it seemed King was trying to win an argument or settle a score with someone offscreen. A lot of those asides feature a lot of cleverness but little sense that King wants to give his opponent a fair shake. (So, yeah, the reporter's comment about sparring seemed sort of dead on to me.) Since I didn't start the book predisposed to take King's side, those moments just put me off.

In some ways, the book reminded me of Carrie. I'm sure that sounds odd, but when I read Carrie and Salem's Lot (pretty much) back-to-back, I was struck with how different they felt. Carrie felt like it was written by a very unsure King: he doesn't always seem to be sure where to go with the story and tries to overcompensate, so the elements don't exactly gel. By comparison Salem's Lot, though a longer work, is written by a writer much more sure of himself and in charge of his material. (So, yeah, I suspect On Writing will be better.)

So, I can't say it changed my impression of it very much. The book really needed an editor, someone willing to say, "So, tell me again why you have two stories about Harlan Ellison and the making of Star Trek?" I can see it as fun for King's core audience, or a good horror introduction, but I'd say it's just so-so as a broader look at horror.

An updated version would be intriguing. There were moments I wondered what sort of footnotes an older King would add if he were allowed to do so today. (There's a paragraph about how the horror boom has subsided, so that editors in the genre are being selective again. Oh, young Mr. King, if you only knew.)

jseger, oh, sure King didn't become a horror writer just because he saw (or heard of) a kid get hit by a train. The reductiveness of it is silly. One the other hand, considering the autobiographical nature of Danse Macabre and King's concept of those "deep wells of unease," I see no reason why to take anything off the table. And King did go on to write pretty straightforwardly about that kid, which will be open to interpretation. (To me, that was one of those moments I wished King had paused and asked himself, "Well, could the person who sees things differently than I do have a point?")

Moo, I'd put my money on zeitgeist, but that's sort of a gut feeling reaction. Based on how popular and political horror had become, I can't imagine people weren't already thinking and writing about the connection. (But I haven't the foggiest how I would hunt down supporting evidence.)

A few other random thoughts.

Did anyone else find the attempt to portray certain horror movies as fairy tale horrors a little awkward? A little too round peg in the square hole for me.

Also, the author whose interpretation of The Shrinking Man so annoys King: LeGuin, Butler, or Norton? My money would be on LeGuin, but again, complete gut reaction.

sure King didn't become a horror writer just because he saw (or heard of) a kid get hit by a train. The reductiveness of it is silly. One the other hand, considering the autobiographical nature of Danse Macabre and King's concept of those "deep wells of unease," I see no reason why to take anything off the table. And King did go on to write pretty straightforwardly about that kid, which will be open to interpretation.

I think what King didn't like was the way that reporters (and most everyone else I guess) would try to psychoanalyze him. Trying to figure out what had 'gone wrong' to make him write those scary stories. Maybe seeing what happened to that kid did have an effect, but not everyone who sees something horrific becomes a horror writer.

Do those people try to grill James Patterson about what abberations made him write these crime novels? (I was going to say James Ellroy, but that guy really does has some issues!)

I think King did a better job making his case in the intro to Night Shift. Remember that story about Louis L'Amour and him standing by a lake and coming up with two completely different stories.

Grrr... I spent some time thinking about this, trying to come up with something like a measured response and when I go to hit post, LT happens to be down. So, I'm just going to toss something out there, and please excuse my crankiness.

People probably don't ask Patterson about his childhood because most thrillers are so transparent about their authors' neuroses as to double as some kind of therapy. (Dean Koontz suffered abuse at the hands of his parents--Patricia Cornwell likes breasts--Dan Brown hates the English language)

On the other hand, I'd guess the only reason nobody ever asked Shirley Jackson about her sanity was that everyone who ever interviewed her feared that an honest answer would drive them insane. Hey, I think Jackson is awesome, but there were plenty of moments in We Have Always Lived in the Castle that had me wondering, What kind of person can write such a thing?

So, is it at all strange that a good horror writer can make people uneasy enough to want to ask that kind of question? And if it's not a strange question, then King's annoyed reaction tells me something about King's personality but very little about the horror genre. In a book supposedly about horror, it's a little frustrating.

Then again, I'm not the sort of person who thinks a close examination of the first paragraph of The House on Haunted Hill will somehow "kill it." I can understand King's point of view without sharing it. I just wish he was a little less pompous when considering alternate views himself.

You have a good and thoughtful post here and I have to say you are bringing me around to your point of view and yet honestly, I had to reply just to point out: Dan Brown hates the English language... ha!

I'm pretty much on board with what everyone else has said so far--it would be great if there was an updated version/companion piece to go with this--pretty much everything referenced was before my time. Of course some of the books and movies I've read and seen, but things like the magazines and some of the tv shows I've never heard of before so I wasn't all that intrigued by them (if that's the right word).

I did, however, really enjoy the tangents where he talked about his own life and his own childhood, etc. And how weird is it to read about his seven-year-old son Joe, when I just read adult-Joe's book Heart-Shaped Box recently? Anyway, those little "autobiographical pauses" were probably my favorite parts.

I just could not get into the book. Maybe I'm too young, or maybe I just don't care that much about the Horror genre in an analytical sense. I enjoy reading horror and enjoy watching a good horror movie but this book just didn't do it for me.

I did enjoy the autobiographical part. I too had weird time-warp feeling when he talked about Joe, I read both his books last year. I had trouble with On Writing as well, so I think that Non-fiction Stephen King isn't for me.

I have to agree with Madcow. I don't recognize most of the movies that he is talking about and I have never been a 'link' type of person. (The author wrote this but he was alluding to that)

I did enjoy the autobipgraphical part and I have a chuckle when he discusses something about a movie that I have actually seen.

I'm over halfway now and will probably finish it tomorrow.

Yet again, I stalled because I "lost" the book at home (it was found under a pile of ironing, like last time). Maybe I'm subconsciously resenting the month-by-month obligation - the same thing used to happen to my homework when I was younger :)

Still haven't finished it, but so far:

I think zombies come under "the thing without a name" rather than "the vampire", or possibly a combination of the two, therefore they should have been left out of the tarot deck and not mentioned at all. Would have liked his opinion of "the ghost", but he chose to leave it out.

Enjoyed the autobiographical bit. I agree somewhat with CarlosMcRey regarding the interest in his motivations/psyche, but I got the impression King was more defensive about the type of interest and analysis. The comment "but you've been writing about it ever since" after he told a story of possible childhood trauma, was pretty crass and smug, and would have annoyed me too. Intelligent analysis is always interesting; pigeon-holing isn't.

The chapter on radio was too brief and went off on all sorts of tangents. I know, in terms of horror, it was nearing the tail-end of its popularity, but he could have covered its history and relevance in much more depth (as he did for Dracula, Frankenstein, and Dr.J and Mr.H). Seemed a very lazy chapter to me.

Enjoyed the two film chapters, "text and sub-text" and "as junk food". I was less familiar with the films in the junk food chapter but they sound like fun and I'd like to watch some of them. The fairy-tale analogy did seem a bit forced, but more because he didn't expand on it very much, and just threw it out there.

How did you all score on his "guess these twenty films" section? I've seen 13 of them (and enjoyed them, too) - well, 13 and a half, if you count Looking for Mr. Goodbar (I've seen the first half but fell asleep), and I've read The Bad Seed (and if the film is anything like the book, I might not bother).

How funny Moomin! I just came here to start up the 'July's Flavor' thread and read Maybe I'm subconsciously resenting the month-by-month obligation...

Anyhow, Intelligent analysis is always interesting; pigeon-holing isn't. = Very well said. In my own circuitous way, I guess that is my thought on it Maybe I sound more argumentative with Carlos than I meant to on that one.

I do think he could have expanded on the fairy tale analogy a bit more. I do see a conection between fairy tales, folk tales, urban legends and horror stories. I wish he would have gone into that more.

Oh no, not more homework... you old slave-driver, you!

Will be finished today, in the thick of the horror novels, my favourite bit.

Did you (or anybody else) notice his nightmare of typing away in a room while a crazy lady with an axe was coming for him (in the autobiographical section)? A nice little reference for die-hard fans out there - wonder if he knew at that point how he'd use that?

I finished this book yesterday! I wasn't sure if I could while I was reading the movie section.
I enjoyed the Horror Fiction section. (maybe because I read almost all of the books he mentioned?)

Whoops, double post!

I wanted to mention that I thought it was funny when King mentioned that he was told that he could sell his laundry list but yet there is the story about the man forced to self cannibalism to survive that he can't sell.

I thought it was funny that he later did sell that story about a man forced to self cannibalism and it was one of his best. Man, how could you ever forget Survivor Type?

Over the years, I've learned SK never throws anything away. I remember reading about Blaze way back in the introduction to Different Seasons circa... what? Early/mid-eighties? If I remember right, it was his second or third novel and he submitted both it and 'Salem's Lot to his publisher.

And yeah, that was something reading about the crazy lady with the ax. (Is it ax or axe?)

Finished yesterday. The novels part has always been a favourite - I love King's obvious enjoyment of each one. I, personally, didn't agree with Strange Wine, which I thought was pretty poor despite the amount of ideas in there, and I thought he was pretty hard on The Exorcist (not one of the ten but it got a mention, as a dull, thudding tract). He did, however, make very compelling cases for each of his choices.

The Last Waltz was a good tying up, and he gets the chance to stick up for the horror writer and his place in the scheme of things ("and why not?", I thought).

Jseger, it's "axe" round these parts, maybe from "ye olde axe" (or probably not)! I can cope with "ax", "tomAYto", and even the different words Americans use for certain things - elevator, eraser (it's a RUBBER), etc - but for some reason "color", with its missing U, really upsets me... odd, that.

Years ago I noticed that the axe and the mallet switched places in Misery & The Shining, turning up in the opposite movie. I admit though that the visuals provided are stronger than their originals.