Original Version vs. The Complete & Uncut Version

[weave9]

I read the original and then a couple of years latter the uncut came out and I read it. I started rereading the original a while ago and changed my mind to reread the uncut. Personally, I think if a person has never read it, they should go with the original first and then the uncut. On rereads, I sticked with the uncut, mainly because as I read the original, I kept missing all the parts that were added in on the uncut. It felt like I was reading a book that was missing pages.

[Tim D.]

Definitely the uncut version. When I first read The Stand in the 1980's I thought it was spectacular. It wasn't until I read the uncut version and saw all the things that were missing that I learned how great it truly was. I can't go back to the original version now. It feels like those folks at Reader's Digest have taken their scalpels to it.

[smooth operator]

When it comes to SK's work, especially The Stand, I always want more.

[Todash]

I've read only the unabridged one, but I recently obtained the original and will be reading that as well. From what I've seen thus far (I did a comparison of a few scenes), the 1990 version is more graceful, elegant, and enjoyable to read.

[rudiroo]

Difference between original & uncut is like the difference between a snooze & a good schluf.

It ill behooves me to say that one is actually better than the other, though.
Some people like to know everyone's back story, the motivation, lots of exposition yada yada yada.
I am one of those people (I like director's cuts, too).

If you want to cut to the chase, read the original version.
Both are great, but the uncut version is more. . substantial.