View Full Version : Is There An Official Reason For Changing The Year Of The Plague?
November 29th, 2012, 09:47 AM
I've always wondered why King moved the year in which the novel is set, from 1985 to 1990. Did he ever give an official explanation?
In the original, published in 1978, the plague is set 7 years in the future. The uncut version, published in 1990, is set in 1990. Not wanting the plague to be set in the past would be unavoidable without updating the book every year. Anyone buying The Stand now reads the plague happening 22 years ago (so to speak). It seems like moving the date created a lot of work in updating all the cultural references, etc. Why not just keep the plague in 1985 and add the material he added?
November 29th, 2012, 11:22 AM
Two very similar but slightly differing worlds on separate levels of the Tower. Time slipped a little bit for one of them before the Captain gets loose.
November 29th, 2012, 06:20 PM
Why not just keep the plague in 1985
...not when you got a little Captain in you...
April 9th, 2013, 07:57 AM
wow this is cool man
April 9th, 2013, 09:02 AM
I'm not sure how many cultural references he really changed, but he certainly had to reread the book anyway because of how much extra material he added back to the uncut version. Seems to me that already being in there, it would have been pretty easy for someone like King, who immerses himself in popular culture anyway, to update the references to be current.
Heck, maybe it was all because of the chocolate-covered PayDays. :biggrin2:
July 16th, 2013, 12:39 PM
I think it was a huge mistake to change the date--and if he had to do it, he or his editor should have looked more carefully at the previous material when updating it. It almost makes me dislike the book. There are cultural references that do not ring true. For example: in 1990, what young adult woman like Frannie would have to dissemble with her physician in order to get birth control pills? Even in a conservative small town? Why wouldn't she just march right in there and ask for them? I was the same age as Frannie in 1990 and I got em, no questions asked!
Also, all the "nigger bebop" references and even the way King writes about the record industry re Larry Underwood, and albums etc: sounds archaic when looked at from a 1990’s standpoint. (Again, coming from someone who was very involved in the recording industry in the 1990s.
Money is different too: Lila Bruett agrees to babysit Baby Cheryl for A DOLLAR? Ok, these are poor people, but a DOLLAR? That's just silly, and sloppy checking.
Also: the Atlanta Plague Center is the CDC (Center for Disease Control) now.
These are all just in the first few chapters. After Captain Trips hits, it ceases to be important, but MAN is it jarring and distracting from the story. I know it sounds nitpicky, but it really bugs me and I wish they'd either fix it or change it back.
July 17th, 2013, 09:55 PM
I am re-reading the uncut version right now....I see what you mean. The story is now set in the nineties but the thinking belongs in the seventies.
July 17th, 2013, 10:28 PM
I could see that for someone who did not read it when it first came out. Or in the 80's at least.
Yes, the payday bugged me too :smile2:
July 18th, 2013, 12:14 AM
Okay, I have to pretend this story took place earlier because I am reading that they are using bottles instead of bags for IV poles in the hospitals. This did not happen in the nineties. Also, Fran, a sensible girl, would not have just had sex only taking birth control pills....the eighties came with AIDS. Most dudes with a brain also used condoms. She was also worried about bringing shame to her family with the pregnancy. By the nineties, one wouldnt worry too much about offending their churches.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.