[Long Cut]

I read The Stand, unabridged version, over 13 years ago in one marathon 12-hour session, cover to cover. I agree with your assesment.

[Euro-American Scum]

I read The Stand, unabridged version, over 13 years ago in one marathon 12-hour session, cover to cover. I agree with your assesment.

That was about the same time I picked it up. Funny thing, I had seen it in bookstores -- in its original incarnation and then the new and improved version -- and never picked it up, judging it too long and involved.

When I finally got into it, I was consumed by it. I don't have the ability to go at it non-stop for hours on end -- with any book. Also, I wanted to take my time, because King had something extremely significant to say in this tale.

I got to it at a point in my life when I really could appreciate the high stakes morality play that was going on, and the ultimate reliance on God by the protagonists when all else failed.

Like I said, simply a masterpiece. Stephen King can make noises like a sniveling, whiney, liberal victim at times, but deep down, I get the sense that he really gets it.

[7thson]

I read The Stand when it first came out in 78. By then, I had read Carrie, 'Salem's Lot, and The Shining, and was hooked as a major King fan. The Stand was his masterpiece. In 1990, out came the supposed unabridged version of The Stand. In it were references to movies and incidents that occurred after the 1978 book, so it was clear it was not material that was left out, as advertised, but material he included. By this time, I had become a so-so fan of his. I felt that Koontz was the better writer. I felt that King was dishonest in this version of The Stand as he is with the Gunslinger series. I did not like his liberal leanings. I started to dislike his characters as the all spoke the same. No matter what part of the country a character originated, they all spoke as if they came from Maine. I will finish out the gunslinger series, but that may be it for me when it comes to King.