Review: The Stand

5 stars. This review took me FORVER to write. I've been writing and re-writing and tinkering for days, which is unusual for me, and I'm afraid this is all still a bit of a mess. The Stand is obviously an impressive masterpiece, and I could leave it at that and call it a day. But as with all of Stephen King's work I do feel the itch to think a bit, to process a bit, to consider the layers of his brilliance as well as (well, here it comes) why this one wasn't a TOTAL home run for me. 

The Stand is about good versus evil. It's about the survivors of a flu-like plague that left the world decimated and destroyed. It's about a paranormal phenomena that follows the apocalypse, and how the survivors come together and try to re-build. It's about what threatens their efforts - a creature with ill-intent who thrives in this brave new world. It's about those who stand up to this threat and fight. It's about fate and free will and battles old as time. It's about love and hate and fear and courage and sacrifice and morality and identity and death and hope and all those other Big Things We Wrestle With As Advanced Thinkers On This Planet. 

I know, I know - why would you read about a virus-driven apocalypse during what feels like quite literally a virus-driven apocalypse? I'm not alone, I'm pretty sure a ton of people are turning to this book for comfort or escapism or some sort of masochistic instinct. For me, the reason was quite simple: it became available at the library. And I honestly wasn't "reminded" of real life as much as I expected. This is a fantastical story with supernatural elements, plus, Stephen King's stories never feel too "real" to me - except this one, when I got to the ending. It wasn't the plague that ending up feeling too real. It was the ending. Humans are so fucking doomed, dude. 

Here's what I absolutely loved:

- A collection of astonishingly well-written moments including: when Frannie tells her mother that she's pregnant (and the confrontation that follows - King's use of the parlor space hit me right in the gut), the introduction of Randall Flagg (the entire chapter is breathtaking), the sequence in the Lincoln Tunnel, that fucking ending!! Stuck the landing! With a boom! 

- The narrative criss-crossing. Sometimes I'm bothered by multiple POV's on such an epic scale, but King really nails it here. Sure, the pacing is a bit odd, and sometimes loose threads get tangled up in knots, but I don't feel as though he asks too much of the reader. Plus, everything comes together in the end. 

- Harold and Glen and Tom Cullen and Lloyd and Larry and the way King explores different types of masculinity. Harold especially is a fascinating character - I genuinely couldn't predict his arc until it was over (rather abruptly). King almost always nails the Big Bad, but he truly shines with the sidekick weasels. 

- The way the “heroes” "win” but return to life changed and damaged and unable to settle for good. It’s one of my favorite things about LOTR, which served as a major point of reference for this book, and I think it’s an important part of why I liked this as well.

Here's what bothered me:

- The writing sometimes FEELS old-fashioned. It was originally written in the 70s, so of course it does. And I've never been bothered by that before. But something about the exclamations ("golly!" "gee!" "wowie!") totally jarred me out of the immersion. 

- The length. I’m obsessed with the fact that everyone else seems to be obsessed with how long this book is! I’ve read arguments that say the length is why it works, and I’ve read arguments that say the length is why it doesn’t. Personally, I could’ve gone for some more editing. Especially in the middle, when things drag a bit and we’re extra focused on … like … the paperwork of rebuilding a society from scratch.

- King's portrayal of women. Mother Abigail shows a glimmer of the progressiveness King demonstrates in his other books, but Frannie cries often, as in, in almost every single one of her scenes (I started clocking halfway through and ... yep ... it's every single scene). While showing emotion like that may be realistic for a pregnant woman existing in an apocalyptic world, it drove me CRAZY. She also slips so easily into the compassionate/maternal role that it felt stereotypical and flat. And Nadine - beautiful, sexual... but just.... what was going on there? 

^^ This right here is partly why I've struggled so much with this review - I can barely articulate why I was annoyed. I just was. Maybe I expected King to shake off the sexism of the 70's when he wrote this, or the sexism in his thematic / tonal references (Westerns, Epics, etc.), maybe I expected more from him. Maybe I expected a greater spectrum of heroes, of personalities. For whatever reason I just found myself rolling my eyes quite a bit. 

Despite that weird quibble, this is obviously a masterpiece. There's something incredibly moving about the thought of doing what's right No Matter What. Even if what's right is difficult - I mean difficult right down through your bones. Even if what's right is likely impossible. But I think the standout theme for me is the fact that we all must reconcile with the consequences of our choices. We must own them and pay for them and live with them - or die by them. And that's about as epic as it gets, eh? 

The Stand on: Amazon | Bookshop.org | Goodreads