blazeking.jpg
100 Books in One Year: Blaze by Stephen King

Cannonball Read / Robert

Book Reviews | November 18, 2008 | Comments (16)

I’m liking the lesson idea I brought up in the Blonde entry, so let me present two crucial lessons I learned from Blaze by Stephen King, which I only read because it’s the “last” of the Bachman books.

1) I learned what stropping was, both in the context of sharpening a knife and beating an orphan/foster child. Neat.

2) I learned that writers should never place disclaimers before their work, even if they are intentionally self-effacing. I know for a fact that I have a soft spot in my heart for the tear-jerker, overly emotional style of the Victorian Era, where everything goes wrong. In fact, The Old Curiosity Shop by Charles Dickens is one of my favorite novels; the same cannot be said for King’s take on it (as represented by references to Oscar Wilde’s take on it).

To wrap this thought up: Stephen King says Blaze is a trunk novel he never wanted to see the light of day. He only published it to donate all proceeds to charity. He also claims it’s overly sentimental drivel that originally went so over the top you couldn’t help but laugh at it (like he claims people do over The Old Curiosity Shop). Therefore, even after saying he removed the overwrought emotions (if that was removing them, he must have a very different definition of remove than provided in every dictionary known to the English language), it felt so manipulative, overworked, and downright absurd that I, too, was crying “Bring on the cancer! Bring on the blindness! We haven’t had those yet!”(see 1, 2).

So remember, kiddies: don’t use disclaimers. That leads to the reader only seeing that fault in your work. The more you know.

Blaze by Stephen King (writing as Richard Bachman) is the most Stephen King of all the Bachman novels. If that makes sense to you, please enjoy these complimentary cookies. They might be a bit stale, as they were baked at the same time as the foundation of this novel.

Blaze could not exist with Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men. For example, it’s about a big retard (pardon the inappropriate terminology, but once again King has so little concern for fundamental character development that the character Blaze could have anything from Asperger’s to Achy-Breaky-Pelvis based on the non-committal attitude towards his mental problem; the kid got banged hard in the head by being thrown down the stairs twice; the only descriptions are “slow,” “dumb,” “dented forehead,” and “retarded,” the last one used to score his IQ test; ugh!!!). He’s mostly a gentle creature, a gigantic man-child, incapable of taking care of himself. Unfortunately, he does not get to pet a hooker till she dies.

His best friend is George, an admitted tribute to Of Mice and Men. George controls Blaze’s life, keeping him out of (more) trouble, though George is the man that leads to Blaze committing more and more serious crimes. Sadly, those few details are where the merit of this story ends.

Frankly, and I’m not trying to be mean, I feel King should have scrapped everything but Chapter 18 and published Blaze as the feature in his next short story collection. That chapter is his most moving work since All That You Love Will Be Carried Away printed in 2002’s Everything’s Eventual. It has the deepest character descriptions and most engaging plot of the entire novel. Too bad it’s an isolated flashback of Blaze spending one summer working at a blueberry farm. I would go so far as to say you should read Blaze just to get to Chapter 18 and bawl your eyes out. Perhaps this is the sentimental claptrap he was trying to avoid; perhaps he should have stifled his inner Oscar Wilde and offered more moving glimpses into the life of Blaze.

Blaze by Stephen King could have been a truly great novel. I believe that in trying to fit it to the noir mold, something is lost. It didn’t need to be a hard-boiled crime caper. The saddest thing about the book is that we will never see what the novel originally was.

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. Details are here and the growing number of participants and their blogs are here. And check here for more of Robert’s reviews.


← Country Music Almost Killed Me | DVD Releases 11/18/08 →



Comments

Stephen King?

STEPHEN KING!?!?!

What? they ran out of Dean Koontz?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 18, 2008 8:19 AM

ouch.

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at November 18, 2008 9:32 AM

I read this and found it so dull I promptly forgot about it. Seriously my coworker asked me what I thought about it the next week and I didn't know what he was talking about for a minute.

Posted by: jadashay at November 18, 2008 10:36 AM

King really should have made good on his promise to retire after the (disappointing) "Dark Tower 7". I used to read a new King book day of release. Now I have "Lisey's Story", "Blaze", and "The Colorado Kid" on my shelf unopened. I have been warned off of "Duma Key" repeatedly so won't be going there. I did read "Cell" which was good until the obligatory awful King ending.

And I was just pulled into a meeting and was told our year end out look was grim so I can't remember where I was going with this. Fuck it, I'm going to lunch. Who needs a year-end bonus, anyway?

Posted by: TylerDFC at November 18, 2008 10:51 AM

Wow. Wasn't expecting this one to be a randomnly chosen review. Then again, it was a 50/50 shot at this point if my entries were chosen.

I have more positive reviews coming up. They just happen to be for books no one cares about.

Unfortunately, I also have Salem's Lot coming up far too soon and might be even crueler about that. What can I say? I like my King in experimental (see Carrie, Misery) or short (see any of his short story collections) forms. Anything else disgusts or bores me too much to care.

Posted by: Robert at November 18, 2008 11:00 AM

As a long time fan of King (as DR can probably tell you), some truths have emerged in the past several years.

Car accidents hurt your brain.

Or at the very least spark an astonishing lack of awareness when it comes to your own creative process. Take Cell for instance. You're right Tyler, it was good...until the god-awful ending, if you can even call it an ending. It felt to me like he just stopped writing, took it out, and pissed on the final page of the manuscript. And I love him.

The lone exception in recent years, at least for me, was The Colorado Kid. Probably sad that his most enjoyable work these days is his most derivative, but there you have it. I have hope though. King just released a new book of short stories, which lately are far more satisfying than any of his novels.

Posted by: Smokin at November 18, 2008 11:03 AM

Hysterical review Robert, I'll have to read the rest of them. Are you not liking Salem's Lot? That's actually my second favorite book of King's, after The Shining. I thought it was so atmospheric, and I really loved some of the characters.

Posted by: Julie at November 18, 2008 11:42 AM

Julie, I'm not big on vampire literature. I don't partcularly care for Stoker's Dracula, either.

I'm liking Salem's Lot more on a second read, but not much more. I get what King is doing, and appreciate it. I just can't get into it. Salem's Lot is the reason I posted my Carrie/The Shining/Salem's Lot volume onto paperbackswap. I would get 20 pages in and give up. I'm only reading it as a favor to the IMDB Horror Board book club.

I also don't care for The Shining, though I eventally forced my way through it. I much prefer Kubrick's film.

Posted by: Robert at November 18, 2008 12:45 PM

I will not mention vampire literature, because I'm finally easing out of my bubble of Twilight-induced self-loathing. I'm the opposite of you, I adore the book but am not the biggest fan of the film. Granted, it's been since freshman year of college, so I keep meaning to give it another shot.

The Shining is the only book that has ever scared me...I still have nightmares over the damned topiary animals.

Posted by: Julie at November 18, 2008 12:50 PM

I really enjoyed Cell, but get the biggest kick out of it in the context of the old rule of stories (well not that old I guess since cell phones have only really been mainstream for a bit more than a decade): your story sucks if the entire plot would be 3 pages long if one of the characters had a cell phone in the opening scene (see The Da Vinci Code for the most egregious example). Cell is like the ultimate counterpoint to that rule. "Well yeah the plot would be resolved if the character had a cell phone because then he'd be a raving brain eating zombie, so there."

Posted by: stipe42 at November 18, 2008 12:53 PM

The film was great, as long as there is no comparison to the actual events of the book. But as far as capturing the essence of how it felt to read The Shining, I always felt that Kubrick did a pretty fair job.

Posted by: Smokin at November 18, 2008 1:02 PM

I'm still a King sympathizer anyways...he's like all those actors well past the apex of their careers, but you still hear about something with them in it and go...maybe I will.

Also, he ranks on my favorites more than I will ever admit during social events, I defend his pretty strong artistic voice and his enjoyable character definition more often than I don't.

Pet Sematary is the only one I haven't re-read to shreds over the years. That one is too much of a gut punch, even before I had my own kids. The Stand just gets me where I live - age ten to thirty five. Yup - raw enthusiasm gets me every time, and if there's one thing he is - it's earnest.

Posted by: replica at November 18, 2008 3:09 PM

I can't read Pet Sematary. I got to the bike accident for the first time, put it down, and didn't pick up a single King book for five years. That's a long stretch considering I'm only 23.

I like that King has his own distinct style, but I fail to see this excellent character development he's apparently known for. I get it in his short fiction, no problem. It's, to me, burried so deep in "How do I make this scarier?" additons to pretty simple plots that I never connect to the characters on the page.

Now Richard Bachman, that's an author I love. And Joe Hill. Both of which may be related to Stephen King in some significant way but write in a completely distinct style that appeals to me.

Posted by: Robert at November 18, 2008 4:32 PM

Heh, Robert, Heart Shaped Box was my first Cannonball read :)

Posted by: Julie at November 18, 2008 4:39 PM

I had to quit on King about the time I

1) realized I just don't have the time for 950-page novels

2) that are almost all thematically alike.

Posted by: bucdaddy at November 18, 2008 8:05 PM

Stephen King is horrible and,in my opinion, barely readable. I've read The Stand and Needful Things and find that all the characters are more or less the same -- simple, small town folk with very little depth. The way King portrays the characters is insulting to people who live in small towns, which is surprising because that's clearly not his intention. I may try reading another King novel at some point, third time is a charm.

Posted by: Dan1050 at November 19, 2008 7:14 AM