Customer Reviews

The Complete Stephen King Encyclopedia: The Definitive Guide to the Works of America's Master of Horror

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

...more like a doorstop. Now, don't get me wrong, the portion of the book that is a functional encyclopedia is thorough. And I suppose that such a thing is useful for King scholars, or for intensely devoted fans who fancy themselves King scholars. However, the book is made twice as long as it ought to have been by a series of fairly pointless interviews with people like King's secretaries, King's brother Dave, King's childhood friend Chris Chesley, other people who have written books about King, and noted horror writers such as Richard Matheson and Robert R. McCammon. What's wrong with that, you ask? Well, nothing; all of these people, as well as the scads of others whom Spignesi puts in the hot seat for their fifteen minutes, no doubt have many interesting things to say. However, Spignesi has almost nothing of interest to ask. A typical line of questioning goes something like this:

SPIGNESI: "Which one of the movies based on King's books is your favorite?"

INTERVIEWEE: "Well, I don't know, I only saw a couple of them."
SPIGNESI: "My favorite is 'The Dead Zone'. Did you see that one?"
INTERVIEWEE: "Oh, yeah. It was pretty good, I guess."
SPIGNESI: "Yeah, Cronenberg really captured the novel with that one."

Seriously; he asks almost every person he interviews about the movie of "The Dead Zone." I'll grant you that it's a good movie, but Spignesi comes off as being overly obsessed with that particular line of questioning. And, just for the record, the movie really DOESN'T capture the novel; it's good, but not that good.

Most embarassing by far is the interview with author Robert R. McCammon, who scarcely even knows Stephen King personally (that was the case upon the book's publication, at least). McCammon really has very little to say on the subject of King, owning up to not having read all that many of King's novels. Primarily, Spignesi seems to have interviewed McCammon so he could ask him why McCammon's novel "Swan Song" is so similar to King's "The Stand." A truly lousy interview with an author whose work cries out to be considered in a kinder light.

And dare I mention the several poems about Stephen King written by Spignesi and other notorious Kingophiles? They are laughably bad, and would only ever have been published in this sort of vanity project, or by someone who needed very badly to fill up some pages.

In short, this book is only for the hardest of die-hard King fans. And you guys would be better off using whatever money you would have spent on this turkey to instead buy copies of King's books to give out as presents to people who don't read him. Two stars for the thorough encyclopedia (current through about 1990); otherwise, a total dud.

I love my King encyclopedia. It is a painstaking reference manual to every King character, story--including the astonishing ones Stephen King wrote when he was just a kid, and place mentioned in Kings works. Spignesi isn't just a cataloger however. His own writing shows wit and charm. You will enjoy reading his descriptions of King's body of work. I just wish Mr.Spignesi would do and updated version to include King's latter stories and novels.

I found this book to be helpful as I began my new career as an author. Ialso discovered that even best-selling authors can make blunders in their books, mistakes that I learned in my Writer's Coursein College..one of (5) Fatal Errors for Writers.