Customer Reviews

Shape Under the Sheet: The Complete Stephen King Encyclopedia

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

 

 

My mind boggles at the amount of work that went into this book. If a character drinks a can of @TAB or uses a @KLEENEX on page 374 of IT or THE STAND, this book painstakingly catalogues that fact. If you're a dictionary or encyclopedia browser AND a Stephen King fan as well, this book is BIG FUN.

If you are a Stephen King fan, this book is a must. Filled with information about every known Stephen King story, novel and screenplay up to the date of publication, including several not published. Every person, place and thing in every King story is explained and cross referenced. Everything you ever wanted to know about everything Stephen King has ever written. The only thing better than reading this book is the original Stephen King works

I bought this book in 1991, when it first came out and at the time I had only read a couple of King books. After I got the book and looked over it and it described every character in detail from every book that King had written up to Four Past Midnight, it got me started again. I haven't stopped reading King since. It even has details about his short, uncollected works, many unknown works and complete references of movie adaptations of King's works. This book is more detailed than most of King's books themselves. Never get lost again with large novels that have tons of characters (e.g. The Stand-Uncut, or It). Waiting for the update as we speak. Please Mr. Spignesi, we anxiously await its arrival!!!!!!!!

...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.