![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.cemeterydance.com\/images\/banners\/DeadZone.jpg?w=853&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
What We Can Learn from Ur 2.0<\/strong><\/p>\n In On Writing<\/em>, Stephen King presents his theories and philosophies about the art and craft of writing. The book is especially popular among writers, including those who don\u2019t, in general, read his novels.<\/p>\n In one section, he demonstrates his revision process. As a case study, he chose the opening pages of \u201cThe Hotel Story,\u201d later retitled \u201c1408.\u201d The book reproduces manuscript pages, complete with editorial marks and his annotations, explaining why he chose to make certain changes to the original text.<\/p>\n King has published revised versions of books and stories before. The Stand <\/em>is the most notable of these, but the changes to that novel are so drastic that it is difficult to analyze them in any detail. Also, the motivation for the original changes was not editorial: text was trimmed to reduce the size of the book.<\/p>\n The revised and updated version of The Gunslinger<\/em> is a better example of how King revises. The original was published without any external editorial feedback, and it was released long before King knew how the story was going to turn out. That prevented him from making some of the changes that he would have done as part of the normal writing\/revising process had he waited until the series was finished to go back and bring the early parts into line with things that only occurred to him later on.<\/p>\n In The Bazaar of Bad Dreams<\/em>, King includes a two-page introduction to \u201cUr\u201d, 21,000-word novella originally released as an e-Book six years ago. He discusses how the story came about, but he only mentions in passing that the story\u2014the earliest in the collection\u2014has been \u201cconsiderably revised.\u201d<\/p>\n For anyone who cares to compare the two versions, the experience is illuminating. As with The Gunslinger<\/em>, there are changes on almost every page. A number of them, especially early in the story, reflect the fact that, while Kindles are relatively new to the characters in the story and to readers in 2009, they won\u2019t be to readers of this collection. So, a sentence that originally read:<\/p>\n He bought the gadget, which was called a Kindle, out of spite.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n becomes:<\/p>\n He bought the gadget purely out of spite.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, he removes the unnecessary explanation and uses \u201cKindle\u201d in other places in the text, assuming everyone will know what the word means. But will readers a hundred years from now? The change recognizes\u00a0contemporary knowledge but assumes that such knowledge will persist. There are other simplifications concerning e-reader technology throughout the text.<\/p>\n Note that King also defies one of his main edicts from On Writing<\/em>. He adds<\/em> an adverb, which he says \u201care not your friend.\u201d This one is a little different: he admonishes against adverbs used as crutches to prop up timid nouns. Here, \u201cpurely\u201d emphasizes the character\u2019s motivations. King could have written \u201cHe bought the gadget out of pure spite\u201d and the net result would have been the same.<\/p>\n There are more deletions than additions. A few needless asides are trimmed. In other cases, King replaces sentences or phrases with ones that are clearer or more descriptive. Here\u2019s one amusing example. The protagonist\u2019s friend makes a sarcastic statement. In the original:<\/p>\n \u201cRight,\u201d said Don Allmann. \u201cAnd I\u2019m the new Poet Laureate.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the revised version:<\/p>\n \u201cRight,\u201d said Don Allmann. \u201cAnd I\u2019m Robert Frost, stopping by the woods on a snowy fucking evening.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s longer, but it\u2019s punchier. Funnier, even. Not a necessary change, perhaps, but one that adds a bit to Don\u2019s character.<\/p>\n There are some intriguing changes. Susan Montanari in the original becomes Susan Montanaro. She\u2019s not a major character, so one wonders why that was done. In the revised version King specifies the name of Hemingway\u2019s dog, Negrita, which was omitted in the original. He also changed the name of section VIII, which was \u201cEllen\u201d in the original.<\/p>\n Is \u201cJesse Quinn was a member of the team\u201d better than saying \u201cJesse Quinn was on the team\u201d? It\u2019s not a huge change, but I\u2019m sure King was satisfied by the work he did in revising the story. Because that\u2019s the way writers are. Never quite satisfied. Always looking for the best way to say something.<\/p>\n The biggest change happens mid-way through the story, where King lops out about 500 words. Snip. Gone. Not replaced by anything.<\/p>\n Why?<\/p>\n![\"Ur\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.cemeterydance.com\/extras\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Ur-236x300.jpg?resize=236%2C300\")
We don\u2019t\u00a0often get the chance to see inside the creative mind at that level. I was pleased to be able to include some first draft manuscript pages of King\u2019s work in the Stephen King Illustrated Companion<\/em> because they demonstrate more of this phenomenon: pages from The Shining<\/em>, for example, that show how King originally conceived the scene in which Danny has a strange encounter with a fire hose.<\/p>\n