Scan barcode
Reviews
Bare Bones: Conversations on Terror with Stephen King by Tim Underwood, Chuck Miller, Stephen King
tcgarback's review against another edition
informative
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
3.0
⭐️⭐️⭐️
Critical Score: B-
Personal Score: B+
King has hinted that a lot of his interview answers of yore are bullshit. So when reading this, you gotta wonder. Because he comes across as so honest and authentic, but there are times when you can tell he’s sideswiping, exaggerating, or putting on an act (mostly out of humility). I even noticed once that he contradicted himself when sharing the same anecdote in separate interviews. I don’t like the thought that this book has a lot of BS in it, but I can’t do anything to get to the bottom of it, so I’m just focusing on how much *fun* Bare Bones is, how consuming—the way his fiction is.
If you're not a casual fan, you won't get too much out of this. It's not that well edited. They could have done a lot more with this, like adding photos and improving the interior layout so it's not as cluttered and plain. The chapter titles don’t really pertain to their content much, which is largely because the groupings of interviews isn’t strategic. They should have just made each interview its own chapter. The collection is repetitive and feels a bit Frankenstein-ed together; some places lack transition and you’re left wondering if you missed something. It's dated at this point. It doesn't cover a wide span of time. If you want to hear King rambling about his life, his craft, and horror media, then this is gold. But I can’t see non-fans giving a hoot.
He provides some rude answers when he gets stupid or too frequently asked questions. That was amusing. He's a little braggy at times but mostly charismatic and likeable. I recognized some bits from Danse Macabre. A few of his ramblings are hard to keep up with; you can tell he was nervous. Some of the transcripts are hard to get a tone for because we're lacking the inflection to tell when he's being wry or slight.
Despite how much King trivia I’ve absorbed over the years, this book still hit me like a ton of bricks with sparkling revelations (like how the last name King was created as an alias by Stephen’s fugitive father, who eventually became a fugitive of his own family when he abandoned them without so much as a note), heavy hitting references he’s got stored in that marvelous noggin (“Happiness, too, is inevitable,” from Camus), and juicy publishing stories. This book is a wealth of info inside his life, far more potent than I expected.
I would love a collection of interviews like this from the 90s to now. PLEASE, somebody...
Critical Score: B-
Personal Score: B+
King has hinted that a lot of his interview answers of yore are bullshit. So when reading this, you gotta wonder. Because he comes across as so honest and authentic, but there are times when you can tell he’s sideswiping, exaggerating, or putting on an act (mostly out of humility). I even noticed once that he contradicted himself when sharing the same anecdote in separate interviews. I don’t like the thought that this book has a lot of BS in it, but I can’t do anything to get to the bottom of it, so I’m just focusing on how much *fun* Bare Bones is, how consuming—the way his fiction is.
If you're not a casual fan, you won't get too much out of this. It's not that well edited. They could have done a lot more with this, like adding photos and improving the interior layout so it's not as cluttered and plain. The chapter titles don’t really pertain to their content much, which is largely because the groupings of interviews isn’t strategic. They should have just made each interview its own chapter. The collection is repetitive and feels a bit Frankenstein-ed together; some places lack transition and you’re left wondering if you missed something. It's dated at this point. It doesn't cover a wide span of time. If you want to hear King rambling about his life, his craft, and horror media, then this is gold. But I can’t see non-fans giving a hoot.
He provides some rude answers when he gets stupid or too frequently asked questions. That was amusing. He's a little braggy at times but mostly charismatic and likeable. I recognized some bits from Danse Macabre. A few of his ramblings are hard to keep up with; you can tell he was nervous. Some of the transcripts are hard to get a tone for because we're lacking the inflection to tell when he's being wry or slight.
Despite how much King trivia I’ve absorbed over the years, this book still hit me like a ton of bricks with sparkling revelations (like how the last name King was created as an alias by Stephen’s fugitive father, who eventually became a fugitive of his own family when he abandoned them without so much as a note), heavy hitting references he’s got stored in that marvelous noggin (“Happiness, too, is inevitable,” from Camus), and juicy publishing stories. This book is a wealth of info inside his life, far more potent than I expected.
I would love a collection of interviews like this from the 90s to now. PLEASE, somebody...
mcyewfly's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
relaxing
fast-paced
4.0
A bit of a lopsided read, given its format. I don’t think King had enough to say at this point in his career to warrant a collection of his interviews, as evident by a lot of questions, anecdotes, and opinions are repeated throughout. This book was effectively reading the transcript to a Stephen King podcast, which actually sounds pretty interesting…
The first chapter and the last two have the most unique and engaging perspectives in them; unfortunately, the other half of the book became a bit of a slog. I was really hoping, based on the first chapter and the title, that I would’ve seen more writing craft or story structuring commentary, a la King’s On Writing. (On Writing is a MUST READ.)
Instead, the interviewers kept asking him the same questions, to the point that King’s answers start with “I wish people would stop asking about The Shining movie.” I like hearing him talk, so I loved the repeated answers and quips.
As an aside, it’s really funny that Storygraph’s algorithm recommended this book for me; on a categorical level, it ticks all of my boxes. Yet, this book has hardly any circulation or reviews attached, and its place in the zeitgeist is clearly minuscule.
The first chapter and the last two have the most unique and engaging perspectives in them; unfortunately, the other half of the book became a bit of a slog. I was really hoping, based on the first chapter and the title, that I would’ve seen more writing craft or story structuring commentary, a la King’s On Writing. (On Writing is a MUST READ.)
Instead, the interviewers kept asking him the same questions, to the point that King’s answers start with “I wish people would stop asking about The Shining movie.” I like hearing him talk, so I loved the repeated answers and quips.
As an aside, it’s really funny that Storygraph’s algorithm recommended this book for me; on a categorical level, it ticks all of my boxes. Yet, this book has hardly any circulation or reviews attached, and its place in the zeitgeist is clearly minuscule.
k8iedid's review against another edition
4.0
Loved this collection of interviews w King -- this was exactly what I was looking for when I accidentally read Danse Macabre. I'd love an updated version of this book that covers more of King's work -- Bare Bones was written years ago, so there's lots of repetition in questions. Still, great insight into his topics and what he finds interesting.
lali_sweety's review against another edition
3.0
To be honest, I was expecting a lot more. I thought it would be an interview divided in different sessions, a sort of one-on-one conversation throughout the book. Instead, it gathers different interviews Stephen King did while touring and promoting his work, found in different magazines.Some interviews were more interesting than others but you still get a view on how King's mind works, his fears and opinions on various subjects (e.g. goverment, film industry, horror books, his own work, etc.). I was very amused by his answers and surprised at how honest he was. Even though he says otherwise, Stephen King puts a lot of thought into his answers and, therefore, I felt he was very critical and analitical of his own work, without taking it for granted.I would not recomend you read it from cover to cover in one sitting or in a short amount of time because the book would turn repetitive and boring. All in all, I enjoyed the book but I was expecting something else.
_kylie_'s review
3.0
I dont usually read nonfiction. This book was okay. It is repetitive at times but it's okay otherwise
dboorn23's review
4.0
It's a bunch of early Stephen King interviews, let's be honest, you're not picking this up unless you're already a fan.
I see quite a few reviews mention a lot of repetition in the interviews. I didn't really feel there was. You get the obvious ones come up a few times (what did you think of Kubrick's Shining? What scares Stephen King? Where do you get your idea from?) but no more than two or three times over the 28 articles compiled here (he must be fucking sick of the Shining question by now, I bet he wished he'd just said he'd loved it).
The guy is super interesting, and to have these interviews compiled from so early in his career is amazing. He says in one interview that he knows something big is going to happen to him because he can't just have ALL the success, and we all know what happened a few years later.
There are spoilers for a few of his early works, notably Firestarter, Salem's Lot and The Shining (possibly the Dead Zone too but since I haven't read it I don't know how much it spoils).
Man, they should make one of these books every 5-10 years. I'd buy them immediately!
The actual material in the book is an easy five stars for me. The only thing holding this back as a book is that there could've been some background or context given to the compiled articles. They're group into 3-6 articles under vague chapter headings and they go straight in with no introduction. You can't have everything, I guess.
I see quite a few reviews mention a lot of repetition in the interviews. I didn't really feel there was. You get the obvious ones come up a few times (what did you think of Kubrick's Shining? What scares Stephen King? Where do you get your idea from?) but no more than two or three times over the 28 articles compiled here (he must be fucking sick of the Shining question by now, I bet he wished he'd just said he'd loved it).
The guy is super interesting, and to have these interviews compiled from so early in his career is amazing. He says in one interview that he knows something big is going to happen to him because he can't just have ALL the success, and we all know what happened a few years later.
There are spoilers for a few of his early works, notably Firestarter, Salem's Lot and The Shining (possibly the Dead Zone too but since I haven't read it I don't know how much it spoils).
Man, they should make one of these books every 5-10 years. I'd buy them immediately!
The actual material in the book is an easy five stars for me. The only thing holding this back as a book is that there could've been some background or context given to the compiled articles. They're group into 3-6 articles under vague chapter headings and they go straight in with no introduction. You can't have everything, I guess.
theangrylawngnome's review
4.0
Q: You're from the tradition of the storyteller. Your books not only read well, they listen well.
KING: The story is the only thing that's important. Everything else will take care of itself. It's like what bowlers do. You hear writers talk about character or theme or mood or mode or tense or person. But bowlers say, if you make the spares, the strikes will take care of themselves. If you can tell a story, everything else becomes possible. But without story, nothing is possible, because nobody wants to hear about your sensitive characters if there's nothing happening in the story. And the same is true with mood. Story is the only thing that's important.
P. 116, Chapter 3, Terror Ink
Look at Joseph Heller. It took him seven years to write [b:Something Happened|10718|Something Happened|Joseph Heller|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388183272s/10718.jpg|2703812]. Now, it doesn't take seven years to write a book. You're jerking off is what you're doing. You're writing a little bit, and they you're jerking off, and then you write a bit more. To me, that's a waste of energy.
P. 153, Chapter 5, Partners in Fear
An absolutely fascinating series of candid interviews King gave, ranging from 1979 through 1987. If [b:On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft|10569|On Writing A Memoir of the Craft|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1436735207s/10569.jpg|150292] is more polished, more current and probably at the end of the day the better read, I would submit that these interviews might actually represent a better view into the mind of ol' Steve-o, at least at the time he gave them.
And yes, I chose the two quotes above largely because (a) I thought they were instructive and (b) I am curious as hell to find out if he still agrees with either or both of them. To my mind he probably still agrees with the first in a qualified sense and disagrees with second. Else why didn't he inquire over the obviously chapped and calloused state of George RR Martin's sadly abused member during this evening they spent together? Or such would be an logical inference from the above, as ol' GRRM is now edging toward a decade since the last installment in A Song of Ice and Fire series. Or perhaps GRRM is ordering lotion by the crate? But, nope, all King does is praise Martin's writing to the skies.
As to the former -- and far more interesting quote -- I think it presents in very short form what we can still describe as King's greatest strengths and weaknesses. To this day. His books tend to ramble, his characters tend to not be particularly memorable (except when they truly are...), but damn, the man can spin a tale, usually. (The less said of a mess like [b:Rose Madder|10619|Rose Madder|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1375870513s/10619.jpg|833191] the better.) With King it is indeed story. At his best the reader is grabbed by their short and curlies and yanked along forcibly, at worst we get a six year old's shaggy dog story (somewhere in the middle volumes of the The Dark Tower books, yes I'll speak that blasphemy.)
What I do wish I'd bothered to unearth were some of his quotes about how he'd never disliked anything he'd ever published. How he disliked right-wing Jerry Falwell like censorship, and so on. And there were several such sprinkled throughout these interviews. Yet bend the knee to censorship he did with [b:Rage|66370|Rage|Richard Bachman|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1299003176s/66370.jpg|1657128]. So, clearly his views have "evolved" through the years, to the point where only right wing censorship is bad. I suppose we're all hypocrites in our own way. Just wish King would at least be honest in his hypocrisy.
Finally, his view of [b:Pet Sematary|33124137|Pet Sematary|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1480069533s/33124137.jpg|150017] was interesting, as he was downright ambivalent about how it ended. He didn't find it optimistic. And didn't like that. That I never knew; I've certainly not heard that view expressed elsewhere.
The presentation as transcripts of interviews that other reviewers have found tended toward repetition and discursion I actually never found that way. King is one hell of an interesting interviewee, far moreso than most authors or most anybodys.
KING: The story is the only thing that's important. Everything else will take care of itself. It's like what bowlers do. You hear writers talk about character or theme or mood or mode or tense or person. But bowlers say, if you make the spares, the strikes will take care of themselves. If you can tell a story, everything else becomes possible. But without story, nothing is possible, because nobody wants to hear about your sensitive characters if there's nothing happening in the story. And the same is true with mood. Story is the only thing that's important.
P. 116, Chapter 3, Terror Ink
Look at Joseph Heller. It took him seven years to write [b:Something Happened|10718|Something Happened|Joseph Heller|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388183272s/10718.jpg|2703812]. Now, it doesn't take seven years to write a book. You're jerking off is what you're doing. You're writing a little bit, and they you're jerking off, and then you write a bit more. To me, that's a waste of energy.
P. 153, Chapter 5, Partners in Fear
An absolutely fascinating series of candid interviews King gave, ranging from 1979 through 1987. If [b:On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft|10569|On Writing A Memoir of the Craft|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1436735207s/10569.jpg|150292] is more polished, more current and probably at the end of the day the better read, I would submit that these interviews might actually represent a better view into the mind of ol' Steve-o, at least at the time he gave them.
And yes, I chose the two quotes above largely because (a) I thought they were instructive and (b) I am curious as hell to find out if he still agrees with either or both of them. To my mind he probably still agrees with the first in a qualified sense and disagrees with second. Else why didn't he inquire over the obviously chapped and calloused state of George RR Martin's sadly abused member during this evening they spent together? Or such would be an logical inference from the above, as ol' GRRM is now edging toward a decade since the last installment in A Song of Ice and Fire series. Or perhaps GRRM is ordering lotion by the crate? But, nope, all King does is praise Martin's writing to the skies.
As to the former -- and far more interesting quote -- I think it presents in very short form what we can still describe as King's greatest strengths and weaknesses. To this day. His books tend to ramble, his characters tend to not be particularly memorable (except when they truly are...), but damn, the man can spin a tale, usually. (The less said of a mess like [b:Rose Madder|10619|Rose Madder|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1375870513s/10619.jpg|833191] the better.) With King it is indeed story. At his best the reader is grabbed by their short and curlies and yanked along forcibly, at worst we get a six year old's shaggy dog story (somewhere in the middle volumes of the The Dark Tower books, yes I'll speak that blasphemy.)
What I do wish I'd bothered to unearth were some of his quotes about how he'd never disliked anything he'd ever published. How he disliked right-wing Jerry Falwell like censorship, and so on. And there were several such sprinkled throughout these interviews. Yet bend the knee to censorship he did with [b:Rage|66370|Rage|Richard Bachman|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1299003176s/66370.jpg|1657128]. So, clearly his views have "evolved" through the years, to the point where only right wing censorship is bad. I suppose we're all hypocrites in our own way. Just wish King would at least be honest in his hypocrisy.
Finally, his view of [b:Pet Sematary|33124137|Pet Sematary|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1480069533s/33124137.jpg|150017] was interesting, as he was downright ambivalent about how it ended. He didn't find it optimistic. And didn't like that. That I never knew; I've certainly not heard that view expressed elsewhere.
The presentation as transcripts of interviews that other reviewers have found tended toward repetition and discursion I actually never found that way. King is one hell of an interesting interviewee, far moreso than most authors or most anybodys.
raehink's review
4.0
Wonderful essays and interviews with the king of terror, Stephen King. The essays deal mostly with terror as a genre. I don't read his fiction much as I can't deal with the supernatural elements and the coarse language. I can't deny his ability to write and capture a reader's attention, though. And he is so fascinating.
More...