The Stand--long version vs. originally published shorter version.

I've read the original but not the longer one. What do you think? Is the extra stuff in the longer one worth the read?

forever to get through, but I did enjoy it.

The long version is way better.

I enjoyed it, though. That and The Shining are King's best work, IMO.

King published that the way he originally intended. It's great.

And thanks for reminding me, I think I'll read it again.

but I enjoyed them both several times.

Worth the read, I think I just might have to pull that one up again.

went on too long after the climax. That's what I recall thinking several years ago, after having read first the short, then the long version.
IIRC, the long version was better throughout the book, though.

I"ve always said that Stephen King is a great writer, not such a good editor. And, I think editors are understandably gunshy about making suggestions. The Stand is a good example. Stephen King is the 800 lb. gorilla, and whatever he wants, he gets. Sometimes I think that's a bad thing.
For example, Graveyard Shift, Maximum Overdrive, etc. He doesn't really understand science fiction, so when he writes it, it becomes internally implausible.

Not to mention when either consciously or unconsciously King "borrows" from existing work. Firestarter is pretty much the same as a classic scifi short story, and Green Mile's scene of botched electrocution was a complete lift from another author's work: Steve Thayer's The weatherman, which King wrote a forward to, lauding the guy as a great new talent, so you know he read that scene. A few years later, it ends up, almost exactly the same, including the dry sponge twist, in King's Green mile.

here's a link to the book, by steve thayer. note the cover includes a King quote.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451184386/sr=1-1/qid=1153837224/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9116097-1591160?ie=UTF8&s=books

btw, I read and enjoyed Thayer's book, but he's nowhere on the same writing level as King.