- Also check our best rated Biography reviews
The Complete Stephen King Encyclopedia Paperback – 1 Apr 1993
Customers who bought this item also bought
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Provides information on Stephen King's background, published and unpublished works, and motion picture adaptations, and includes interviews and indexes of characters and places.
No customer reviews
|5 star (0%)|
|4 star (0%)|
|3 star (0%)|
|2 star (0%)|
|1 star (0%)|
Review this product
Most helpful customer reviews on Amazon.com
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.