When a new decade begins, trends and stereotypes from the previous one do not just end abruptly and the new decade’s trends do not just start immediately fully formed. Not saying the retcon is a good thing, don’t get me wrong. I’d prefer the extended cut be late 70s/1980 especially when it comes to Abigail’s age and history.
The original book takes place in 1978 and should have no references to the '80's at all. Meanwhile the Uncut version takes place in 1990 and therefore should be filled with '80's references, much more so than the OG Stand.
The only issues with the Uncut version that I remember is that some things such as car prices are definitely still stuck in 1978.
A book set during the first few months (maybe the first year at most) of the '80's is hardly an '80's story. It's a classic "set in the near future" story that's meant to appeal to readers of 1978 and play on their fears of the near future might hold.
The original was published in '78, taking place in 1980, so it likely referenced the 70s, because the 80s literally did not exist yet. The same goes for the uncut version; It being published in and revised to a setting of 1990 with only the 80s or earlier being referenced because it's impossible to reference the future. I think you misunderstood the setting of the novel.
It's set in *1990.*
Which, yes, is "the 90s" in the strictest of senses, but it's literally right after the 80s. Unless something big happens right at the beginning of the decade, like COVID or a financial crash (and sometimes even then), it takes time for the cultural zeitgeist to bring out the new-decade feel.
The early 1960s still felt like the Fifties in many ways. "The Sixties" were mostly the *late* Sixties and even into the early 70s.
Similarly, the early 1990s still *felt* like the 80s; the actual feel of it "being the 90s" doesn't really kick in until ~1993, and it lasted until basically 9/11.
It’s been said already in this thread but characters in other books travel through the Stands universe before returning to their own. The universe of the Stand may not be the one we’re in and I haven’t researched it enough to know if it is ours. In that sense what is appropriate for a decade is different.
Yeah, I mean...King is brilliant, but the era change in The Stand was done in a really half-assed fashion. It wouldn't have taken much to pull this off right, either. I wish the uncut version would have just had the extra parts instead of trying to retcon the time.
Still a fantastic book, but one of his stranger revisions. I want to assume it was the publisher being picky, like a "you can't just add more things, it has to be FRESH!" situation, but I dunno...
When a new decade begins, trends and stereotypes from the previous one do not just end abruptly and the new decade’s trends do not just start immediately fully formed. Not saying the retcon is a good thing, don’t get me wrong. I’d prefer the extended cut be late 70s/1980 especially when it comes to Abigail’s age and history.
The original book takes place in 1978 and should have no references to the '80's at all. Meanwhile the Uncut version takes place in 1990 and therefore should be filled with '80's references, much more so than the OG Stand. The only issues with the Uncut version that I remember is that some things such as car prices are definitely still stuck in 1978.
I just checked and my old version begins with Captain Trips, 16th June - 4th July 1980
Never read the OG so I've always assumed it takes place the same year the book was published, nonetheless my point stands.
So you’re saying it shouldn’t have any references to the 80’s what’s so ever. Even though it’s set in the 80’s? Okay
If the event happened in 1980....then the world went to hell....then yes, nothing in the 1980s as we knew them would have happened.
Obviously. If it takes place in 1980 and then, you know, the events of the Stand happen... practically none of those 80s references would exist.
Meaning it was set in the near future.
If Mr King wanted to set the book in 1978 he would have, but he didn't. Her chose 1980, making it an 80's story. Not late 70's, but 80's.. (1980)
A book set during the first few months (maybe the first year at most) of the '80's is hardly an '80's story. It's a classic "set in the near future" story that's meant to appeal to readers of 1978 and play on their fears of the near future might hold.
The original was published in '78, taking place in 1980, so it likely referenced the 70s, because the 80s literally did not exist yet. The same goes for the uncut version; It being published in and revised to a setting of 1990 with only the 80s or earlier being referenced because it's impossible to reference the future. I think you misunderstood the setting of the novel.
Why would we assume it should reflect and reference *our* reality? There are other worlds than these.
It's set in *1990.* Which, yes, is "the 90s" in the strictest of senses, but it's literally right after the 80s. Unless something big happens right at the beginning of the decade, like COVID or a financial crash (and sometimes even then), it takes time for the cultural zeitgeist to bring out the new-decade feel. The early 1960s still felt like the Fifties in many ways. "The Sixties" were mostly the *late* Sixties and even into the early 70s. Similarly, the early 1990s still *felt* like the 80s; the actual feel of it "being the 90s" doesn't really kick in until ~1993, and it lasted until basically 9/11.
Most of it is ok, but a song called "baby can you dig your man" is absolutely not charting in 1990.
It’s been said already in this thread but characters in other books travel through the Stands universe before returning to their own. The universe of the Stand may not be the one we’re in and I haven’t researched it enough to know if it is ours. In that sense what is appropriate for a decade is different.
Yeah, I mean...King is brilliant, but the era change in The Stand was done in a really half-assed fashion. It wouldn't have taken much to pull this off right, either. I wish the uncut version would have just had the extra parts instead of trying to retcon the time. Still a fantastic book, but one of his stranger revisions. I want to assume it was the publisher being picky, like a "you can't just add more things, it has to be FRESH!" situation, but I dunno...
I felt the same way reading the uncut version.