Rage - Would you have pulled it off the shelves?

seun · Aug 31, 2007

A new copy of The Bachman Books has just arrived here at work and it's got me thinking. I know Stephen King let Rage fall out of print a few years ago due to its links to school shootings, but it's not as if the book is completely unavailable. There's an older copy on the shelf thirty feet from where I'm sitting now. What's to stop another kid blaming his actions on a book?

So if you were in a similar position to King, what would you have done?

Lyra Jean · Aug 31, 2007

I haven't read the book so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

I wouldn't have pulled my book from the shelves. Call me greedy or uncaring or whatnot. The book did not make them do the school shootings (unless they found a copy of the book in the shooter's belongings or the shooter was known to read it). It still didn't make them commit the shooting but would definitely freak me out.

It might give someone an idea of maybe at least one of the reasons why a school shooting would happen or something. Look at how Carrie was treated in King's novel "Carrie" she used telekinesis to kill all her schoolmates. Would it have been really any different if she had a gun instead? Same outcome different method.

Spiny Norman · Aug 31, 2007

From a political standpoint, I would have. Ethically I have problems with it, because the issue doesn't lie with anything I did but rather trauma, stupidity, and possibly misinterpretation. It's like pulling Nietzsche because the Nazis loved him. If my book came to national attention in regards to shootings I would pull it. If it didn't, I would put in a foreward saying "If you think it's okey dokey to shoot up your school then you have serious mental problems that a fictional story can't address" and leave it at that.

C.bronco · Aug 31, 2007

I think we shouldn't ban talking about school shootings. The book could provide a means for exploring the problem; it can open the avenue for discussion. I can understand King's fears and feelings which caused self-censoring, but the problem already exists. Perhaps his insight could make a difference. He understands his characters and their motivations.

Celia Cyanide · Aug 31, 2007

It would be all too easy for me to say no. I was working in a video store when Columbine happened. A costumer asked us to take The Basketball Diaries off the shelf, and we refused. But I think I might feel differently if it were something I had created myself. I don't know. Also, Stephen King is very influential, so he probably has considerations that the rest of us do not have.

I haven't read much about what SK has to say about Rage, except that he no longer wants it in print. But I never got the impression that it was one of his favorite novels anyway, which might have something to do with it. Carrie has a similar theme, but he is very proud of that.

When issues like these come up, I have to wonder about art and how it can effect people. If we believe that literature is important, and can make a positive impact on people's lives, isn't it also possible that literature can have a negative impact?

JoNightshade · Aug 31, 2007

If I was King and thought my book was crappy anyway, sure, pull it. Good PR, whatever. I might personally be freaked out as well. But when you're writing as much scary creepy yucky stuff as he does anyway, and you're that famous, you have to accept that somebody is probably going to latch onto it.

If Rage was my book and I personally liked it and thought it was worthy of publication, I wouldn't pull it. I'd add an essay at the beginning that discussed the whole issue of school shootings, people copying books/games etc, and so on. To me, that would make the book into a "learning experience," if you know what I mean.

kristie911 · Aug 31, 2007

Yes, I think I would have pulled it. I know he mentioned in an interview (no, I can't remember where I heard it) that he felt bad after the shootings and though he didn't feel responsible per se, he did feel bad that his book was linked to them.

scarletpeaches · Aug 31, 2007

Oh please. I suppose we should ban Catcher in the Rye, too, in case someone shoots a celebrity and blames it on the book rather than their own fucked-up way of thinking.

KTC · Aug 31, 2007

I don't believe I would. I would defend it. You can't blame things in real life on fictional stories. Crazy people can, and zealots, but not sane rational minds. I could take 100 books off the shelf and find gruesome murders portrayed in their pages...doesn't mean I'm going to go out and copycat. You'd have to remove whole genres from the bookstores. King is not responsible for the loonies that may read his books.

Azraelsbane · Aug 31, 2007

scarletpeaches said:
Oh please. I suppose we should ban Catcher in the Rye, too, in case someone shoots a celebrity and blames it on the book rather than their own fucked-up way of thinking.

I have the same feelings on this. There are so many books out there with controversial topics, any nutcase can pull them off the shelf and try to put themselves in the same situation. It's like pulling Superman comics if some dumbass jumps off a building thinking he can fly and kills some people on the sidewalk below.

In the end, I respect King's decision, because it's his work, and he has the right to do whatever he feels is necessary, but I wouldn't have done it.

kg_crow · Aug 31, 2007

Sympathy for the Devil

Free speech may not be the issue here.

The book made King uncomfortable and he doesn't need the money.

So why endure the headaches?

Celia Cyanide · Aug 31, 2007

scarletpeaches said:
Oh please. I suppose we should ban Catcher in the Rye, too, in case someone shoots a celebrity and blames it on the book rather than their own fucked-up way of thinking.

Who is saying we should ban anything?

jodiodi · Aug 31, 2007

If, in his judgement, King felt it in the best interests of everyone that the book be allowed to quietly fade away, then that's his prerogative. I'm one, though who believes in personal responsibility and just because someone does something incredibly stupid because they read it in a book or heard it in a song or saw it on TV or in a movie ... well, they're the ones who shouldn't be swimming in the gene pool.

ModoReese · Aug 31, 2007

I think you guys hit the nail on the head -- Rage is far from one of King's best -- even the other stories in the "Bachman Books" set are better. I'm sure if someone took issue with "Carrie" or "The Stand", this would be a much different conversation.

Putting "Rage" in the same category as "Catcher in the Rye" just doesn't do it for me.

I'm a little in the dark here, but have any high school shootings actually been attributed to reading "Rage"?

underthecity · Aug 31, 2007

ModoReese said:
I'm a little in the dark here, but have any high school shootings actually been attributed to reading "Rage"?

There was one . . . I forget which one, where a copy of Rage was found in the shooter's house with portions of it underlined.

And No, I would never pull a book off the shelf due to school shootings or anything else. Schools shootings would have happened whether Rage had been written or not. Rage is fiction, and it wasn't a documentary written after the fact.

Pulling a book off the shelf due to any outside pressure or circumstance is the same as book-banning, IMHO.

If someone had announced plans to blow up the Vatican and kidnap cardinals, would Dan Brown's Angels and Demons be likewise pulled?

allen

kristie911 · Aug 31, 2007

I never said it should be banned, and I don't think anyone else did either. I only said I probably would have done the same in his position. He doesn't need the money and was never real fond of the book. And it bothered him when he was told the book was found in the locker of a Columbine shooter. Why shouldn't he pull it? It's his to do with as he pleases.

underthecity · Aug 31, 2007

If the author decides his book should be made out of print, then that's up to him and the publisher.

But not members of the public, IMHO.

allen

Celia Cyanide · Aug 31, 2007

I'm a little in the dark here, but have any high school shootings actually been attributed to reading "Rage"?

from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(novel)

The novel's plot vaguely resembles actual events, to a degree that the author is no longer comfortable with the book in print for fear that it may inspire similar events, as it had already been associated with two previous high school shootings:

Michael Carneal, who shot three students on December 1, 1997 in West Paducah, Kentucky had a copy of Rage in his locker, and
Barry Loukaitis, who killed two fellow students and his algebra teacher on February 2, 1996, in Moses Lake, Washington, even quoted directly from the book ("This sure beats algebra, doesn't it?") after shooting his teacher.

I found an interview with Stephen King in which he talks about it:

http://www.horrorking.com/interview7.html

There are factors in the Carneal case which make it doubtful that Rage was the defining factor, but I fully recognize that it is in my own self-interest to feel just that way; that I am prejudiced in my own behalf. I also recognize the fact that a novel such as Rage may act as an accelerant on a troubled mind; one cannot divorce the presence of my book in that kid's locker from what he did any more than one can divorce the gruesome sex-murders committed by Ted Bundy from his extensive collection of bondage-oriented porno magazines. To argue free speech in the face of such an obvious linkage (or to suggest that others may obtain a catharsis from such material which allows them to be atrocious only in their fantasies) seems to me immoral. That such stories, video games (Harris was fond of a violent computer-shootout game called Doom), or photographic scenarios will exist no matter what--that they will be obtainable under the counter if not over it--begs the question. The point is that I don't want to be a part of it. Once I knew what had happened, I pulled the ejection-seat lever on that particular piece of work. I withdrew Rage, and I did it with relief rather than regret.

If, on the other hand, you were to ask me if the presence of potentially unstable or homicidal persons makes it immoral to write a novel or make a movie in which violence plays a part, I would say absolutely not. In most cases, I have no patience with such reasoning. I reject it as both bad thinking and bad morals. Like it or not, violence is a part of life and a unique part of American life. If accused of being part of the problem, my response is the time-honored reporter's answer: “Hey, many, I don't make the news, I just report it.”

Stanley Kubrick did something similar with A Clockwork Orange in the UK. It wasn't linked to anything. He just didn't like the audience's reacting to it.

Jamesaritchie · Aug 31, 2007

Rage

First, this isn't a case of banning anything. This is the case of the creator making a decision about his own work, and, honestly, it's none of my business, and none of anyone else's business.

But, yes, if it were my book, I would have pulled it. And if King wants it pulled, wants it gone, wants it unavailable, good for him.

And I know this. Anyone who doesn't believe words have the power to do great good, and great harm, has no business being a writer. Nothing irks me more than when someone who's supposed to be a writer says something like, "It's only a book."

It makes me think they've never actually read a book, have never been moved by a story, and shouldn't be allowed to write a grocery list.

Shades of Humanity · Aug 31, 2007

It IS only a book, James.
Just like it is only a movie, videogame, song.

It's one thing to be "moved" by someone elses work - laugh, cry, think. It's an entirely different matter if it causes someone to act. If someone is that easily swayed by any of the above mentioned forms of media, then they weren't in their right mind in the first place. It could've eventually been a Bazooka Joe comic that finally set off their clock.

Either way, it's a personal matter if someone wishes to remove their works from the public, and no one can criticize them for doing that. It's another matter to think that it was their work that actually caused the harm.

CheshireCat · Aug 31, 2007

What King does with his own work is his own business.

Never having been in that situation myself, I can't be certain what I'd do, but here's what I believe.

I believe people should take responsibility for their actions and not blame the "influence" of novels, TV, movies, or video games. I believe our society should never, ever accept such excuses for acts of evil -- and that we often do latch on to such excuses because we truly want to believe that an evil act could have been prevented.

Take away the book, it wouldn't have happened.
Take away the movie, it wouldn't have happened.
Take away the TV show, it wouldn't have happened.
Take away the video game, it wouldn't have happened.

Blame something, anything, as long as it's not the evil impulse of a sick mind.

Because we don't yet know how to see that coming, how to stop it, how to prevent it.

That's what I believe.

scarletpeaches · Aug 31, 2007

Books don't make people kill others any more than songs or movies do.

They might influence the methods people use to kill, but they're not what flips the switch inside someone's head and turns them into a murderer.

If that were the case, everyone who read a particular book or watched a particular film would react in the same way.

People should learn to take responsibility for their own actions.

I've read plenty of books featuring murder, rape and other violent crimes but I've never killed anyone. If I did, it would be my fault, not that of the author.

Shadow_Ferret · Aug 31, 2007

I've never read the book and King can afford to let a book or two fall out of print.

However, I wouldn't have let it if it was my work. It is just fiction. Should someone who wrote a book about terrorist plots and that book was found with an al Queda cell pull their books? What about someone who wrote a book about a serial killer? Should that author pull his book because it was found in Dahmer's apartment?

To me it's like blaming song lyrics for all the evils in society.

These things happen. Sickos exist and they'll continue to exist and they can think of all sorts of ghastly things to do to other people without the help of books, movies, television, or music.

Personally, I think its silly to pull a book from publication because it might have given someone nasty ideas.

kristie911 · Aug 31, 2007

But if he felt guilty, why not pull it to make himself feel better? It's his book.

scarletpeaches · Aug 31, 2007

Obviously he can do what he likes with his own material (I always thought the publishers would have the final say though) but it wouldn't have made any difference. People die every day for no reason. People look for reasons. They're just not there - certainly not between the pages of a Stephen King novel.

Rage - Would you have pulled it off the shelves?

Horror Man

Two years old now.

I have plans...

Joker Groupie

has finally arrived

Happy to be here

Stand in the Place Where You Live

Agony is defeat

Please hold your applause

Joker Groupie

Reflections of Reality

Bang head here for service

Finestkind

Happy to be here

Finestkind

Joker Groupie

Mostly purring. Mostly.

Court Jester

Happy to be here