Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Here's my review

at the Voice Literary Supplement of Stephen King's The Colorado Kid, published by Hard Case Crime. I liked it a lot.

In my review I mention the fact that a Denver Starbucks features--impossibly--in an inset tale set in 1980; after writing the review the first weekend in September and sending it off, I then saw a similar criticism at The Complete Review. They subsequently offered the following update (I've taken some liberties with the formatting, for clarification of what's quoted from where):

Update: The official Stephen King site offers a Continuity Clarification from Stephen (scroll down to 7 October entry):

"The review of The Colorado Kid in today’s issue of today's USA Today mentions that there was no Starbucks in Denver in 1980. Don’t assume that’s a mistake on my part. The constant readers of the Dark Tower series may realize that that is not necessarily a continuity error, but a clue."

If it is a clue, we still can't figure out for what.

I can't figure it out either (and haven't read the Dark Tower at all, let alone being a constant reader). Any clarification from some better-informed reader would be welcome in the comments. I assume it is some reality-melting meta- thing that doesn't work for the general reader?


  1. The Dark Tower series ties together all of Steven Kings works in a multiverse. The real Steven King lives in the "keystone" world, our world, and he has actually written himself into the Dark Tower series as as an important part of reality.

    Anyways, the thing he may be hinting at is that since each of the multiverse's universes has its own unique timeline, the story takes place on an alternate earth, not ours.

  2. Thank you, it is very good of you to take the time to explain! Would you recommend those Dark Tower books, on the whole?

  3. there is a moment in king's long and ultimately terrible "IT" when a damsel in some sort of social distress is comforted by a burly englishman whose description is something like "Dave was the strongest guy in his entire village. He had never been beaten at darts in the pub and he once bowled a century at cricket ."

    to state the obvious, or at least the widely known, you can't bowl a century at cricket. it's exactly equivalent to pitching a home-run in baseball, except slightly more nonsensical because a pitcher can at least "give up" a home-run. not so with a bowler and a century.

    alternate reality my ass. the guy's just an error-prone douche. probably writes with the TV on.

    sup jen.

  4. Oh no, you have shattered my illusions! I guess there is really no way that, you know, alternate-universe cricket works differently...