Lilja's Library

by Hans-Ake Lilja

  Then we decided to tackle the “biggie”—a revised, updated, completed version of the King bibliography. We originally intended to catalogue both primary and secondary works (works by King and works about him), but it became obvious that the resulting book would simply be too long to be practical. So, for the first time, I concentrated exclusively on King’s writings and opened the book up to international editions as well. Much of the actual research was done through the Internet, using such resources as the Library of Congress, the British Library and various national libraries throughout Europe and South America, plus publication records from many companies and invaluable help from King fans across the globe. When Horror Plum’d appeared in late 2002 (publication date: January 2003), it intended to provide an intensive study of King’s publications for over a quarter of a century, closing with the year 2002. Again, however, the format allows for additions, so if need be, it can be revised and updated further.

  Lilja: You have done several books about King. Is there any kind of book about King or his work that hasn’t (in your opinion) been written yet, or have all aspects of his work and person been examined?

  Michael Collings: Without a doubt, King is among the most closely scrutinized of contemporary writers. Some years ago, I mentioned to a colleague here that I was working on a five hundred page bibliography of King, and he just stared at me. “Five hundred pages? For a living author?” He was stunned at the degree of interest King engenders.

  And perhaps he was right to be so startled. I originally intended a follow-up volume to Horror Plum’d that would concentrate on works about King; by now, I’m not sure I could handle the project…there is simply so much out there that it is intimidating even to contemplate. I’m used to doing research on people like Shakespeare and Milton, about whom there have been literally shelves of books written. King might not yet have as many titles associated with his name, but he’s getting there. I’m really not sure that there are any “undiscovered lands” in King scholarship, at least not for this generation. I would like to see work done on his poetry—a small body of poems, but really interesting in light of his novels. And he did some interesting things while a student that might illuminate his subsequent career. But he hesitates to encourage study of either. And I would like to see more solid historical criticism of his major novels—books and articles that point out not which literary theory King uses or anything that abstract, but rather the ways in which his books describe, define and influence our world. He is a contemporary writer—we should take advantage of that fact and work with his writings in context.

  Lilja: Compared to other books about King, yours are less commercial-oriented and are more underground (i.e. they are more for research for the average reader who is curious about King). Do you ever feel like doing a book that would be more “mainstream” (if you allow me to use that term)? A kind of book that is more likely to be bought by people who aren’t die-hard King fans, people that are just a bit curious about King as a person and writer?

  Michael Collings: Because I am a university professor, I don’t rely on book-income for a living, so I am a bit more free in the kinds of books I write. And in the publishers I choose. I long ago decided that I had no interest in university presses that seem to survive by publishing unintelligible books on uninteresting subjects. My first book was a small monograph on Piers Anthony for Ted Dikty at Starmont House; I stayed with Starmont exclusively until Ted’s death, in part because he was one of only two markets at the time for Science Fiction and Fantasy, in part because he was a kind man who won the loyalty of his writers. After his death, I wrote for Borgo—again, a small independent publisher, and the second of the two markets for the genre. By the time Borgo ceased publishing, Science Fiction and Horror (and King specifically) had become increasingly the province of academic publishers and popularizing presses.

  I don’t feel comfortable with either. The books I write are intended to allow readers to see into the books I discuss. My goal is to give those readers information and insight that they might not have (and that I might have, thanks to the fact that I can spend much more time on the books than most general readers)…and through that information, to impel the readers back to the books. I write for a young audience, late high school and early college, because they are the ones who read King for pleasure; my books try to suggest ways he created that pleasure, and simultaneously suggest ways that they are literature.

  Horror Plum’d, of course, differs from the others. It is strictly research, with a narrow audience, primarily intensive collectors and libraries. Most of my other books and articles, however, simply try to open new possibilities for readers.

  Lilja: From what I have read of your books, they are all about King’s work. Have you ever considered writing a book about Stephen King, the man?

  Michael Collings: No, I haven’t. For several reasons. First is that others more qualified and more oriented to biography, such as George Beahm, have done excellent work in that area already. Second, I have a strong feeling about the division between public and private. A book is public; the artifact stands there, to be approached, dissected, analyzed, assessed, evaluated and, in general, manipulated to the reader’s content. Readers (and critics) are free to make assumptions and assertions about the book, subject only to the requirement that they have sufficient evidence from the book to verify them. Knowing something about the author frequently helps us understand a book, especially when the author is as autobiographical as King often is; but ultimately the book stands on its own, almost independent from the person who wrote it. But the person behind the book? That’s something different. Since I began work on my first literary study, I’ve made it a practice to let the author know that I was writing a book and what kind of a book it would be. I assured them that I appreciated and enjoyed their stories (or else I wouldn’t be wasting my time writing about something I disliked), and, most importantly, for me at least, assured them equally that while I might write to ask an occasional question, I would not intrude into their lives. I guess I just don’t have a biographical kind of mind.

  At any rate, the approach has been successful. Every writer I have chosen to study has responded graciously and openly, providing much needed information, occasionally even hard-to-find books. Some even provided bits of autobiography that might be helpful in understanding a particular passage in a book. And in return, I left them as much to themselves as I could. It was more important that they write more stories than that they answer my questions about their personal lives.

  So the decision to avoid biography was conscious and carefully thought out. And I have no interest in digging any further than I have into King, the person.

  Lilja: What’s next for you? Are you working on anything new about King at the moment?

  Michael Collings: Well, my immediate goal is to get rid of a pesky cataract so I can read easily again. That should happen by the first week in February. Then I will continue revising and rewriting two of my initial Starmont books. I’ve completed all but one chapter of a revised and enlarged Stephen King as Richard Bachman; it will include updated discussions of the early Bachman books and a new chapter on Desperation and The Regulators. Then I will probably finish revising The Stephen King Phenomenon, adding a new chapter or two and bringing the chapter on the best-sellers lists up-to-date. After that, OCP has talked about a bibliography of Dean R. Koontz. Perhaps that will be next.

  Lilja: What have you written that isn’t about King?

  Michael Collings: As you can tell from my answers so far, I’ve written much that isn’t about King. Starmont published my monographs on Piers Anthony and Brian W., as well as two volumes of science-fiction/horror poetry. I’ve written articles about Dean R. Koontz, and the only two books yet written on Orson Scott Card. I’ve published over three hundred reviews on topics ranging from Renaissance literature to contemporary poetry; several hundred poems that have appeared in a wide range of journals; and a number of books and chapbooks of poetry. I’ve even publ
ished a cookbook! In addition, I am fascinated by bookbinding, and have published about a dozen books of poetry and two novels, each book handcrafted and hand-bound. King is certainly an important part of my life as a writer, but he is not all there is.

  Lilja: Have you ever met King in person?

  Michael Collings: I met him once, when he was the Guest of Honor at the International Conference for the Fantastic in the Arts, held in Florida in 1984. As secretary to the association, I had the chance to meet him formally several times; as a presenter, I read a paper with him in the audience; and as a friend of a friend, I had the opportunity to spend several hours with him informally.

  Then, when I began work on the Starmont series, we corresponded fairly frequently. We even exchanged books. I sent him copies of the Starmont books, and he sent me a manuscript copy of IT and a signed copy of Misery (Gee, I wonder who got the best end of that deal?). Throughout, he was generous, kind and open. I would send him one of the Starmont books; he would read it and respond in enough time that I could include some of his comments in the next book. We were, I think, friends in a long-distance way. As his life became more complex, and the Starmont series concluded, we were less in contact. But, I suppose that if someone were to mention my name to him, he would remember it, and he might even have some complimentary things to say about my writings.

  Lilja: Which book by King (if any) do you think will be remembered one hundred years from now?

  Michael Collings: The Shining probably has the best chance of his books to-date of surviving the ages. It tells a good story, and tells it in strong, memorable images. It illuminates much that was right and wrong in American culture at the time, and thus has a certain historical value. It incorporates his trademark horror, but in a rather restrained way. And it is literary, which means that it is open to being taught, especially in college literature courses. His allusions connect his story to a long literary tradition, demonstrating how he both uses that tradition and is himself part of it. If I were to expand the list, I would include The Dead Zone, The Stand and IT as his most powerful works—stories that I would hope my grandchildren might someday read and enjoy.

  ****

  Kristen Dalton

  Posted: August 2, 2003

  I recently spoke to Kristen Dalton, who plays Dana Bright in the hit series The Dead Zone. Here is what she said:

  Lilja: Hi Kristen. Let me begin with thanking you for doing this interview! Tell me, who is Kristen Dalton? What have you done before The Dead Zone?

  Kristen Dalton: The Dead Zone is the first television series that I have been a part of. I have worked for USA Network before though, in a movie called They Nest. It was about a small island off the East Coast that becomes infested with a rare type of roach. The bugs just happen to need warm bodies to lay eggs in…yucky. I was “Nell.” She was the total opposite of Dana Bright. Earthy. Blue-collar. But still feisty!

  I also portrayed Tina Louise/Ginger Grant in a movie for CBS called Surviving Gilligan’s Island. That was like a dream come true. I’ve always loved the series growing up. Then, just a year later, I starred as Audrey Meadows/Alice Kramden in a biopic about Jackie Gleason. It was so fun to recreate The Honeymooners. She was so completely opposite of Ginger as well. I like to be challenged by my work. The Dead Zone keeps me pretty busy right now…

  Lilja: How did you get the part of Dana Bright in The Dead Zone? Did you audition or did they handpick you?

  Kristen Dalton: I met them originally when they were looking for Sarah. It wasn’t a good fit, so they moved on and shot the pilot. They wanted more from Dana Bright and wanted to recast the role when the series was picked up, and they remembered me.

  Lilja: When I first saw Dana I got the impression that she wouldn’t be a permanent character in the series. I thought she would just be there for a few episodes and then disappear. Was that the original plan, and if so, what happened? Or was it just my imagination?

  Kristen Dalton: The Pillers, who created the series, saw a real opportunity to introduce her as a love interest other than Sarah. Someone who would represent the future instead of his past, which had obviously moved on. Someone strong. And also, being a reporter, she can offer help to Johnny. She saw him as an opportunity as well, especially early on. But as time goes by, I think that Johnny has helped her grow a great deal…

  Lilja: Are we supposed to like or dislike Dana? Sometimes she can be really sweet but sometimes she can be a bitch as well, particularly to Sarah.

  Kristen Dalton: There is obvious tension since we are both in love with the same man. I don’t think she is a bitch. She’s a strong woman who has grown past playing games. Part of her growth with Johnny is that she wants to help him find some closure on his past life, and so I think she tends to pull no punches with Sarah. To try and make her see things more clearly. She also likes Walt and doesn’t want to see him hurt. If people like or dislike Dana, it will depend a lot on how they feel themselves about a strong, direct woman…

  Lilja: How would you like to see the character develop? We know she is interested in Johnny, but they can’t seem to get it off the ground. Do you hope they will, or would you prefer the game they play now?

  Kristen Dalton: Dana and Johnny have so much in common, I’d like to see them share those things a little more. They have both had rough times in their lives. The thing about someone like Dana is that if Johnny would commit, she’d always be there for him. She’s very tenacious. She has had to be to survive. I’d like to see her be more of a safety net for him at times.

  Lilja: What’s up next for you? I hear there will be six more episodes of The Dead Zone added to season two, but what after that?

  Kristen Dalton: We won’t really know about The Dead Zone until later in the year, but I am considering a couple of film roles in the meantime, so we’ll have to wait and see…

  Lilja: Has there been any decision about a third season?

  Kristen Dalton: We’re keeping our fingers crossed. A lot of it depends on the people who like the show letting USA Network know that they want it back.

  Lilja: Would you be interested in continuing to play Dana if there was a third season?

  Kristen Dalton: As long as I keep getting to grow and develop as a character, I would love to do more.

  Lilja: Were you a fan of King (if you are now) before you got involved in The Dead Zone? Had you read the book before you got the part?

  Kristen Dalton: The only book of his that I had read before I got the role was The Shining. He’s a little too visceral for me. I prefer nonfiction. Science. Biographies. Things like that. But I did enjoy The Dead Zone very much.

  Lilja: OK, thanks for this talk. Do you have any last words for all the fans out there?

  Kristen Dalton: Keep watching the show and writing in to let them know you love it! I’ll be updating my website as well, so make sure to check in (KristenDalton.com). The more that USA Network believes in it, the more that we can continue to provide something worth watching.... Thanks Lilja!

  Lilja: Thank you, Kristen!

  ****

  George Guidall

  Posted: November 24, 2003

  Lilja: Hi George. Thanks for doing this interview. When I read the introduction I got from Simon & Schuster Audio, I wondered if you ever get any time off. It seems like you’d have to work all the time to do all those things. How do you find the time?

  George Guidall: Time off. When you love doing something as much as I love narrating the written word, “time off” is practically a deprivation. After eight hundred or so unabridged narrations, translating the written art form into the spoken art form becomes a way of life. I record from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., four days a week. That means I’m preparing a book while I’m recording one that I’ve already read. It’s a rhythm I’ve developed over the years, so it’s not really as demanding as it may sound. I do always have a book with me, though. If I find myself somewhere with time on my hands and I’m “bookless,” I go into a form of withdrawal and read whatever is near.
Billboards, discarded newspapers, bumper stickers, even the fine print on credit cards can suffice in an emergency.

  Lilja: What do you prefer doing: reading or acting, and why?

  George Guidall: I must tell you, after forty years in the theatre, no activity has as much significance to me or is as satisfying and rewarding as recording a wonderfully written novel. I tour the country with a library presentation entitled AN EVENING WITH GEORGE GUIDALL: THE ART AND ARTIFICE OF AUDIOBOOK NARRATION. With every performance I am constantly amazed at the dedication and commitment that audiobook listeners have demonstrated. After a stage performance, people have waited to compliment me and express their appreciation of my work as an actor. These are moments in time, though, and gradually fade in the minds of the audience. Audiobook listeners, however, spend hours of prime time, not only listening, but forming a relationship with the reader on a very primal level. People have always needed to be told stories. They’ve looked to the storyteller for comfort, for escape, for vicarious adventure and for examples of human potential and achievement that might enrich their lives. Through the grace and talent of some authors I can manage to add to their work a level of emotional immediacy to the reader which makes the book(s) all the more enjoyable. Not better, mind you. Different. Reading Proust is an awesome experience for anyone. Listening to it can bring out emotional shades not otherwise appreciated. I’ve just completed recording Edith Grossman’s new translation of Don Quixote. What a marvelous journey! Listening to it will make it all the more accessible for people (over forty hours of ear time!) and add colors that (I hope!) will contribute to the overall appreciation of this wonderful work. And the same with Stephen King’s Dark Tower series! From The Gunslinger to the end of Roland’s saga, I hope those who read with their ears get as much enjoyment out of the work as I will have done on completing the last book. Performing the work has opened it up for me, allowed me to highlight relationships, accentuate and perhaps even create moods and take full advantage of Stephen King’s imagination. What a pleasure!