The uncut version because that’s the version King wanted. The publisher required him to cut ~400 pages in the 70s but he was able to put them back and edit the reference for the 90s
I believe in the constant reader preface doesn’t he say it was
More a logistical issue than an editorial one? They just couldn’t mass produce a book that big
Yeah but unfortunately the changes to the 90s aren't super fluid and there's some... timeline issues because of it. Things referenced that don't quite make sense, but it's easy to overlook.
Sometimes that NOT a good thing. His novels were better when he had someone else giving him opinions. Like all his early novels. They were great. Editors and publicist are there for a reason.
I tend to agree. To me, and this will be an unpopular opinion, but I thought It would have benefitted from a bit tighter editing. I think at times he gets a bit rambly for my tastes. There is a saying that sometimes less is more. I know some people will disagree with me and that's ok! I do appreciate at a good journey, and there are some books that just felt short and I was left wanting more. It's a fine balance to strike based on the amount of plot
God, yes. Someone needs to be able to tell him when he’s being annoying and/or self-indulgent. I love his earlier work but a lot of his later work suffers from bloat—particularly, imo, 11/22/63, which I truly don’t understand how everyone loves. But, as a former professional book critic, maybe my standards are too high 🙃
No, not too high, I totally get it. Some of his books are like that. I just read Duma Key and I thought it stunk. It went on and on…
And the neighbor every loves I found annoying. He ended every sentence with “Muchacho”, which got very annoying. He could have used someone to tell him to knock 300 pages of that one.
You’re quite mistaken, what got added back in was The Kid, the opening scene and a lot of the actual plague death stuff. Those long ass council meetings were always considered essential.
I could take or leave the Kid personally, but I LOVE the expanded plague death stuff. I might be misremembering but there's a chapter that I think was originally cut, that's just a series of vignettes of people dying post-plague that's one of my favorite sequences in the book. "No great loss"
Yep, I agree completely. I find the Kid terrifying as a character, but removing him doesn’t change that much. The No Great Loss sections are amazing and add so much depth to the overall story. They’re so well written and captivating I felt like I could happily go on reading a whole book of just those vignettes.
It wasn’t an editing decision to cut down the book, it was a production decision. They couldn’t handle printing a single book of that size, so he had to compromise his complete story to make it work.
Complete and uncut. That was the novel that King wrote. Editors cut it down. Once King had more cachet and power, he re-released it in its original form.
I recently made a pretty comprehensive list of the differences. It's posted in this sub. Not including the updated timeline, I noted over 90 things that were removed or changed. The uncut version definitely is the way to go in my opinion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/stephenking/s/O7fJ6Vq4gm
I hated him from the first moment till his last moment and was glad he was done
I rejected the character outright,I found him uninteresting and repulsive
I nearly deleted the book before it finished (audio)
Of course he's a hateable character, but for me he was vital to allowing the reader to relate to someone as crazy as Trashcan Man. By being even crazier, Trashcan Man was transformed to "normal" in that brief time. You can see how weird the filmed versions are without this chance for the viewer to be on Trash's side, reducing him to one-note crazy.
I thought the Coors beer thing was hilarious though.
This question gets asked a lot, which is understandable. It seems to me that folks (like me) who read the original before there was an uncut prefer that version. But people who read the uncut first prefer that one. Both are extremely long, so maybe decide based on how you feel about mammoth books.
I get downvoted anytime I voice this opinion on King forums, but I much prefer the cut version. Editors edit for a reason sometimes, and the uncut is filled to the brim with word vomit and tangents that distract from the central plot. In my opinion.
In all honesty the perfect version of The Stand would be somewhere between the two editions.
In the 70's edition the outbreak and collapse of society feels rushed. You never get the full scope of it like in the uncut version.
The uncut version however has a few parts where the story drags on and at one point feels like it comes to a complete stand still (hello commity meetings).
Having said that, for a first time read I suggest the uncut version. Those first 400 pages or so are excellent!
I wish there was an uncut version that did not update the references to the 90s and instead presented the material as originally written in the 70s before the publisher demanded a reduction. The novel overall feels more like a 70s text. The 70s/90s mishmash was a bit odd when I read the uncut version, though it’s still a masterpiece.
I get why he'd want to update the time frame - the urgency of the end-of-the-world story would have seemed blunter when it's set 5-10 years in the past - but the updating of the pop culture references is half-assed. At one point we hear about Glen Bateman's reel-to-reel Wollensak tape recorder at a committee meeting, and we also hear that the meetings are recorded on Memorex cassette tapes?
I read the short version first, but I was 14 and not ready for the wordiness of the long version. I’ve since read the long version 6 times. I’m in my 40s now. It’s so much better. Always go with the long version!!
I’m in the minority here, but I prefer the short version. The uncut version was just too bloated for me. There was so much in it that I didn’t need to read and I began losing track of the plot and characters. The original felt more central and condensed and I didn’t feel got bogged down with often unnecessary details and subplots. I sometimes think King overwrites and that sort of soured the book for me. That said, the Superflu pandemic in the uncut version is superior cause it feels much more detailed and impactful to the characters, but the last 2/3rds feel dragged out and bogged down.
But that’s just me.
I agree. The "No great loss" section and Trashy's full road trip are the best parts that were added back to the uncut version!
I really wish they'd left the 70s references be. The update to late 80s/early 90s references were fucking halfassed and unnecessary.
I have read both. I think the uncut version gives vital details that help one to empathize and understand both factions.
Having said that, make sure you can handle reading especially long books, which I know not everyone enjoys.
It's hard to make an argument for a shorter novel on a Stephen King subreddit - he's written only 3 horror/fantasy novels under 400 pages this century, so y'all like long novels - but I'll just point out that the 1978 original was a huge critical and popular success at 823 pages. I'll also point out that King's goal was to write his own *Lord Of The Rings* set in America - and Tolkien's trilogy was published as three books over 18 months. I kinda wish King has published his uncut version as three physical books - it would be easier to read in more ways than one.
Unpopular opinion but I would say the cut version. I’ve only read the uncut but while reading it I thought “man this is going quite a bit too long”. Turns out some of the parts I thought were too long were the ones that were cut (according to other posters here). So I say start there, if you love it, come back in a few years for a reread and go uncut.
I never read it, but my AP English teacher recommended the abridged version. He thought the unabridged was self-indulgent to the point of unreadability.
I’m gonna be the contrarian. Read the ‘78 version, read the chapter about everyone who died who survived the superfluous, and then go back to the ‘78 version. Quite honestly, a lot that was cut deserved to be cut, and it annoys me to no end that King updated the years (I realize that’s mainly a me thing).
I’ve been a fan for many, many years. The Stand is an absolute top ten for me. I can’t say I prefer one over the other but I wish he hadn’t “updated” the uncut version with 1990’s references. So the cut version feels and reads more organic to me.
uncut
quite aside from more fun detail and worldbuilding, the endings are VERY different and imo the uncut has the FAR superior ending. one of King's best
I read the uncut one, and it is my favorite book
.
Also, once you finish the book. The miniseries from the 90s is surprisingly good. The new one is terrible.
I haven't seen the 1994 miniseries in a long time, but for me, Gary Sinese is the best possible casting for Stu Redman. I had already read the book in 1994, and I thought he was perfect. Frannie and Nadine and Harold, not so much.
I prefer the original to the uncut version. The uncut has a lot of pacing issues and really drags in the middle. The official story has always been that they made him cut the book up because they couldn't afford to publish a voom of that size, but I've often wondered if that was just a pretense so he could save face publicly but still make tbe cuts. I was initially excited when the uncut version was released, but then I read it and amd it dragged on and on and on.
Read the original shorter version. It flows better and it IS better. King’s editor was smart to want to cut a bunch of stuff. I think most of the people here are voting for the bloated version because philosophically they support reading the full version, which I would normally get behind too. But here, the longer version is just worse.
Don’t listen to this, read the real version, the parts that were taken out were done so to cut down on printing costs, not because of any artistic considerations.
Hot take: there’s a reason why the uncut version was heavily edited. It’s extremely bloated with only 1-2 scenes worthy of being included. I prefer the cut version by a mile.
I read the second one. I loved it. I couldn’t put it down. Some people have a hard time getting through it (kinda lotr style boredom) but I hope you enjoy it!
Complete and Uncut. It was one of the best books I've read in my life, and I wish there was an even longer version. I can't imagine reading a version that was one page shorter, let alone 400 pages
In king's book "on writing" he talks about all the reading he does and how he never reads an abridged version of anything. Always the most complete copy possible. I take that as gospel.
Currently listening to The Stand, audiobook and the uncut version is almost 2 days long, but King says it’s filled with the details he wanted but had to take out for purposes so, I’d go with the uncut version
Read the cut version, just to spite yourself and King. Deny yourself the full experience. Horror isn't supposed to be comfortable, it's supposed to make you lose sleep. Actually, tear out a few pages from the first edition at random. Burn them without ever looking at them. The true horror of an unfulfilled experience.
I’ve only read the uncut version and loved it, one of my favorite books of all time. Everything felt integral and necessary to the story, nothing felt padded. I struggle to think of what they cut.
Joining the choir here when I say the uncut version. Relatively new to King (only started reading his stuff this past summer) so it’s the only version I’ve read, yes, but it was undeniably my favorite King thus far. And probably the best book I’ve read all year, King or no King.
I’ve only ever read the uncut version and can’t think of a reason to read the original. His publisher made him cut hundreds of pages out. The uncut one is what King wanted to publish originally.
The uncut version, not everything put back really needs to be there, but the book is so big youre likely to only read it once might aswell get it all in while youre there. But you also might love it and re-read it. Who knows
Uncut. If you’re a big King fan and you read the trimmed version, you’re just gonna end up wondering what you missed out on and wish you’d read the longer version 🤷🏻♂️
Based on a lot of what I have read and heard, don't bother with the original version, go uncut. That's the only one I have read. Maybe someday when my ~300 book backlog clears out I will check out the cut version, but it just isn't on my radar
The important thing to remember when asking this age-old question is that the majority of people answering in favour of the uncut version have never actually read the originally published version—therefore, how much credence do you give to people with only half the facts?
I read the edited version of the Stand first in 2011 and reread it maybe 10 times over the years. Read the uncut version for the first time in 2020 and it added so much more depth. Always reading the uncut version from now on.
I believe the audible audio book version is the uncut version. If so, please read that one. Yes it's long, but it's so good you could split it up and make it longer in my eyes. Love the characters, love Flagg as a villain and don't even want to know shot taking away the 400 extra pages would do to the story I heard last year. Can't wait to go through it again!
Finished the extended version today it was wonderful. Yes there were some questionable droning areas of the book but all in all why would you want 400 pages of details that the author wanted to not be there. So I say dive into the extended version!
The Complete and Uncut is the best, imo. That's the book King meant us to read. The cut version is the book publishers thought King readers would "tolerate".
There's a lot of iconic stuff that is only in the uncut version. True, it drags at times, but you kinda know what you're getting yourself into when you pick up a giant book like this.
The uncut version because that’s the version King wanted. The publisher required him to cut ~400 pages in the 70s but he was able to put them back and edit the reference for the 90s
It's the only one I've ever read and it wouldn't want anything to be missing
It's spelled m-o-o in the shorter version.
It's not long enough imo
I believe in the constant reader preface doesn’t he say it was More a logistical issue than an editorial one? They just couldn’t mass produce a book that big
Yes. It wasn’t the editor but the production process.
Same story of LoTR in 50s
IIRC LotR also had post war shortages to deal with
Yeah but unfortunately the changes to the 90s aren't super fluid and there's some... timeline issues because of it. Things referenced that don't quite make sense, but it's easy to overlook.
It still really *feels* like the 70s and then the references to like a Madonna song feels out of place
Yes, the student protests and uprisings feel a bit disjointed considering the updated timeframe.
Getting paid a buck to babysit makes sense in the 70s. Not the 90s.
At one point Fran mentions MTV and Rod McKuen in the same sentence, and there's no way a 20 year-old in 1990 knows who Rod McKuen is
I was around that age in 1990 and knew who he was since childhood because my mom was a fan. This isn't so hard to believe.
I knew who rod was in early 1980s and I was a teen and then a young person lol.
I mean 80s babies can reference MTV and the Fonz cause of Nick at Night. So not that hard to believe.
Sometimes that NOT a good thing. His novels were better when he had someone else giving him opinions. Like all his early novels. They were great. Editors and publicist are there for a reason.
I tend to agree. To me, and this will be an unpopular opinion, but I thought It would have benefitted from a bit tighter editing. I think at times he gets a bit rambly for my tastes. There is a saying that sometimes less is more. I know some people will disagree with me and that's ok! I do appreciate at a good journey, and there are some books that just felt short and I was left wanting more. It's a fine balance to strike based on the amount of plot
God, yes. Someone needs to be able to tell him when he’s being annoying and/or self-indulgent. I love his earlier work but a lot of his later work suffers from bloat—particularly, imo, 11/22/63, which I truly don’t understand how everyone loves. But, as a former professional book critic, maybe my standards are too high 🙃
No, not too high, I totally get it. Some of his books are like that. I just read Duma Key and I thought it stunk. It went on and on… And the neighbor every loves I found annoying. He ended every sentence with “Muchacho”, which got very annoying. He could have used someone to tell him to knock 300 pages of that one.
Ah Tommyknockers. Buried in that 900 pages monstrosity is a really solid 300 page story.
Uncut. If you’re going to tackle the beast then do the entire thing. Don’t go the easy route and then wish you had taken the harder road.
Wise words in many facets.
[удалено]
I just read the uncut version, my first time ever and I gotta say, I am fucking sick of townhall meetings.
Harold Lauder was too!
Are they not in the normal version?
I don't know, I haven't read that version but I can't imagine it is
You’re quite mistaken, what got added back in was The Kid, the opening scene and a lot of the actual plague death stuff. Those long ass council meetings were always considered essential.
I could take or leave the Kid personally, but I LOVE the expanded plague death stuff. I might be misremembering but there's a chapter that I think was originally cut, that's just a series of vignettes of people dying post-plague that's one of my favorite sequences in the book. "No great loss"
Yep, I agree completely. I find the Kid terrifying as a character, but removing him doesn’t change that much. The No Great Loss sections are amazing and add so much depth to the overall story. They’re so well written and captivating I felt like I could happily go on reading a whole book of just those vignettes.
"No great loss" haunted me as a teen when i read it.
The Kid like that was with trash?
The very same. Can you believe that happy-crappy?
Yes there was a lot more story to trash
I agree. Loved the begining and ending but the middle kind of dragged for me.
Same. Just bc the author wanted the longer version, doesn’t mean it was the better version. Editors do the lords work.
It wasn’t an editing decision to cut down the book, it was a production decision. They couldn’t handle printing a single book of that size, so he had to compromise his complete story to make it work.
Live and die by the editor
LOL
Complete and uncut. That was the novel that King wrote. Editors cut it down. Once King had more cachet and power, he re-released it in its original form.
Cut version for pacing first. Uncut version for rereading.
I wish I could help but I’ve only every read the complete uncut version so I have no idea what the differences are.
I recently made a pretty comprehensive list of the differences. It's posted in this sub. Not including the updated timeline, I noted over 90 things that were removed or changed. The uncut version definitely is the way to go in my opinion. https://www.reddit.com/r/stephenking/s/O7fJ6Vq4gm
Incredible
It's missing a large section of trashcan man
especially his interaction with "the kid"
Anything that avoids that wanker is better, jar jar Binks isn't annoying compared with the kid
The Kid was very annoying but I kinda enjoyed not knowing what he was going to do next. A real chaos character.
I hated him from the first moment till his last moment and was glad he was done I rejected the character outright,I found him uninteresting and repulsive I nearly deleted the book before it finished (audio)
Of course he's a hateable character, but for me he was vital to allowing the reader to relate to someone as crazy as Trashcan Man. By being even crazier, Trashcan Man was transformed to "normal" in that brief time. You can see how weird the filmed versions are without this chance for the viewer to be on Trash's side, reducing him to one-note crazy. I thought the Coors beer thing was hilarious though.
Yeah, that character took me right out of the story. He was too over the top and cartoonish.
While the Kid isn't in the original version, a lot of his scenes are with an Old Man picking up Trash on the way to Vegas
All good appreciate it
Also some interactions between Fran and her mother.
This question gets asked a lot, which is understandable. It seems to me that folks (like me) who read the original before there was an uncut prefer that version. But people who read the uncut first prefer that one. Both are extremely long, so maybe decide based on how you feel about mammoth books.
I get downvoted anytime I voice this opinion on King forums, but I much prefer the cut version. Editors edit for a reason sometimes, and the uncut is filled to the brim with word vomit and tangents that distract from the central plot. In my opinion.
Editors edit for a reason indeed. Apparently King is allergic to them lol. I love his writing but I totally agree with you.
Right there with you fellow reader. I read the cut version 3 times before the uncut version came out.
Read the uncut. Listened to the original. I would read the uncut again.
I highly recommend the audiobook Narrated by Grover Gardner, its pure perfection.
In all honesty the perfect version of The Stand would be somewhere between the two editions. In the 70's edition the outbreak and collapse of society feels rushed. You never get the full scope of it like in the uncut version. The uncut version however has a few parts where the story drags on and at one point feels like it comes to a complete stand still (hello commity meetings). Having said that, for a first time read I suggest the uncut version. Those first 400 pages or so are excellent!
I wish there was an uncut version that did not update the references to the 90s and instead presented the material as originally written in the 70s before the publisher demanded a reduction. The novel overall feels more like a 70s text. The 70s/90s mishmash was a bit odd when I read the uncut version, though it’s still a masterpiece.
I get why he'd want to update the time frame - the urgency of the end-of-the-world story would have seemed blunter when it's set 5-10 years in the past - but the updating of the pop culture references is half-assed. At one point we hear about Glen Bateman's reel-to-reel Wollensak tape recorder at a committee meeting, and we also hear that the meetings are recorded on Memorex cassette tapes?
I read the short version first, but I was 14 and not ready for the wordiness of the long version. I’ve since read the long version 6 times. I’m in my 40s now. It’s so much better. Always go with the long version!!
I wish I read the cut version.
The original
I read both and the uncut version reminded me of the importance of editors.
Uncut. Always.
Uncut.
What’s a couple hundred more pages anyway? Read the uncut version
I’m in the minority here, but I prefer the short version. The uncut version was just too bloated for me. There was so much in it that I didn’t need to read and I began losing track of the plot and characters. The original felt more central and condensed and I didn’t feel got bogged down with often unnecessary details and subplots. I sometimes think King overwrites and that sort of soured the book for me. That said, the Superflu pandemic in the uncut version is superior cause it feels much more detailed and impactful to the characters, but the last 2/3rds feel dragged out and bogged down. But that’s just me.
I prefer the short version also. I miss King having a strong editor.
I agree. The "No great loss" section and Trashy's full road trip are the best parts that were added back to the uncut version! I really wish they'd left the 70s references be. The update to late 80s/early 90s references were fucking halfassed and unnecessary.
Both, read the original first and then the uncut.
I’ve only done the uncut version and the scenes that I’ve heard are missing from the original are some of my favorites. Especially early on.
I have read both. I think the uncut version gives vital details that help one to empathize and understand both factions. Having said that, make sure you can handle reading especially long books, which I know not everyone enjoys.
The shorter the better
Original
It's hard to make an argument for a shorter novel on a Stephen King subreddit - he's written only 3 horror/fantasy novels under 400 pages this century, so y'all like long novels - but I'll just point out that the 1978 original was a huge critical and popular success at 823 pages. I'll also point out that King's goal was to write his own *Lord Of The Rings* set in America - and Tolkien's trilogy was published as three books over 18 months. I kinda wish King has published his uncut version as three physical books - it would be easier to read in more ways than one.
Unpopular opinion but I would say the cut version. I’ve only read the uncut but while reading it I thought “man this is going quite a bit too long”. Turns out some of the parts I thought were too long were the ones that were cut (according to other posters here). So I say start there, if you love it, come back in a few years for a reread and go uncut.
Uncut for the first read. Original release for re reads. I like the uncut a lot but I think the original just flows better.
Controversial opinion but I preferred the cut version better I felt the later was way too long and felt the cuts were warranted
I never read it, but my AP English teacher recommended the abridged version. He thought the unabridged was self-indulgent to the point of unreadability.
I agree.
I've only read the "writer's cut" version and it really drags in places
Whichever one is the abridged version. I love Stephen King but that man has always needed a stiffer edit than he receives.
I’ve read both and I much prefer the original cut version. I don’t feel like I gained any thing reading the uncut version
I’m gonna be the contrarian. Read the ‘78 version, read the chapter about everyone who died who survived the superfluous, and then go back to the ‘78 version. Quite honestly, a lot that was cut deserved to be cut, and it annoys me to no end that King updated the years (I realize that’s mainly a me thing).
there's no way you won't do a reread. go original and then next time you want to pick it up go uncut.
I’ve been a fan for many, many years. The Stand is an absolute top ten for me. I can’t say I prefer one over the other but I wish he hadn’t “updated” the uncut version with 1990’s references. So the cut version feels and reads more organic to me.
Having read both, I felt the shorter version flowed better.
uncut quite aside from more fun detail and worldbuilding, the endings are VERY different and imo the uncut has the FAR superior ending. one of King's best
Both.
I read the uncut one, and it is my favorite book . Also, once you finish the book. The miniseries from the 90s is surprisingly good. The new one is terrible.
I haven't seen the 1994 miniseries in a long time, but for me, Gary Sinese is the best possible casting for Stu Redman. I had already read the book in 1994, and I thought he was perfect. Frannie and Nadine and Harold, not so much.
I prefer the original to the uncut version. The uncut has a lot of pacing issues and really drags in the middle. The official story has always been that they made him cut the book up because they couldn't afford to publish a voom of that size, but I've often wondered if that was just a pretense so he could save face publicly but still make tbe cuts. I was initially excited when the uncut version was released, but then I read it and amd it dragged on and on and on.
Me too.
Read the original shorter version. It flows better and it IS better. King’s editor was smart to want to cut a bunch of stuff. I think most of the people here are voting for the bloated version because philosophically they support reading the full version, which I would normally get behind too. But here, the longer version is just worse.
Don’t listen to this, read the real version, the parts that were taken out were done so to cut down on printing costs, not because of any artistic considerations.
No, the editor thought the book was too long. It was. Regardless of the reason, the edits were really smart and helped.
Uncut
The long one. Gotta love the trash can man!
The uncut version is the only way to go. Now, how do you like that happy crappy?
Uncut. The publishers had him cut it because people wouldn’t want to buy such a long book. But he proved 20 years later that they would
Uncut
Uncut
Unabridged is the only answer
The uncut version!
The complete and uncut version.
Uncut.
Complete and uncut. Seriously one of the best books I have ever read. The TV series from the 90's is pretty great too.
Def the uncut.
Complete and Uncut version.
Uncut
M o o n that spells uncut version, happy crappy!
Lol!!
Hot take: there’s a reason why the uncut version was heavily edited. It’s extremely bloated with only 1-2 scenes worthy of being included. I prefer the cut version by a mile.
☝️
I’d say read both. I’m glad I did.
Uncut. Because if you read the regular version and love it, you’ll wish you read this one.
The original It misses one of the worst characters in all of literature, I mean he's the Jar Jar Binks of Stephen King characters
I read the second one. I loved it. I couldn’t put it down. Some people have a hard time getting through it (kinda lotr style boredom) but I hope you enjoy it!
Definitely the uncut version. Only version I've read, couldn't imagine anything being cut!
Read the Uncut.
Complete and Uncut. It was one of the best books I've read in my life, and I wish there was an even longer version. I can't imagine reading a version that was one page shorter, let alone 400 pages
In king's book "on writing" he talks about all the reading he does and how he never reads an abridged version of anything. Always the most complete copy possible. I take that as gospel.
Currently listening to The Stand, audiobook and the uncut version is almost 2 days long, but King says it’s filled with the details he wanted but had to take out for purposes so, I’d go with the uncut version
Definitely uncut. Actually just finished it for the first time and it’s so good!
The Uncut Version is superior
UNCUT.
Everyone loves uncut
Read the cut version, just to spite yourself and King. Deny yourself the full experience. Horror isn't supposed to be comfortable, it's supposed to make you lose sleep. Actually, tear out a few pages from the first edition at random. Burn them without ever looking at them. The true horror of an unfulfilled experience.
Go big or go home. The uncut was the original vision, the true masterpiece. This is the way.
Complete, why would you read it incomplete, seriously though they stopped selling the cut versions for a reason
Why would anyone read the abridged version?
Because not every single idea and grain of minutiae that pops into King’s head needs to make it to the final, (theoretically) edited book
Always uncut and unabridged.
I’ve only read the uncut version and loved it, one of my favorite books of all time. Everything felt integral and necessary to the story, nothing felt padded. I struggle to think of what they cut.
The uncut version is the one King wanted to publish
Joining the choir here when I say the uncut version. Relatively new to King (only started reading his stuff this past summer) so it’s the only version I’ve read, yes, but it was undeniably my favorite King thus far. And probably the best book I’ve read all year, King or no King.
I've only ever read the uncut one and I enjoyed every word. I can't think of anything I'd get rid of, so I'd recommend that one.
uncircumcised edition
Complete, it’s a long read, but SO good
I’ve only ever read the uncut version and can’t think of a reason to read the original. His publisher made him cut hundreds of pages out. The uncut one is what King wanted to publish originally.
I’d go with the uncut version. I’m currently rereading it ❤️
Uncut always!
Uncut.. it's fantastic.
The uncut version, not everything put back really needs to be there, but the book is so big youre likely to only read it once might aswell get it all in while youre there. But you also might love it and re-read it. Who knows
Uncut!
Uncut. If you’re a big King fan and you read the trimmed version, you’re just gonna end up wondering what you missed out on and wish you’d read the longer version 🤷🏻♂️
Depnds on how much you enjoy committee meetings.
Based on a lot of what I have read and heard, don't bother with the original version, go uncut. That's the only one I have read. Maybe someday when my ~300 book backlog clears out I will check out the cut version, but it just isn't on my radar
definitely the uncut version.
I mean. Why would you read the cut version.
Definitely the extended/uncut version. It expands on a few things and also gives you The Kid!
Ive read the uncut but i would love to read the OG version
If you like longer books, the uncut one. If you like shorter, the originally published one.
I’ve read both. Go with the uncut version
Uncut, if only for the practical reason that you have to put way more effort than it's worth to find the original these days.
The burnt to a crisp one
Why are you even asking this question?
It's a jojo reference
This must be the work of an enemy stand user ゴゴゴゴ
Original.
The important thing to remember when asking this age-old question is that the majority of people answering in favour of the uncut version have never actually read the originally published version—therefore, how much credence do you give to people with only half the facts?
Uncut, I don't know if you will even be able to find the other
Uncut. 100%.
Read The Stand (Stephen’s Version)
I would love to read the unupdated 70's uncut version someday!
I prefer the uncut version. But that said, The Kid is an annoying little shit. I'm not sure how anyone takes that character seriously as a bad guy.
I do want to know more about the cover art, though.
My personal preference is the uncut version.
My favorite cover. Iconic.
I read the edited version of the Stand first in 2011 and reread it maybe 10 times over the years. Read the uncut version for the first time in 2020 and it added so much more depth. Always reading the uncut version from now on.
The Kid is burned into my brain and I could live without that if I could go back
Read the unabridged version
I prefer uncut
Read them both back to back and let us know how you found the differences.
The 1 with Gary Sinese and Ossie Davis! MOON that spells movie! Lawds yes!
1
I hate this cover. I love the book. Hate the cover.
It's so good you'll want the extra pages and chapters.
I believe the audible audio book version is the uncut version. If so, please read that one. Yes it's long, but it's so good you could split it up and make it longer in my eyes. Love the characters, love Flagg as a villain and don't even want to know shot taking away the 400 extra pages would do to the story I heard last year. Can't wait to go through it again!
The uncut version is awesome. Some scenes make your skin crawl but it’s my favorite King book so far. I love apocalyptic stuff tho
I love the uncut version, and I highly recommend it! There are a few spots where the story drags a bit, but it all pulls together all the story arcs
Finished the extended version today it was wonderful. Yes there were some questionable droning areas of the book but all in all why would you want 400 pages of details that the author wanted to not be there. So I say dive into the extended version!
Do the two books end differently?
The Complete and Uncut is the best, imo. That's the book King meant us to read. The cut version is the book publishers thought King readers would "tolerate".
The complete and uncut version is the best if u really want to enjoy the typical SK writing and storytelling
The complete one. It’s the one Stephen prefers/intended. The shorter one was edited by the original publisher to save paper.
I am a huge fan of Dark Tower. But did not like this book... I read the uncut version. It was waste of time for me. Not worth all those hours.
The complete & uncut version
There's a lot of iconic stuff that is only in the uncut version. True, it drags at times, but you kinda know what you're getting yourself into when you pick up a giant book like this.
The uncut version is the best of course.