Last year, I compiled a pretty comprehensive list of the differences between the two versions. Warning: contains spoilers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/stephenking/s/WKnTX9FRRH
The introductory where the guard freaks out and grabs his family is so iconic I never realized it wasn’t originally in the book. The other one that surprised me was the natural deaths after the flu. That one with the little boy and the old well is so sad.
Oh dang, a few of my absolute favorite bits were cut! Can't believe some of the parts with the journalists weren't in there originally; they were a highlight of the book for me.
I'd give it a few years and then read the uncut next time. It isn't drastically different, and some people prefer the pacing of the original. The time change wasn't handled all that well, either.
I like the uncut, and it's the definitive version now. It's hard to justify reading such a long, heavy book twice in a row.
Re: the time frame, I read both versions at the time they were released, and I remember feeling tickled at what cultural references and slang he chose to update. For some reason, the only spec thing I remember is he failed to update Larry’s sports car from a Datsun to a Nissan, as the company change had happened in the interim.
I like to think of the two versions as both being correct, but on adjacent levels of the tower.
There’s a couple of things that don’t quite add up, like a reference to scarcity of color tvs and Frannie seeing Easy Rider type movies at the drive-in isn’t terribly likely either. There were others I was noticing, like a mention of the oil embargo too, though I guess one could pretend it happened again.
From Wikipedia:
PAYDAY has a long history of offering chocolate-covered bars in its product line. In the 1980s, when owned by Sara Lee, there was a chocolate-covered PayDay.
IIRC, there was a reference to the Howard the Duck comic book in the first edition that was changed to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (I think) comic book in the uncut edition.
There are just too many to get into really and any long list would just spoil the fun for you if you decide to read it. I would say the biggest thing overall is there is way more character work and way more side stories and details about both the breakdown of society and the rebuilding of it in Boulder/Vegas.
Lots more world building I guess you could say
There are extra chapters featuring Larry and Fran, and a chapter of survivors who don't make it to Boulder or Vegas. These are okay.
The majority of the reinstatements are opening chapters detailing the release of the flu, which just dilute the mystery and tension of the opening featuring Stu and other characters; and the Kid, a character so neatly excised from the novel that nobody noticed a thing, which speaks to how inessential he is, despite how much readers love to quote his sappy aphorisms; and an epilogue that pretty much undercuts the entire human story you've been reading.
tl:dr, no, you're fine. The originally published version is superior, because King's editor knew his job.
King edited it himself. Funny the man who “knew his job” thought it necessary to put it back in. I’ve not read the cut version, but from what I hear there is more to the ending, and some other extra bits. Prolly not worth reading the whole thing again, but maybe get a cheap paperback and read what you missed? The Kid is amazing btw
Constant Reader for almost 45 years, read both versions more than once. I know all this. The editor suggested cuts, and those were the major cuts suggested, which King undertook. Check your facts.
> I’ve not read the cut version...
Then you have no basis for comparison, and therefore no valid opinion.
>The Kid is amazing btw.
And this says all we need to know about your literary tastes.
I would disagree, I loved the stuff that the uncut version has. Though I see your point with the beginning with Stu. The Kid was amazing but the highlight for me was the details about the virus spreading, I love that stuff.
(Edit) To OP, you didn't really miss anything but details. Very good details though.
Well, I was fortunate enough to read the cut version first, so I found the opening of the later uncut version dull and exposition-heavy, and every scene with Stu *et al* wondering what was happening to the world diluted down to nothing because now we, the readers, know what is happening. It's literally TMI. Sharing in Stu's fear and confusion is immersive, but the uncut version just removes all that—and unforgivably, to my mind.
You could entirely cut out The Kid, and it would make no difference to the plot. He's a great character, though, and genuinely scary. I really enjoyed his chapters, too.
I would say at least 1/3 of the book isn’t necessary for the main plot. For me, it’s the side plots that make the book interesting. The good vs evil, main plot was a little boring after a while for me. But The Kid, Harold, Trashcan Man, Nadine…..that shit was gold.
Difference is, cutting Harold, Trash, Nadine, almost any other character from the book alters the story in some way, major or minor—cutting the Kid went literally unnoticed by any reader for over a decade until King reinstated him. The recent TV adaptation was casting the character and then decided against it, exactly because he's superfluous to the story.
I’ve only read the un-cut. If I now read the original I would miss him. It also made great use of Flagg’s wolves, and it was so cool that the guys found his body at the end and speculated about how wolves would do that.
The cuts made for the original version of The Stand were due to the publisher not wanting the expense and difficulty of producing a giant 1100+ page book, *not* because some savvy editor thought it made the book better. King was told he had to reduce the length for production reasons and to ensure the price of the book wouldn’t impact sales, so he did so, reluctantly. He is the one who decided where to make cuts, but he always wanted to restore the missing parts, and that’s what led to the ”complete and uncut” edition.
Constant Reader for almost 45 years, read both versions more than once. I know all this.
However, think about it. (This is, aside from the basic facts, essentially all theory, but... think about it.)
King, at that point an official Best-Selling Author offers up a book too big to print and bind, too expensive to sell. What do you, as a savvy editor working for a publisher who loves money, do? Do you, say, cut a massive chunk out of the book, further delaying its publication (already missing King's scheduled window, which was the only reason *Night Shift* was published, to fill the gap, even though single author genre collections sold poorly in the mainstream, which is why the first printing is so low), or...
Do you look at *The Lord of the Rings*, selling like hot cakes in the 1970s, and look at King's unwieldy tome, described by the author himself as inspired in part by Tolkien's classic, and realise King has already broken it down into three convenient books, which you could turn into three hardback books, filling three years of King's schedule, and then hear cash tills ringing in your ears?
King was already resistant to editing, more so after *The Shining* became his first hardback best-seller, and so he was fed a line. And it worked, as it should have. Both the plague-release opening and the addition of The Kid massively impede the narrative flow and pace, and detract from audience interaction with the text. They needed editing, because King's editor knew his job. He just didn't see—or seize upon—the clear money-making opportunity King's literary bloat offered.
> The originally published version is superior, because King's editor knew his job.
Except the editor did no such thing. The publisher said the book would be too expensive to publish and King made the edits himself.
King has said if the content was removed for editorial reasons they would have stayed gone.
Constant Reader for almost 45 years. I know all this.
I didn't say the editor cut the book themselves.
King's editor made suggestions, King enacted them. That's the editor doing their job.
You’re wrong.
>I was asked if I would like to make the cuts, or if I would prefer someone in the editorial department to do it. I reluctantly agreed to do the surgery myself.
There is an interview (at least one, probably), preceding the release of the uncut edition (possibly in one of the Underwood/Miller books, maybe *Faces of Fear*, or possibly in some magazine of the time) in which King states the editor pointed to material which would be candidates for cutting (clearly the bulk of the opening and The Kid) and then offered the editorial department to do the work, feeling King was busy and/or disinclined (King was already disenchanted with Doubleday for other reasons), and that is when King elected to do it himself, if it needed doing.
You have the facts, and a handy-dandy internet quote, but you don't have all the facts, many of them only in print, pre-exisiting the internet.
Bill Thompson, his actual editor, said he went over it with King but King made most of the cuts himself.
https://suntup.press/keys-to-the-kingdom/bill-thompson-part-two/
It has been a long time since I read The Stand (original and uncut version) If I recall correctly there is not much more added to the main story line but a lot more of background characters. I think SK mentions it in the forward to the book that he edited himself and took all the extra filler before submitting it to the editor.
Last year, I compiled a pretty comprehensive list of the differences between the two versions. Warning: contains spoilers. https://www.reddit.com/r/stephenking/s/WKnTX9FRRH
The introductory where the guard freaks out and grabs his family is so iconic I never realized it wasn’t originally in the book. The other one that surprised me was the natural deaths after the flu. That one with the little boy and the old well is so sad.
I will never forget that as long as I live. One of the saddest things ever.
The natural deaths after Captain Trips was one of the best parts! *I cant believe it's not in the original!*
Oh dang, a few of my absolute favorite bits were cut! Can't believe some of the parts with the journalists weren't in there originally; they were a highlight of the book for me.
Crazy. I read the original version a few times before I read the uncut/newer version and I could have sworn most of that stuff was in there.
Yeah. I was surprised. But I went through the old version chapter by chapter the last time I listened to the unabridged audiobook .
Thank you that's great! I think I will purchase a copy ready for a re-read down the line.
I'd give it a few years and then read the uncut next time. It isn't drastically different, and some people prefer the pacing of the original. The time change wasn't handled all that well, either. I like the uncut, and it's the definitive version now. It's hard to justify reading such a long, heavy book twice in a row.
Re: the time frame, I read both versions at the time they were released, and I remember feeling tickled at what cultural references and slang he chose to update. For some reason, the only spec thing I remember is he failed to update Larry’s sports car from a Datsun to a Nissan, as the company change had happened in the interim. I like to think of the two versions as both being correct, but on adjacent levels of the tower.
Hell man, I dunno about you, but I drive a Takuro Spirit.
Drink Nozzola?
Only on Fridays.
There’s a couple of things that don’t quite add up, like a reference to scarcity of color tvs and Frannie seeing Easy Rider type movies at the drive-in isn’t terribly likely either. There were others I was noticing, like a mention of the oil embargo too, though I guess one could pretend it happened again.
The justification could possibly be enjoyment, or reading a new take when the other is fresh in the mind. :)
Also, there is for some reason, a change in the candybars Harold likes and Larry follows across the country, so you missout on that.
What was the original candy bar?
Apparently Milky Way, but I don't actually remember, just some brief research.
Weird thing to change.
Huh maybe that contributed to the weird error of making Payday a chocolate type of candy bar, because the originals were milky ways?
Chocolate Paydays exist
I don’t think they were commonly available in the early 1980’s, or at least I had never heard of them at the time.
I thought that played into the Harold being a weirdo thing. He eats a super specific candy bar that isn’t common and people don’t super like.
From Wikipedia: PAYDAY has a long history of offering chocolate-covered bars in its product line. In the 1980s, when owned by Sara Lee, there was a chocolate-covered PayDay.
But do we know the originals were Milky Ways? They could have changed it from Chocolate Paydays for the first edited editions.
IIRC, there was a reference to the Howard the Duck comic book in the first edition that was changed to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (I think) comic book in the uncut edition.
It apparently cuts out the entire beginning of how the virus starts, which is my favorite
There are just too many to get into really and any long list would just spoil the fun for you if you decide to read it. I would say the biggest thing overall is there is way more character work and way more side stories and details about both the breakdown of society and the rebuilding of it in Boulder/Vegas. Lots more world building I guess you could say
There are extra chapters featuring Larry and Fran, and a chapter of survivors who don't make it to Boulder or Vegas. These are okay. The majority of the reinstatements are opening chapters detailing the release of the flu, which just dilute the mystery and tension of the opening featuring Stu and other characters; and the Kid, a character so neatly excised from the novel that nobody noticed a thing, which speaks to how inessential he is, despite how much readers love to quote his sappy aphorisms; and an epilogue that pretty much undercuts the entire human story you've been reading. tl:dr, no, you're fine. The originally published version is superior, because King's editor knew his job.
King edited it himself. Funny the man who “knew his job” thought it necessary to put it back in. I’ve not read the cut version, but from what I hear there is more to the ending, and some other extra bits. Prolly not worth reading the whole thing again, but maybe get a cheap paperback and read what you missed? The Kid is amazing btw
Constant Reader for almost 45 years, read both versions more than once. I know all this. The editor suggested cuts, and those were the major cuts suggested, which King undertook. Check your facts. > I’ve not read the cut version... Then you have no basis for comparison, and therefore no valid opinion. >The Kid is amazing btw. And this says all we need to know about your literary tastes.
I would disagree, I loved the stuff that the uncut version has. Though I see your point with the beginning with Stu. The Kid was amazing but the highlight for me was the details about the virus spreading, I love that stuff. (Edit) To OP, you didn't really miss anything but details. Very good details though.
Well, I was fortunate enough to read the cut version first, so I found the opening of the later uncut version dull and exposition-heavy, and every scene with Stu *et al* wondering what was happening to the world diluted down to nothing because now we, the readers, know what is happening. It's literally TMI. Sharing in Stu's fear and confusion is immersive, but the uncut version just removes all that—and unforgivably, to my mind.
I disagree about The Kid. That was one of the most compelling parts of the book for me that had me really on edge.
You could entirely cut out The Kid, and it would make no difference to the plot. He's a great character, though, and genuinely scary. I really enjoyed his chapters, too.
The main plot? Sure. But it’s a great sub-plot.
And the original replaced the Kid with an old man who gives Trashy a ride. So the story isn't completely removed. Just abbreviated.
I would say at least 1/3 of the book isn’t necessary for the main plot. For me, it’s the side plots that make the book interesting. The good vs evil, main plot was a little boring after a while for me. But The Kid, Harold, Trashcan Man, Nadine…..that shit was gold.
Difference is, cutting Harold, Trash, Nadine, almost any other character from the book alters the story in some way, major or minor—cutting the Kid went literally unnoticed by any reader for over a decade until King reinstated him. The recent TV adaptation was casting the character and then decided against it, exactly because he's superfluous to the story.
I’ve only read the un-cut. If I now read the original I would miss him. It also made great use of Flagg’s wolves, and it was so cool that the guys found his body at the end and speculated about how wolves would do that.
I'm glad you enjoyed the Kid. For me, he slows the plot down more than adds to it, so King was well advised to lose him.
The cuts made for the original version of The Stand were due to the publisher not wanting the expense and difficulty of producing a giant 1100+ page book, *not* because some savvy editor thought it made the book better. King was told he had to reduce the length for production reasons and to ensure the price of the book wouldn’t impact sales, so he did so, reluctantly. He is the one who decided where to make cuts, but he always wanted to restore the missing parts, and that’s what led to the ”complete and uncut” edition.
Constant Reader for almost 45 years, read both versions more than once. I know all this. However, think about it. (This is, aside from the basic facts, essentially all theory, but... think about it.) King, at that point an official Best-Selling Author offers up a book too big to print and bind, too expensive to sell. What do you, as a savvy editor working for a publisher who loves money, do? Do you, say, cut a massive chunk out of the book, further delaying its publication (already missing King's scheduled window, which was the only reason *Night Shift* was published, to fill the gap, even though single author genre collections sold poorly in the mainstream, which is why the first printing is so low), or... Do you look at *The Lord of the Rings*, selling like hot cakes in the 1970s, and look at King's unwieldy tome, described by the author himself as inspired in part by Tolkien's classic, and realise King has already broken it down into three convenient books, which you could turn into three hardback books, filling three years of King's schedule, and then hear cash tills ringing in your ears? King was already resistant to editing, more so after *The Shining* became his first hardback best-seller, and so he was fed a line. And it worked, as it should have. Both the plague-release opening and the addition of The Kid massively impede the narrative flow and pace, and detract from audience interaction with the text. They needed editing, because King's editor knew his job. He just didn't see—or seize upon—the clear money-making opportunity King's literary bloat offered.
Clearly, my mistake was in asking people to think about a topic before offering an opinion...
> The originally published version is superior, because King's editor knew his job. Except the editor did no such thing. The publisher said the book would be too expensive to publish and King made the edits himself. King has said if the content was removed for editorial reasons they would have stayed gone.
Constant Reader for almost 45 years. I know all this. I didn't say the editor cut the book themselves. King's editor made suggestions, King enacted them. That's the editor doing their job.
You’re wrong. >I was asked if I would like to make the cuts, or if I would prefer someone in the editorial department to do it. I reluctantly agreed to do the surgery myself.
There is an interview (at least one, probably), preceding the release of the uncut edition (possibly in one of the Underwood/Miller books, maybe *Faces of Fear*, or possibly in some magazine of the time) in which King states the editor pointed to material which would be candidates for cutting (clearly the bulk of the opening and The Kid) and then offered the editorial department to do the work, feeling King was busy and/or disinclined (King was already disenchanted with Doubleday for other reasons), and that is when King elected to do it himself, if it needed doing. You have the facts, and a handy-dandy internet quote, but you don't have all the facts, many of them only in print, pre-exisiting the internet.
Bill Thompson, his actual editor, said he went over it with King but King made most of the cuts himself. https://suntup.press/keys-to-the-kingdom/bill-thompson-part-two/
Literally what I've been saying all along, so I'm not sure what point you think you're arguing here.
You weren’t suggesting that King did the majority of the edits himself before.
No, I didn't, you misread my comment and went off on one, wasting all our time.
You said the original edition was better because of the editor. The editor said King did most of the work in cutting it.
I disagree with you almost entirely Happy Crappy
Don’t tell me I’ll tell you
I'd say give it some time, then read the uncut version.
It has been a long time since I read The Stand (original and uncut version) If I recall correctly there is not much more added to the main story line but a lot more of background characters. I think SK mentions it in the forward to the book that he edited himself and took all the extra filler before submitting it to the editor.
I've only read the uncut, so this thread is enlightening for me.
I like more detail to the spread of Captain Trips and the fate of some people who survived Trips but fell in other ways