Misery

I am a Stephen King fan.

I watched the film The Shawshank Redemption before I realized it was adapted from a King short story. That 100 pages of prose soar to heights any writer would love to reach. It contains a few passages that I find as lyrical, as perfect as any I have read.

So I sat down over Christmas to read his novel Misery with something of an air of keen anticipation. I haven't seen the film but I remember watching trailers, possibly at the time its actors were receiving the Hollywood treatment.

The premise is brilliant: a writer trapped in the wilds with "his number one fan" who also happens to be cockadoodie crazy. The story tells the tale of how he survives, resurrecting the character she loves and he loathes and whom he had killed off in his last novel. She encourages him along the way by lopping off various pieces of his anatomy when she feels he is in need of a degree of motivation.

And yet, though it may be treasonous to say it, I felt like there should have been something more. Where were the unexpected twists in the plot, the heart-stopping moments that have the reader desperate, yet dreading, to turn the page? Sure, there are moments when, figuratively, you want to look away but don't confuse moments of horror with the fiendish unfurling of plot.

I enjoyed the book - King could write out the telephone directory in a way that would entertain me - but I think he has done better.

Saddam - part two

Saddam's execution last week raises any number of profound issues some of which I touched on in my last post.

On a rather more mundane level, it reinforces yet again what has already been evident for some time namely, how improvements in communications are changing the nature of the news media.

The formal footage of Saddam's walk to the gallows, orderly and dignified, is challenged by what appears to be mobile phone footage taken from an unidentified witness. This time it is easy to hear the shouting, the accusations and the generally confrontational nature of the execution. For the voyeur the actual drop through the trap door is apparently to be seen on some web-sites.

A number of newspaper editors have already commented how electronic web-sites, for example, are able to publish news so much quicker than the traditional print version. But speed is not necessarily the pre-eminent quality and the changing face of news coverage has both pros and cons.

The risk with instant reporting is that there is a far greater chance of mistakes or inaccuracies. In this case, however, the mobile phone video actually gave a truer account of what went on.

There is a huge issue over censorship as the current event reveals. Heads should still be hung in shame at the BBCs cowardly retreat in the face of government pressure over the findings of the Hutton report. The fact that a journalist took a few short-cuts (wrongly and deplorably) should not have meant that the BBC caved in over the central charge that our PM, or his advisers, sexed up intelligence reports to provide a legal basis for committing the country to war.

No WMD have been found since the invasion although the threat that they could be turned on us in less than an hour was one of the main reasons given to justify the invasion. Why has no one ever been held to account for this catastrophic failure?

The instant exposure to events literally as they unfold reduces the ability of those in power to spin what is happening for their own ends. The risk is that something sinister or unseemly (the actual death in this case) will be made available as a consequence where this would not have happened if more traditional methods of reporting had been employed.

The brave new world demands a greater maturity from the receiving audience. The reader/viewer has to be able to judge the merits of what is being published and to decide whether to read on or to log off. For my money, it is preferable to make the audience choose, rather than abrogate responsibility for that decision to someone else who may well have other interests to preserve.