|
The first book I read by Stephen King was his "On Writing" which obviously is stand-alone as it's non-fiction. I had also seen several movies based on his books and stories.
The second King book I read, first fiction, was Under the Dome. I enjoyed it, enjoyed the premise, found it page-turnery but a tad too long. I wasn't aware of any references or easter eggs. If there were any I was able to enjoy the book without them and without realising they were there.
The third book was 11/22/63. This mixes fiction with fact in that it's about the assasination of JFK but it's also about a time-traveller and his attempts to stop it. There's a short section in it where the main character is in a small town walking around and has this sense of a terrible evil. Nothing happens and he doesn't really see anything - IIRC he looks into the opening of a large pipe and it feels off and wrong to him. He ignores it, walks away and the story continues. I mentioned this to a friend who has read more King than I and she said it was a reference to other books. "He likes to do that," she said. She thought it was probably a reference to "It" but wasn't sure.
I mentally shrugged and finished the book which I enjoyed (but again felt was over-long).
As a reader I consider both stand-alone but with the caveat that 11/22/63 contains an easter egg. I read 11/22/63 because I saw a discussion of it on a TV review show and it sounded interesting. They didn't mention the easter egg bit. Would it have changed anything if they had?
Well it might have been nice if I'd known because then I wouldn't have stumbled over this passage and wondered why it was there and whether I was missing something important. OTOH I wouldn't have felt the need to go back and read It first. But I can't fault a reviewer for not mentioning a short passage in a long book. I more fault King for putting something there that raises these questions. If he's going to do that he'd be better making them less obvious so those of us not in the know can slide over them without noticing.
As for shared definition of terms and recommendations - a noble goal but hard to implement in practice. Also depends on context. I'm more likely to point out "it's self-contained but not really stand-alone" if I'm talking to my mate down the pub who I know cares about the distinction, than I am in a Goodreads review where I am speaking to a kind of "generic reader".
I'm reminded very much of a discussion on Goodreads which rumbles on (at least did back when I used to read the forums there) about what a star rating means. You quickly discover that everyone has their own rating system and sometimes it doesn't even refer to the "quality" of the book at all but can be a kind of filing system (some people 1-star books they intend to read for e.g.)
And of course there's the subjectivity issue. Even if I accept DiapDealer's definitions - and they are eminently sensible - how different people apply those definitions in practice may differ.
Is 11/22/63 standalone? Not by the letter of that defintion, no. What about Under the Dome? Well assume for a second that there were references in there that I just didn't spot. That would mean it's not standalone but in practice it hasn't harmed me because I was able to read the book without recognising them or bumping on something odd. In that case I can easily imagine it's self-contained by one person's interpretation but not another.
That's where we come back to context and knowing the person you're recommending to.
|