Talk:Misery (novel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duplicate[edit]

Old duplicate version of this article lives in the history of this talk page. jni 13:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Novel/Film[edit]

I changed a line in the plot summary to reflect a difference between the novel and the film. In the novel of Misery Paul's book Misery's Child, has already been published and released in paperback. In the film, it appears that MC is still in manuscript form, and that this is the book Annie forces Paul to rewrite. -- 13:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)~Mademoiselle Sabina.

I noticed the film/novel had been flipped to incorrect information, so I switched it back. In the novel, the unpublished manuscipt Paul carries is his new book--Fast Cars. MC is indeed published and released. One of the reasons Annie goes to Sidewinder in the first place is to see if MC has been released in paperback yet, and King notes that she's reading it on page 32. Mademoiselle Sabina 01:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I made some major edits to the page, trying to make it more concise and less redundant, but I think it still needs work. I'm not knowledgeable enough of the source to make any content changes, but I think there are some major things (especially concerning the ending) that have been left out. If anyone else is better suited to content changes/additions I think this page would benefit greatly from some revision. Telepwn 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The process continues. There were still a few details in the plot summary from the film which differed from contradicted the novel. I fixed the most glaring (Silver Creek Lodge (film) ==> Boulderado Hotel (novel)) but there may be others. Be bold! Ellsworth 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split off film?[edit]

At the moment this article covers both the novel and the film. Someone has gone ahead and made Misery (film) (the infobox is already filled out for us :-). I think the film info should be split off from here into Misery (film). Assuming no objections, someone should carry that out in a couple of days.--Commander Keane 06:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. In fact, I am quite surprised that a film of this notability does not already have its own article. ---Charles 02:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ÞÚ ERT HOMMATITTUR !:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.70.174 (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

While having Misery as the main page might've made sense when both the book and film were discussed on the same page, now that they're separate pages and both equally notable (along with a couple other notable pages listed on the disambig page) the main article should probably be the disambig page instead. Maelwys 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Support as nominator. --Maelwys 16:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Since the movie is based on the book, I don't see anything wrong with having the book as the primary topic. None of the other "misery" topics are anywhere close to being as notable, and most don't even have articles. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Milo. --Serge 16:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While not denying the importance of the book and film, misery remains too common a word to have an established primary meaning, a clear primary topic. On that note, I just added a "See also" section to the disambiguation page. I believe that readers would be served best by having the disambiguation first, with the entire array of meanings, instead of simply being directed to the book/film. It may prove, also, a step in the right direction with regard to countering systemic bias. - Evv 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - per Planet of the Apes. The book came first, even though the movie is more notable. It should be listed that way. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - both the film and novel are notable in their own right. Giving each their proper due would make a combined article too long. The film deviates from the novel sufficiently to require its own plot synopsis as well. Mcr29 04:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. When someone links to or searches for "Misery" on Wikipedia, in most cases they aren't looking for the book or the film, but rather the emotion. —Angr 12:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...which they won't find, since there is no article on the emotion, since WP is not a dictionary. Do you guys plan to try and move Friends next? The Graduate? There are probably thousands of articles like this. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Angr. --Elonka 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not primary topic. Vegaswikian 03:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what article on wikipedia is the primary topic for "misery"? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is not always a primary topic. If there is one it must be show to exist. Vegaswikian 20:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:

It appears that, while the above discussion was going on, someone went ahead and moved the article to Misery (novel). Accordingly, I'm removing the move template, which no longer makes sense, from this talk page. The matter of whether to move this page back to Misery or to move the disambiguation page there remains open. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Diaz[edit]

I was watching American Justice on A&E about Robert Diaz, and noticed that what he did bears a strong resemblance to what Annie does in the book. Does anyone know if it's possible he got the idea from what Robert Diaz did, and if so, is there any sort of evidence to back up such a claim? But it seems too close to just be a coincidence. Amnesiasoft 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Abduction?[edit]

This article states that King based much of the novel on his own abduction experience, though it cites no source. I Googled it and nothing came up. Did this actually happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.59.24.26 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with this novel and King's history, and I've never heard of an abduction. I was going to remove that claim -- it's awkwardly written anyway -- but I'll leave it for a while in the event that someone can explain it. It's possible that the contributor misunderstood a quotation that might be genuinely relevant to an understanding of King's motives for writing the book.68.72.108.42 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go ahead and remove the claim. An hour and a half of Googling has brought up nothing about King being abducted, and it would be unheard of for such a major event in a popular writer's life to be left out of his biographies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.157.13 (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something or two isn't right[edit]

1) It seems to me the main character wasn't addicted to the pills, he just needed them to stave off horrific agony.

2) I find it hard to believe that a nurse accused of murdering several THOUSAND babies could get away from prosecution. At the very least, she'd be known worldwide, bigger then Madonna.

Lots42 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is designated for discussing the article and not the book but your first point does fulfill the former purpose so I'll answer both comments. Though I haven't completely read the book in the notes published there in, Stephen King does mention Novril as representing drugs that carry the risk of addiction.
As for your second point, the book was written long before the information superhighway was readily accessible and when 24 hour news was in its infancy. Today an accused serial killer would never go under the radar but the opposite would have been plausible in the era the novel was originally published in and the time in which the incidents in question took place.
Light Bulb (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing the article. It states two things I believe are incorrect. I believe that in the terms of the story, the character was not addicted to the pills. I also believe, even in the time the book came out, a nurse could not get away with several thousand murders. Lots42 (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Several thousand murders'?? I have the book in front of me, and from the obituaries she puts in her book (I think it's reasonable to assume that she documents all the deaths) Paul counts that she has murdered 30-something adults in hospital and then there are a further eleven infant deaths in the next hospital. It then states that her trial is for eight infant deaths. She gets away because a juror expresses reasonable doubt about her guilt. There's no proof other than circumstantial evidence. It seems they do not link it to the deaths of the adults in her other hospitals because they are all elderly and very ill anyway. She mentions at one point that she threatened the elder ones with switching off a respirator- which would probably look like they died in their sleep? There would be little evidence left in all the cases. If it helps, the description of all the deaths is page 214-216 of the Hodder and Staughton paperback.
In any case, there have been real cases where nurses have got away with such things for a long time. I can only think of Beverly Allit in the UK, but I am sure there are more. LouiseCooke
Yes, I know some nurses have, in real life, gone insane and killed people. But not several thousand people. Lots42 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said, above your comment, it adds up to around 40 people, NOT thousands. I think this is entirely possible! Harold Shipman, a doctor, killed 215 patients, and John Swango (another doctor) killed 30 of his patients and co-workers. Beverly Allitt killed four children and tried five more. That's more than the 8 that Annie Wilkes is tried for. Anyway, my point is: it's not thousands! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.98.86 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point -is- my point. Why are we arguing? I'm lost. Lots42 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished the book, and it mentions Paul Sheldon's Need for a "fix" of Novril several times, he even discusses (with himself) the idea of ducking half the pills early on, but never actually carries through with it because he needs his fix. Actually, in the last paragraph of Chapter 4, King writes: "He [Paul Sheldon] discovered three things simultaneously...The first was that Annie Wilkes had a great deal of Novril...The second was that he was hooked on Novril. The third was that Annie Wilkes was dangerously crazy."

The argument that she killed thousands of children is hyperbole. The book lists several child deaths in the maternity ward while she was stationed there and Sheldon wonders how she could kill so many, but it is never illicitly stated "thousands." She killed many elderly before she was moved to the maternity ward, and it wasn't until then that she started getting noticed.69.249.150.28 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stephen King Misery cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Stephen King Misery cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Cover[edit]

The paperback version had a second cover under the first, showing the cover of Paul Sheldon's book. The hunky man in the illustration has a face (although perhaps not a body) based on Stephen King himself. This fun detail should be included somewhere. It's why I read wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.89.236 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence.[edit]

This is the best explanation for his crash I don't get it. It -sounds- like original research but maybe the main character simply does not remember his crash and tries to figure out what happened by post-accident clues. My point? Original research = bad, so if it is, it should be edited out. Thanks for your time and attention. Tip your waitress. Lots42 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climatic Fight[edit]

Okay, apparently there's a slo-mo revert war going on over the exact details of the final fight.

Why not just say 'Sheldon overpowers and ultimately kills his tormenter'? Something simple like that. Leave the exact details for the book. Please. Lots42 (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual inaccuracy in plot[edit]

This sentence is inaccurate:

When Paul tries to reason with her that "everybody talks like that", she becomes outraged and violently angry, punching his fractured knee he sustained from the automobile accident.

Actually, Annie's reaction was throwing a bowl of soup against a wall, blaming Paul for it and forcing him to drink rinse water after she cleaned the mess up.

--190.51.16.44 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The punch happens when he asks her to get him new paper. 69.249.150.28 (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shining reference[edit]

Annie may be making reference to the Shining but in what context? Sure, King has had books 'cross over' before, such as the affected townspeople in 'Tommyknockers' see a clown in the town 'IT' took place in. But Annie definitively does not know what reality is all the time. In the context of the book, Annie could have simply read 'The Shining' and then forgotten it was a novel. I feel this is important to clarify for this article. Lots42 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is not based on just Annie's story. The drifter, Andrew Pomeroy, said he was going up to the hotel to draw pictures for a Time Magazine article. When she found out he was simply trying to sell the pictures to Time (and that they were terrible), that was why she says she killed him. This is a reference to an article Paul reads in Annie's "Memories" book about hikers finding Pomeroy's remains.69.249.150.28 (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to "Misery" in "Desperation"[edit]

A character in "Desperation" references reading "Misery's Paradise," presumably another Paul Sheldon paperback. Would anyone object to my expanding the "References to The Shining" to include this other novel? awkwardboyhero 04:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whysanitynet (talk • contribs)

Rose Madder also mentions a couple of Misery books; "Misery's Journey" and "Misery's Lover," if the section ever gets written. Morian Smith (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themes?[edit]

It seems like there are definite themes that reside in this novel, namely Addiction, writing, God(dess), etc. Is anyone else interested in taking on this particular subject?69.249.150.28 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Stephen King said there were themes to it, or a noteable third party talked about themes for the novel, there doesn't seem to be any point. Lots42 (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough refs[edit]

The parodies section is full enough. Please? Lots42 (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious/contradictory claim of 'Eyes of the Dragon' inspiration[edit]

The claim that negative reaction to "Eyes of the Dragon," published in 1987, inspired this book contradicts the claim earlier in the article that work on "Misery" began in 1985. Also, King's own official website describes the inspiration for "Misery" and makes no mention of "Eyes of the Dragon": http://www.stephenking.com/library/novel/misery_inspiration.html. Furthermore, "Eyes of the Dragon" was published just over four months before "Misery." It is improbable, though not impossible, that a new mass-market book could be inspired, written, edited, published and marketed in under four months.Jtcarpet (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This may be related somehow to what I wanted to write about: I remember reading "Misery" online or as a free ebook, and I believe it was published only later on as a printed book. IIRC, it was something new at the time. This merits mention in the article, I think. I just have to research it more to know for sure how it happened. --Geke (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Misery (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misery_(novel)&oldid=1204023555"