James Patterson decides against the Murder of Stephen King

[Brian G Turner]

I'm not sure if Patterson was simply being completely insensitive - or whether he was trying for an unsubtle rewrite of Misery:

James Patterson scraps The Murder of Stephen King novel - BBC News

Author James Patterson has scrapped the publication of a new novel titled The Murder of Stephen King because he does not want to cause “discomfort” to King.

The book is about a fictional obsessed fan hunting down King, the author of Misery, The Shining and Carrie.

But Patterson said he had learned in the run-up to the planned November publication that fans had “disrupted” King’s home in real life.

King has had nothing to do with the novel, Patterson has stressed.

. . . .

However, in a statement released by his publisher on Thursday, Patterson – who co-wrote the book with Derek Nikitas – said: “My book is a positive portrayal of a fictional character, and, spoiler alert, the main character is not actually murdered.

“Nevertheless, I do not want to cause Stephen King or his family any discomfort. Out of respect for them, I have decided not to publish The Murder of Stephen King.”

 

[Gonk the Insane]

Well, I have to say I think that's a good thing (Patterson not writing the book). I was not blessed in the common sense department , but writing such a book strikes me as insensitive with potentially tragic and easily foreseeable consquences. I think there are likely legal issues, too, in using a real person in a work of fiction (which would be my rather uncharitable guess as to why he's actually decided against it).

Patterson – who co-wrote the book with Derek Nikitas – said: “My book is a positive portrayal of a fictional character, and, spoiler alert, the main character is not actually murdered.

So a)the title's misleading (my inner cynic* thinks this is just for publicity) and b) there's no need to read it now anyway, right?

*My outer cynic agrees.

 

[MWagner]

I can't imagine that it only occurred to Patterson now that this might be a bad idea. And seeing how shrewd of a businessman he is, yeah, I'm pretty confident it was all just a publicity stunt.

 

[Overread]

He either withdrew as a publicity stunt or was going to publish and then withdraw or just publish - however he spun it this would have been a huge publicity stunt. However pulling before actually publishing suggests that he didn't quite want to actually go through the potential fall-out of actually publishing and getting ALL that additional attention that it would possibly have garnered (could have been it was a launch flop no one paid any attention too).

To be fair though; there are loads of books where famous living people get killed; films too (though the latter tend to be done with the actors actually in the film and thus in agreement - heck Justin Bieber gets killed in a film* and its a huge part of its ad campaign). I suspect to do such where its the title and focus of the whole book is getting close to waters where legal recourse might rear its head - and whilst it might not have any sting the potential attention might not be beneficial.


Some say any publicity is good publicity but in truth that's a silly statement; there are most certainly kinds that won't do you any favours.



*And with his rep he's got clearly having him killed is fully intentional as part of the publicity of having him in the film in the first place

 

[E.Maree]

Not only is it a terrible, gross idea to use a real human being's identity like that, it's also a godawful title. I mean, come on, guys. LONG LIVE THE KING was right *there*.

Everyone is right that this is probably just another tactic for Patterson's slimy author mill.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Whilst I agree it's rather impolitic to write such a story, Stephen King is no stranger to writing real events that he's experienced in his own work.

In the Dark Tower, for example, he plays himself, and even his tragic car accident is repeated just as it happened.

Knowing what SK's humour and outlook on life is, there's no reason to assume he'd be put out by this unless he and Patterson didn't personally get along.

Not that I speak for SK. (And, notwithstanding the fact that there is a play whose title is about my death! And I'm toooooraly cool with it )

pH