MovieChat Forums > The Stand (1994) Discussion > Understanding Harold Lauder

Understanding Harold Lauder


From the book, we know a number of things about Harold. He was insecure, and obnoxious, extremely 'territorial' for lack of a better term, and also he was very bright.

SK tells us that Harold was fat and awkward, heavily tormented by his contemporaries, and also that he seemed to be an embarrassment to his father, with his dad questioning his masculinity, taking him aside once and asking him if he were a homosexual. Other than this, his parents seemed to pay him as little mind as they could, instead lavishing their love on his bright and vivacious sister, Amy. He conceded to Fran before they left Ogunquit that his parents, particularly his mother, were not mean to him but that she spent so much of her time on Amy's 'doings' that she had none left for Harold.

Amy seemed to regard him as her cross to bear, treating him with contempt, along with his fellow students at the local high school. While his sister was not, as far as I can tell, actually mean to him, the treatment that he got from the other students at school, cannot be described as anything else. I really question whether he had any friends in his whole life. He never had a date; in his words, he couldn't even get a 'scag' to go with him to the school functions such as the prom, although, to be honest, I don't know for certain that he even asked anyone to go with him. About the only extracurricular activity that he pursued was being the editor of the school literary journal. My impression is that even there, he was regarded as weird.

So then, after the plague was over and he survived, and found that Fran had as well, his thinking was that he and the pretty Frannie were destined to be together. Here, he must have thought, was everything that he had been denied up to then. Romance, acceptance, and even sex. She was HIS, and what Harold had (in his imagination, if no where else) put together, let no man pull asunder. Indeed, I think it is a fair statement that, to his way of thinking, he owned her.

So, enter Stuart Redman into the picture, and Harold's carefully-constructed post-plague world turned upside down. He wanted nothing to do with Stu, fearing that he would lose Frannie if Stu (or anyone else, for that matter) came with them. It was only after Stu assured him that he would not cut in on him with Frannie that Harold backed off and grudgingly allowed himm to join.

I see the meeting of Harold, Fran and Stu as the pivotal point of the story after the ending of the plague. All of the subsequent events result directly or indirectly from this meeting, for it was then that Harold started to hate. This hate soon consumed him and became the main driving force of the story from that point on, as Flagg used--harnessed--Harold's hate for his own ends.

However, it also became a force that helped to destroy Flagg as well.

More on that if there is any interest shown in what I just wrote, as this post is quite long enough already.

reply

Well, Gary, another good post as always...
I think that many people, including myself; forget Harold Lauder's background.
Unfortunately nothing of Harold's background is revealed in the miniseries.
That information is in the book. The miniseries can only really hint at
the relationship between Harold and Fran before the plague.

reply

Thank you attila; your kind words are much appreciated.

I think that knowing Harold's background in the book is important to understanding the book itself. I am fairly familiar with it, so I tend to skip over his backstory when I re-read the book. Even so, Harold's background, when I read it, strikes a chord in me, for he could very well be describing my situation.

Harold and I experienced much of the same stuff when we were growing up. Indeed, because the parts about what Harold went through are so well-written, I strongly suspect that King went through a lot of the same things himself. Harold was fat; I have a mild case of cerebral palsy, and a serious hearing impairment. Both of us were bullied, heavily made-fun of; neither of us got much family support. Neither of us had any real friends when we were in school, and we were both very isolated.

I think that Harold would have grown out of it had Flagg not sunk his claws into him. Most awkward kids do this, and grow up being reasonably responsible adults. I did. I worked at Boeing for 28 years and then I was able to retire on a good income. In fact, next month, I go on Social Security, the federal pension system that almost everyone in the USA goes on, and this will greatly increase my income. So, in spite of the difficulties in my childhood, I am now very well-off--financially at least.

The same thing would probably have happened to Harold had the plague and the subsequent events not intervened.

What happened in Harold's life prior to the plague were factors in his decision to go with Flagg, but still he had a choice. And he chose wrong.

His choice was the same as Nick Andros. Flagg tried at first to sway Nick offering him his hearing and speech. And Nick had had many of the same problems as Harold in a purely social sense, but unlike Harold, he chose right.

So Harold had a fair chance but he chose not to go for the brass ring.

reply

Hey, what in the heck happened to everyone? Were you all kidnapped by aliens or what?

reply

[deleted]

Actually I was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Love your write-up of Harold!!! Thanks for the input.

I'd love to be able to re-read the book again but I just have "Too many people to do, and too many things to see" right now. Please feel free to take me/us with you with your insight with not only Harold but with any other characters from the great mind of Steven King.

I'd love to redo the book but I can't right now. I'm reading 11/22/63 and it's taking me far too long. 30 minutes a day (if I'm lucky) is the best I can do right now.

Next up: "Full Dark No Stars" (Hardcover YEAH ME!!!)

Until "The Dark Tower" series The Stand was my favorite Steven King book. The Mini-Series has always been on the top of my "must do" list. AGAIN AND AGAIN!!...And AGAIN!!

I'd love to be able to "compare notes" on The Stand, but it's out of my reach right now.

Right now I'm too busy trying to see if the nation is smart enough to elect a real president.

Waylay at will my friend!!!

K/H D

Re-Defeat Marxism. Vote wisely November 6th 2012!!!

reply

[deleted]

11/22/63 - really enjoyed it, even if it was just short of the Oxford in length! hope you do too

**** --------------- ****
It's all in the reflexes!

reply

I still come back every so often, but I'm kind of busy in the real world. You know how that is.

reply

<I still come back every so often, but I'm kind of busy in the real world. You know how that is.>

Oh yeah; I know how that is. I used to be a working stiff myself.

reply

<I think that many people, including myself; forget Harold Lauder's background.
Unfortunately nothing of Harold's background is revealed in the miniseries.
That information is in the book. The miniseries can only really hint at
the relationship between Harold and Fran before the plague.
>

I just now thought of this, and would like to point out that the relationship of Fran and Harold in the book is quite a bit different than the way it is presented in the mini-series.

In the book their relationship is primarily through Harold being the younger brother of Fran's best friend, and in the film, it seems to be a much more direct sort of thing. We are told in the film that Harold had a crush on her of long duration. The sister is mentioned only briefly and we are not even told that it is the sister, being just given a name.

reply

Great thread gary! I have always been interested in the character of Harold. What did u think of Corin Nemec's portrayal of him in the movie?

reply

<Great thread gary! I have always been interested in the character of Harold. What did u think of Corin Nemec's portrayal of him in the movie?>

Thank you for the kind words. Nemec, even though he did not look too awful much like the Harold that I pictured in the book, did an excellent job, I think. He provided a very believable performance. What did you think?

Also, what do you think of the idea that there was an awful lot of Stephen King in Harold Lauder? The way that Harold's childhood was written, I think that King was describing his own personal experiences.

reply

agree with most of your post, and I am very familiar with both book and mini-series - but I would move the point where Harold started to hate to when he secretly observed Fran and Stu together; up until then he was sure Stu was bound by his word - also, Fran at some point observes that one of the other younger females may be showing some interest in Harold - so we must also consider Nadine, Flagg's pawn, in turning Harold from an angry teen who maybe would snap out of it (as he became Hawk and began to realize his value to Boulder) as he returned home that one day, and instead of just letting it all go, found Nadine waiting to stimulate both his sex drive and his hatred - really just reinforcing all the things that he actually had left behind finally in his prior life - what a great tragic character - great OP, btw

**** --------------- ****
It's all in the reflexes!

reply

<agree with most of your post, and I am very familiar with both book and mini-series - but I would move the point where Harold started to hate to when he secretly observed Fran and Stu together; up until then he was sure Stu was bound by his word - also, Fran at some point observes that one of the other younger females may be showing some interest in Harold - so we must also consider Nadine, Flagg's pawn, in turning Harold from an angry teen who maybe would snap out of it (as he became Hawk and began to realize his value to Boulder) as he returned home that one day, and instead of just letting it all go, found Nadine waiting to stimulate both his sex drive and his hatred - really just reinforcing all the things that he actually had left behind finally in his prior life - what a great tragic character - great OP, btw>

Your very nice compliments are greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I would still have to stand by what I wrote in the OP concerning when Harold's hate of Stu started. If you recall from Fran's diary, when they were back in Stovington she made the comment that Harold was always sniping at Stu, extremely hostile to him and that she hoped it would not boil over into an open war between the two of them or words to that effect, and also that after Mark and Perion joined them in upstate New York, and Mark died after Stu's unsuccessful effort to save him, they (Stu and Fran) embraced and Harold (who could see no difference bewteen lover's hugs and survivor's hugs was very angry at this and stalked off into the woods, not returning until after supper.

Granted, Harold's hatred intensified after seeing Stu and Fran make love, and I think that he began plotting revenge at that point, but his hatred was always there and had been there ever since Stu joined them in New Hampshire.

Hope this helps to explain my position a little better.

reply

In the OP I wrote:

I see the meeting of Harold, Fran and Stu as the pivotal point of the story after the ending of the plague. All of the subsequent events result directly or indirectly from this meeting, for it was then that Harold started to hate. This hate soon consumed him and became the main driving force of the story from that point on, as Flagg used--harnessed--Harold's hate for his own ends.

However, it also became a force that helped to destroy Flagg as well.


Does anyone else see this yet?

How did Harold's hate help to bring down Flagg?

Come, children; thrill me with your acumen.

reply

<How did Harold's hate help to bring down Flagg?>

If Harold had not set the bomb off, (and only partially completed his goal) the Four would very likely not have set out on their journey. Flagg would have had no reason to call his people together to witness their demise. Also, Glen would not have had the opportunity to further undermine Flagg's self-confidence by refusing to offer Flagg the worship that he felt was his due. Glen's refusal to render Flagg what he wanted was simply one more in a series of things gone wrong. This refers to, among other things, Trashy's actions at Indian Springs, what happened with Nadine, Dayna, his failure to find the third spy, and his failure to control Harold on his and Nadine's trip west.

So, in attempting to destroy the committee, Harold started the final process that was to lead to the destruction of Flagg.

Obviously, there were other factors at work here as well, but one of these variables was certainly the hate that Harold felt for not only Stu, but the entire Free Zone. As Mother Abagail put it in the book,

"Man proposes, but G-d disposes."


And in this case, that was certainly true.

reply

To what extent was Harold responsible for his actions?

At one time there were posters here who said that due to what happened to him both in the story and before, that his responsibility was lessened. Are there any here now who take this position?

Imagine that you are his defense attorney. How would you defend him?

reply

Personally, Gary, I would recommend he get a new defense attorney. I consider the Harold Lauder of both the series and the book to be an unlikeable, unsympathetic, and thoroughly reprehensible character, and as such, my defense of him could not help but be colored by my personal opinion of him. I would, therefore, recommend he fire me in favor of another attorney who maybe doesn't feel as strongly as I do. "In other words, Harold, if you insist on keeping me, I will defend you to the best of my ability. However, someone who has a higher opinion of you might be able to muster a better 'best effort' than I will."

But in keeping with your question, I would try to plea bargain down the charges with the District Attorney with something like, "Lauder pleads guilty to non-premeditated murder, you drop the other charges, recommend thirty years. Forty, if you insist." Frankly, I'd be surprised if the DA went for that, but I have to try. In court, then, I would probably present Mr. Lauder as a wretched, unloved individual (which he was, I suppose), who acted hastily in anger in response to what he perceived as a threat - namely Stu Redman - but who is now repentant and sorrowful regarding his actions and ask them to have mercy on him by finding him guilty of a boatload of offenses that will result in either life without parole or the death penalty.

Of course, this is all based on the assumption that the events of The Stand have not taken place. If the super-flu has happened, he does this, then is captured and dragged into something that resembles a court (which would most likely be a panel of judges, since it would be difficult to empanel a jury), my "defense" would be for him to throw himself on the mercy of the court and beg and plead to be simply banished, instead of taken out and shot. I really don't see jails and prisons being set up in a post-apocalyptic world, so banishment or death would likely be the only options. Both, arguably, are death penalties, given how hard it would be to survive on one's own, but being banished would certainly result in a longer life than being given a cigarette and a blindfold and used for target practice!

reply

I don't believe that I have seen you around on this board before, Mr Holmes and I welcome you to the discussion.

There is an old lawyer's aphorism to the effect that 'If the facts are on your side, you argue facts. If the law is on your side, then you argue law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, then you filibuster.' Obviously, the law would never excuse what he did. On second thought, perhaps a better way to put it, would be that the law would never justify what he did. His lawyer could, as you suggest, bring forth all of his background, the abuse and ridicule that he was subjected to by his peers in Ogunquit High, the fact that his older sister seemed to be openly contemptuous of him, and the neglect of his parents. Harold, probably because he did not know how to cope with acceptance, rejected the opportunity that the plague presented to him, namely that he could have a fresh start, begin anew, and grab the brass ring. I would argue that without the presence of these factors, I don't think that Harold would have done the foul deed.

If I were his lawyer, I'd emphasize what I wrote before, hammering it home to the decider of facts, and like you I think it likely that this would be either one or a panel of judges rather than a jury. I think that a reasonable argument could be presented that they are mitigating factors, and while they don't lessen his guilt, they might generate enough sympathy to allow for a lesser punishment. I think this would be Harold's best chance, don't you?

Mr C, what say you? I imagine that you have spent a fair amount of time in courts.

reply

Yes, I'm new to this board. I recently re-watched (for probably the seventh or eighth time) The Stand series in its entirety, and thought I'd come and see what the general opinion of IMDB members was, and what things I may have missed or not considered in watching the series or reading the book. I must say that I was encouraged and refreshed by what I found: unlike so many IMDB boards that erupt into flame wars and degenerate into occasionally-creative-but-still-unpleasant name calling and insults, this board is a refreshing surprise, where facts and opinions are shared back and forth and disagreeing points of view are nonetheless treated with the deepest respect.

I agree that I would attempt to present mitigating circumstances in Mr. Lauder's case and go for the sympathy angle, since, essentially, sympathy is the best he can hope for. Still, though, while sympathy is his best - and arguably, only - approach, I would not be optimistic. A panel of judges and the community at large is going to see Mr. Lauder as a very intelligent, perhaps brilliant, individual who has demonstrated both the capability and intent of using his intellectual gifts in a deliberately harmful fashion. There is, therefore, going to be a general undercurrent of fear toward Harold, as he is going to be viewed at least somewhat as an "evil genius", if I may use that overworked and overused description. Besides that, he killed not only a number of people (and I forget the exact number), but he killed some very well-liked, highly-respected individuals who were in a position of leadership and authority. It would be similar to a case of someone who has assassinated a high government official, particularly one that is well liked. Consider the hypothetical case of Lee Harvey Oswald not being killed by Mr. Jack Ruby, and surviving to be brought to trial: I daresay he would have found sympathy from anyone, regardless of any mitigating factors presented, to be in extremely short supply.

Background-wise, I confess that my statements and opinions vis-a-vis the law is coming from the perspective of a learned amateur, not a professional. I am in the medical field and have been for over half my life. I am not now nor have I ever been an attorney, judge, or paralegal, and in fact, have rarely enough seen the inside of a courtroom apart from television and movies. I always have, however, been fascinated and intrigued by the practice of law for nearly my entire adult life, and have as such made it a topic of somewhat intense study. Of course, given the tendency of those of us in my profession ending up on the wrong end of a lawsuit, a thorough familiarity with the law is arguably a matter of self-preservation! I addressed myself to your intriguing question regarding the legal defense of Mr. Lauder because of my fascination with the topic, and also because in the event of a catastrophe occurring like "The Stand", it is possible and even likely that many would find themselves shoehorned into positions that are not necessarily in line with their areas of expertise. As such, my self-declared "learned amateur" status would possibly cause me to be pressed into service as a defense attorney in the event of a paucity of those better qualified.

(And please feel free to call me Mike. "Mr. Holmes" is a title I will always associate solely with my father, and as I often tell people, "my parents named me Mike, not 'Mister', 'Commander', or 'Doctor'." :-) ).

reply

<Yes, I'm new to this board. I recently re-watched (for probably the seventh or eighth time) The Stand series in its entirety, and thought I'd come and see what the general opinion of IMDB members was, and what things I may have missed or not considered in watching the series or reading the book. I must say that I was encouraged and refreshed by what I found: unlike so many IMDB boards that erupt into flame wars and degenerate into occasionally-creative-but-still-unpleasant name calling and insults, this board is a refreshing surprise, where facts and opinions are shared back and forth and disagreeing points of view are nonetheless treated with the deepest respect.

I agree that I would attempt to present mitigating circumstances in Mr. Lauder's case and go for the sympathy angle, since, essentially, sympathy is the best he can hope for. Still, though, while sympathy is his best - and arguably, only - approach, I would not be optimistic. A panel of judges and the community at large is going to see Mr. Lauder as a very intelligent, perhaps brilliant, individual who has demonstrated both the capability and intent of using his intellectual gifts in a deliberately harmful fashion. There is, therefore, going to be a general undercurrent of fear toward Harold, as he is going to be viewed at least somewhat as an "evil genius", if I may use that overworked and overused description. Besides that, he killed not only a number of people (and I forget the exact number), but he killed some very well-liked, highly-respected individuals who were in a position of leadership and authority. It would be similar to a case of someone who has assassinated a high government official, particularly one that is well liked. Consider the hypothetical case of Lee Harvey Oswald not being killed by Mr. Jack Ruby, and surviving to be brought to trial: I daresay he would have found sympathy from anyone, regardless of any mitigating factors presented, to be in extremely short supply.

Background-wise, I confess that my statements and opinions vis-a-vis the law is coming from the perspective of a learned amateur, not a professional. I am in the medical field and have been for over half my life. I am not now nor have I ever been an attorney, judge, or paralegal, and in fact, have rarely enough seen the inside of a courtroom apart from television and movies. I always have, however, been fascinated and intrigued by the practice of law for nearly my entire adult life, and have as such made it a topic of somewhat intense study. Of course, given the tendency of those of us in my profession ending up on the wrong end of a lawsuit, a thorough familiarity with the law is arguably a matter of self-preservation! I addressed myself to your intriguing question regarding the legal defense of Mr. Lauder because of my fascination with the topic, and also because in the event of a catastrophe occurring like "The Stand", it is possible and even likely that many would find themselves shoehorned into positions that are not necessarily in line with their areas of expertise. As such, my self-declared "learned amateur" status would possibly cause me to be pressed into service as a defense attorney in the event of a paucity of those better qualified.

(And please feel free to call me Mike. "Mr. Holmes" is a title I will always associate solely with my father, and as I often tell people, "my parents named me Mike, not 'Mister', 'Commander', or 'Doctor'." :-) ).
>

Welcome again Mike. And, yes; dare I say that this is one of the politer boards on this website? When disagreements arise here, as they inevitably do, they are almost always polite and gentlemanly (or lady-like). There have been a few flame wars here, but not many, and my policy has been to ignore those that I consider less than courteous.

Now, to Harold: because his part is so well-written, I am inclined to think that King was drawing from his personal experiences growing up. Harold's and my experience in grade-school, junior high and high school were so similar, I felt as though King was describing what I went through. The description of Harold just had a nasty ring of truth to it. I have read that writers often describe their character's experiences in similar terms to their own; in other words, it is a case of art imitating life. I do a bit of writing and I have done this myself.

I note in support of my theory about Harold 'being' King, that there is another character created by King that is very similar to Harold and that is Carrie White from the novel Carrie. Both Harold and Carrie were outcasts in their local high schools, both of them exacted a terrible revenge on those they percieved as their enemies, and both of them were destroyed in the end. There was, however, a very important difference between Carrie and Harold, and that is that in Carrie's case, the people that she killed really were her tormentors, while Harold's actions were directed at people who had not really wronged him, except in his own mind. Perhaps a better way to put it would be that in Carrie's case, the wrongs that she experienced were real, while in Harold's case they were not, at least after the plague.

Now, please don't conclude from this that I think Carrie's actions were justified; they were not, any more than Harold's were. But, like I said earlier, Carrie did direct her rage at those who really did her wrong, unlike Harold.

What do you think?

reply

Hi Gary and others.

Well as a police officer my first task would be to try to figure out just who was responsible for the bombing. I guess that we can move past that one. Let us assume that we know and Harold is in custody. It has been my experience that when there is no doubt that their client actually committed the act defense attorney's will try to get their client the best possible deal they can.

If the client wants to fight it (and didn't enter a plea of guilty) then off they go to court. A couple years ago I had a case in which I was the investigating officer. The suspect was charged with burglary and he admitted it to me on tape and he provided a written statement.I made sure to advise him of his rights under the Miranda Warning before interviewing him (on tape) and he gave a full confession.

But he was insisting that he was never intending to steal property that wasn't his - just property that belonged to him. He also said that it was his understanding that he had permission to enter the house from the owner (who of course denied ever giving the suspect such permission) However he broke into the house to do that and he then took the property with him. That's burglary under Idaho Code.

So we had a jury trial. At one point everybody began to argue and the judge ordered the jury to leave the room while he spoke to the two sides. The judge then went to his chambers to review the case law. I was told to stay on the stand - which is what I did. The defense attorney looked at his client and said "Well Chris this is a real S*** sandwich you've given me, but I'll do the best I can."

The jury found the suspect guilty. If he had accepted the plea bargain that his defense attorney had gotten him he would have done a few years on probation and paid for damages. But,instead, he got a couple years in prison since burglary is a felony.

I don't knw what type of legal argument Harold's attorney would use. Maybe he would try to argue that his crime was heinous, but Harold could still be useful to the Free Zone - behind bars for the rest of his life. If Harold was to be executed the Free Zone would be losing an individual who is vary capable. Hey it's a PA world and manpower is now a very very scarce and valuable resource. Harold would be a useful tool - even as a prisoner. In a PA situation such an argument might work - but probably not. Harold would probably fry.

Is this what you were looking for?

reply

<I don't knw what type of legal argument Harold's attorney would use. Maybe he would try to argue that his crime was heinous, but Harold could still be useful to the Free Zone - behind bars for the rest of his life. If Harold was to be executed the Free Zone would be losing an individual who is vary capable. Hey it's a PA world and manpower is now a very very scarce and valuable resource. Harold would be a useful tool - even as a prisoner. In a PA situation such an argument might work - but probably not. Harold would probably fry.>

Interesting point, Mr C; I never thought about that at all. It's kind of an 'extralegal' argument, in the same vein as the lawyer's aphorism I mentioned in an earlier post, the one about law vs fact. As you say, Harold was very bright, and as such, he would very likely be of some use in the post-apocalyptic world, even from the inside of a cell.

Like I say, it is extralegal, but it might succeed because an intellect such as his would be useful.

reply

Hmm. The parallel you suggest between Carrie and Harold is an interesting point. I have seen the movie version of Carrie a number of times. The final scene with the hand suddenly reaching up out of the ground always scares the bejesus out of me and makes my heart skip a beat, no matter how many times I've seen it. I have not, however, read the book version. In response to your point, I just now bought it and downloaded it to my Kindle. Unfortunately there are a number of other books ahead of it on my reading list, but I should get to it in the next week or so, and so respectfully, I'm going to withhold opinion until after I'm more qualified to do so.

Going solely from the movie version, however, it is an interesting point: Carrie is rejected by both her mother and her classmates, is sort of a misfit, and ends up lashing out in a destructive fashion that ultimately kills both her and a lot of other people as well. I can clearly see the similarity between the two characters, and it's something I had not considered up until now.

The only contrary point I would make is that, at least in the movie version, I pitied Carrie: here was a young girl who had been given a very raw deal by life. Raised by a wackjob of a mother, naive, and in possession of a powerful gift that she neither asked for nor understood, she was eventually pushed to and beyond her breaking point and lashed out in a calamitous blind fury. Even though Carrie's "death toll", if you will, makes Harold's seem paltry by comparison, I still felt nothing but pity for her as "a girl who never had a chance". While I do sympathize with Harold and certain elements of his story make me pity him, I am not as forgiving of Harold as I am of Carrie. I don't completely understand why I don't. Perhaps it's the premeditation of his crime. If King had written it like "Harold one day finds a few sticks of dynamite or a hand grenade and in a sudden burst of fury and rage he throws it into where the council is meeting", I could sympathize with him much more than I do now. The way King wrote it, Harold takes extraordinary planning and measures in preparing his vengeance, and then proceeds to deliberately carry it out.

I, too, agree that there are elements of Harold's back story that have enough of an air of authenticity to suggest that they may be at least partly autobiographical, and I do pity Harold in that regard. Moreover, I empathize a great deal: I was short and small for my age, wore glasses, was painfully shy, and sometimes considered a bit "weird" because I preferred reading or learning a new skill over some of the more mundane interests of my peers, all of which combined to make most of my school years a living hell. Probably Mr. King could describe similar experiences in his own life. The difference is, in both cases we each pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, and ultimately each became considerably more accomplished than most of our classmates. At 5'6", I'm still pretty short and I do still wear glasses, but I'm now about as outgoing a person as any you will meet, highly successful, and if anyone thinks me weird they are careful to keep it to themselves. King's accomplishments speak for themselves as he has attained pretty much "living legend" status in the pantheon of literature. Mr. Lauder, on the other hand, used his considerable intellectual gifts to kill those he believed were his persecutors. In the end, I suppose that is what galls me: I choose to save lives, and Harold chooses to take them.

As I said at the beginning, your point is very intriguing. I look forward to reading "Carrie" in novel form, as soon as I get caught up on some of my other reading. (Never seems to be enough hours in the day, does there? )

reply

Hey I'm 5'6", wear glasses and I'm balding. I also weight 170 so big I am not. I'm that most hated (and one of the most ridiculed) of individuals a short cop. However I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I got what I got and that's all there is to it. Move on. Make the best of your situation. Harold couldn't and wouldn't do that.

reply

What's wrong with being, 5'6" and wearing glasses...?
I'm 5'6" and and wear glasses...
Perhaps, we're all clones...
living in other parts of the world...lol!

reply

<What's wrong with being, 5'6" and wearing glasses...?
I'm 5'6" and and wear glasses...
Perhaps, we're all clones...
living in other parts of the world...lol!
>

Attila!!! How's it going? Long time no hear from you.

I seem to have Harolds' build more than you guy's build. I'm 5'11" and 250+ pounds, although I'm trying to lose weight, and I'm doing it bit by bit. I used to wear glasses until I got the lasix surgery on my eyes, and now, all I need is reading glasses. I call them my 'grandpa glasses'.

reply

Hi Gary, I'm going well... thanks for asking.
I have been reading the posts but I haven't really had anything to contribute.
I think perhaps, I am Harold's weight after he arrived at Boulder...
I weigh 65.4 kg or 144 LB.

reply

<or 144 LB>

Isn't that 10 stone 4?

reply

Gary,

I and others like me are part of the "Silent Invasion". While all you big guys are running around worried about obesity, baldness, sexual potency, low testosterone levels and what not the short guys with glasses are quietly moving in and taking over. When the order is given we will strike and the oppressors of the short people shall fall. (Cue maniacal laughter)

But until then how are you doing?

reply

Hi Gary,

"<or 144 LB> Isn't that 10 stone 4?"

Almost... 10 stone 3.

To tell you the truth, I have no concept of stones...
Australia went metric in 1974, I was old enough to
go up to the green grocer and buy my mum vegetables
in pounds...

I still use, pounds,pints, inches, feet, yards and miles...
Any other imperial weight or measure, I have to use a converter
on my computer or my mobile phone...

reply

I sympathize with a lot of Harold's backstory myself, because like I say, I went through many of the same things that he went through. And for that matter, my experiences and those of Carrie White are similar as well.

I have a mild case of cerebral palsy, and a very serious hearing impairment, and secondary to the other two conditions, a moderate speech impediment. I was one of the first kids mainstreamed back in the middle 1950's and because I was percieved as both different and weak, I like both Carrie and Harold, was subject to much tormenting from the other students. Needless to say, the school system was nearly useless as far as the bullying went, and I received almost no family support. So, like both Harold and Carrie, my school life could be fairly described as a living hell. I don't think it got better until my senior year in high school.

Like Harold, I was always the last one picked for any of the teams in PE; (perhaps a better way to put it was that I was imposed upon some unfortunate team) I was frequently made fun of, and one my few friends told me after we graduated, that he didn't know how I stood what I went through.

Anyway, I got on at Boeing in their Renton facility, and worked there for 28 years, finally retiring from the plant in Wichita Kansas, and took the opportunity to do something that I always wanted to do: write.

I guess my point here is that I made it like you did, Mike and our friend Mr C. I persevered and overcame my background and I think that Harold would have done so as well. But, bringing to mind something that I said in Mr C's thread concerning Adam Lanza, Harold 'went the wriong way'.

I think Stu Redman summed it up quite well after The Four came across Harold's body in western Colorado. "It was such a waste."

reply

Ah, Gary, I am so jealous that you worked for Boeing. Don't get me wrong; I love what I do, but if I woke up tomorrow morning and was 18 again and still knew what I know now (don't we all wish that!), I would probably find a way to work in aviation in some capacity. Even if it was just sweeping the floors and cleaning the toilets, at least I'd be around airplanes ! I've been to Wichita once in my life: October, 2007 when my then-brother-in-law got married on McConnell AFB. I did drive past the large Boeing facility during that trip and was most impressed.

I apologize for the delay in replying. The flu made a late-season resurgence locally and has kept us pretty busy. I am pleased to report, however, that it is run of the mill influenza, not the "super flu" of The Stand. Just to be on the safe side, though, please let the rest of us know if you happen to see Randall Flagg running around. As a pathologist I don't usually get involved in direct patient care; by the time patients get to me they're generally not in a very talkative mood. On the other hand, when your friends, neighbors, and acquaintances know what you do for a living, you'd be amazed at how many, "Would you listen to my chest?" or "Would you listen to my son's/daughter's/wife's/husband's chest?" requests you get.

Jefbecco, I want to commend you for being a police officer, no matter what size you are. I have had a lot of (mostly positive) dealings with the police in my life. I was a paramedic for a few years, until an ER doc gave me a choice: "apply to med school or I'll break your knees", so I had dealings with the police nearly every shift. Even today, while I am not, per se, a coroner, I work with the police from time to time when there are questions or doubts about a cause of death. Then, of course, there's the not so pleasant dealings with the police: I drive a pretty powerful sports sedan and suffer from a condition called "leadfootitis". On too frequent occasions, the police compliment my driving skills with a pretty light show. While I like the pretty lights, I don't like that they then usually give me a bill for the show. (I do, however, keep a stethoscope in plain view on the passenger seat and a white lab coat in the backseat, whether I'm on my way to/from the hospital or not, since sometimes cops will decline to ticket medical personnel!)

(Having commended you, however, I also have to condemn you for your post about all the 5'6" people rising up in revolt. Didn't you get the memo? We're not supposed to talk about that! )

reply

Even though Boeing was a good place to work, after 28 years, I was still glad to get out of there. It got to the point where I just hated to go to work and I had to force myself to do it. Basically now, I am on a permanent paid vacation, with absolutely no regrets about leaving.

Believe it or not, Mike, my ambition when I was younger was to be a pathologist, and work for the medical examiner. I have always been interested in police work and with my CP and my hearing, that was not in the cards, so, after reading Milton Helperen's book about his time with the New York City ME's office, I gave serious consideration to doing that. Alas, it was not to be, and I went to work for Boeing instead.

This is my sig line from a couple of other websites:

Taceant colloquia. Effugiat risus. Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae.

Being a pathologist, you will appreciate it.

reply

I do appreciate the sentiment in your sig line, and it is a good perspective on death. Just a few weeks ago I had a really tough one: 22 year-old female, college senior, very pretty, with her whole life seemingly ahead of her, and she drops dead in the ER, in the middle of a conversation with her mother. Her complaint was simply a splitting headache that was now on its third day. Turned out it was a brain aneurysm no one ever knew she had. Cases like hers are tough. I generally don't get the story of the patient's life, so to speak, but it's not hard to imagine this girl's back story: young, pretty, obviously exercised frequently and ate right, looking forward to college graduation in just about two months, had a family who loved her and would miss her, probably had a boyfriend who she loved and he loved her, looking forward to starting her career - whatever it was - and one day getting married and having a family of her own. And now, here she was: cold, dead, and naked on a table, with a tag on her big toe. That one was so tough I had to stop twice for five or ten minutes just to take a break from it. You wonder what's the purpose of something like that, and then you think about the dead helping the living. Maybe somehow her death will help the living one day. I don't see how; her heartbroken parents refused to even consider organ donation, so that wasn't it. But I'm an optimist and I believe in the old adage about every dark cloud having a silver lining. Who knows? Some doctor might read the writeup I did on her and one day think "aneurysm" instead of headache, dig a bit deeper, and save the life of an expectant young mother. I hope so, anyway, because the notion that her tragic death was completely meaningless doesn't bear thinking about.

I had to shake my head and laugh at the incredible irony of you working in the aerospace industry and wanting to be a pathologist, and me being a pathologist who wishes he worked in the aerospace industry . It reminds me of a quote (and I can't remember who it was from) that goes something like, "Whatever it is you do for a living, somewhere out there is someone who could do your job for two weeks and consider it a vacation." The longer I live the more I realize the truth of that statement. Before you retired, if it were possible for you and me to switch jobs for two weeks (and not mess things up beyond all recognition), we would probably both consider it a dream vacation at the start of the two weeks, and, I daresay, two weeks later both be saying, "I'm so glad I didn't choose that career!"

reply

I've been reprimanded for my lapse in security. Sorry. Fortunately tall people are always underestimating us and don't pay attention to what we say and write. Whew.

I've been a police officer for approximatley 12.5 years (10/2000 - ????). For about 3.5 years I was a detective and during that time attended more than a few autopsies. Adults, children and an infant. I still remember my first one. A seventy-two year male who burned to death. 100% - his entire body. It was in a tiny little room and all about the room were jars containing various organs that had been removed from other autopsy subjects. It was quite an experience. And very memorable.

An autopsy makes one realize very quickly just how mortal we all are and how we're all going to end up in the same place - sooner or later.

reply

Very true that, about being reminded of our own mortality. I'm divorced now, but when I was married the first thing I would do on coming home was hug my wife and stepdaughter and tell them I loved them, and I'd do the same thing again whenever I or they would leave the house for whatever reason. It's morbid, but knowing just how fragile life is, if I never came home again I wanted to make sure their last memory of me was a positive one. By the same token, if I never saw them again I didn't want to have to live with the memory that the last time we talked was an argument or something mean. Leaving the house on a positive, upbeat note wasn't always possible - my stepdaughter was a teenager. 'Nuf said - but at least I tried. I try to live this way: if you knew for certain you had just one hour to live, who would you want to try to mend fences with or say "I love you" to in those sixty minutes? Now take that list and go do it, because you might actually be dead an hour from now. Probably not, but there will be some hour that is your last one, and you have no idea which one it is.

I've had a few detectives at autopsies before. Not too many, though. Most of my cases tend to be of the nature that someone died unexpectedly and the family/doctor/insurance company want to know why, but there's no suspicion of foul play. On the other hand, I have had maybe two or three over the course of my career where I discovered that what appeared to be a routine death wasn't. One I remember just off hand was a six or seven month old who apparently died of SIDS, mom and dad frantically brought him to the ER and there was no reason to question the parents' account. Well-dressed, pretty well-to-do couple, not the sort that you would necessarily associate with abuse, but then the autopsy showed Shaken Baby Syndrome. There was no evidence of prior abuse so it was probably a one time, spur of the moment thing, but sometimes it only takes once.

What you mentioned about jars of organs, yeah, that's pretty par for the course. It's funny; you have to scan your hospital ID card to get into the Morgue and then scan it again to get into Autopsy. It's a shame the hospital wasted all that money on that second scanner; the fact that it IS the Autopsy room is more than enough to keep people out! Once in a great while a transporter will bring a body to the Morgue and will ask the tech if he can "see what's in that room". Usually they're young and unless I'm currently processing a body, usually I'll allow it when the tech asks me. In fact, I give the young man (and it's always a male) a guided tour and explain in detail what happens in there. (No one's ever asked, but if any of them asked to attend an autopsy, I'd never allow it; the dead deserve to be treated with respect, not treated like a carnival sideshow. I'm an easygoing, fun-loving, and friendly guy, but disrespect of the dead I won't tolerate.) I've never had anyone lose his lunch (not yet anyway), but would you believe I have never had a repeat visitor? Maybe it's my mouthwash.

reply

I would start to sweat when the coroner would start her cutting. Always at the forehead. Then after a few moments I would settle down and things would get more clinical and the investigator in me would take over. That first one though was intense. I was at the scene the day before. I viewed the body immediately after the fire department had put the flames out. Then the next day I was there when they removed the corpse from the body-bag.

You know it's one thing to see photos and film of a person who has died in a fire. It's very different to be there. The smell. No television or movie in the world can convey that sense.

Yes life is nothing to just waste and be careless with. Which is why (for example) I always wear my vest.

I also have no patience with suspects who engage in actions that could cost them or others their lives. Today I was involved in a high-speed chase on the Interstate. We caught the suspect and nobody was hurt, but we didn't use polite language on the numbskull. Speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour for a short while. It's was God's own grace that there wasn't a wreck and a death.

Life is too precious for that type of foolishness.

reply

You know, it's funny: I have no idea how many autopsies I've done, but it's been a lot. To this day, I still get butterflies when I make the initial incision. Frankly, I hope I always do; if the day ever comes that I can do my job on a human body like I'm dissecting a frog in high school biology, that's the day I expect I'll find a different line of work. Once I start, however, it's the same as for you: the clinical, investigative part of me takes over.

You're right about the burns. The smell of charred flesh is something that you really can't describe until you've smelled it, and then once you have, you never, ever forget it, no matter how much you would like to. Here's a tip from one professional to another: get yourself some eucalyptus oil and mix it with just a tiny bit of corn starch, just enough to make it into a thin paste. Keep it in an air tight container and always carry it in your patrol car. Anytime you have something that you don't want to smell - burn victim, decomp, homeless person, whatever - smear just a little bit of that paste under your nose. It works wonders. Some swear by Vicks Vapo-rub for the same purpose, but I don't like it; Vicks is so strong it makes my eyes water after a bit. The eucalyptus paste trick is mild and pleasant, and just as effective. One of my professors taught me that trick, way back when, and I pass it on to whoever I think might benefit by it.

Glad you got the guy on the Interstate, and I'm very glad that no one got hurt. I'm lucky in that I don't see very many trauma cases. If they are DOA at the scene or die as a direct result of trauma shortly after getting to the hospital, local policy is that the county coroner gets them. If county can't pick them up right away, I'm not even allowed to touch them, apart from keeping them cold. I can't even wash them or extubate them. As I mentioned in a previous post, however, I was with EMS for a few years before moving on to what I do now, and I saw more than my share, as I'm sure you have as well. More than twenty years later and there are some traumas - including some vehicular-related ones - that I remember like they were yesterday. I'll admit that I do speed from time to time, but I think the worst I've ever done is about twenty over, and that sort of doesn't count: speed limit dropped from 70 to 60 and I apparently didn't notice, so I thought I was only plus-ten. Didn't get me out of the ticket, but yes, I should have been paying better attention. The only time I've ever seen 120 was on a race track during one of those "race car driver for a day" fantasy weekends.

reply

holmes5555:

"....Here's a tip from one professional to another: get yourself some eucalyptus oil and mix it with just a tiny bit of corn starch, just enough to make it into a thin paste. Keep it in an air tight container and always carry it in your patrol car. Anytime you have something that you don't want to smell - burn victim, decomp, homeless person, whatever - smear just a little bit of that paste under your nose. It works wonders....."

I was stationed on Guam in 1997. Korean Air flight 801 crashed full force into Nimitz Hill on August 6th 1997. There was only one survivor.

Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_801

I was part of the recovery team that searched for bodies and body pieces. (Then subsiquently plane pieces) Although not a medical professional I volunteered to help. They gave us little containers with that exact same concution! You are correct that it helps alot. It won't totally mask everything but it was much better with it than it would have been without it.

The problem is that the scent got into your clothes, hair and skin. My wife made me undress at the back door and shower with a hose outside before I could come into the house. I would wear the same clothes every day because she refused to put them in the washer in the house. I worked there for two weeks and just threw the clothes away afterwords.

I commend you for your choice of a profession. I could NEVER do that every day.

K/H D

America got the Government it deserves!!! Welcome to the USSA!!!

reply

I remember Korean Air Flight 801. I wasn't there, but I do remember it. Just one of those events in your life that, in my case, you don't remember why you remember it, but you do. Pretty nasty crash. I've never worked something like that, but I think I'd have a lot of trouble doing so. Parts of bodies, in tropical heat, that have probably been set upon by birds and other scavengers? No thank you.

reply

No birds on Guam. Snakes ate them all!

But I get your meaning. Humidity runs around 90% during the day and after 11am it's unbearably hot!

Yeah. It didn't take long for things to get nasty.

K/H D

America got the Government it deserves!!! Welcome to the USSA!!!

reply

Yeah I'm not a big fan of high speed. Especially once it gets past 90 mph. It doesn't take much to lose control and vehicles that are out of control at 90+ miles per hour are bad things indeed.

reply

I just thought of another person that while not too much like Harold and Carrie, does bear at least a few parallels with them and that is Douglas Cavell, 'Duddits" from the novel Dreamcatchers.

It is said that Stephen King often makes use of the so-called 'magical Negro" in his writing. Examples of this include not only Mother Abagail, but John Coffey, from The Green Mile, and Dick Halloran (The Shining).

It just struck me that King does something akin to this to disabled people as well. He tends to make them larger than life, and extraordinarily heroic. They are never villians and they almost always prevail, Nick being the exception.

King seems to have an affinity for members of socially disadvantaged groups.

What does anyone else think? Am I all wet here?

reply

Nope you're as dry as dust Gary. I think this is a more common characteristic for King's generation. The so-called Baby-Boomers who came of age during the 60's when attitudes were changing and many overcompensated. My mother was so idealistic that she went into Special Education in the early seventies. She hung in there for fifteen years, but finally burned out and went into the private sector where the money was better. She no longer has such an idalistic view of those who are less fortunate.

reply

Reminds me of that adage 'If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you haven't got a heart; if you're not a conservative when you're 50, you haven't got a brain.'

How ya been, Mr C?

reply

Examples of this include not only Mother Abagail, but John Coffey, from The Green Mile, and Dick Halloran (The Shining).

Sara Tidwell in Bag of Bones...well sort of.

reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of this include not only Mother Abagail, but John Coffey, from The Green Mile, and Dick Halloran (The Shining).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<Sara Tidwell in Bag of Bones...well sort of.>

That's one that I hadn't thought of.

I'd call Sara Tidwell a 'magical Negro' as well. She did put a curse on the boys who raped and killed her and killed her little girl. The curse also applied to their descendents as well.

Good one, Sara.

reply

reply

I enjoyed reading these interpretations of Harold and his motivation. I just wanted to add that it always makes me sad at that moment in the book when Harold, very briefly, toys with becoming "Hawk."

And then throws it away.

reply

<I enjoyed reading these interpretations of Harold and his motivation. I just wanted to add that it always makes me sad at that moment in the book when Harold, very briefly, toys with becoming "Hawk."

And then throws it away.
>

Yes; it is sad that he threw it away. He appeared to be at a point where he could honestly jettison the hate, accepting things as they were, and moving on with his life, but Flagg who seemed to be sensitive to these things, told Nadine what to do and she did her job admirably.

Could part of the reason for Harold's actions be that he was afraid of the acceptance because he did not know how to cope with it? Please note that in the book, he at first rejects the 'Hawk' nickname, as he did not want to be friends with the guys on the Spade Squad; indeed, he fought against it. The name brought back unpleasant memories of his time in high school when he was made fun of by the other boys and the 'Hawk" to him at least was just another example of this. As I have said before, Harold knew how to cope with rejection; after all, he had plenty of practice at that. But the acceptance of his fellows was something new for him. It was a strange experience; he bwas entering unknown territory, and, drawing from my own experiences here, perhaps he was suspicious of their motivations. Were they trying to trick him, so they could torment him further?

In trying to understand Harold, this might be considered.

reply

I always got the impression that after Harold realized they weren't trying to make fun of him--as some sort of mockery--that the life "Hawk" promised was very appealing to him. I must admit I still kind of mentally cross my fingers at that point even when rereading for the gazillionith time.

But you nailed it--Nadine/Flagg stepped in and that was then end of that.

I really dislike the supernatural aspects of the story--I wish he had written it as a purely human one. Giving a supernatural explanation for anything is just such a cheat.

reply

Anyone been rejected like Harold? He almost scored with the Molly Ringwald character and the Stu comes and takes her. I I've been there, seen it, experienced
it firsthand. It's hard to control your hate if you have a history like Harold, been rejected and bullied all your life. I therefor feel sorry for Harold, and even if I denounce his extreme hatred i feel sympathetic to his situation. Love can become hate so easily, add jealousy and it can be really bad.

reply

<Anyone been rejected like Harold? He almost scored with the Molly Ringwald character and the Stu comes and takes her. I I've been there, seen it, experienced
it firsthand. It's hard to control your hate if you have a history like Harold, been rejected and bullied all your life. I therefor feel sorry for Harold, and even if I denounce his extreme hatred i feel sympathetic to his situation. Love can become hate so easily, add jealousy and it can be really bad.
>


If you have read any of my posts at all on this, you would find that my background and Harold's are somewhat similar. When I was in school, I was frequently bullied, made fun of, and constantly rejected by females. Like I gather it was with Harold, I also got almost no support from the school, very little family support, and my life was anything but pleasant, and it continued in this vein until my senior year of high school.

So, I can sympathize a lot with Harold for what he went through. Indeed, it would a very fair statement that I thought that Stephen King could have been describing my situation when he wrote about Harold.

Please let me ask you this question: have you read the book, or just seen the mini-series?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

You speak a lot of truth here, Shadow, but I still don't think that Stu wronged Harold.

For those of us who have been socially rejected I think Loyalty is our defining characteristic because we know how badly it is to be burned so for Stu to pull Harold aside and say that he had no interest in Fran was an oath of loyalty that was almost immediately broken.

This is, no doubt, how Harold saw the situation, but there is a fundamental problem. That is that Harold seems to have heard something quite different from what Stu actually said. Stu never made any promises to Harold except not to squeeze him out. In other words not to take Fran away from Harold. But he saw very soon that while Harold was indeed interested in the pretty Frannie, that the interest was not returned. Thus he could have Frannie and still keep his promise to Harold about not squeezing him, out because there was no romantic relationship between Fran and Harold in the first place.

Now, I will concede that Harold saw things very differently. To him, like I said in one of my first posts in this thread, their having both survived the plague in a relatively small town, and not only that, having known each other prior to the epidemic, was a sign that they were meant to be together, and woe unto anyone that came between them. To his mind, he owned her and since Stu promised to not come between them, he saw Stu and Fran's getting together as the breaking of a promise--indeed, a betrayal. This is how Harold saw things.

But simply because Harold saw things a certain way, did not mean that this was the way that things were. The monkey wrench for Harold was that Frannie was not interested back. That is the fundamental flaw in how Harold saw the situation. He saw it as a betrayal: but no one else did.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Thank you for your very kind words. They are greatly appreciated.

A very off-topic question and my apologies in the 'uncut' (which if and correct me wrong is THE STAND that takes place in 1985) did you get the feeling that the story lagged severely when Henry nursed Stu back to health and they made their winter journey back to Boulder?


I take it that when you said Henry, you meant Tom. The C&U version is the one set in 1990. As I mentioned previously, there are three versions of the story: set in 1980, 1985, and 1990. The one set in 1985 is basically the version of 1980, with the main differences being the dates and fact that Harold's candy of choice changed from a chocolate Payday bar to Milky Ways. Other than this, I can't see any difference.

And to answer your question: yes, I think it did drag just a bit. After all the climax had happened a few chapters earlier, and all they had to do was go home. The only real question was if they were going to get there in time for Stu to be present for the birth of Fran's baby.

So, yes; it did drag a bit.

PS Please don't worry about going OT. Don't tell anyone, but I do it myself every now and then.

reply

Stephen King has stated in the past that he sometimes suffers from diarrhea of the keyboard. Actually I'm paraphrasing there. I believe it was actually diarrhea of the word processor (or was it typewriter?), but that is very old tech and some of our younger participants might not know what I'm talking about.

Anyway the journey home is draggy. I'm not real certain why it was included except that it does show just how big and empty North America has become. That and build up suspense about Frannie's baby.........I guess.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]


Your secret is safe with me Gary, I won't tell anybody, what was your secret again? ;)
Words cannot express the depth of my relief.

reply

This idea was brought up in another thread, but it made me curious so I'll post the question here: what would have happened to Harold and Fran if they had not met Stu in New Hampshire?

Granted, all we can really do is guess, but let's do that.

Any takers?

reply

Gary -

you were very gracious on my other post. :) I'll try an answer here and see if we get takers. I thought about this.

If they never met Stu and Glen: Harold would have dragged Fran to Stovington. Fran might have dug in with an "I told you so" but she wouldn't have been as pushy as she was with Jess. They'd have quarreled and got over it and headed west.

Halfway through the trip, Fran's dreams of Mother Abigail would have gotten stronger, while Harold would have dreamt of Flagg and it would have probably driven him half-crazy before they got out of the Midwest. THIS would be the beginning of big arguments.

Frannie would have had enough of him and left with a crew of people headed for Nebraska the first chance she got. Harold would have gone to Vegas and Flagg would have put Harold second in command to Lloyd Henreid, until he did Flagg's dirty work.

Then, once he was beyond redemption and no more use to Flagg, he would have publicly crucified him.


"We want the finest wines available to humanity. We want them here and we want them now."

reply


If they never met Stu and Glen: Harold would have dragged Fran to Stovington. Fran might have dug in with an "I told you so" but she wouldn't have been as pushy as she was with Jess. They'd have quarreled and got over it and headed west.

Halfway through the trip, Fran's dreams of Mother Abigail would have gotten stronger, while Harold would have dreamt of Flagg and it would have probably driven him half-crazy before they got out of the Midwest. THIS would be the beginning of big arguments.

Frannie would have had enough of him and left with a crew of people headed for Nebraska the first chance she got. Harold would have gone to Vegas and Flagg would have put Harold second in command to Lloyd Henreid, until he did Flagg's dirty work.

Then, once he was beyond redemption and no more use to Flagg, he would have publicly crucified him.
Well hello there. Fancy meeting you here. Seriously, though, I'm glad that you decided to join.

The part highlighted in red, I agree with. The part not highlighted, I'm not so sure about. Not that I necessarily disagree with it, but I do question whether or not it would go like you say. First, what would Harold have to offer Flagg at this point? I mean other than his intellect.

Granted, Harold was very intelligent; in fact the impression that I get from the book is that he is almost at genius level. Flagg could find such an intellect very useful, and he had a number of such men around him. Paul Burlson comes to mind here. Carl Hough was another. Keep in mind however, that Burlson and Hough (Lloyd Henried as well) were both very loyal to Flagg, while Harold would perhaps be seen more as an opportunist. As such, and also because of his intellect, he might be seen as presenting more of a threat to Flagg than anything else.

Here's what I think would have happened. Harold might have been put in a show position with no real authority and Flagg would have arranged an 'accident' for him much like what he did for him when he was traveling with Nadine. Harold disposed of very tidily.

What say you?

reply

Morning! :)
OK, I've had 2 cups of coffee this morning, and I've though about this.

I think it could go either way - Flagg could be unnerved by Harold's smarts and quickly, quietly gotten rid of him after using Harold for a couple of tricks. That's a good point.

OTOH - and I'm going on the novel here, and yes, it does convey Harold's intellect even more than the movie - Flagg didn't want dissent. I think a couple of people who just wanted to get out of there and go south or something and not mess with his plans were destroyed. It's been a while since I've read it. IF that's the case - the idea of a "high-ranking" person like Harold, even if they're really just a figurehead, could be a useful teaching device. The people of New Vegas would see a formerly "beloved" assistant to Flagg dispatched, horribly at that, and there'd be no more rumblings of mutiny. LOL, I'm a ghoul, I guess, and I think King could have had a field day with this scene.

I still wanna know why Nadine was chosen/who chose her, too. I didn't read any of the Dark Tower books. The idea of some girl randomly chosen for a monster like Flagg is cruel. I felt awful for her when she asked Flagg "why me?" and he just asked if it mattered. I wonder if she COULD have just stayed with Larry, but that's another thread. Which I think I'll start. :)



"We want the finest wines available to humanity. We want them here and we want them now."

reply

[deleted]

In the immortal words of Hannnibal Lecter, "You're too kind." And thank you.

You raise a number of interesting points, but one thing that I question is whether or not Harold would have read her diary if Stu were not there to excite his interest. Remember that Stu was seen by Harold as a threat, and from what I gather, Harold wanted to see just how much of a threat he was, hence the diary episode. I agree with you that the diary thing was crucial to the story, but only because of Stu's presence. No Stu--no diary theft.

Flagg used Harold's anger for his own ends, but the way things were in post-CT America, the chances were that they (that is Harold and Fran) would have ran into another group going to Boulder and been absorbed into them. There would almost certainly have been other men to threaten Harold's hold on Fran, and so he would have likely ended up in the same situation. And don't forget that there were other women for Stu as well, so he might have gotten someone else. Fran admitted to Stu in the book that she did not want Harold as a boyfriend so even if they had not met Stu, Harold would still have not gotten her. So much for the idea that Stu 'stole' Fran from Harold.

The botched attempt to kill Harold was a very important plot point. It was used primarily to as a means of undermining Flagg's confidence, to show him that he was not in control of the situation.

You are very correct when you say that I believe that King put many elements of his own history into Harold. Parts of Harold's story, I suspect, were King's story as well. They were so well-written that one would think that these parts were from his own experience.

This is not uncommon. I write myself and very frequently use my own life-experiences in my characters. So, yes; I think that King did put many of his own experiences into Harold.

reply

For me Harold is easy to sympathize with because of somewhat shared experience. I've never been bullied to the extent he was, nor neglected, or even rejected by woman. Though I'm still a virgin to this day (28). It's different for me, but I think our experiences have been at least similar enough to evoke similar outlooks and feelings, at times.

I think for Harold that subconsciously, he kind of resented being accepted in Boulder. I think that he might have felt, at least I would feel, that it was two-faced. That they only liked me now because I was useful, because I was becoming handsome. That "They", that is society, is just lying. Even I start to allow myself to be accepted, to like myself, I have to get over the injustice of it all. All those people who tormented me... I don't get to rub it in their faces. They wont' ever see the error of their ways.

Then I have the sense that this great wrong that was done to me is being taken away. Like I got to be treated like *beep* for most of my life, but now that is over and is just supposed to be forgotten about. Where is my sense of satisfaction?

Now I know that none of what I wrote here is rational. What Harold did was not justified, however the feelings that drove him to it I think are understandable. Horrible, tragic, and evil, but understandable.

reply

For me Harold is easy to sympathize with because of somewhat shared experience. I've never been bullied to the extent he was, nor neglected, or even rejected by woman. Though I'm still a virgin to this day (28). It's different for me, but I think our experiences have been at least similar enough to evoke similar outlooks and feelings, at times.

I think for Harold that subconsciously, he kind of resented being accepted in Boulder. I think that he might have felt, at least I would feel, that it was two-faced. That they only liked me now because I was useful, because I was becoming handsome. That "They", that is society, is just lying. Even I start to allow myself to be accepted, to like myself, I have to get over the injustice of it all. All those people who tormented me... I don't get to rub it in their faces. They wont' ever see the error of their ways.

Then I have the sense that this great wrong that was done to me is being taken away. Like I got to be treated like *beep* for most of my life, but now that is over and is just supposed to be forgotten about. Where is my sense of satisfaction?

Now I know that none of what I wrote here is rational. What Harold did was not justified, however the feelings that drove him to it I think are understandable. Horrible, tragic, and evil, but understandable.
Could it be that Harold was afraid of acceptance because he did not know how to cope with it? He could handle rejection; after all, he had plenty of experience doing that, but acceptance? Not so much.

This is similar to what you are saying, i think.

reply

That's a more succinct way of putting, Gary.

reply

For those of us who have been socially rejected I think Loyalty is our defining characteristic because we know how badly it is to be burned so for Stu to pull Harold aside and say that he had no interest in Fran was an oath of loyalty that was almost immediately broken.


This is, no doubt, how Harold saw the situation, but there is a fundamental problem. That is that Harold seems to have heard something quite different from what Stu actually said. Stu never made any promises to Harold except not to squeeze him out. In other words not to take Fran away from Harold. But he saw very soon that while Harold was indeed interested in the pretty Frannie, that the interest was not returned. Thus he could have Frannie and still keep his promise to Harold about not squeezing him, out because there was no romantic relationship between Fran and Harold in the first place.

Now, I will concede that Harold saw things very differently. To him, like I said in one of my first posts in this thread, their having both survived the plague in a relatively small town, and not only that, having known each other prior to the epidemic, was a sign that they were meant to be together, and woe unto anyone that came between them. To his mind, he owned her and since Stu promised to not come between them, he saw Stu and Fran's getting together as the breaking of a promise--indeed, a betrayal. This is how Harold saw things.

But simply because Harold saw things a certain way, did not mean that this was the way that things were. The monkey wrench for Harold was that Frannie was not interested back. That is the fundamental flaw in how Harold saw the situation. He saw it as a betrayal: but no one else did.
If I might, I'd like to perhaps illustrate this point a bit. I am on other fora than this one and there are people who see what you say in a vastly different way than you intended it.

I said on one forum that something was unlikely to happen and another poster read that as my saying that it absolutely would not happen, and based a lot of his argument on that mistaken view of what I said. Finally when others, who also tried to point out that he was misreading me, said that I didn't say what he thought I did, the other poster was forced to back down.

This could be part of Harold's problem: he wanted Frannie so much that he heard what he wanted to hear. Never mind that Stu never said what Harold thought he did; in Harold's mind, he heard a solemn promise from Stu that he would let Harold have Fran. In Harold's mind, Stu 'gave' Fran to him, and so he saw Stu and Fran's getting together as Stu stealing Fran away from him.

reply

Totally agree with this post. I always saw Harold as a tragic character as opposed to one that should be hated or loathed. He was used by Flagg and unfortunately was unable to take his second chance at life and make himself into something new. I remember the book mentioning how much Harold had actually changed by the time they reach Boulder. He has lost weight, his acne was gone, I believe he had even stopped wearing glasses, and he was becoming a valuable and respected member of the Free Zone. But ultimately he couldn't get over that feeling that everyone was against him and harbored feelings of resentment towards those who kept him from getting what he wanted. I don't excuse his actions in anyway, but I do think his demise was tragic.

"Is that your IQ or the number of dipwads your mother had?" - Car Pool Man

reply

Totally agree with this post. I always saw Harold as a tragic character as opposed to one that should be hated or loathed. He was used by Flagg and unfortunately was unable to take his second chance at life and make himself into something new. I remember the book mentioning how much Harold had actually changed by the time they reach Boulder. He has lost weight, his acne was gone, I believe he had even stopped wearing glasses, and he was becoming a valuable and respected member of the Free Zone. But ultimately he couldn't get over that feeling that everyone was against him and harbored feelings of resentment towards those who kept him from getting what he wanted. I don't excuse his actions in anyway, but I do think his demise was tragic.
Personally, I am torn between thinking of Harold as a victim or a villain. I can see elements of both in the way that King presents him,

Legalities aside, was Harold Lauder primarily villain or victim?

reply

I don't see him as a victim, just as a tragic fool. He could have had a great life, but ultimately made the wrong choices. I don't think he started out as a bad person, maybe annoying know it all nerd, but not evil. But he made the wrong choices and got what he deserved in the end.

&#x22;Is that your IQ or the number of dipwads your mother had?&#x22; - Car Pool Man

reply


I don't see him as a victim, just as a tragic fool. He could have had a great life, but ultimately made the wrong choices. I don't think he started out as a bad person, maybe annoying know it all nerd, but not evil. But he made the wrong choices and got what he deserved in the end.
Your point is valid after the plague came as Harold had a golden opportunity to cast off the shackles of his past. But he had a problem that I think people tend to overlook: before the plague, he never learned vital social skills, such as how to interact with others, how to deal effectively with disappointment, etc. Not that he didn't have more than his share prior to the epidemic, but he never learned how to deal with it in a mature way.

So, in a way, he was a victim, not of Stu or Frannie, Nick, or the Free Zone, but of his circumstances prior to the outbreak of Captain Trips. And he was, I think, maturing, and had Flagg not gotten to him, via Nadine, I think he would have grown out of his situation and became a valuable member of the community.

Now, this does not negate his personal responsibility for his actions, as he was fully capable of choosing his own way. Unfortunately, he chose wrong.

reply

Kinda sorta halfway related to the thread, so it's not completely OT, but there is a movie (I have the impression that it was made-for-video) about the 1966 mass murder of the student nurses in Chicago.

It is called Chicago Massacre: Richard Speck, and in the title role is none other than our very own Parker Lewis/Harold Lauder.

Also Mr C, you might be interested to know that I picked up a Model 27 5".

reply

[deleted]

I always wondered why Stephen never thought to use either one in the dark Tower series to get some type of redemption as they were tragic figures that you can feel sorry for but at the same time want them to atone for what they done.
There's an interesting thought. SK did have at least one of the characters from his earlier novels find redemption in the DT series, so why not either or both of these two?

Good question.

reply

I think that Nadine and Harold were both tragic figures. Harold was the every man, with high intelligence, bullied and not good looking. Nadine was like a puppet who was isolated from family and friends. Both of these people didn't have anyone or a purpose and so when Flagg came along he gave them both what they really wanted. Harold wanted to be accepted, a role in the community, friends, to feel important and he even tells Nadine that he will get a woman o love him that is prettier then Nadine. Nadine wanted a man to love, children and to live happily ever after. Both lost want they really wanted and were screwed in the end. They both could've had different lives and been happy without flagg. Maybe in another time and place both could've met someone special along with having important positions but the stars weren't align her. I always wondered why Stephen never thought to use either one in the dark Tower series to get some type of redemption as they were tragic figures that you can feel sorry for but at the same time want them to atone for what they done.


He wanted to be accepted, yes; but not by the Free Zone. And he was accepted by the Free Zone but he fought this. Even if Flagg had given him what he wanted, I question whether he would have been happy.

Also, I might note that the reason he joined Flagg was primarily revenge. What had the Zone done to him? Nothing really, but people like them had made his life miserable from his earliest memories, and he saw Flagg as a means of getting back at them. Remember Fran's diary, where she wrote that he stored up rebukes like a pirate stored up treasure? The way that he saw it, he had been excluded by his high school classmate, and now, it was happening once more. Stu stealing Fran, his exclusion from the ad hoc committee and later the permanent committee, all served as fuel for the fire of his hatred.

He simply carried too much baggage from 'before' and had Flagg not gotten to him, he might have realized that the past was the past, made it big in the Zone.

But he went the wrong way.

reply

[deleted]

Harold couldn't see that after Captain Trips, most of his problems were of his own making. Granted that a good portion of his problems prior to the epidemic were inflicted on him but like I said earlier, he carried too much baggage over from before, and this affected his life post CT. I've said it before, but maybe he just didn't know how to cope with acceptance.

However, he did have choices and he chose wrong.

reply

[deleted]

Is there anyone here who sees Stu as doing wrong to Harold when he and Fran got together? Did he 'steal' Fran from Harold?

This used to be a common view on this board.

reply


Is there anyone here who sees Stu as doing wrong to Harold when he and Fran got together? Did he 'steal' Fran from Harold?

This used to be a common view on this board.
Any others that want to explore this a bit?

Or maybe the question of Harold's being victim or villain?

reply

Did Stu 'steal' Fran from Harold?

reply

Stu didn’t ‘steal’ Fran but there was an element of betrayal - Stu told Harold not to worry, he wasn’t tying to cut in… and then does just that.

I’m sure Stu didn’t pursue Fran, but once she showed an interest in him he didn’t hold back, and why should he? You can’t go forever denying yourself love because some other chump thinks he deserves your woman.

The story glossed over Stu’s broken ‘promise’ actually. Harold should have confronted him about going back on his word, and then Fran could have intervened and made her choice clear. A big discussion could have saved a lot of trouble.

Stu and Fran were also kinda naive, it was clear that Harold was deeply bitter and twisted, they should have known that getting together and letting Harold find out would potentially turn him psychotic.

Alternatively, Fran could have saved everyone a lot of trouble by deflowering Harold. The guy was ready to burst with sexual frsustration, and post-CT Fran could probably have done with some dick to de-stress. They were travelling together for weeks and Harold was getting more deranged bc his nuts were about to explode… how about gving the guy whose leg you rested on for emotional support a quick poke to simmer the tensions?

I know that’s not a popular suggestion but people have gotten laid for a lot worse reasons.

reply

I'm gonna toss out an idea I brought up on the old IMDB boards, a short while before those forums were deleted. It might still be here in these boards, but if so I can't find it. It's definitely not in this thread. Anyway ...

One cross Harold has to bear is that for him, there really is no such thing as a completely fresh start, at least while Fran is around. Quite apart from anything romantic or sexual, or even Fran being female at all -- he's gotta be worried that one way Fran's gonna worm herself in to Boulder society is by telling tales of his pre-plague days. And such worries would be justified -- Fran did that on at least two occasions in the book, telling people "you mustn't trust Harold because he was the high school nerd" when it was completely unnecessary for her to do so. Not saying that anyone else would even care about that sort of thing, but Harold might fear they would -- after all, a person who hasn't lived through anything beyond high school could well think teenage matters are still important to thirty year olds.

To see the point, look at Larry as a contrasting case. Pre-plague, he was a guy who went on drug binges, ran up bad debts, walked away from whatever problems he had created and left others to clean up his messes, etc. Yet he's able to leave all that behind. He still has his own inner demons to deal with, but the bad track record is gone. Suppose Wayne Stukey had been in Boulder, whispering to the other committee members, "hey, before you trust Larry with anything important, lemme tell you a few stories about this guy."

reply

I'm gonna toss out an idea I brought up on the old IMDB boards, a short while before those forums were deleted. It might still be here in these boards, but if so I can't find it. It's definitely not in this thread. Anyway ...

One cross Harold has to bear is that for him, there really is no such thing as a completely fresh start, at least while Fran is around. Quite apart from anything romantic or sexual, or even Fran being female at all -- he's gotta be worried that one way Fran's gonna worm herself in to Boulder society is by telling tales of his pre-plague days. And such worries would be justified -- Fran did that on at least two occasions in the book, telling people "you mustn't trust Harold because he was the high school nerd" when it was completely unnecessary for her to do so. Not saying that anyone else would even care about that sort of thing, but Harold might fear they would -- after all, a person who hasn't lived through anything beyond high school could well think teenage matters are still important to thirty year olds.

To see the point, look at Larry as a contrasting case. Pre-plague, he was a guy who went on drug binges, ran up bad debts, walked away from whatever problems he had created and left others to clean up his messes, etc. Yet he's able to leave all that behind. He still has his own inner demons to deal with, but the bad track record is gone. Suppose Wayne Stukey had been in Boulder, whispering to the other committee members, "hey, before you trust Larry with anything important, lemme tell you a few stories about this guy."
Yes indeed. A very valid point.

It's somewhat ironic then, that the one who kept Harold off the Committee was primarily Nick and not Fran. It was Fran in the book who sympathized with Harold because he was kept off the Committee. Even Mother Abagail did not quite trust Harold, but she was willing to have him in the inner circles if that is what the others wanted.

reply

Fran's sympathetic, sure ... but in the very same scene, she (a) tells tales about pre-plague Harold ("he was the most insufferable kid you could imagine") -- again, no fresh start for him; (b) suggests Harold is capable of some sort of revenge (she doesn't assert it directly but asks Stu if he thinks it might be the case, but just by asking she indicates that she thinks it's a reasonable possibility); and (c) agrees with Stu's idea of asking Larry for his opinion of Harold before offering a committee position, then insists Stu do that. With friends like her, I don't think Harold needs enemies.

To be fair to Fran -- Harold's a deeply troubled soul, and I think he would have screwed up his position in Boulder society whether she was there or not. But without Fran there, it would have been possible -- just barely -- for Harold to grow up, fit in, etc.

I don't think Nick had to twist anyone's arm to keep Harold off the committee. In Stu's words, it was a unilateral decision by Nick "that we all went along with. What it came down to was that none of us quite trusted him" -- the "us" in this case being committee members but not Mother Abigail, although it's clear she feels the same way. The impression I got was that M.A. and every committee member except Nick was silently thinking, "I don't want Harold involved, but if others do I'll go along"; and when Nick made his demand they were all relieved.

I remembered that part of it. But when I looked at the novel before responding here, I found I had completely forgotten just how strongly Nick felt about this; he was willing to strike Ralph from the committee if necessary to keep Harold out. Interesting.

reply

Good points. And it might be further pointed out that on the trip to Boulder Harold kept sniping at Stu, making Fran fear that they would cause an open rift in the group. Harold's clumsy attempt to express his feelings about Fran and his reaction to her rejection of him did not help, and this tells me that her fears concerning Harold were at least somewhat valid.

Right now, I'm involved in reading something else, so I'm not reading The Stand, but it seems that Fran was talking to Stu when she noted the sudden change in Harold's behavior. She then put two and two together and thought that Harold might have read her diary. Later she got a good deal of confirmation when she saw the chocolate smudge on the page. So, her feelings about Harold were somewhat vindicated. And I seem to recall that she did a bit of sticking up for him at times too.

So while the potential for Fran to tell about the Harold of 'before' was there, I don't think that she would have done it. In spite of the shabby way she treated Jess at the start of the book, I think she did a lot of growing up by the time she arrived in Boulder.

reply

> it seems that Fran was talking to Stu when she noted the sudden change in Harold's behavior. She then put two and two together and thought that Harold might have read her diary.

Right, it was that same scene. Abridged -- Stu says they all went along with Nick's ban of Harold from the committee because nobody quite trusted him. Fran comments that back in Ogunquit he was insufferable; after the flu he changed somewhat, like he was trying to mature; then he changed again, like a person does after reading something that changes his life ... and when she said that her suspicions coalesced.

reply

Very nicely thought out. This post makes me want to go back and read the book again!!!!!

reply

Agreed! Gary O is quite a writer. I’ve been enjoying all of his posts here very much.

reply