I watched that movie the other night and I was confused. Why would the devil and his people(in Vegas) punish drug users? That made no sense to me. Wouldn’t anything go there if Satan was in charge? Any thoughts on this.
Because the Devil set them to do specific tasks. I can only imagine that the addicts could not perform the tasks set before them so they were punished.
Marc
Well, Bill, it’s been awhile, but I’ll take a stab at it - of course, this is only my opinion, so you’ll probably get lots of different answers.
My guess (because I don’t recall it being explained) is that Flagg doesn’t want “anything goes” going on there - he wants the lights back on, he wants people doing what he says when he says it, he wants undying loyalty. Now if a person had a greater loyalty to a drug (for instance), it would follow that their loyalty to him could be swayed.
I guess.
Thanks ya’ll. That makes sense.
Actually, of ALL the things in “The Stand” that make no sense, Flagg’s attitude toward drugs is the least significant.
Here’s a better question: if God was planning to blow up Las Vegas, why didn’t he just DO it, without sending three of his emissaries to die there in the nuclear explosion?
As for the drug issue… I think that, more than anything else, it’s more a reflection of Stephen King’s hippie-dippie politics. To him, police/“the establishment” were the embodiment of evil, so he placed tough cops on the side of Satan. Such cops would, of course, get VERY tough on long-haired hippie drug users when Flagg turned them loose.
I would humbly suggest reading the book (if you haven’t). There is far deeper character development available there than in a movie. And IMHO I think Missy2U has it right; you can only have one “god”; drugs are a harsh task master that would usurp Flagg’s power.
Because, God almost ALWAYS demands a sacrifice; hence, three of the “good guys” have to be willing to make a “stand” for what they believe in.
King did a better job on the bad guys than the good guys. Flagg wanted obedience and he wanted fear to be the motivation, although love and single-minded devotion would do.
Back in Colorado, the good guys weren’t really good, nor was their little society, so much as it failed to be bad; it was just us, as we’ve more or less normally been, carrying on. King acknowledges this (especially the return after Vegas buys it; the sentinels in the snow).
For me the novel fell a bit flat after the long setup due to the lack of a real set of contrasting visions. We were given advance billing for an apocalypse and it was a lot less than that.
Cuz the image of a guy crucified with syringes makes for a great Fangoria cover.
To expand on the sacrifice aspect, the death of the good guys served a very real purpose in God’s plan. Flagg had people in Vegas, but also spread throughout the desert, California and other states. Because Flagg felt that this was his moment of glory, he pulled all of his followers into Vegas to witness the crucifixion of the good guys. Had this not occured, the bomb would have killed off some of Flagg’s disciples but he’d have plenty remaining. And as you see in the book (not to mention references made in other King novels), Flagg always comes back in some form or another. Doing away with 60% of his followers would only serve to slow Flagg, not stop him.
This comes across mucj better in the novel than in the film. I’ve had to explain this point to a few people who saw the film but never read the book.
Okay, while we’re on the topic, do you think the original published version (mucho edits) or King’s later unabroidged version (when he had the readership/clout to publish such a monster) is better?
I thought the longer version was somewhat self-indulgent, as Kin himself admitted, but some aspects of additional character development were most welcome.
This is one book that I must have read a dozen times over the years. Both versions. Seriously. And it’s not that I lack for other reading material.
I read the original but I don’t own it anymore. I have re-read the “uncut” 15-20 times. I have had many discussions on the merits of both, and I tend to like the “uncut” better because of the deeper character development, and added little bits that just make more words to read. As I rarely want an SK book to end, more words make it better!
As to the OP, I agree with other posters that drug users would be less focused on what Flagg wanted. He wanted to instill fear in his followers. Drug users would have been slaves to their addictions, and would have cared less about Flagg and his goals.
CrankyAsAnOldMan – I thought the unabridged version just offered more character development. And I too occasionally re-read this novel. I have a few that I do this with like Stranger in a Strange Land… to me it’s just like watching a movie a few times!
Okay, I asked my husband, who is in the process of reading this very book right now, and he says that the book mentions that Flagg is the last stand of technology and rationality. That he wants the lights back on, etc, because it is technology…but that the drug use would inhibit his followers from the rationality that he stands for.
Something also (sorry, I’m just passing on what he’s explained without benefit of reading the book myself), it mentions in the book that this age of rationality nearly ended in the 60s with all the drug use then, and Flagg wants to avoid that same threat.
If I’ve got this wrong, many apologies. Guess I’m going to have to read this book now…