Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I thought this "Mice and men"-inspired little trifle was a more enjoyable read than I was afraid of, but it surely did not feel like an important one. What really made it was the flashbacks showing what shaped the brain injured baby-napper to what he is. The story itself unfolds and ends following the only logical pattern (except for the very ending which is probably not too realistic, but still very predictable).

I'm not sure why King felt compelled to publish this after so many years and certainly not why he contributed it to Bachman - a pseudonym that wasn't even born when the original draft was written (at least I think, please correct me if I'm wrong). Re-written and heavily expanded by King now but still a Bachman? Also - wasn't one purpose of the pseudonym to find out if the writer's success could be accounted for by any other means than his making himself a name?, i.e. would he still sell books under another name? Serving up this re-luke-warmed up lesser tale seems like the absolute opposite - using both famous names to sell something that maybe should have been left in that cardboard box...