So, I got a bunch of magazines out of the library the other day, including the August issue of Esquire, because according to the cover, it had a story by Stephen King in it.
Well, okay, a story by Stephen King *and* Joe Hill, his son, but still.
And it turned out to be Part 2 of a short story, but whatever, and I started reading, and it's this story about people lost in a cornfield. And they can't get out. And there are other people in there who are threatening them ...
... wait a minute! Where have I read this before? A story about a cornfield, and scary people, and oh yeah, they made a movie out of it ... Children of the Corn! That's it! This story is, like, a total plagiarization of Children of the Corn! I wonder if the person who wrote Children of the Corn knows about this! Let's see ... let's google "who wrote Children of the Corn" ...
... Stephen King. Stephen King is now plagiarizing himself.
I wonder why. Is this going to be a new thing, now? Instead of remaking movies, they're going to start remaking books? Like, "Hell, that was a great story, thirty years ago! Let's slap a new coat of paint on her and trot 'er out again!" Or ... Well, I can't imagine that ol' Stephen did this for the money - I'm sure he has plenty - did he do it for his son, who is also an author? "Here, son, your writing career's been in a slump lately - take this old cornfield story of mine and rework it and hell, slap my name on it, too. Nobody'll notice."
And let me just say right now, if you have a famous parent? DO NOT GO INTO THE SAME CAREER FIELD. Do you really want to spend your entire life being compared to your DAD? No? I didn't think so.
But back to the cornfield story, I just can't figure out why they did it. Any ideas?