The Lawnmower Man (short story)

From Soyjak Wiki, the free ensoyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
> Where's Cobson? <
Everyone's first reaction after reading this

This page weren't no coal, it was a shining, glistening gem.

The Lawnmower Man is a short story published in 1975 written by Stephen King that shares its name with the film adaptation.

History

[edit | edit source]
The cover used on said compilation of short stories

The Lawnmower Man was originally published in the May 1975 issue of a magazine called Cavalier and later republished in a compilation of other Stephen King short stories called Nightshift in 1978. It's well known that the story has a completely different story to the film, which was originally agreed to be a more faithful adaptation, but the absolute gigachad of the director gave up on it and decided to rewrite the script to be completely unrelated to the source material.[1] Of course, this caused Stephen King to clitty leak and he sued to have his name removed from the marketing material. Ironically, the movie is more memorable and talked about than the short story itself.

Instead of being about the dangers of technology, virtual reality and a certain bald man with glasses, the Lanwmower Man short story is about... Lawnmowers (who could have guessed?). The plot tells the tale of a man named Harold who hires a literal who to mown his lawn. The guy that was hired instead strips naked and the lawnmower he was using starts moving on its own and leaving behind flesh and blood while mowing the grass. It is revealed that this is actually a ritualistic sacrifice ordered by the greek god Pan, and after Harold tries calling the police, he gets killed and sacrificed by the lawnmower as a sacrifice. Harold's remains are later found by the police but they rule it as a madness induced suicide due to the bizarre circumstances.[1]

Unlike a certain other story by Stephen King, this one doesn't contain any child orgy,[2] or any other pedo shit.

Reception

[edit | edit source]

From a soystorian standpoint, the book isn't worth reading due to its dissimilarities to the movie. Our scholars and reasearchers are still trying to find if some illustrated versions of the book contain any prime jakking material to be traced into a variant. It's also one of the more obscure of Stephen King's work, probably due to its short lenght, it's only 12 pages long and has an audibook.[3] There is also a short film adaptation that more closely follows the story of the book.[4]

See Also

[edit | edit source]

Snopes