This past week I’ve read two Stephen King novels originally published under the name “Richard Bachman”: The Running Man, and The Long Walk. Both books are about dystopian futures where the government runs deadly games to keep the population in check, but while the former is a close look at how popular media is used to distort public opinion, the latter is more about the psychology of the game itself. In The Running Man, Ben Richards volunteers for the titular game show as a means to support his wife and daughter. The longer he can escape the cops, the more money will be sent to his family. The Long Walk, on the other hand, is much more straightforward: 100 boys go on a walk, and when they can no longer walk, they are shot dead, until there is only one boy left, who wins the prize of whatever he wants.

Looking at them objectively, The Running Man is undoubtedly the better novel. Its world is established, the character is given a clear reason and motivation for entering the games, and there are plenty of twists and turns that keep the story exciting without becoming nonsensical. To the contrary, The Long Walk is almost completely context-free; we are never given a solid reason as to why the Long Walk happens each year. The entire story is nothing but the kids dying one-by-one as they come to grips with their mortality.

In a way, The Long Walk almost seems like a parody of “death game” stories like The Hunger Games and Battle Royale (ignoring the fact that it was released long before either of those). It seems like the genre has gotten quite popular in recent years, with prominent examples like the anime Sword Art Online, the video game Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors, as well as The Purge (though that one’s a case of “interesting idea, awful exectution”) The way King jumps straight into the Long Walk instead of spending time establishing the setting almost seems to say, “We both know why you’re here. You want to see children die. You can call it tragic or horrifying that these young men are throwing away their lives like this, but at the end of the day, you’re still reading.” I’ve seen some speculation that The Long Walk is an allegory for the Vietnam War, which is plausible considering it was written around the same time period. And there’s definitely some similarities to young men foolishly signing up for war and young men signing up for a deadly marathon.

Yet, there is little reference to wartime in the novel. There are few protestors of the walk (mostly from parents wanting to pull their children out), but for the most part society is completely okay with it. Unlike the population of The Hunger Games, spectators of the walk do not appear brainwashed at all; they have accepted it as part of life. Some even offer assistance even though the rules strictly forbid it. At one point in the story, a man offers his watermelons to the walkers, going so far as to throw them into the parade when the soldiers monitoring the walk don’t allow it. As far as we’re told, he’s not punished for his act of kindness. It’s less an act of rebellion against the “evil government”, and more just wanting to help the kids out.

One thing most of these stories have in common is that at the end, the protagonists have, in some minute way, rebelled against the system. I won’t go into any spoilers, but it seems like that’s where the popularity of these novels comes in. The protagonists are put in a hopeless situation where nobody has ever escaped from, but then thanks to a combination of their own wits and turning the game’s rules against itself, they survive in some small way. In today’s climate where many people feel like their future is out of their hands, it’s comforting to know that a little cleverness is all it takes to survive.

The thing is, The Long Walk doesn’t have that. The rules are so simple and clearly defined that it’s impossible to rebel. A few of the characters go mad and attack the soldiers, but they’re easily dispatched, and it’s back to business as usual. The book ends exactly how you’d imagine: 99 kids are dead, 1 survives. To be honest, I find it kind of genius. The reader picks up the book about this deadly walk, presumably familiar with the premise of these “deadly game” stories, and assumes there’s going to be some twist that throws the whole thing off. As it turns out, it doesn’t. These kids sign up for a death march, and then they die. Was the reader given any indication that things would be different? Nope. If the reader was hoping for a “happy” ending where the system is broken, then they’ll be sorely disappointed. Which begs the question, if you’re disappointed in the story for being that way, what were you expecting?

That’s the same thing those kids were thinking when they volunteered for the walk. They knew the rules, knew the stakes, yet thought that for some reason, the rules wouldn’t apply to them. That somehow, everything was going to be fine, despite the fact that they were never told it would be. Just like the kids in the story, the reader winds up with the same expectations, and possibly even the same disappointment that all those dead bodies felt in their last moments. I don’t know if Stephen King was going for that meta-commentary when he wrote The Long Walk, or if he simply wanted to tell a story about kids walking to their death, but whether or not he did, he definitely pulled a huge prank on the audience.

Now, I wouldn’t say The Long Walk is for everyone. Going by the reviews on Goodreads, the story angered a good number of people, while others say it’s fantastic and a must-read. As someone who’s intrigued by the idea of the “Death Game”, I’ll say that The Long Walk hit me pretty hard. Once you start to notice patterns, it’s time to move on to something else. Maybe something less depressing.

I wonder what that “House of Leaves” book is like.