Author Emily Schultz's book is mistaken for a Stephen King work – but her wallet is happy about it

After some King fans mistakenly bought Schultz's novel 'Joyland' because it shares a title with one of King's books, Schultz began chronicling just how she's spending that extra royalty money.

'Joyland' is the title of novels by both Stephen King and Emily Schultz.

Writer Emily Schultz published a novel called “Joyland” in 2006 – a title that also happened to be selected by legendary author Stephen King for his 2013 novel.

Some King fans got confused by the fact that King skipped the e-book format for his book and ordered Schultz’s “Joyland” for their e-reader instead. Schultz said she began receiving Amazon reviews from readers who were either baffled by the book they’d gotten or just hadn’t liked her novel.

“I asked Amazon to change their search results to keep people from buying the wrong book but never heard back,” Schultz wrote on her Tumblr. “Apparently there were a lot of confused readers as this week I got a – for me – big royalty check for those mistaken books. I'm not so upset anymore.”

Schultz decided to chronicle how she spent her royalty money by creating that Tumblr, titled "Spending Stephen King's Money," and her blog lists each item or service she bought and how she thinks the author himself would feel about the purchase.

“$180 for four extra (half) days of daycare,” Schultz wrote for one expenditure. “WOULD STEPHEN KING LIKE IT: Nothing is more terrifying than parenthood, and he’s visited that in a few books so, yes, he would like this!”

More funds were used on bumper repair and Schultz wrote that her family wasn’t sure how the damage had happened, but they thought it might have been while their trash was being taken away.

“WOULD STEPHEN KING LIKE IT: Cars, mysterious garbagemen, feelings of vengeance – of course he would!” she wrote.

Entertainment Weekly recently contacted King about the blog, and he seemed completely on board.

“I’m delighted for her, and I’m going to order her book,” the author said. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.