It’s such a short read that I’d say it’s worth it. There’s also more than just inconsistencies. There’s about thirty extra pages of material to the revised version.
I’ve never read anything by Stephen King (and I don’t really plan to), but wouldn’t the original version be what he intended to be published after originally finishing the book? Like, wouldn’t all that extra material just be essentially filler? It just seems like a Special Edition situation from the POV of someone who’s never read them.
The revised version fits much better within the seven-part story. Supposedly the original book was more of a collection of five loosely connected short stories (so he says) than it was the first entry in one epic novel.
Pretty much my point. He changed the story and made additions to make it align with the sequels, rather than letting people read the book for what it was. Not that it would be nearly as bad as the SE situation, I just thought it sounded like the same sort of jimmerjammering Lucas did.
The difference is that King’s revision expanded the story and made it more consistent within the world that its characters inhabit. Lucas just added hideous CGI to the screen.
EDIT: And before anyone says anything, yes, the big difference between whether revisionism is obnoxious or not is whether it improves the quality of the piece. Controversial around here, I know.