Book Review: 'Salem's Lot by Stephen King
Jul. 2nd, 2009 08:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
juushikaTitle: 'Salem's Lot: Illustrated Edition
Author: Stephen King
Photographs: Jerry N. Uelsmann
Published: New York: Doubleday, 2005 (1975)
Rating: 3 of 5
Page Count: 594
Total Page Count: 81,612
Text Number: 233
Read For: reading gothic novels, borrowed from the library
Short Review: Ben Mears returns to 'salems Lot believing that he's rediscovered the idyllic small town of his youth—but 'salem's Lot has two other newcomers who threaten the town with a vampiric plague. I'm not a fan of King's novels and my issues with his writing style carry over to 'Salem's Lot, which I found poorly paced and unbalanced; other readers who appreciate his style may have a different response. Regardless, the book's vampires never become the threatening, powerful, intelligent evil which would be necessary to make this a successful and frightening book. King has a strong grasp of setting and atmosphere, but the unconvincing vampires prevent 'Salem's Lot from achieving its full potential. Not recommended.
My apathy towards 'Salem's Lot arises in large part from an apathy towards Stephen King. I find King's novels overlong and hyperdetailed, a style which doesn't appeal to me. 'Salem's Lot contains an extensive web of townsfolk who are little more than bit characters; the details of their lives before and during the vampire plague drive home the town-wide terror brought on by the vampires, but I personally find it slows the book's pacing and crowds out the main characters. However, where I find this level of detail distracting and detrimental, I know that many other readers find it builds realistic characters and settings—so where the book left me unenthused, a different sort of reader may better appreciate it.
But what disappointed me most about 'Salem's Lot was not King's style—but rather his vampires. Pre-Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire, these are not sympathetic; but, though inspired by Bram Stoker's Dracula, nor are they villainous. They're certainly styled after Dracula: ruddy-mouthed, supernaturally strong, mesmerizing those that meet their eyes. But most of the vampires are infected townsfolk who, half-mindless in search of blood, remind me more of zombies than vampires. There is an ancient lead vampire who King would make Dracula-like in intelligence and power, but he's introduced too late to become a convincing and frightening enemy. King does a good job of stranding a desperate cast of characters in dire times, but the main characters overshadowed by bit characters and the vampires never quite become a convincing threat—and so 'Salem's Lot is interesting, sometimes frightening, but remains unsuccessful. Readers who better appreciate King's style may have a better reaction to this book, but I didn't much enjoy it and don't recommend it.
Review posted here on Amazon.com.
Come now, King. Every single person in the final vampire-hunting crew is male—the token would-be female vampire hunter is the very first to get killed off. Dracula came out in 1897 and it has more and stronger female characters. Shame on you.
I'll admit I didn't read the short story, deleted scenes, or afterword. I don't hate King outright so much as I find his writing overlong and frustrating—but there is still only so much that I'm willing to take. 'Salem's Lot may be one of the more streamlined of King's novels, but this particular edition is bloated. On the other hand, the photo illustrations are a bit photochopped but some of them aren't bad.
Author: Stephen King
Photographs: Jerry N. Uelsmann
Published: New York: Doubleday, 2005 (1975)
Rating: 3 of 5
Page Count: 594
Total Page Count: 81,612
Text Number: 233
Read For: reading gothic novels, borrowed from the library
Short Review: Ben Mears returns to 'salems Lot believing that he's rediscovered the idyllic small town of his youth—but 'salem's Lot has two other newcomers who threaten the town with a vampiric plague. I'm not a fan of King's novels and my issues with his writing style carry over to 'Salem's Lot, which I found poorly paced and unbalanced; other readers who appreciate his style may have a different response. Regardless, the book's vampires never become the threatening, powerful, intelligent evil which would be necessary to make this a successful and frightening book. King has a strong grasp of setting and atmosphere, but the unconvincing vampires prevent 'Salem's Lot from achieving its full potential. Not recommended.
My apathy towards 'Salem's Lot arises in large part from an apathy towards Stephen King. I find King's novels overlong and hyperdetailed, a style which doesn't appeal to me. 'Salem's Lot contains an extensive web of townsfolk who are little more than bit characters; the details of their lives before and during the vampire plague drive home the town-wide terror brought on by the vampires, but I personally find it slows the book's pacing and crowds out the main characters. However, where I find this level of detail distracting and detrimental, I know that many other readers find it builds realistic characters and settings—so where the book left me unenthused, a different sort of reader may better appreciate it.
But what disappointed me most about 'Salem's Lot was not King's style—but rather his vampires. Pre-Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire, these are not sympathetic; but, though inspired by Bram Stoker's Dracula, nor are they villainous. They're certainly styled after Dracula: ruddy-mouthed, supernaturally strong, mesmerizing those that meet their eyes. But most of the vampires are infected townsfolk who, half-mindless in search of blood, remind me more of zombies than vampires. There is an ancient lead vampire who King would make Dracula-like in intelligence and power, but he's introduced too late to become a convincing and frightening enemy. King does a good job of stranding a desperate cast of characters in dire times, but the main characters overshadowed by bit characters and the vampires never quite become a convincing threat—and so 'Salem's Lot is interesting, sometimes frightening, but remains unsuccessful. Readers who better appreciate King's style may have a better reaction to this book, but I didn't much enjoy it and don't recommend it.
Review posted here on Amazon.com.
Come now, King. Every single person in the final vampire-hunting crew is male—the token would-be female vampire hunter is the very first to get killed off. Dracula came out in 1897 and it has more and stronger female characters. Shame on you.
I'll admit I didn't read the short story, deleted scenes, or afterword. I don't hate King outright so much as I find his writing overlong and frustrating—but there is still only so much that I'm willing to take. 'Salem's Lot may be one of the more streamlined of King's novels, but this particular edition is bloated. On the other hand, the photo illustrations are a bit photochopped but some of them aren't bad.
