I remember being completely enrapt reading 'Salem's Lot. I don't know if I just outgrew King or if King indeed sloughed off talent-wise over the years, but rarely have I read something so outstanding, whether genre or literary; a book so ridden with doom, so sickly sinister, and such a phantasmagoric page turner that it sucked in its lust all my free time dry (and sucked time dry I didn't have that should've been spent studying or sleeping). O what a brooding, gloomy, pseudo gothic (gothic chic, let's call it), macabre masterpiece, 'Salem's Lot.

A vampire novel written the way vampire novels were meant to be written back when they were still written right by writers with actual know-how and skills (Anne Rice's debut included): with actual, that is, creative and ingenious implementation of literary stylistic and narrative techniques such as character and plot development; creepy foreshadowing; nuanced, perverted symbolism (both libidinal and religious); and physically palpable suspense ever increasing, pulsating like punctured carotid arteries, raising high the blood pressure to a breathless denouement....suspense so intense I flipped on all the lights at night when I recklessly read it, 'Salem's Lot, alone and vulnerable to imagined, (but-it-felt-so-real!)-vampire attacks inside an isolated suburban tract on a full moon'd cul-de-sac; the skeletal-like houses under construction each side of my house, grotesque and baroque in their exposed incompletion, adding to the awful ambiance of dread and the undead, emanating like an evil breeze from outside my foolishly left open windows.

Or written, I should say, a la Stoker, a la Lovecraft, to which 'Salem's Lot paid its rightful (and frightful) homage.

The made-for-TV-movie of 'Salem's Lot, starring David Soul of Starsky and Hutch and Here Come the Brides fame, singer of the 1976 #1 Billboard hit, "Don't Give Up on Us, Baby," stunk it up like garlic - just like that schmaltzy pop song of Soul's - but not the book by Stephen King. Never the book by Stephen King. So read the book, 'Salem's Lot, by Stephen King...if you dare.

Ah hahahahahahahahaha.... ( )

I've read a lot of positive reviews about this book and eventually decided to read it. Unfortunately, because of this my expectations were high and I was disappointed. The beginning is quite slow and it takes a while before anything happens. There are good moments later in the book, but it's not really worth it. There are many other Stephen King novels that are much better than this one.

I didn't find anything about 'Salems Lot to be particularly original and probably won't bother reading it again. ( )

I enjoyed this, but I'm a quick reader--this one took me two days to get through. If I'd spent more time on it, I think I may have gotten frustrated with the slow-build; it took King quite a while to introduce the major characters (and a lot of minor, on-off characters, too), and after the first 100 pages I was somewhat impatient.

As it was, I read this one quickly, and quite enjoyed it. I like that the reader is kept guessing for so long as to the exact nature of the evil menacing the town, though once the culprit is revealed, the lore gets a bit muddy, and more than a few loose-ends are left hanging at the end.

Still, I enjoyed the characters, and there were enough truly clever sections in this book to offset the bits I was less impressed by. Not my favorite Stephen King novel, but I wouldn't warn anyone away from it. ( )

"Turn of the television - in fact, why don't you turn off all the lights except for the one over your favourite chair? - and we'll talk about vampireshere in the dim. I thibnk I can make you believe in them." -- Stephen King, from the introduction.

Yes, you did. After reading 'salem's Lot I could truly imagine a sleepy town being whittled down to nothing in the day, and vampires at night. It is mentioned that the vampiric inhabitants of Jerusalem's Lot had developed social skills and had found a way of entertaining themselves. A scary thought.

It's weird to think that this was only King's second publication (not necessarily his second written) his writing style and use of language is very advanced for such a young writer. He writes very descriptively, yet still writes so the reader is able to imagine the narration of the story being told by Stephen King himself.

King is well-known for the depth and creativeness he puts into his characters. One of which is Father Callahan, a drunk, Irish Preist who seems to have lost faith. After being defeated by Marlow, he leaves 'salem's Lot rather abruptly to an unknown location. It may seem as though the preist's story is only half told, yet I have the seven volumes of the Dark Tower series (which I have not yet read, expect for the Gunslinger) and am aware that Father Callahan makes a return for the fifth volume in the series, Wolves of the Calla. Speaking of series, the ending of 'salem's Lot is somewhat vague, and in my opinion is open to a sequel of some kind...although it doesn't make sense to write a sequel to a book you wrote forty or so years ago...if King was going to write a sequel it would have been done already...

I noticed a number of typing errors in this edition of 'salem's Lot, such as Mark Petrie was sometimes spelt Mark PetriC. Despite that I like this book a lot, and feel as though I could read it again...and again...and again :) ( )

King's version of vampires. A good tale. ( )