Salem's Lot

Even though King is a proclaimed king of the horror genre, I've never been even tempted to pick up any of his books, even though I knew that he had to have at least one vampire book in his ouvre. If I read Twilight, why the hell did I resist King - clearly whatever he wrote would be at least true to the vampire with not a sparkling twat in sight. I was not disappointed since King did a great job of merging classic horror with the feeling of small-town USA through great characters, carefully drawn out suspense, and a spattering of brutal violence. Surprisingly, the true horror for me wasn't the cunning evil of the vampire Barlow, but the systematic destruction of a small town. Sure, it was well on its way to capital-e Evil and collapse - show more what with the parents who beat their children, wanton drunkenness, smallminded bigotry, and casual rape - but the arrival of Barlow and his semi-human servant Straker was clearly the death knoll. Maybe there was an innate knowledge of the town's coming death and they only chose to act as the vehicles to finish the job more quickly. show less

I thought this would be more of a challenge to read, as I am not normally a fan of anything horror and EVERYONE and their dog seems to love Stephen King. Luckily, not so. Suffice to say, I was even more doubtful given this was my first taste-no pun intended- reading King ( who everyone loves, etc).

My thoughts? Amazing. Creepy. Incredible characters that make sense on screen. Love the apt characterizations and interior feelings and nuances of each peripheral character. Found the characters Straker and Barlowe completely believable as modern-day/christian-era vamps. Interestingly, it did not feel like I was reading about vampires until characters were actually beginning to openly discuss their paranoia with the goings-on in town. Kudos show more to King for creating this kind of ominous atmosphere without spelling it out right away. The humor and violence present in the characters & plot were so authentic one moment I would be chuckling, the next cringing and feeling desperate. And as a novice King-reader, I realized quickly that I had no idea how it would end, which was unnerving in itself. I like that I am suddenly reading and interested in a genre that I have up until this point avoided. Inspired to read Dracula now. show less

A classic (for me) that I probably read, near to when it first came out, at least when it came out on paperback. And the copy I read was probably 40 years old, a delicate balance of comfortably holding the book and not have it completely fall apart. Vampires come to a small town in Maine. Horror ensues. But, to be honest, not as much as I remember. Maybe I'm jaded. Its an early work for him, so he's working out his style, starting in the middle and going back, lots of characters (maybe too many in this case) and really great visual imagery in the world building. Good, but not great. Definitely worth the time for any King fan, if you've never read it.

They were pallid compared to the fears every child lies cheek and jowl with in his dark show more bead, with no one to confess to in hope of perfect understanding but another child. There is no group therapy or psychiatry or community social services for the child who must cope with the thing under the bed or in the cellar every night, the thing which leers and capers and threatens just beyond the point where vision will reach. The same lonely battle must be fought night after night and the only cure is the eventual satisfaction of the imaginary faculties, and this is called adulthood. show less

I approached 'Salem's Lot with some trepidation. It's such a milestone of a horror . I'd read it before, about fifteen years back, but my memories come more from the excellent seventies miniseries than the novel. I've joined a group where we are reading through all of SK's novels in publication order, one a month. With this, his second novel it's easy to see what a wunderkind Stephen King was when he first appeared on the scene.

'Salem's Lot is an excellent piece of writing. Pace, description and characterization all work hand in hand to make this book something more than a cheap horror novel. If for some reason, you don't know what 'Salem's Lot is about, I'd advise you to stop reading reviews and just pick it up. King tries his darndest show more in the beginning to keep you as a reader off balance. In the opening flashback chapter we learn about 'Salem's Lot, a small New England town where 'something bad' happened. It seems to be tied into a creepy old house (the Marsten house) on a hill where our hero (Ben Mears, the first in a long and proud line of SK author/main characters) saw a ghost when he was a child.

Stephen King then goes on to detail the various lives of the townspeople of 'Salem's Lot. Here he shines. Just a few paragraphs about a character who may not ever play a major part in the overarching story is richer in characterization than most horror authors are able to provide for their lead characters The town becomes something 'real' to you. Not a stock 'small town' but a place where real people live and do things good and bad. Those sections of the book really put me in the mood to finally read my copy of Peyton Place.

Of course, 'Salem's Lot is a lot more than a slice of life tale in small-town New England. Odd bits are woven into the story. Even then he keeps his cards close to his chest. I vividly remember an eerie scene where Hank and Royal Snow (what a name!) deliver a sideboard to the newly purchased Marsten house.

It was an excellently written and damn creepy scene. Even more so because really, nothing overtly 'bad' happens. It was such a well done mood piece. (I have to say, the version of this scene that appears in the '70's miniseries was also really well done.) King does an excellent job of adding more and more weird going's on to his tale through the entire first section, drawing you as a reader in. He builds an atmosphere of paranoia, showing a town disintegrate from within as a cancer eats it away. By the time the doors are thrown open on the town's secret, you are hooked and willing to buy into anything

I've been trying to keep my review vague in order to not spoil things for a potential first time reader. It's hard to say more without the details though, so I'll just wrap it up by recommending you read the book. The sooner, the better. show less

It's been a long time since first reading this early book by Uncle Stevie (1988), and like some of the others I've re-read recently, it definitely stands the test of time. One of the benefits of reading this one again is to see Father Callahan, who returns in [The Dark Tower] series to play an important role in the fight against evil. Getting to read Callahan's origin story freshly really helps to put him in the proper context for the later work. Another benefit to this reread is that I'm also reading King's [Danse Macabre] at the same time, and he refers to his own writing process for ['Salem's Lot] as he describes the origins of horror in literature, harkening back to Stoker's [Dracula]. King details how he payed homage and updated show more Stoker's classic, where he ventured into new territory and where he remained true to the early concepts. You really can't find many better vampire novels than this one - there's no shiny, romantic vampires here - only monsters. In [Danse Macabre], he says, "We make up horrors to help us cope with the real ones." That's a clue that not all the monsters in this book have sharpened incisors, a universal King theme.

Highly recommended.
5 bones!!!!! show less

First Read: January 2013
Initial Rating: 2/5 stars
Re-Read: August/Sept 2016
New Rating: 4/5 stars

The Plot: Former Jerusalem’s Lot resident and novelist Ben Mears returns to his childhood town to write his next book and confront his childhood fears of Marsten House; a place that has haunted him all his life.

I am so ashamed of my initial two-star rating of this book three years ago. In my defence I never actually finished it the first time; I read up to the scene where a mother punches her baby twice in the face and decided this was not for me.

This time around I was prepared not only for that horrific baby scene but also for the slow build up that King employs, letting the reader get to know the residents of Salem’s Lot and all their show more little secrets before introducing the supernatural element into the story.

What I liked:
- That King took the time to let us get to know each character in the town, which only made it more horrific later on.
- Ben was a really good, sympathetic, likeable main character.
- Equally I enjoyed the scenes away from Ben where other characters take centre stage and we find out what is really going on behind closed doors in a supposedly quiet town.
- Ben’s ‘gang’ that he gathers around him are all good, interesting characters; his girlfriend Susan, Matt the English teacher, Jimmy the local doctor, Mark the schoolboy, and the alcoholic priest Father Callahan someone who I understand ends up playing a major part in The Dark Tower series .
- Straker and Marsten House were both appropriately evil and menacing.
- The way the vampires slowly spread through the town was well written and chilling to read.

What I disliked:
- I didn’t like the fact that Susan died. Her romance with Ben seemed such a big part of the story and then she died for nothing. I know that King probably intended for Susan to play the part of Dracula’s Lucy but it’s a shame her death didn’t have more meaning for the plot and for Ben.
- I didn’t actually find Mr. Barlow that scary. He didn’t get a lot of page time and Ben seemed to defeat him quite easily in the end. show less

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 show more 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.... show less