There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
on 1 May 2017
One of the earliest horror novels I ever read and enjoyed.
on 27 April 2017
Scary! Well written, delivers all the punches that you expect from the master.
on 4 March 2017
Still among the best of Stephen King's novels, although you can tell it was an early one. I expect I'm being persnickety about English usage but it's irritating and distracting to read about characters in the book who 'hung' themselves as though they were pictures, instead of 'hanged' themselves as befits a grammatically proper suicide or execution. But minor points like that aside, what's wonderful about this novel is that it puts vampires in a context of normal life in a small town and makes them seem more chillingly plausible and genuinely scary than any amount of lurid tales from the crypt. This novel was written when vampires were vampires, rather than adolescent sexual fantasy material as they appear in more recent trendy books and tv productions. For me, this is the best vampire book, even better than Bram Stoker's original.
on 15 March 2017
‘Salem’s Lot was a great little read, and while it is quite clearly inspired by Bram Stoker’s Dracula, King doesn’t exactly hide that Stoker’s work was an influence. In fact, at the end of the book, in the afterword, he talks about how ‘Salem’s Lot came about and that, combined with a bonus story or two and a whole heap of extra scenes, actually made up the last quarter of the book. But it was nice to have it, a little like bonus scenes on a DVD. You don’t have to read it if you don’t want to, but it will help to enhance your enjoyment.
In terms of the plot, the story follows what happens when a vampire named Barlow decides to establish his claim on a small Maine town. Barlow, accompanied by Straker, his human second-in-command, decides to move into an old house with a bad reputation, and strange things quickly start to happen to the town and its inhabitants.
It’s a creepy read from the master of horror, but it wasn’t so scary that it stopped me from sleeping. In fact, I thought that Dracula was scarier, although I’ll admit that I was younger when I first read it. I think I’ve read so much King now that I’m immune to being scared by him – which is good, because I can concentrate on his epic story lines. ‘Salem’s Lot might not be as long as some of his other releases – The Stand and Under the Dome spring to mind here – but there’s still plenty of growth and character development, and you wouldn’t be able to tell that it’s one of his earlier releases.
I also liked the way that the characters were fallible. Father Callaghan springs to mind here, and while the alcoholic priest trope has been overused, King has this knack for taking cliches and turning them around, morphing them into something new that we’ve never seen before. If anything, the annoying thing is the way in which so many of his characters are writers, and there’s a writer character here, too. That said, it’s handy to have a writer around when you’re dealing with a vampire infestation, especially if you need someone who knows all of the legends from popular literature.
The plot has plenty of twists and turns, but I did feel as though the ending came on too quickly, and that the bonus bits could well have been included to provide a sense of closure for the reader. For me, it worked the other way around. It felt as though the ending happened halfway through the book, and that it was followed by a bunch of bonus bits that, while interesting, felt a little weird after such an abrupt ending. Stoker’s Dracula felt like it had more of a build-up, which is strange because I’d guess that King’s book is probably longer.
But it leaves a pleasant aftertaste, which is what you should hope for from all decent books. It might have taken me over a week to read it – I wasn’t reading as much as usual due to various commitments – but it never felt like a burden or a chore. It was always pleasant, addictive, with each sub-chapter leaving the reader demanding more. A lot of King’s work is like that, but I felt it more keenly here, and it was just the kind of read that I needed – spooky, sublime and a little different to most other books on the market. It was refreshing to see a new take on the classic vampire, and I’m glad that it came from King and not some B-list author who milked the vampire trend for all it’s worth.
Overall, then, I’d definitely recommend ‘Salem’s Lot, and it’s worth going out of your way to get hold of a copy. If you can get a cheap copy, like I did, then it’s a no-brainer. It’s earned its rightful place in the vampire canon, and it has literary merit in its own special way. It’s one of those rare books that can be enjoyed by anyone – unlike some of King’s other stories, you don’t need to be a certain type of person to have some fun with it. In fact, this is arguably one of his best books to start with, because it provides a decent introduction to King’s work and his style without overwhelming the reader. Read it!
In terms of the plot, the story follows what happens when a vampire named Barlow decides to establish his claim on a small Maine town. Barlow, accompanied by Straker, his human second-in-command, decides to move into an old house with a bad reputation, and strange things quickly start to happen to the town and its inhabitants.
It’s a creepy read from the master of horror, but it wasn’t so scary that it stopped me from sleeping. In fact, I thought that Dracula was scarier, although I’ll admit that I was younger when I first read it. I think I’ve read so much King now that I’m immune to being scared by him – which is good, because I can concentrate on his epic story lines. ‘Salem’s Lot might not be as long as some of his other releases – The Stand and Under the Dome spring to mind here – but there’s still plenty of growth and character development, and you wouldn’t be able to tell that it’s one of his earlier releases.
I also liked the way that the characters were fallible. Father Callaghan springs to mind here, and while the alcoholic priest trope has been overused, King has this knack for taking cliches and turning them around, morphing them into something new that we’ve never seen before. If anything, the annoying thing is the way in which so many of his characters are writers, and there’s a writer character here, too. That said, it’s handy to have a writer around when you’re dealing with a vampire infestation, especially if you need someone who knows all of the legends from popular literature.
The plot has plenty of twists and turns, but I did feel as though the ending came on too quickly, and that the bonus bits could well have been included to provide a sense of closure for the reader. For me, it worked the other way around. It felt as though the ending happened halfway through the book, and that it was followed by a bunch of bonus bits that, while interesting, felt a little weird after such an abrupt ending. Stoker’s Dracula felt like it had more of a build-up, which is strange because I’d guess that King’s book is probably longer.
But it leaves a pleasant aftertaste, which is what you should hope for from all decent books. It might have taken me over a week to read it – I wasn’t reading as much as usual due to various commitments – but it never felt like a burden or a chore. It was always pleasant, addictive, with each sub-chapter leaving the reader demanding more. A lot of King’s work is like that, but I felt it more keenly here, and it was just the kind of read that I needed – spooky, sublime and a little different to most other books on the market. It was refreshing to see a new take on the classic vampire, and I’m glad that it came from King and not some B-list author who milked the vampire trend for all it’s worth.
Overall, then, I’d definitely recommend ‘Salem’s Lot, and it’s worth going out of your way to get hold of a copy. If you can get a cheap copy, like I did, then it’s a no-brainer. It’s earned its rightful place in the vampire canon, and it has literary merit in its own special way. It’s one of those rare books that can be enjoyed by anyone – unlike some of King’s other stories, you don’t need to be a certain type of person to have some fun with it. In fact, this is arguably one of his best books to start with, because it provides a decent introduction to King’s work and his style without overwhelming the reader. Read it!
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 12 February 2015
Stephen King really knows how to tell a story, and he manages to take a thoroughly obvious concept and turn it into a macabre masterpiece. Salem's Lot had my skin crawling for a good portion of the read. King doesn't have the poeticism of Barker or the cosmological conceits of Lovecraft, but he does have what seems to be a direct tap into the reservoir of darkness in the human soul. Salem's Lot is as much a story about little town meanness as it is a big, gory tale of modern Vampirism and some of the most chilling parts of the book are in the small cruelties inflicted before the real horror begins.
I did have some problems with it though - primarily two elements which eroded my suspension of disbelief. The town of Salem's Lot is described as a lot smaller than my own town, and it describes a buzz of activity, commerce and industry that struck me as constantly discordant. The town is simply too small, as it is described, to be *what* it is described. The second element is more of a logical annoyance in that the ecology of the vampire as presented by Barlow is nonsensical. What Vampire would move into a town of a couple of thousand people and then proceed to exponentially populate his own tiny feeding pool with competitors? Special mention is made of how importance the Marsten House is for Barlow and his guardian, and yet they went to all that effort for a place they'll need to leave in a couple of weeks given the progression of vampirism?
Anyway, I usually don't bother about things like that but so much effort is spent infusing Salem's Lot with the pre-requisite sense of menace and threat that it actually undermines a lot of its own efforts.
Still very much recommended - an excellent, dark and gory horror thriller populated with some great heroes and villains.
I did have some problems with it though - primarily two elements which eroded my suspension of disbelief. The town of Salem's Lot is described as a lot smaller than my own town, and it describes a buzz of activity, commerce and industry that struck me as constantly discordant. The town is simply too small, as it is described, to be *what* it is described. The second element is more of a logical annoyance in that the ecology of the vampire as presented by Barlow is nonsensical. What Vampire would move into a town of a couple of thousand people and then proceed to exponentially populate his own tiny feeding pool with competitors? Special mention is made of how importance the Marsten House is for Barlow and his guardian, and yet they went to all that effort for a place they'll need to leave in a couple of weeks given the progression of vampirism?
Anyway, I usually don't bother about things like that but so much effort is spent infusing Salem's Lot with the pre-requisite sense of menace and threat that it actually undermines a lot of its own efforts.
Still very much recommended - an excellent, dark and gory horror thriller populated with some great heroes and villains.
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 29 March 2010
I've heard people worry out loud that society has started losing sight of good and evil, referencing the current trend for romanticising vampires as proof that this is true. It's true that books like True Blood and The Twilight Saga have evolved the relationship between the night-dwelling bloodsuckers and us day-dwelling ordinary suckers, but I like the way things have gone since this book first came out.
Anne Rice got the ball rolling with Interview with the Vampire, filling out the life behind the shadows that every other literary vampire has had, but not revealed; it's a great - albeit rather straightforward, with hindsight - development. I love the idea of these rather jaded beings suffering with the consequences of immortality: it's a thing most of my generation have contemplated at times when the lights are out and sleep isn't forthcoming.
But nevertheless it was good to read a more traditional, old-school approach to the genre - and this is what this book is. At times it shares a pared-down relationship with Steve's recent book 'Under the Dome' in the way that it documents the unravelling of an isolated town, and the change in psychology that results. 'Under the Dome' was over 1000 pages long though, and this tale fairly cracks along in comparison.
The plot will have been covered already: a small out of the way town with a large sinister house at it's centre has it's gossips working overtime by two unusual newcomers - a successful writer who is revisiting his childhood for inspiration, and a rather sinister European, who has bought the old house for his 'business partner' who no-one has seen.
The vampires are all Evil with a capital 'E' - there is also a Catholic priest with slight doubts in his faith and drink problems, Crucifixes that shine heavenly wrath upon the unclean foe, garlic, holy water and much much more. I learnt quite a lot about the traditional ways to kill vampires; if I'm ever in that predicament, I'll know what to do.
I've spent the last two years reading through SK's work, and this is right up there with his best. His enjoyment in writing what I would consider a tribute to Bram Stoker's original is palpable. There's a lot of love in this book. One of the things people overlook with Steve's books is the pages of beautiful descriptions he will slip in from time to time - they always catch me when I don't expect them.
It's scary and fun. Recommended.
Scary.
Anne Rice got the ball rolling with Interview with the Vampire, filling out the life behind the shadows that every other literary vampire has had, but not revealed; it's a great - albeit rather straightforward, with hindsight - development. I love the idea of these rather jaded beings suffering with the consequences of immortality: it's a thing most of my generation have contemplated at times when the lights are out and sleep isn't forthcoming.
But nevertheless it was good to read a more traditional, old-school approach to the genre - and this is what this book is. At times it shares a pared-down relationship with Steve's recent book 'Under the Dome' in the way that it documents the unravelling of an isolated town, and the change in psychology that results. 'Under the Dome' was over 1000 pages long though, and this tale fairly cracks along in comparison.
The plot will have been covered already: a small out of the way town with a large sinister house at it's centre has it's gossips working overtime by two unusual newcomers - a successful writer who is revisiting his childhood for inspiration, and a rather sinister European, who has bought the old house for his 'business partner' who no-one has seen.
The vampires are all Evil with a capital 'E' - there is also a Catholic priest with slight doubts in his faith and drink problems, Crucifixes that shine heavenly wrath upon the unclean foe, garlic, holy water and much much more. I learnt quite a lot about the traditional ways to kill vampires; if I'm ever in that predicament, I'll know what to do.
I've spent the last two years reading through SK's work, and this is right up there with his best. His enjoyment in writing what I would consider a tribute to Bram Stoker's original is palpable. There's a lot of love in this book. One of the things people overlook with Steve's books is the pages of beautiful descriptions he will slip in from time to time - they always catch me when I don't expect them.
It's scary and fun. Recommended.
Scary.
VINE VOICEon 7 February 2010
In my humble opinion this is the definitive vampire story of the twentieth century. I remember seeing the tv series as a youngster and it scared the **** out of me but also instilled in me a love for vampire lore that remains to this day. On the down side it was hard to read the book without seeing Ben Mears as David McCallum although I was suprised to read the description of the vampire as nothing like the Nosferatu type creature portrayed in the series. I don't see this as a reworking of the Dracula story at all. Dracula is a much more tragic character inspired more by love than greed. King's vampire plans to take over a whole town, the like of which we never really see again until the advent of '30 Days of Night'. King's vampire are evil ravenous beasts not pretty boys with no teeth or Southern gentleman, this is horror writing at its best. I must agree with the previous reviewer however that the book does not give value for money. I have a copy of 'The annotated Dracula' and hoped that this would be in the same vein. I agree that the pictures add nothing and the extra pages are even described as 'deleted scenes' in the style of a dvd. If that was the road that the publisher wanted to go down then the text should have been re-inserted in context and released as 'The Director's Cut'. I should also warn you that this is also not a book for the limp-wristed, its about three inches thick and must weigh 3lbs, I read it in bed until my arms couldn't hold it up any more!
on 17 January 2009
Salem's lot is one of Stephen Kings earliest work, I think it was written just after his first book was published. I haven't read much of Stephen King, I read his first three Dark Tower books, and thought that they were brilliant, but after that I lost my interest in him, and books in general, recently I've been going through a bit of a reading kick. Salem's Lot, which I had brought a couple of years ago, sat on my book shelf, so I decided to give it a go.
I knocked the book off one star, as I found the beginning to be slightly slow and clunkily written, but as soon as the main character (Ben) meets the love interest (Susan) I found the book really took off. The characters, were well developed and likable, all the minor characters were appropriately fleshed out and it never felt as though to much time was used on building their stories.
As is probably expected, the book is terrifying, while it becomes slightly less scary once the threat is known. Some of the scenes staid with me for days after the book. Stephen King has a brilliant knack for getting images to stick in ones mind. He doesn't litter the book with cheap thrills, such as gore, (despite their being many of that) a lot of the scarier bits of the book seem to come from the humans that inhabit the town.
Its definately a brilliant book, well worth the read if your interested in horror, Stephen King, Vampires, or something gothic, and if not, give it a go anyway.
I knocked the book off one star, as I found the beginning to be slightly slow and clunkily written, but as soon as the main character (Ben) meets the love interest (Susan) I found the book really took off. The characters, were well developed and likable, all the minor characters were appropriately fleshed out and it never felt as though to much time was used on building their stories.
As is probably expected, the book is terrifying, while it becomes slightly less scary once the threat is known. Some of the scenes staid with me for days after the book. Stephen King has a brilliant knack for getting images to stick in ones mind. He doesn't litter the book with cheap thrills, such as gore, (despite their being many of that) a lot of the scarier bits of the book seem to come from the humans that inhabit the town.
Its definately a brilliant book, well worth the read if your interested in horror, Stephen King, Vampires, or something gothic, and if not, give it a go anyway.
