There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
on 8 January 2006
How excited was I to learn of an expanded illustrated version of my favourite king novel was coming out yet how disappointed was I when it arrived?
The two 'new' stories are from his 'Night Shift' collection, 'One for the road' and 'Jerusalems Lot' and they are bundled at the end with an introduction that tells us nothing new about the book, merely a rehash of previously printed material.
The 'illustrations' are black and white photographs that whilst striking do not gel with the story and worst of all, in my opinion anyway, the deleted scenes are chucked at the back of the book like sloppy appendices and are not even integrated into the story.
All in all it seems like a marketing ploy to me to rip people off-beautifully packaged but not worth the price. Buy the paperback and spend the difference on a book by some up and coming author like Kelley Armstrong or Charlaine Harris would be my advice
The two 'new' stories are from his 'Night Shift' collection, 'One for the road' and 'Jerusalems Lot' and they are bundled at the end with an introduction that tells us nothing new about the book, merely a rehash of previously printed material.
The 'illustrations' are black and white photographs that whilst striking do not gel with the story and worst of all, in my opinion anyway, the deleted scenes are chucked at the back of the book like sloppy appendices and are not even integrated into the story.
All in all it seems like a marketing ploy to me to rip people off-beautifully packaged but not worth the price. Buy the paperback and spend the difference on a book by some up and coming author like Kelley Armstrong or Charlaine Harris would be my advice
on 25 February 2009
What would happen if Dracula moved to your home town and started preying on your neighbours? This is the premise of `Salem's Lot, Stephen King's second novel, in which an ordinary New England town that becomes victim to a modern day vampire. Like all King's books, it was a sensational bestseller when it was published in 1975, but does it stand the test of time?
King's talent is for bringing the supernatural to a familiar setting, but I didn't feel that the book really measures up to King's reputation. It is an effective page turner, but horror fiction should be chilling or shocking, 'Salem's Lot is foreseeable and unremarkable. In King's world, vampires are fairly predictable. They don't like sunlight. They don't like crosses either, or garlic. They do like drinking your neighbours blood, and then your neighbours become vampires. Sounds familiar? Small town folk are equally predictable, going about their daily chores with little idea what is in for store for them. The town's population are a collection of shallow stereotypes. Step forward a weary, chain-smoking detective, a depressed teenage mother, an alcoholic priest, a gossipy old woman, a greedy estate agent, etc etc. Characters are defined by nothing deeper than their job, their clothes and their brand of cigarette. Salem's Lot is a town populated by cardboard cut-out vampires stalking cardboard cut-out town folk and it is difficult to feel any empathy with either group. No empathy means no fear. There were only a couple of moments in the book that I found genuinely frightening.
In his defence, King does keep the narrative moving at a steady pace, and you will stick with it to the end. Something is always happening in 'Salem's Lot. There are some effective twists. Yet what can be made of sentences such as "it conjured up an image of fate, not blind at all but equipped with sentient 20/20 vision and intent on grinding helpless mortals between the great millstones of the universe to make some unknown bread." This is a description of falling in love. The soap opera dialogue also made me smile ("I`m scared, but I`m mad, too. I lost a girl I liked one hell of a lot. I loved her, I guess."), but is that the intention of a horror story? If you've ever wondered how King managed to write so many books, here is answer. He probably spends very little time crafting and editing his work.
I'm not a devotee of Stephen King, but I did read Carrie a couple of years ago, and found it a much better book. There is no character in `Salem's Lot as original and disturbing as Carrie White. Some might consider it unfair to criticise `Salem's Lot for blatantly recycling Dracula (is there anything wrong to a modern day 'homage' to a classic horror story?), but a couple of years after King published this book, Anne Rice wrote Interview with the Vampire , a far more imaginative and sinister resurrection of the vampire. Beside Anne Rice's book, 'Salem's Lot seems stale.
King's talent is for bringing the supernatural to a familiar setting, but I didn't feel that the book really measures up to King's reputation. It is an effective page turner, but horror fiction should be chilling or shocking, 'Salem's Lot is foreseeable and unremarkable. In King's world, vampires are fairly predictable. They don't like sunlight. They don't like crosses either, or garlic. They do like drinking your neighbours blood, and then your neighbours become vampires. Sounds familiar? Small town folk are equally predictable, going about their daily chores with little idea what is in for store for them. The town's population are a collection of shallow stereotypes. Step forward a weary, chain-smoking detective, a depressed teenage mother, an alcoholic priest, a gossipy old woman, a greedy estate agent, etc etc. Characters are defined by nothing deeper than their job, their clothes and their brand of cigarette. Salem's Lot is a town populated by cardboard cut-out vampires stalking cardboard cut-out town folk and it is difficult to feel any empathy with either group. No empathy means no fear. There were only a couple of moments in the book that I found genuinely frightening.
In his defence, King does keep the narrative moving at a steady pace, and you will stick with it to the end. Something is always happening in 'Salem's Lot. There are some effective twists. Yet what can be made of sentences such as "it conjured up an image of fate, not blind at all but equipped with sentient 20/20 vision and intent on grinding helpless mortals between the great millstones of the universe to make some unknown bread." This is a description of falling in love. The soap opera dialogue also made me smile ("I`m scared, but I`m mad, too. I lost a girl I liked one hell of a lot. I loved her, I guess."), but is that the intention of a horror story? If you've ever wondered how King managed to write so many books, here is answer. He probably spends very little time crafting and editing his work.
I'm not a devotee of Stephen King, but I did read Carrie a couple of years ago, and found it a much better book. There is no character in `Salem's Lot as original and disturbing as Carrie White. Some might consider it unfair to criticise `Salem's Lot for blatantly recycling Dracula (is there anything wrong to a modern day 'homage' to a classic horror story?), but a couple of years after King published this book, Anne Rice wrote Interview with the Vampire , a far more imaginative and sinister resurrection of the vampire. Beside Anne Rice's book, 'Salem's Lot seems stale.
on 5 June 2013
great story the only complaint i had was with this copy the print was so small, i wouldn't have bought it had i known. but the book itself kept me awake for 2 nights i couldnt put it down
on 11 June 2009
I read this a teenager and loved it, despite the fact it scared me to death. Having really enjoyed re-reading It, I also picked this up, but time has not been kind.
Only King's second book, a lot of the writing is stilted, and swings between being too superficial and overly detailed. Much worse, I frankly didn't even find it exciting, let alone scary.
If, like me, you're looking for a bit of nostalga, give this a wide berth. Go for It or The Stand instead.
Only King's second book, a lot of the writing is stilted, and swings between being too superficial and overly detailed. Much worse, I frankly didn't even find it exciting, let alone scary.
If, like me, you're looking for a bit of nostalga, give this a wide berth. Go for It or The Stand instead.
on 5 June 2016
Very slow paced book and not much action. I gave up reading around 100 pages as it gets boring.
on 25 November 2016
Was not informed this was a very early edition of the book. It was not as advertised
on 23 July 2014
Bought the book because I remembered the TV series - not his best work!
on 28 January 2014
Badly written, badly structure and at some parts unintelligible, this has to be the worse Stephen King book written. All that I can say is thank goodness he got better, although I am surprised another book deal was forthcoming after this one.
on 25 December 2013
I really love reading S.K., I find it really easy to read, however, this one, in my opinion, is not among his best. Got boring after a while.
