Rating: 
Summary: There is a reason to feel Duped
Review: First of all I did not find this in the "fiction section" and those of us that don't read a great deal of fiction (I prefer the historial non fiction genre) would have no way to be aware of the fact this was a "King" fabrication, then to lend authenticity with a bogus web site seems underhanded. I do not mind the story but lets call the book what it is, fiction. Don't pretend it is anything but. Waste of money.
Rating: 
Summary: Pleased
Review: This book is one that is hard to put down. It is well written and has a sense of black humor. I say this because the authors leave you to belive this is a true story, and a diary that they did find. you will rarely find anybody calling it fiction anywhere on the web sites, it doesnt state what it is, except for that tiny place on the back beside the barcode, a place we are unlikely to look. This has left me only a little dissapointed after reading it, one of the books downfalls. other than that, it is worth taking the time to read!
Rating: 
Summary: The Fiction Factor
Review: In response to duped: learn the difference between fiction and non-fiction before purchasing a book. Despite the fact that "Diary" was a work a fiction, the content from cover to cover was not only interesting, it was remarkably compelling. Perhaps you should have judged the book on the merit of the written word (and style) instead of your inability to differentiate the type of book you are buying. Another word of caution for "duped", Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas (by James Patterson) and The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer (based on the TV series Twin Peaks) are also works of fiction. If you bought these, I hope you kept your receipt.
Rating:
Summary: I feel sorry for...
Review: I feel sorry for all the people who didn't notice the word FICTION on this book. Why would a book clearly marked FICTION be a true story? I guess maybe they watch a little too much WWF or Jerry Springer! lol! But this is a pretty good read, although obviously not written by King. Check it out before the miniseries.
Rating:
Summary: WARNING
Review: Perspective readers, be forewarned. (Unfortunately, I was not!) This book is NOT a recently discovered true-to-life diary of one Ellen Rimbauer. It is a fictional story, and if you buy this believing that you are going to read a true "ghost story", you will be sorely diappointed. Judging from the way the book is advertised in the bookstore, complete with phony a phony foreward and afterward, a buyer would believe that this was an actual diary. (Until about the 25th page, when the story becomes obvious fiction.) If, on the other hand, you just want to read a fictional ghost story, the book serves its purpose. Although I found the first half of the book to be considerably better, due to the fact that the latter section became entirely unbelievable, the reading was entertaining. In any event, I suppose the book did its job, which is to promote the television airing of the story, because I am now interested in seeing the TV version. It will be interesting to find out who actually wrote this story. Obviously, if it is not Stephen King himself, he had a strong hand in the entire process.
I would bet that he is definitely enjoying the confusion he is causing among the readers - very Stephen Kingish!
Rating:
Summary: The is no reason to be "DUPED"
Review: one person here wrote that he thought this book was terrible because it is not an actual diary but a work of fiction. The book is sold in the fiction section of bookstores and it has a sticker on the front of the book tying it into a King miniseries. To my knowledge, ing has never done a "True Story". This is a work of fiction and as such was a well written tie in book. People need ot understand that.
Rating:
Summary: DUHH!!
Review: UMMM O.K. Was I the only one who knew that this book was only fiction here? as an avent Stephen King reader here, I enjoyed this book! Many writters have novels that sound like the real thing. one of my best reads! can't wait to see the movie on t.v. this january!!
Rating:
Summary: Did some checking
Review: I did some checking, read what Stephen King said about writing the screenplay, and I believe he did write the book. It did take a little while before the truth about Bachman was out, and I believe it's the same thing here. There are a few references to Stephen King, such as "Poe" stories about a girl setting schools on fire and a possessed dog. I don't remember these Poe stories. The reason Stephen King is such a wonderful author is he has been able to write all manner of stories-Delores Claiborne was written from a female perspective, for example. If female authors are able to write from a male perspective, is it so far-fetched to imagine Stephen King writing such a story? Bottom line, I did enjoy the book, can't wait to see the miniseries, and would recommend it to anyone, since it is a fun, easy read. It didn't upset me that it wasn't true, it was just ABC and Stephen King cashing in on the same thing Blair Witch did a few years ago.
Rating: 
Summary: Duped
Review: I enjoy history, especially early Seattle, and I was
taken in by the book. I would never have bought/read it
if I had known it was a clever fabrication. I returned the
book and don't recommend it. There are authentic diaries and
stories that can enrich one's life and are far more interesting.
Rating: 
Summary: A fun afternoon read
Review: I wanted to read this "diary" because of it's tie-in to the ABC movie "Rose Red" and to Stephen King - my favorite author. I am writing this review while I still have 10 pages left to read but I would already recommend this to King fans and anyone who plans on watching the mini-series. It's a good,easy read with some fun King references and although I'm almost sure that SK did not write this one, I had a thought that perhaps Tabitha King might have. After reading the diary, I am primed to watch the mini-series so the book did what it was supposed to do.
|
