Rating: 
Summary: I'm considering a brain transplant...
Review: ...so I can read 'Salem's Lot again for the first time. Super stuff.
Rating:
Summary: THE best king novel ever
Review: Hi, i am a 14 year old student and attend school in robinson secondary in fairfax virginia I have just succefully completed my second and also King's second novel by of course stephen king. This in my opinion (since i love the horror genre) is an awesome and extremely thrilling book that captures the mind with its nonstop suspense. At first when i started reading it i thought it would go right into the action but you have to be patient and understanding. The way king writes his book is amazing. it captures the mind and makes you think that you're actually there with the character's. The story takes place in salems lot wich is actually located in Massachusates near boston and is based on of course fear when killing's start to occur in the small little town (wich in the book is located in maine) and people in there graves that have just been killed or people on the medical counter ready for an autopsy are dissapearing and then reappearing in the night and asking people if they can come in. well that's all i'll really tell you but for all the horror and fans king fans out there i suggest that you read this book
Rating:
Summary: Deja vu all over again...
Review: I just returned to this book after reading the excerpt of the new Dark Tower book in SK's web site, and am I ever glad I did! While this book certainly stands as one of Kings' classic horror tales, it also offers tantilyzing glimpses into the world of Roland and the Tower. Worth the time to read again, will keep you awake if reading it for the first time!
Rating: 
Summary: What I loved (and hated) about this book
Review: I started this book expecting an obvious vampire story, considering the cover and the fact that I already knew this from other readers. It is a vampire story, but it's not obvious for most of the book. This frustrated me to no end, because I couldn't wait for the "action" to start, but it also made the story believable. The fact that the characters lived in ignorance for part of the book made it interesting, and the signs were not so obvious that you considered the characters mentally deficient not to have figured it out. So anyway, the book was gripping, believable, and sufficiently horrifying to suit your tastes if you're a S.K. fan, or into vampires, or just plain horror. I personally enjoyed the book, more than I did most of his others, and would recommend it to fans or people just starting to read his books.
Rating: 
Summary: Uneven but effective
Review: Salem's Lot was one of Stephen King's early novels and as such, its interesting to compare this uneven but undeniably effective book to his later, more confident works. The book, of course, features all the elements that have become King's trademarks -- a writer protaganist, an outcast child who teeters on a premature adulthood, a small Maine town that is disrupted by the arrival of strangers, and violent, disturbing events framed in a very recognizable reality. At the same time, the not-yet succesful King was obviously still struggling to find his voice as he wrote this book. The result is an effective, if flawed, thriller with a strong undercurrent of social commentary.Salem's Lot was King's vampire novel and he himself has admitted to basically lifting the plot of Dracula and simply updating it to the early seventies and moving the action from Europe to the small town of Jerusalem's Lot. King's novels tells of how the urbane vampire Kurt Barlow comes to this town and, over the course of a month, turns almost the entire population into members of the undead. Standing against Barlow are a small, frightened group of characters that will be recognizable to anyone who has read King's novels -- a writer, a nerdy child, a priest struggling with his faith, and a burned-out public school teacher amongst others. Salem's Lot was written before Anne Rice and Buffy the Vampire Slayer helped to redefine the genre and read today, King's book comes across as a trifle old-fashioned. King's vampires are the type of blood suckers that have inhabited countless horror novels over the year and as a result, they lack a certain amount of mystery. As well, Barlow is obviously based on Stoker's Dracula and, as such, he never becomes quite as vivid a villian as such later threats as It's Pennywise. Though the book does have its frightening moments, it rarely reaches the type of visceral terror that distinguishes later King books. However, the book does have an undeniable power -- one that doesn't leave the reader screaming but does leave one uneasy and disturbed once the story is over. Setting his book clearly in the 1970s (references to Watergate, the civil unrest of the '60s, and others abound), King uses the collapse of Salem's Lot to mirror what then-seemed to be the irrevirsible decline of America itself with vampirism becoming a metaphor for the break down of society. Its a big subject -- especially for a young writer -- and King doesn't quite pull it off but its still a relavent message and does add a resonance to the story that otherwise wouldn't be there. King manages to perfectly capture the feel of his small town and its citizens and the scenes were he describes its slow death are truly haunting. If Salem's Lot is hardly a perfect novel, it is a novel that displays the promise of King's later works. And even while his talent was still maturing, King knew how to write what-used-to-be-called a "page turner." The plot moves quickly, the pace never lags, and -- as opposed to some of his later, more acclaimed works -- King never allows his own style to get in the way of telling his story. In the end, the best recommendation one can give Salem's Lot is that its a good read. And that's not bad in the least.
Rating:
Summary: Good, But Substantialy Flawed
Review: Ok, this was my eighth Stephen King book, and I'm sorry to say the worst one yet. After reading all the glowing reviews like "His best book ever" and "Scary as Hell", I just couldn't resist. And although I do have to admit that it was somewhat spooky at times, there were some major flaws with it and it is apparent that this is King's sophomore attempt (although the book he wrote immediately after, the Shining, is a masterpiece). First off, just read Dracula, it's the same thing, just better. Second, the entire book seems disjointed and overlong with little in the way of character development. There are a few memorable characters (namely the main vampire "Mr. Barlow" and a kid named Mark Petrie), but most are only there for a brief period of time and just either die too soon or never really do anything of importance. Don't get me wrong now, every Stephen King fan should read "The Lot" but I personally think that "The Shining", "The Stand", "Dreamcatcher", and "The Green Mile" are his four biggies (masterpieces), that I have had the pleasure to read so far. "Dolores Claiborne" and "Firestarter" aren't so bad either, (better by far than "'Salem's Lot" though).
Rating:
Summary: Vampires and small-town evil
Review: Stephen King's second book, Salem's Lot, focuses on the life of a small Maine town and its downfall as a vampire starts munching on the populace. It twists Bram Stoker's "Dracula" by sending a group of average, under-equipped heroes against a horde of vampires, rather than the brave Van Helsing and company methodically hunting a single vampire.
This book is also a preview of future King works, including the small, decaying town in New England, a writer character, a precocious child, a haunted house. He adds plenty of spice-of-life detail, and though this adds color, it also adds to the page count, often unnecessarily so. The prose is strong but not great, and the story occasionally drags. The first hundred or so pages are a slog through the everyday life of the town, but it's a necessary slog as we are introduced to important characters and settings, and the story picks up after that. It also brings out what I think was the strongest and scariest part of the book: the small evils in the town itself.
While the vampires provide plenty of creepy scenes, I did not find them frightening. The regular characters and their sins, however, were disturbing. King shows a knack for creating average, believable characters and settings, and the everyday deprivations of life and what bad things people are willing to do to themselves and each other. Are people really like this? The answer is probably yes. In one section King specifically addresses this, as a Catholic priest muses on everyday evil, instead of monolithic EVIL. All in all, I'm adding this to my must-read list, but more as a good example of how the writer's craft is done than because it's a really fantastic story.
Rating:
Summary: Very good
Review: this now my fifth or sixth stephen king novel, and while none of them are as good as the first one i read, Bag Of Bones, they have all been of very high quality. This one is no exception. The plot is a little slow to kick in, and at times hard to grasp what is going on, with the time switches in the prologue and then the introduction of the plethora of characters. It takes time to get used to them and to work out who on earth King is talking about. but eventually, when the plot really starts to kick in, it's a beaut. The climax is great, and i loved the epilogue. The middle was pretty great too. It is the most chilling and disturbing of his which i have read yet. for about three days, the atmopshere and despair of this novel really got to depress me. The Shining did this, and i can't put my finger on why. it is perhaps the seeming hoplessness of the events about to be set in motiotn, about the sorrow and heartache, the grand-scale death, the claustrophobic nature of the story. the fact that NO ONE realises what is going on in this small town and if someone doesn't do something soon they'll all be as good as dead... It's a great novel, but i must say that i hate the way that King often splits his paragraphs with thoughts and italics.
Rating:
Summary: Great book, but kind of depressing
Review: I really liked this book because Stephen King got into so many peoples lives in this town. It wasn't just focused on one vampires alone, there were other ties in the story. In the middle though it started to get kind of depressing because nothing was really happening except for sad things. But it had a really good ending. If you read this book, I strongly advise you not to watch the movie, because it was so poorly made. It will totally ruin what you think of the book.
Rating:
Summary: The Master Of Horrors Best Work
Review: I am definately a Stephen King fan and this is without a doubt the King at his best. Some of my friends who aren't Stephen King fans have also read this book and we are all in agreement that this book is a must read! Salem's Lot, in my opinion, is Stephen King's best and scariest work. Don't read this book when you're home alone or right before bed and please DO NOT SEE THE MOVIE. The movie is horrible. If you've seen it and thought it was cheesey and poorly made you are right but please give the book a chance you will not regret it. I promise.
|
