Salem's Lot, 'Salem's Lot and Jerusalem's Lot

So I've finished the novel 'Salem's Lot. It's kind of weird having read a bunch of later King without ever getting through some of the early novels. He has a pattern of doing a whole bunch of character development and 'setting up' before he ever gets to anything of real interest plot wise. But that's the awesome thing about his work, it's all about those early pages. Getting to know the characters and their situations is the juice of most of his stories. This is where he does his best work as the storyteller, he reveals things about human nature that can only be reached with this level of probing into the lives of his characters.

Now, in the later works, after all of that character development and 'probing', he just hits us with a cool ending and wraps it up. But in the early, truly horror novels he is building towards the scary parts at the end. The reason that we are so scared for the characters is that they've spent two thirds of the novel doing totally mundane things that we have done. Then, all of a sudden, the town is overrun by vampires. That's awesome, and scary.

I've also started to read King's first collection of short stories, Night Shift, the first of which is "Jerusalem's Lot". I don't really see it being a prequel to the novel. None of the events in this story, which takes place in the 1800s and deals loosely with the same fictional town and a house that is inherently evil, are mentioned much in the novel. I think this was just a jumping off point to the bigger ideas that he made it to with the full book. It also pays huge homage to Bram Stoker's vampire story by being written in the form of letters and journal entries. That's cool.

I'v also started to watch the original miniseries based on 'Salem's Lot. It's all 70s and small town. It's directed by Tobe Hooper, the director of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and made for TV. This combo I think actually works to the film's advantage. With the longer runtime and the limitations of television in the 70s/early 80s, they have the time and inclination to make sure to get into the characters. This is a common factor in all the good King adaptations. I just watched the first half, but since that's my favorite part of the book, it'll probably be the best part of the movie. We haven't even seen the vampire, Barlow, yet. In this version Hooper and his team have paid homage to another great vampire tale (also based on Dracula), Nosferatu, by making the villain look like the old school design of that movie.

'Salem's Lot, mid way through and Under the Dome on TV

I've got about 200 pages left in 'Salem's Lot. It's hard to imagine readers back in the 70s who didn't know anything about Stephen King discovering the one/two punch of Carrie and this vampire tale. I can see how he became the sensation that he did. These books are really spectacular. They are not high literature, but they have an art to them that really captivates. There are several passages in The Lot that have knocked my sox off. There is one bit, when King is introducing us to Matt, the high school English teacher who is the first to encounter the vampires, where Kin gets into describing high school and community theater. It is so spot on that I had to stop for a minute and reread the page. It was hilarious.

Another great section is when King takes a break from his story about midway through to reflect and describe the elements that make up the small town. It really is beautiful, and if I wasn't already on board with the people of Salem's Lot, I would have been after that passage.

Finally, there is a bit that I hit yesterday in the section of the book where King focuses on Mark, the heroic kid who fights off Straker. King's knowledge of and ability to translate the experiences of children in terrible situations is probably the most astounding piece in his large bag of tricks. When we are placed in the shoes of a child, the terror becomes that much more real, because it is something that everyone in the world can identify with. King's kids are always my favorite part of his writing. Naturally, I can't wait to get to IT.

I've also recently been watching Under the Dome, the television series based on King's book. For more about it, check out my 60 (90!) Days of Horror Blog. But I will say that I enjoy the show enough to keep watching, even though this second season hasn't kept me as into it as the first one did. Dwight Yoakam's cameo is about the high point of this season, which at this point has completely departed from anything contained in the novel.

Stand by Me

So I watched 'Stand by Me last night as part of my first day of this years (extended) 60 Days of Horror Movies. This year it will be 90 Days of Horror Movies, or A Quarter Year of Terror. Or Scott Wastes Even More Time.

In my mind, this was the movie, along with the accompanying book (Different Seasons) that kind of broke King away from people thinking that he was just Mr. Horror. The novella isn't quite as well known as the iconic film, but the movie is still viewed as a King project. It told the world, "Hey, this guy writes a lot of different stuff and there isn't a kid with telekinetic powers in this one."

For a little more on my thoughts on the actual flick, visit the 60 Days Blog.

SB