It was bound to happen...

I hate to say it, but it was bound to happen:  it's obvious to me that Rage just isn't for me.

I don't like it.  At all.

This isn't a full review.  I'll post that on Saturday, but I do want to make a few observations/comments.

As I began reading, I thought at first that maybe this book was fine...just not suited for my tastes.  But the more I read, the more I'm convinced that it's just not very good.

I wanted to like it.  I really did.  As I read more about King's reasoning for publishing under Bachman, I really started digging the concept.

As to why I'm not digging it?  I have a few theories, but not sure exactly why.  Maybe it's a combination of some or all of the following:

1. Different voice.  It really feels different.  Angrier.  Moodier.  But without the steady, sure confidence in his other novels.  This is either intentional on the part of the author, or unintentional and merely a byproduct of having been written earlier, before King had fully developed his writer's toolbox.  I had really begun to appreciate King's voice and it seems like it's absence is sorely missed.
2. Lack of a compelling main character.  I say main character, rather than "protagonist" because the central character doesn't need to be a good guy.  He doesn't have to be likeable, necessarily.  I don't even necessarily need to cheer for the main character.  But, if you're going to go the route of an unlikable, unrelatable main character without any discernable goal or quest...then that character has to be incredibly interesting and compelling in some other way.  And I just don't find Charlie particularly interesting.  Just a whining little brat.
3. The entire premise.  A student walks into a classroom, shoots and kills the teacher in front of the class, then shoots and kills another teacher a few minutes later...and the students just kinda shrug, and start playing psychologist with each other?  It's hard to imagine that the students wouldn't have stampeded out of that room, or out the windows or whatever.  Sure, the novel is set in 1976, but I just have a hard time buying the concept that high school students in 1976 would have been so "whatever, dude, lets talk" about the whole thing.
4. Unbelievable coincidences.  A sniper tries to shoot Charlie and succeeds!  But don't worry.  Charlie's just fine.  A padlock in his breast pocket saved him.  Uh huh.
5. It feels raw.  And not raw in a "powerful, visceral" way, or raw in a "raw vegetables wholesomeness" way.  But raw in an "inedible, uncooked meat" kind of way.

I wish I didn't feel this way, but this one just isn't doing it for me.  Maybe it will turn it around in the next few chapters, but I'm not keeping my hopes up.

-B