Alternate theory of who's really the "Bad Parent"

So Stephen King sets up this very troubled family.  They have been through some rough times, but now that Jack has stopped drinking, and as such, much of his violent and abusive behavior has stopped too.

We are really given no other conclusion to draw that Wendy is the Good Parent and that Jack, when he drank, was the Bad Parent.  Now that he's sober, he's on his way to proving he can also be the Good Parent, but boy, if he ever drinks again, it's Bad Parent City.

The main evidence presented is a horrible event when Danny spilled some of his daddy's beer on the play Jack had been writing.  Jack, in a drunken rage, grabs Danny by the arm with the intention of spanking him.  However, he ends up grabbing too hard and breaks Danny's arm.

This happens two years before the narrative begins, but its a fresh wound in everyone's memory.  Wendy, during her internal monologues goes so far as to call it an "accident".  In other words, she believes Jack actually intended to break Danny's arm.

Jack's internal monologue adds no hope either as he can't really remember what he intended or why it happened.

But something doesn't sit right with me.  Jack is described as grabbing his arm with one hand and spinning Danny around.  That action snaps his arm.  Has anybody ever tried to break an arm?  It's not easy to do.  Bodies are remarkably resilient, even three year old ones.  I submit that it would be nearly impossible to break Danny's arm with one hand in the manner described.

I'm no doctor, but a break requires considerable force or torsion (twisting).  To break an arm with one hand not intending to...I have a very hard time buying it.

Unless...
Crackpot Theory 1:  Danny has Osteogenesis Imperfecta, or Brittle Bone disease.  Not likely, since bone breakage seems to have been a one time occurrence.
Crackpot Theory 2: Jack is superhumanly strong.  Like Superman strong.  Not likely.
Crackpot Theory 3: Danny had a severe calcium deficiency due to poor diet/malnutrition.  Plausible.

Lets examine Theory #3 in more detail.  We know at the time Danny broke his arm that Jack was still working at the prep school making decent money, presumably.  It's never stated that they were doing well, only how badly they had been doing financially since he was fired.  I'm going to assume they were doing well enough to be able to afford proper nutrition for a three year old boy.

We also know that Wendy seems to be the primary caretaker for Danny.  She is shown several times buying groceries, preparing Danny's meals, feeding him, leaving him snacks.  Jack is never seen doing this.  (At least not as far as I've gotten--I'm about half way through).  It's also never expressly stated but strongly implied that Wendy is a full time stay at home mom, meaning that nobody else other than her or Jack would be in a position to be feeding Danny.

Many of the snacks Wendy is shown to feed Danny are of poor nutritional value (oreos, crackers, etc).

Given the assumption that the Torrances could have afforded to feed Danny well, and if his broken arm was due to a calcium deficiency, not excessive force on Jack's part, then it would appear that Wendy is indeed the Bad Parent here, not Jack.  Or at least neither of them are the Good Parent.

But she's so sanctimonious in her judgement of Jack in her head that I think that doubly qualifies her as the Bad Parent.



PS- Relax.  I'm joking.  I don't for a second think that Wendy is culpable here.  However, this injury, and the way it was described bothered me quite a bit because it would be very difficult to break an otherwise healthy child's arm in the manner described.

I think this is actually a product of King's writing that I have already noticed a few times: people that populate his books seem to be much more brittle than real people.  I noticed it a couple of times in 'salem's Lot.  Matt's sudden development of a heart condition due to confronting a vampire was something that seemed a bit forced but not enough to draw attention at the time.  I didn't notice it in Carrie, but I wasn't really looking for it.

If these sorts of things happen in further books, I'll have to give this phenomenon a name.  :)

Bias problem alert! *insert Klaxon here*

One of my stated goals during this read through was to attempt to carry no baggage into this experiment with me.  I wanted to examine King's work with "fresh eyes", hence the name of the blog.

I have to be honest.  I'm having a problem divorcing The Shining novel from the The Shining movie in my mind.  I've tried really hard but I can't.  When I read Jack's dialogue, I can't not hear Jack Nicholson drolling on.  I can't not see Shelly Duvall's face when I picture Wendy grasping with the situation.  Danny Lloyd is the only face I see as little Danny Torrance.

I feel disappointed, really.  I feel like it's hard enough to give this particular novel a fair shake on its own, due to the fact that the Kubrick film is one of my favorite horror movies of all time, but also because it's pretty clear from almost the first few pages that this Torrance family, particularly this Jack Torrance is a very different animal than what is presented in the film.

And this Torrance family deserves to be judged on their own merits.

I don't feel like I'm using the movie to judge what I'm reading.  So far, I don't feel my bias has clouded my judgement that much, but boy, it's hard to not picture those actors as those characters.

I'm hoping the posts will come a bit more frequently in the next few days.  I was feeling quite under the weather the last few days and didn't feel well enough to do much reading.

Character observation

I've noticed how good King is in these first three novels at making characters seem so normal, so real.  They are worried about things you and I are worried about. These characters could be us, or at the very least, our neighbor.

Which is interesting since the books I've read thus far, Carrie, 'salem's Lot, and now The Shining, were all written about forty years ago.  I've read quite a few books from that time period and slightly earlier, and, while many were enjoyable, its much more common that the main characters were not like actual people you may know.

Sometimes, this is intentional, such as in works of fantasy or science fiction, but other times its because the characters seem distant, stuffy or just a product of their time.  An anachronistic vestige of modern history that just seems out of place today.  And that's all fine.

But I just continue to be amazed at how human, normal and real these characters feel, despite the passage of years since they were committed to paper.

The Torrances have issues...

Just finished Part One: Prefatory Matters. We are introduced to the Torrances: Jack, Wendy, and little Danny, and was immediately struck by several things.

• Jack is a mess.  Personally.  Professionally.  Maritally.  He has a dangerous, out of control temper and an addictive personality that has already let him abuse alcohol to near ruination.  His fondness for the drink ruined his reputation at the school he taught at, caused him to "accidentally" break little Danny's arm in a fit of anger, and is seriously threatening to end his marriage.
• Wendy is a wreck.  She's worried about Jack, worried about Danny, worried about her mother's opinion of her.  She seems like she's a panic attack away from a nervous breakdown.
• This family is in serious serious trouble.
• Oh, and Danny can read thoughts (to some degree) and "sees things".
• Did I mention Jack's a mess?  Cuz Jack's a mess.  He knows...just knows...that if Wendy leaves him, he'll have no alternative but suicide.  He hasn't had a drop to drink in some time due to one heck of a scare.  He and a friend were out driving while drunk when they hit a bicycle in the middle of the road.  They were both convinced that they MUST have murdered a kid riding it, but never found a body.  That scared the crap out of them.  Scared them both sober.
• But Jack's alcoholism has been replaced with a deep seated rage that is going to be a serious problem.

King is still world building at this point, introducing the characters to us, but I'm really struck by how real this family seems.  I feel for Wendy, not because she's a victim (she doesn't seem like a victim at all here), but because she loves Jack and has decided to stick around...for now...because of Danny.  

I feel for Danny because he blindly loves his dad, but his ability to read thoughts (it's very rudimental at this point.  He can only grasp single words or concepts, it seems) has allowed him to pick up on words that, while he doesn't know what they mean, scare him.  His mom's thought of DIVORCE, whatever that is, but far more terrifying is the thought of SUICIDE, from his dad, which Danny knows will happen if DIVORCE happens.  Danny knows all of these things, but either keeps them to himself, or, as a five year old, simply doesn't know how to communicate his knowledge.

And, yes, I feel for Jack.  He doesn't seem like a bad guy.  At all.  He is a mess and dangerous right now, but he truly loves Danny and Wendy.  And, while he projects confidence and self-assuredness, it really feels like he has a deep self loathing and probably self-esteem issues.

Despite Jack doing some things that should make him really unlikeable, and having really unlikeable personality traits, I still can't help but hope he succeeds.  He has been trying to write his great play and truly believes that several months of isolation while working as winter caretaker of the Overlook Hotel will be just what he needs to finish his play.

I really does seem to be his last chance.  With everything else falling apart, he needs something to go his way.

Book #3: The Shining (1977)

Next up on my list, The Shining.

I've actually had this book for ages, but never got around to reading it.  I'm very familiar with the Kubrick adaptation, which is still spellbinding and terrifying to me, and I saw the *yawn* 1997 TV miniseries staring that one guy and that girl and...zzz...

Oh.  Sorry.  Nodded off there.

So, while I've never read the book, I know what the adaptations are about.  But one of my stated purposes during this little journey is to read these novels with a fresh perspective.  So I'll do my best to forget what I think I know.

One thing that I thought, while reading Carrie and 'salem's Lot, might be helpful for me is some historical context.  I've noticed, just from the first two books, that King's writing seems to be very much a reflection of the times.  And while at least  these two books have aged very well, I choose to read them as if they were period pieces, especially since King uses times and dates in his narrative.

So, feel free to ignore this info, as this is mainly for my benefit.  I'm including some reference points for me as well as things that King himself might have been interested in, judging from what I've read so far.  Most of my information will be from the previous year, since that's presumably when King was writing.

Publication Date: January 28, 1977
A few months earlier, Stevie Wonder released his album Songs in the Key of Life
Jimmy Carter had just been sworn in as 39th President of the United States
First day of the Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977
The original Star Wars film would be released in a couple months.
Super Bowl Winner in 1976 season:  Oakland Raiders 32, Minnesota Vikings 14
World Series Winner in 1976: Cincinnati Reds over New York Yankees 4-0
Boston Red Sox record in 1976: 83-79, finishing 3rd in AL East
Red Sox Roster 1976
New England Patriots record in 1976: 11-3, second in AFC East, Lost in first round of Playoffs to Oakland Raiders
Patriots Roster 1976
Cost of a new home in 1976: $48,000.00
Median Household Income in 1976:  $12,686
Cost of a first-class stamp in 1976: $0.13
Cost of a gallon of regular gas in 1976: $0.59
Cost of a dozen eggs in 1976: $0.84
Cost of a gallon of Milk in 1976: $1.65  Source
Cost of a car in 1976: $5,418
Cost of bread in 1976: $0.30

$1 in 1976 dollars = $3.84 now Source

salem's Lot (1975) Review

Salem's Lot is just your average sleepy, rural small community.  Despite it's funereal name, the 'Lot is so uneventful that it got its name when a mean and nasty pig escaped from its farmer's pen, taking permanent residence in a wooded lot near the farm.  That lot became known as "Jerusalem's Lot", after the pig.

Nothing ever happens here.  Except for that one time in '39 Old Hubie Marsten tortured and murdered his wife before killing himself in his large house overlooking Jerusalem's lot.  Or the time back in '51 when a fire burned down a large section of the 'Lot, threatening to take the entire town.

The Old Marsten House has remained vacant since since Marsten died, leading the town's children to claim it was haunted.  It's this reputation that has drawn novelist Ben Mears back to the town, to help him relive a childhood traumatic experience he had with the house to use as inspiration for a horror novel.  And also to fully rebound from the recent death of his wife.  Along the way he and local single gal Sue Norton become sweethearts and he befriends high school teacher Matt Burke.

The house is never far out of Ben's mind though, nor is the fact that it was recently sold.  Who would possibly want to buy and live in that nasty old house?  Enter Richard Straker.

Straker and his mysteriously absent partner Kurt Barlow have purchased the Marsten house and claim to want to retire in the Lot and open a small furniture shop.  Straker goes about his business, setting up shop and presumably restoring the Marsten house, while Barlow is allegedly on a months long buying trip in New York.

Then little Ralphie Glick disappears.  And a few days later his older brother Danny suddenly grows very ill.  Pernicious anemia, is the diagnosis.  The hospital nearly discharges him when he dies.

When local cemetery custodian (and gravedigger) Mike Ryerson starts displaying similar symptoms that little Danny had, Matt Burke grows suspicious.  He can't bring himself to say it out loud, but he's thinking it nonetheless.  Vampires.

What King does next is inspired.  These characters live in modern society, see?  We have modern medicine, electricity, incandescent lighting.  There is nothing that exists in these modern times that can't be explained away by science.  Vampires simply don't compute in that model of thought.  This theme permeates most of the book, as people who, just a hundred years prior, may have taken up pitchforks and torches become hapless victims to a menace that can't possibly exist.  It is a deliberate subversion of the Dracula formula put forth by Bram Stoker nearly eighty years prior, in which the terrible Count was brought down by forward thinking people of reason and technology.  In King's universe, that same technology (and blind faith in it) would be our undoing.

The rest of the novel mirrors Stoker's earlier novel in many ways, including the forming of a small group of enlightened individuals from various backgrounds who coordinate to destroy the master vampire.  The difference?  In this story, the would-be heroes are an author, a 63 year old teacher, the town doctor, an almost-alcoholic priest, and a small school boy.

They are over matched from the start and don't really have a prayer.

salem's Lot, much like the previously reviewed Carrie, shows it's age in many ways, but still stands out very strongly as a great piece of fiction that could very easily have been written today.  Change a few details and update some of the characters and the themes and tone are very relevant.

It's very refreshing to see what has sadly almost become a relic: a vampire story where the vampires are nasty, unholy, irredeemably evil creatures that must be stopped at all costs.  These vampires don't want to be your boyfriend.  They don't sparkle.  They don't have a soul, nor do they want to be human.  They want to destroy you and/or make you one of them.  And feed.

The plot isn't without a few blemishes, not the least of which is the matter of how religious symbols, such as holy water and crucifixes work unfailingly until a crucial point where Father Callahan allegedly "loses faith" and his crucifix, which had been repelling Barlow just seconds before, stopped working.  This, despite other characters who openly declare their disbelief of God and religion successfully using crucifixes throughout.  I explained my position on this one sticking point in an earlier post and have yet to hear an explanation that is satisfactory, but in the end, it doesn't truly matter.

I thought salem's Lot was an excellent read, and very tense in places, particularly the end.  I just couldn't stop reading until I knew the ultimate fate of all of the main characters.

Can't wait to see what Mr. King has in store for me next.

They're droppin' like flies...or Final Showdown in the Lot

Finished 'salem's Lot.  I'll write my full review relatively soon, but for now, I would like to comment on the last part, "Part Three: The Deserted Village."

Very much enjoyed this story.  Along the way, I've asked a few questions about how all this works.  I think the story itself is very imaginative and clever in many ways, but I'm curious as to if the "physics" of the universe he's set up works.

Granted, I'll try to view every story within its own context and allow for narrative license, but if X happens and logically, we would expect Y to normally happen, then it should at least be addressed in some manner.

One of the questions that was answered concerned the level of free will and awareness each individual vampire seemed to have.  It seems that they didn't really have any awareness truly on their own, if Barlow had a task for them, but once Barlow was out of the picture, they began to have some rudimentary problem solving skills and echoes of their previous life's memories, which was cool.

There are two plot-y things that weren't really answered to my liking and really seem like Big Plot Problems.  The first, which I raised in a previous post, is "Why do Straker and Barlow bother to announce themselves to the whole world by opening up a furniture shop?"  It seems to complicate things for them and indeed make their task harder.  And lets presume that a cover of furniture shop owners is required to give them a reason for moving to the Lot (I had suggested a simple "I'm old and retiring out here" might have been a better, more low key alternative), why name the furniture store with their own names?  There are several points in the story where the narrative is presented in the form of news clippings and at least two of them mentioned the abandoned storefront of Barlow and Straker's Furniture Shop.  It doesn't appear that anyone had put two and two together yet, but lets assume Barlow and Straker had succeeded, as Barlow had presumably done dozens (or more) times prior...why leave such a bread crumb?  Simple hubris?  Seems a bit weak.

The second plot-y thing that bothered me is the pretty significant is the matter of Church artifacts and their affect on vampires.  In this world, crucifixes, holy water, communion wafers all seem to work.  We are never told why but the main characters didn't know either, other than "folk lore".    Okay, I'll buy that.  Crucifixes and holy water seem to work in most version of vampire lore that I'm familiar with.

Until King changes the rules midstream...during Father Calahan's final confrontation with Barlow.  Up until that point, all symbols of the Church worked without fail, and we presume garlic and roses do as well.  Particularly the roses, since Straker went so far as to buy up all the supplies of roses from the local florists.  (Side note, I find it hard to believe, in a rural/agrarian community such as 'salem's Lot that there's not a single person in the whole town that doesn't have rose bushes, but I digress)  We don't know why any of these things work (other than a wild guess by the doctor Jimmy that they might cause severe allergic reactions in vampires due to some unknown mechanism), they just do.  Okay.  Fine.

Then, at the most dramatic time possible, naturally, Father Callahan's crucifix, which at that time had been emanating a haunting luminescence, ceased being a supernatural vampire repellent, and simply became what it had always been: an insignificant plaster crucifix and nothing more.  The reason, we are told, is that Barlow tricked Callahan.  See, at the time, Barlow was holding Mark hostage.  They negotiated Mark's release under the condition that Callahan drop his crucifix.

Except he didn't.  Shortly after that, the crucifix stopped working.  According to Barlow, Callahan's refusal to release the crucifix displayed that he believed in the symbol, not the power behind the symbol.  In other words, the crucifix was akin to a golden calf/idol and this was evidence that Callahan had actually lost faith in God.

So...suddenly, out of the blue we're told that all of the items that have been working against the vampires work not because of the items but because of the wielder's belief in some higher power (we presume God, but it isn't specified).

I'm not suddenly changing rules mid-game once they have been firmly established, but it can work, sometimes really really well, if you justify them and allow the reader no other choice but to realize "Oh, of COURSE it works that way."  But one pet peeve that really gets me is when this sudden game changing revelation actually causes narrative problems and plot holes that would not otherwise existed.

Case in point: Matt Burke is a noted agnostic.  He admitted as such that he didn't believe in anything that couldn't be reasoned through science.  Yet, he was able to successfully able to repel Mike Ryerson from his guest bedroom by the use of a...wait for it...crucifix.  So why is the crucifix able to work for Matt, who doesn't believe, but suddenly fails Father Callahan?  Is it because Barlow somehow tricked him?  If so, that's even cheaper and almost reeks of Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "What is the capital of Assyria?"

Okay, soapbox over.

Despite my rant, these things didn't ruin the novel for me.  If the choice King had while writing was to either tell a great story and fudge the rules, or have the rules compromise the story, the good writer chooses story every time.  However, a writer breaking the rules, especially once the same writer has already established them or chosen to abide by them, is definitely a quick way to annoy me as a reader.

I actually liked the book.  A lot.  I'ts a take on vampires that is, ironically, quite refreshing despite the fact that the novel is nearly 39 years old.  But I'll touch more on that in my official recap/review, which I should have up in a couple of days.

Chess board is set...

Just finished Part Two.  Ready to start the third and final part.

A few observations thus far:

• Our heroes are aware of the peril and are preparing themselves as best as they are able to fight the forces of the Undead, even if, deep down, they can't bring themselves to believe that Vampires are real.
• Our group started out as four: novelist Ben Mears, Ben's girlfriend Sue Norton, local high school teacher Matt Burke, and Matt's doctor Jimmy Cody.  They succeeded in adding a fifth member, Father Calahan, and traded Sue Norton (presumably a Vampire now) for Mark Petrie, a young but savvy and resourceful boy who believes the Vampires are real.
• They're prepared for battle and part three should be dynamite.

As for what we've seen of the vampires and the reactions of the characters and townsfolk, I've noticed a few things:

• The vampires seem to have a shared hive mind/consciousness with Barlow, the master vampire, as indicated during Ben and Jimmy's first confrontation with a vampire, Marjorie Glick as she taunts them with "Even now one laughs!  Even now your circle is smaller."  I interpret that as a reference to Sue becoming a vampire, something that Marjorie couldn't possibly know since she just rose from the dead for the first time when they confronted her.
• Everybody who comes near a vampire, even if they are in a different room, or isn't aware of vampires or believe in them, seems to have an innate sense of dread.  King goes to great lengths describing the sensation similarly in many different characters.  Is there a broader purpose here or is he just describing a basal survival instinct?  Lizard brain type stuff?

Some observations of King's writing style in this novel:  

• He seems to have improved his voice a bit from Carrie.  I noted while reviewing Carrie that it felt like all of his characters dialogue felt like it came from the same voice.  That's much improved here.  Ben's speech pattern seems to fit an every-man, Matt a lofty educator, even Father Calahan and doctor Jimmy speak differently.
• King is developing a very frank, almost in-your-face, voyeuristic style when setting scenes and describing action in the third person.  If a young mother blames her infant son for her crap hand in life and decides to break a few of his bones or give him a few black eyes in the process, we're there, getting a full view.
• This style was very much in play throughout the novel when King almost cavalierly discusses spousal abuse and general physical harm done toward women.  I don't get the sense that King takes joy in these descriptions, but that he's being true to the characters.  I haven't decided if I fully like it yet or not, especially when going to great lengths describing the psychological and physical abuse that Reggie Sawyer hands out to his wife Bonnie after catching her in the act of an affair.  On the one hand, it does feel real and it gives the impression that King's not so much in charge, but the characters are in charge, doing their own thing and he's just a referee.  On the other hand, Reggie and Bonnie are such minor characters so as to have almost no bearing on the plot at all.  
• King uses very weird curse phrases.  So bizarre at times that it's like he's trying to be funny but its just weird. "Jesus jumped-up Christ in a sidecar."  "What the Christ?" and things of that nature.

Plot questions I would like to see answered:

• Assuming the lesser vamps have a shared consciousness with the Master, do they have desires/wills of their own?
• What's the point of Straker and Barlow going through the charade of securing a furniture store?  Seemed to draw unnecessary attention.  Plus, by announcing to the community that the furniture store is Straker and Barlowe (who just so happens to be out on a months long buying trip in New York), that also draws suspicion to who this silent partner is.  Why not just silently move into the Marsten house, with Straker pretending to be an old retired recluse and quietly bring Barlow into the fold?

Carrie...some historical perspective

Since most of these books that I will be reading are either older than I am or old enough that I wasn't aware of the outside world (I was born in the late '70s), I thought it might be fun to try to gain some historical perspective.

So, how was Carrie viewed in its time?  Well, at least the New York Times seemed to like it.

"King does more than tell a story. He is a schoolteacher himself, and he gets into Carrie’s mind as well as into the minds of her classmates. He also knows a thing or two about symbolism—blood symbolism especially. That this is a first novel is amazing. King writes with the kind of surety normally associated only with veteran writers. This mixture of science-fiction, the occult, secondary-school sociology, kids good and bad and genetics turns out to be an extraordinary mixture."

The review is enthusiastically positive, if a little tempered by the disclaimer that it's a "first novel."  I was always under the impression that King has never been reviewed well, so I'm curious how the critics reacted at the time.  If I can dig up some more reviews as I go, I'll be sure to share.

-B.

How Carrie changed Stephen King's Life...

This probably isn't something I'll do very often, since I don't intend, at least at this time, to turn this blog into a Stephen King newswatch site, but I saw an interesting article at the Guardian, discussing Carrie, forty years later.

The novel retains its power to shock and disturb, as Carrie discovers her telekinesis, and goes on to attend what must surely be most memorable prom in literature. Written in a mix of voices, from third person narration to newspaper reports and academic papers, "to this day, the structure and voice still feel radical, and the characterisation of Carrie by a male writer remains startling," says horror author Adam Nevill. "The book's power endures. Carrie has the energy and vision of an idiosyncratic early work that burned its way out of a young writer who wasn't following conventions, or even second-guessing reader expectations; maybe it just had to be written in that way at that time.

That highlights very much what I felt about the book.  The unusual narrative style, when it worked, was great.

This article had an interesting perspective and since my decision to read all of Stephen King's novels happened to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the publication of Carrie, I thought I would share.

Read it all, if you get a chance.

-B.

That first nerve-chilling moment...

One of the reasons, probably subconsciously, that I wanted to do a thorough reading of Stephen King's catalog is I remember how he really creeped me out as a kid.  Afraid to go to bed, what's-that-shadow-on-the-wall sort of creepy.

I largely suspect that it's not possible to scare a middle aged dude, unlike a 13 year old boy.

There weren't any moments in Carrie that distinctly gave me the wiggins, but I did have my first such moment in 'salem's Lot.

The first third of the book is setting up foreshadowing about old Hubert Marsten and how his brutal murder/suicide placed a shadow over the town.  And how there were rumors of...things...that he did, far worse than murder.

Well, one of the side characters happens to be wandering around in the cemetery and notices an overturned headstone.  He lifts it up and sees that it belongs to one Hubert Marsten.  It's inscription reads:

HUBERT BARCLAY MARSTEN

October 6, 1889

August 12, 1939

The angel of Death who holdeth

The bronze Lamp beyond the golden door

Hath taken thee into dark Waters

God Grant He Lie Still

 Yeah.  Creepsville.

That creepy house on the hill...

As I said in my previous post, I've read this before, so I know whats going on (spoiler: VAMPIRES. It's mother-freakin' VAMPIRES!!!!), but I love how King begins this story.  Almost from the first page, you know that there's something amiss with that creepy old murder house, that watches down on the sleepy town, and he very much teases the reader that this is going to be a haunted house/ghost story.  Nope.  Vampires.

It's funny, because King goes to such lengths to disguise whats going on that you really don't know for sure whats up until at least a third of the way through, yet, despite this, you can't really describe the book without somehow mentioning Vampires.

Other odds and ends I'm noticing: this makes two for two books where King very effectively uses a small town as a canvas for something awful.  It's cliche as can be, but he puts it to effective use because he's so good at capturing the essence of the small town.  It works because its so functional and real.

Going hand in hand with his portrayal of the small farm town is the visiting Stranger, novelist Ben Mears.  The citizens of the Lot are instantly distrustful and always watching.  At one point, it's stated that Ben could probably live here for the next 20 years and still be the outsider because he wasn't "from" here.  Having lived and worked in my share of small rural communities for most of my life, I can testify how accurate this is.

This town is unique because it has its own ghost story/scandal.  And it all involves the Marsten House.  Old Hubie Marsten murdered his wife in that house before taking his own life.  Nobody has lived in the house since that happened 40 years ago.  Ben Mears, who had spent a few years living in 'salem's Lot as a kid, had a traumatic experience with the Marsten House back then and has come back to write a horror novel about it.  He had planned on doing the craziest thing ever: rent the Marsten House and live there while he wrote the novel.  He knew if the house was still standing, it would be vacant.  Because nobody would be so insane to live there.

So you might say he was a trifle surprised to find out shortly after his arrival that the house has been sold.  And that someone actually plans to live there.

Just who is that mysterious person who plans on living there?  What could it all mean?

Hint: IT'S VAMPIRES!

Book #2: 'salem's Lot (1975)

For the time being, I'll stick to reading King in published order, until I decide differently or somebody convinces me of a need to change course.

Next up: 'salem's Lot, originally published in 1975.



I've actually read the book before, about 15 years ago or so, but it's a bit hazy.  I remember liking it quite a bit, and I remember vaguely what it's about, but I don't recall the ending.

And...here...we...go.

Changing things up...

So, one book in to my adventure and I feel I need to have a bit more structure.  Seems appropriate that I use King's first successfully published novel, which was still pretty raw, to go through the raw phase of this blog.

Going forward, with each book, I will do a preview post.  I'm trying to avoid any spoilers about any of the books before I read.  I'm not reading liner notes, book covers or anything.  So, if I happen to know anything about the book, or think I know anything, I'll mention it.  If I don't know anything about the book at all, I may speculate or have a bit of fun with it.

Then, during the read, I'll give my thoughts in process.  I'll react to certain parts, but I'll be painting these posts in broad strokes.  I will probably avoid huge plot recaps during these posts.

Finally, when I'm done with the book, I'll do a review.  It's at that point that I'll do a plot synopsis and try to do a more formal writeup/review of the story.

I may sprinkle in a few surprises along the way but that's enough structure for me at the moment.

Carrie: Final Thoughts

Wow what a ride.  Very much enjoyed my first read of Carrie.
It wasn't perfect by any stretch.  It feels like watching a college or high school athlete with real talent, but not quite sure what the limits of that talent is yet.  You can see there could be greatness though.

I liked the plot structure.  Poking around online after finishing the book, I notice that the book snobs like to deride the news clippings and supposed novel snippets scornfully.  "OH LOOK SILLY AUTHOR GETTING CUTE.  FAIL."

I actually liked the approach.  It didn't always work, but it allowed him move the narrative along in a way that conventional third person storytelling wouldn't.  I didn't find any of the sections long enough to be boring or distracting.  And even the Sue Snell book snippets, while not adding much to the story, it added depth and perspective.  Also noteworthy is how these outsider-looking-in articles gets the reader to look at the actual narrative more critically.  Was Snell somehow involved in the plot?  Were Tommy's motives less than pure?  It was a cool device that added depth to what otherwise would have been a flat narrative.

Not much to complain about.  I do have a minor quibble, and I'm probably just nit-picking here, but it involves Carrie's final confrontation with Mother.  While I thoroughly enjoyed the moment of "full stop", causing Mother's heart to slow down and eventually just stop, merely by thinking about it, upon further reflection it seems too easy.  Too cheap an end for someone as deliciously twisted as Mother.  I would have loved Mother's final demise to be entwined somehow either visually or symbolically with her corrupted notion of religion.

Final thought: other than a few long outdated pop culture references (brands of beer or cigarettes that haven't been produced in decades), this novel still seems very relevant and current.  A very strong first novel.

Full Stop.

On to my next adventure.

-B.

Prom Night

Oh Man.  This book's got it all.  Jaded, spoiled and over-privileged teenage girls looking for "payback" (which is odd since I'm not exactly sure what Chris think's she's getting back at Carrie for...but then again, Chris doesn't seem burdened with an abundance of logic or intelligence), psycho boyfriends, buckets of pigs' blood, the "goodie goodie" girl remorsefully trying to set things right, her sweetheart any-way-the-wind-blows boyfriend.

And a mother-effing scary chick who can kill you with her mind.  

And she's looking for vengeance.

I don't want to belabor the plot too much but, in a nutshell, Carrie goes to prom with Tommy, and they are improbably voted Prom King and Queen.  During the coronation, we get our first hint at how truly dangerous Carrie might be.  Tommy keeps getting these mental flashes that seem to be involuntary projections from Carrie.  It scares him.  And she's not even threatened by him.  Imagine what she could do if she was threatened...

And then two buckets of pigs' blood is dumped on both of them.  Then one of the buckets falls, hits Tommy on the head.  Tommy falls to floor, dying from his injuries.  Carrie seems to sense this.

Then things go sideways. 

Carrie decides to not only get revenge on those who have been bullying her, but on the entire high school.  Everyone must die.  

Eventually that's not enough as she truly flips off her humanity switch and decides to destroy the whole town.

It is really fun to watch it all play out, on the one hand, because we see someone with true super powers coming into their own, and we see her thought process as she discovers new depth and breadth to her powers.  She discovers if she just pictures something in her mind, she can not only figure out how it works, but how to destroy it or use it as a weapon.  On the other hand, this is truly horrifying and scary stuff.

And I loved it.

And yeah yeah, this story's older than I am, has been made into several movies blah blah blah.  I was still unfamiliar with the story, other than the abstract of "girl has powers, uses them for eeeeeevil."  But this was fun and scary at the same time.  I felt bad for enjoying it, but I'll get over it.

And I got chills when Carrie confronted her mother.  The line "full stop" actually made me exclaim out loud.

Review upcoming.

Carrie: the plot thickens

I've read up to the ominous sounding PART 2: PROM NIGHT.  Still very pleased by this novel and am struck by how intimate it feels.  There's really only a few characters we get to really know well: Carrie, Sue Snell, Chris Hargensen and to a lesser extent Sue's boyfriend Tommy Ross and Chris's psycho boyfriend Billy Nolan.  Oh, and Carrie's closet.  *shudder*

I'm also struck by how weak and powerless Carrie is and that nothing is easy for her.  Literally every relationship she has with people is a struggle: her mother, her classmates, her teachers, school administration.  And in almost all instances, she backs down, powerless.

She's started to come out of her shell, however, as she's openly rebelling against her mother in the smallest of ways.  She's going to her prom.  Mother forbids it.

Carrie has also realized that hey, she can kinda move things with her mind.  Poorly.  But it's like a muscle.  And, as with any muscle, it gets stronger with exercise.  Carrie's been exercising.  This should end well.

King has done something interesting with the Mother character and her relationship with Carrie.  It would have been so easy, and even common/cliche, to just describe the mother as being overly religious and repressive.  So many many authors, at least more recently, who need that scary nut family character dip in to the Well-Of-Creepy-Repressive-Christians or even more nebulous "Well-Of-the-Over-Zealously-Religious."

While it's true that, generically, Carrie's Mother could be described that way in the abstract, when looking at specifics, its clear that she's just a nut.  There's nothing mainstream about her religion.  Her specific version of Religion/Christianity is never specified, but it feels much more like creepy cult than old-timey-religion.  She also is afraid of "the Black Man."  It's implied that "The Black Man" is the Devil/Satan, but it is never stated.  I'm not sure if this is supposed to conjure up racial elements or if it is just vivid imagery.  And her twisted interpretation of basic Christian precepts are just...bizarre is the only word.

Ready for Prom Night.  I already know it's going to be a disaster.

And I'm looking forward to it.

-B.

Carrie - First impressions - mid read

From the onset I'm immediately struck by a few things.

1) For a first novel, this has some dynamite to it.  It comes off as a little raw, and everyone's dialogue feels like it comes from the same voice, but there's some hints of greatness here.

2) That opening is just...brutal.  I can't imagine any scenario more humiliating and horrifying than having your first period ever at the age of 17 (not even being aware of the concept, thanks to her wacko-crazy mother)...in the school showers in front of a significant portion of her school class.  She's naked...she thinks she's bleeding to death/dying...and the girls, unbelievably, start throwing tampons and sanitary napkins at her, chanting "plug it up."  This is just difficult stuff.  It's so awful as to be believable.

3) I like the construct of intercutting the narrative with news articles, court testimony, book snippets, foreshadowing the horror of what is to come.  It has a very Bram Stoker feel to it.  It also clues us in, very early, that some bad hoodoo is gonna go down.  It keeps me interested, at least at the start, because without the hint of bloodshed to come, this part of the book is difficult to get through.  Not that its bad, but its intentionally uncomfortable.

4) I'm struck with how relevant this story is, even 40 years later.  We're dealing with sexism, bullying, sex education, religious freedom.

5) As someone who grew up in a small town (pop: less than 3,000), I really appreciate how effortless the small rural town setting feels.  It's scary and disturbing because its so familiar.

There are a few fingerprints here or there that remind you that we're dealing with an author still figuring things out, but King does a few stylistic things in his narrative that stand out right away, particularly his use of parentheses to indicate internal thought.  It's efficient, in that he doesn't have to slow down his narrative by using phrases like "he thought" or "she wondered."  And it's also cool how he can take that parenthetical thought and imbed it in the center of another sentence, allowing the reader to entertain the characters thought at the very instant that character thinks it.  It's unique and clever.

Enjoying the book so far.

Philosophy going forward

I should probably point out a few things about my approach going forward.  With each book, I will post a "pre-assessment" before reading, listing my background or familiarity with the work, or lack thereof.

Then, as I read, I'll post my progress during that book.  I view this more of a therapeutic journal more than anything else, so I'll be posting things that will help me keep things straight or things that struck me.

And yes, there'll be spoilers.  Sorry.  If you don't want old Stephen King books spoiled (the ones I'll be starting on will all be over 30 years old) well...you've been warned.

Then, after I'm finished reading that book, I'll give my overall thought/reaction.  I hesitate to use the word "review" since that implies I'm taking a critical approach, but who knows.  Maybe they'll morph into something reviewish.

Then, after my final thoughts, I'll list my next target and repeat the process.

-B.

First up: Carrie (1974)

Seemed like a good of a place as any to start with King's first published Novel, Carrie.  Hard to believe this thing will be 40 years old in three days time.

I've never read this book before, nor have I seen any of the movies or derivative works that the book spawned.

I'm vaguely aware that it's about a girl who's bullied and has powers and gets revenge.  And the promotional posters for all of the movies have lots of blood on them.  So I'm assuming there's blood.

So here goes...

Wish me luck.

-B.

...and so my adventure begins...

I have a couple of goals:

1) Make time to read

2) Read all of Stephen King's fiction, including the Dark Tower --which intimidates me.  Heck, the entire gigantic catalogue is a bit intimidating.

3) Practice my speed reading.  Started speed reading a while back and I figured that speed reading + a gigantic back catalogue of King books make good bedfellows.

4) Approach his work with fresh eyes.  Yeah, I've read a few of his books.  I've seen a few movies, tv shows, miniseries based off his work.  I'm going to try to read these books on their own merit, and judge them within their own contexts. It would be easy to nit pick 40 year old books in the context of a modern 2014 eye, but that's not really what I'm about.  I'm not a critic and, while I may criticize certain things I don't like or question things I don't understand, my aim is to enjoy these stories, and understand them contextually and how they interact with each other-- as well as stand alone.  My aim isn't to pick them apart.  That's not to say it won't happen, but it's not a goal.

5) Chill out.  I'm sure something like this has been done before.  Probably better than I'll be able to do, but this is a therapeutic exercise for me.  Journaling the experience will help me keep things straight, so why not blog as I go?

My Focus:  I'm sure I'll rabbit trail and go on tangents here and there and talk about other subjects.  It happens.  I'm also not sure how quickly I will get through these books, so I hate to set unrealistic expectations.  I'm aiming to get through a novel every one or two weeks.  Give or take.  Maybe it will happen.  Maybe it won't.

My Approach: I've reached out to several friends who are Stephen King junkies and have asked for suggested reading order.  It seems that there's as many answers to that as their are readers.  One thing seems to be a theme shared by most: once you start reading the Dark Tower, focus on it and only venture away if you need something different.  Oh and read it in order.  Duh.  Everything else can pretty much be read whenever.

So for the time being, I've decided to start reading in published order.  At some point I'll deviate, probably to accommodate the Dark Tower...when I'm ready.

And of course, if you think "JERK'S DOING IT WRONG"...drop me a line.  Straighten me out.

-B

Who am I and why am I doing this?

Howdy.  I'm nobody special.  Regular dude, mid 30's, married, kids, dog, the whole nine yards.

Used to be a huge reader in high school and college, but as life happens you tend to get busy and habits changed.  Instead of reading, I got into analyzing (and overanalyzing) movies, which lead to television.  I became a huge genre television junkie.  I've always wanted to get back into reading, but I could never "find the time."

Back in my reading days, I was a pretty big Stephen King fan.  I read somewhere around a dozen of his novels and really loved his way of telling a story.  And I read enough to realize that some of them shared tenuous connections and have always wanted to explore in more detail.

If I only had the time.

I was intrigued with the Dark Tower.  I wanted to read it several times but was always intimidated.  Still am, but I'm going to conquer that mountain, as well as every other Stephen King work I can get my hands on.

I've decided it's time to make time.