An unusual novel for Mr. King in that it's short and fast moving. Very little in the way of extensive backgrounds of the characters (we never really learn all that much about Tom for example) or the towns and areas that the characters inhabit.
To me it feels like Mr. King was writing a graphic novel without the illustrations. The fact that his main protagonist Clay writes and illustrates graphic novels is no coincidence. However it isn't a complete change from his way of writing. There is the wise older character, the helpful and sympathetic cop,the precocious teenager (actually Jordan is more of a Tween),that strange obsession with bodily functions, some Richard Bachman style violence, a little black humor and the State of Maine. It's just leaner and faster.
Actually ,now that I think about it, this work is more like a Bachman novel in many ways. It's also a bit of a scree about cell phones and our wired (now that can ge changed to wireless) society in general. I suppose Mr. King is being somewhat curmudgeonly, but that's okay. Many horror stories are thinly veiled criticisms of society and "Cell" is no exception.
Perhaps it's inevitable that "Cell" should be compared to "The Stand" and I am going to go there as well. "The Stand" has a sense of optimism, the Christian elements and the supernatural aspects. It's a struggle between Good and Evil (capital letters are intentional) while "Cell" is more about a story of survival. Neither side is really better or worse than the other, but there is no room for co-existence. As Clay observes, "Survival is like love. Both are blind." All I can say is that "The Stand" was written by a younger Stephen King in the mid-seventies. "Cell" was written by King in his late fifties in the early 21st century. To say that he and the country have changed during the thirty years between the two novels is an understatement.
The story works. Yes there are a few weak points. I know that many are bothered that there is no explanation for who is responsible for the Pulse. Inevitably there are critics who voice displeasure that King doesn't tell us what is happening in the rest of the world (like they did with "The Stand") and accuse him of being chauvinistic in his world view.The ending of the book also angers people or puzzles them. However it wouldn't be a Stephen King novel if the ending didn't cause some type of ripple.
I know that others don't like the telepathy and finally there are those who seem to be angered by the fact that King has written a zombie novel - evidently a genre that he is not allowed to touch. Well for all, but the latter criticism, all I can offer is a shrug and say that it's Mr. King's book. He can do what he wants. As far as the anger over King venturing into the zombie field....well read "Home Delivery" in the short story anthology "Nightmares & Dreamscapes". This isn't the first time Mr. King has written a zombie story and it probably won't be the last.
In conclusion "Cell" is readable and it holds your interest. It isn't perfect, but it works. Considering that I paid a dollar for my copy I'm okay with that.
To me it feels like Mr. King was writing a graphic novel without the illustrations. The fact that his main protagonist Clay writes and illustrates graphic novels is no coincidence. However it isn't a complete change from his way of writing. There is the wise older character, the helpful and sympathetic cop,the precocious teenager (actually Jordan is more of a Tween),that strange obsession with bodily functions, some Richard Bachman style violence, a little black humor and the State of Maine. It's just leaner and faster.
Actually ,now that I think about it, this work is more like a Bachman novel in many ways. It's also a bit of a scree about cell phones and our wired (now that can ge changed to wireless) society in general. I suppose Mr. King is being somewhat curmudgeonly, but that's okay. Many horror stories are thinly veiled criticisms of society and "Cell" is no exception.
Perhaps it's inevitable that "Cell" should be compared to "The Stand" and I am going to go there as well. "The Stand" has a sense of optimism, the Christian elements and the supernatural aspects. It's a struggle between Good and Evil (capital letters are intentional) while "Cell" is more about a story of survival. Neither side is really better or worse than the other, but there is no room for co-existence. As Clay observes, "Survival is like love. Both are blind." All I can say is that "The Stand" was written by a younger Stephen King in the mid-seventies. "Cell" was written by King in his late fifties in the early 21st century. To say that he and the country have changed during the thirty years between the two novels is an understatement.
The story works. Yes there are a few weak points. I know that many are bothered that there is no explanation for who is responsible for the Pulse. Inevitably there are critics who voice displeasure that King doesn't tell us what is happening in the rest of the world (like they did with "The Stand") and accuse him of being chauvinistic in his world view.The ending of the book also angers people or puzzles them. However it wouldn't be a Stephen King novel if the ending didn't cause some type of ripple.
I know that others don't like the telepathy and finally there are those who seem to be angered by the fact that King has written a zombie novel - evidently a genre that he is not allowed to touch. Well for all, but the latter criticism, all I can offer is a shrug and say that it's Mr. King's book. He can do what he wants. As far as the anger over King venturing into the zombie field....well read "Home Delivery" in the short story anthology "Nightmares & Dreamscapes". This isn't the first time Mr. King has written a zombie story and it probably won't be the last.
In conclusion "Cell" is readable and it holds your interest. It isn't perfect, but it works. Considering that I paid a dollar for my copy I'm okay with that.