1. New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hot Topics is open from 8:30 AM - 4 PM ET Mon - Fri.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Friday and 8:30am ET Monday.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Can someone (including Stephen) clear up the Glick/Barlow scenario? *SPOILERS*

Discussion in ''Salem's Lot' started by MattManochio, May 27, 2014.

  1. MattManochio

    MattManochio Member

    Hi all,

    Salem's Lot is my favorite King book, and one of my favorite novels, period. There is one part of it that has confused me for the longest time, and I'm hoping it can be answered here: Who attacks Ralphie Glick and when?

    The Glick boys never make it to Mark's house. Ralphie vanishes (taken by Straker). Danny Glick stumbles back to his parents some time after that. Now, was he bitten by Barlow in the woods shortly after Ralphie was grabbed?

    Here's why I'm confused: At that point in the novel, those two workmen had yet to pick up that large crate from the dock. I'm assuming that Barlow was in there.

    If that's the case, how can Barlow have attacked Danny when he's in that Crate?

    The only explanation I can think of is it was Barlow's coffin (among other evil possessions) in that crate, and Barlow was already holed up in the Marsten House, allowing him to roam and bite.

    Or, Danny wasn't bitten in the woods. Maybe Straker clocked him and confused him, and he was later visited by Barlow in his room after the crate was delivered. (The movies indicate that Ralphie visited his brother, but there's no indication of that happening in the book.)

    So, can anyone clear this up for me? Including the Head Honcho?

  2. mstay

    mstay Older than most, not as old as some.

    "The only explanation I can think of is it was Barlow's coffin (among other evil possessions) in that crate, and Barlow was already holed up in the Marsten House, allowing him to roam and bite."

    This is the one that sounds right to me. It's been a while since I read the book but I think that is what I was thinking happened.
  3. doowopgirl

    doowopgirl very avid fan

    Welcome. Salems Lot isn't one of my favorites and it has been ages since I've read it, but I'm pretty sure mstay is right.
  4. Spideyman

    Spideyman Uber Member

    sounds like Mstay is spot on.
  5. MattManochio

    MattManochio Member

    I appreciate the replies!

    First, I meant Danny Glick! Danny! I accidentally typed in the wrong Glick boy's name in my original post and am having trouble editing it on my iPhone!

    As for the question of who bites Danny and when, I'd love it if Stephen could chime in (I know he's busy preparing for Mr. Mercedes to be launched), but perhaps leaving the question unanswered and keeping us hypothesizing is part of the fun.

    Still, I'm one of these readers who likes things tied up in a neat bow.
    Last edited: May 27, 2014

    GNTLGNT The idiot is IN

    ...it was Barlow....
  7. MattManochio

    MattManochio Member

    I agree that it was Barlow who bit Danny -- it had to be. But, what was in that crate? The answer to that question solves everything. (I think ...)

    GNTLGNT The idiot is IN

    ...it was the old home sod...simple as that...and Straker had to get it in place in the basement....
  9. staropeace

    staropeace Richard Bachman's love child

    I think Straker took Ralphie back to the Marsden house as an offering for Barlow. Ralphie then visits his brother to have a midnight snack.
  10. Waylander

    Waylander Well-Known Member

    That's how I've always thought of it.
    blunthead, kingricefan and Neesy like this.
  11. Hall Monitor

    Hall Monitor All bars serve the Beam.

    There is a scene just after Ralphie is taken, in which Straker offers him as a sacrifice to the "Lord of the Flies", waiting for a sign to "begin your work." I always considered that to be pre-Barlow, and basically the act that welcomes him to the town. I always assumed that Barlow was in the crate, and Straker kept Raphie for him. I didn't think Danny was bitten right away, but something like five days later he collapses in the night while going to the bathroom. That would be about right for Ralphie to get him once he rose, assuming Barlow turned him once he arrived.
  12. kingricefan

    kingricefan All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.

    This is what I've always thought too.
    blunthead, Neesy and Hall Monitor like this.
  13. Flat Matt

    Flat Matt Deleted User

    I've literally just finished reading 'Salem's Lot and that is how I see it.
    staropeace, blunthead and kingricefan like this.
  14. skimom2

    skimom2 Just moseyin' through...

    I think it is possible that Straker bled Danny when he sacrificed Ralphie. That would explain why he collapsed before he was finally noshed on by Barlow. I don't think Ralphie came back at all--he was torn apart--gutted--as a sacrifice to prepare the way for Barlow.
  15. raspberry2012

    raspberry2012 Active Member

    That's how I always thought of it too.
    blunthead and kingricefan like this.
  16. Kevthenurse

    Kevthenurse Member

    I am new to Stephen King but I do know quite a bit about vampire fiction--or used to until a certain "horror" writer who will remain nameless took a diarrhea glitter dump all over the genre, but as Salem's Lot is a classic story...I think I have an idea as to what was in the crates.
    Please anyone who is more familiar with King's works correct me if I am wrong, you won't hurt my feelings :) But Kurt Barlow I believe is based on Count Orlok from the classic 1922 "Nosferatu." There is a scene in which Count Orlok loads a bunch of coffins filled with earth onto a wagon so it could be shipped overseas. This plays off an old legend that states a vampire must return to the earth in which it was buried during the day. Logically speaking, those crates were filled with dirt. As to where Barlow was sleeping before they were delivered, I can't say.
  17. Hall Monitor

    Hall Monitor All bars serve the Beam.

    Welcome aboard Kev!

    Yes, I think there was some influence there. I recall reading somewhere that Mr. King drew upon influences from Nosferatu and Dracula (which was based on Nosferatu as well, I believe), plus his own personal touches, when creating Barlow ... if not specifically, just drawing on the vampire folklore, of which that character is a huge part. I've always thought that was dirt from his homeland as well.

    Oh, yes, I agree. Vampires don't sparkle.
  18. raspberry2012

    raspberry2012 Active Member

    I love making comparisons between "Twilight" and "Salem's Lot", just for the extreme fun of it. My favorite point to make is that Roy McDougall sure didn't sparkle when Jimmy and Mark dragged him out of the crawl space!
  19. Kevthenurse

    Kevthenurse Member

    If "Twilight" was standalone, it might not have irritated me as much. But it has kind of altered the entire genre. The new generation of vampires are mainstream, happy, lovable and watered down. I haven't read the books, but the series on which "True Blood" and "Vampire Diaries" are clearly the same kind of premise: people friendly vampires, an oxymoron. They aren't scary anymore; one would almost welcome a vampire as a roommate or something.

    "Hey vampire roommate, want a beer?"
    "Nein! I shall feast upon your blood tonight!"
    "Ah, okay that's nice. Just make sure to clean the kitchen when you're done, I'm going to watch the game."
    "Oh, who are the Cowboys playing? Maybe I will take you up on that beer..."

    Who needs Van Helsing when vampires are lame, right? This is why I consider "'Salem's Lot" to be a masterpiece. A modern take on a classic villain.
  20. raspberry2012

    raspberry2012 Active Member

    I'm with you. "Salem's Lot" is the ultimate great vampire story in my opinion. I do confess, I read the Twilight books and saw the movies (on DVD, not the theater - I'm not that crazy!). I read the books pretty much just for kicks and grins; in other words, so I can make fun of them after. The first three are all pretty much awful. The fourth one, I have to admit, wasn't terrible. It had no redeeming qualities, vampire-wise, but it finally had a bit of an interesting story regarding the Cullen clan, i.e. what would happen if a vampire and a human had a child, the rules about immortal children, the caste system in vampire society, etc. From that angle, the fourth book wasn't the worst. Of course, all four books still have that nagging little problem of - it's a vampire novel, and yet not a drop of blood is spilled, so there's that! ;-D

    The movies, I will give credit on the cinematic front. The acting is terrible! A more wooden bunch, I've never seen. However, the cinematography is gorgeous. Just for the way it's shot alone, I would have liked to have seen at least one of them on a big screen. But it's okay - at the end of the day, I have to console myself by remembering that a big pretty picture doesn't necessarily make a good movie.

Share This Page

The Outsider - Coming May 22nd