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

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • Hot Topics is on indefinite hiatus.

  • 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.
Sep 10, 2010
18
83
New Jersey
#1
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?

Thanks!
Matt
 

mstay

Older than most, not as old as some.
Oct 13, 2007
6,022
5,548
Utah
#2
"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.
 
Sep 10, 2010
18
83
New Jersey
#5
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:

Hall Monitor

All bars serve the Beam.
Nov 7, 2013
187
1,010
New Jersey
#11
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?

Thanks!
Matt
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.
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
28,344
115,498
Spokane, WA
#12
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.
This is what I've always thought too.
 

raspberry2012

Active Member
Jul 21, 2014
26
124
54
NYC
#15
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.
That's how I always thought of it too.
 
Jul 19, 2014
8
33
37
Minneapolis, MN
#16
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.
 

Hall Monitor

All bars serve the Beam.
Nov 7, 2013
187
1,010
New Jersey
#17
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.
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.
 

raspberry2012

Active Member
Jul 21, 2014
26
124
54
NYC
#18
or used to until a certain "horror" writer who will remain nameless took a diarrhea glitter dump all over the genre
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!
 
Jul 19, 2014
8
33
37
Minneapolis, MN
#19
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!
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.
 

raspberry2012

Active Member
Jul 21, 2014
26
124
54
NYC
#20
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.
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.
 
We’ve created a Stephen King Library action for the 
			  Google Assistant and skill for Amazon Alexa. It'll give 
			  you a personalized reading recommendations based on your 
			  answers to a series of questions—so what are you waiting 
			  for? Find out which Stephen King book you should read 
			  next!