I was trying to read Stephen King's Salem's Lot recently, and I think King is a bad writer.

[Constant Reader 1238]

Hello everyone,

I'd read The Green Mile many years ago in middle school. So I decided to try Salem's Lot within the past week. I ended up reading the first 60-80 pages or so (I can't tell the exact amount, I'm on an ebook reader).
I found some parts genuinely interesting. Take this sentence for example: "It was a moment he remembered for years after, as though a special small slice had been cut from the cake of time." That's a great sentence. Efficient use of metaphor and great pop. The whole meeting between Ben Mears and Susan Norton in the beginning was interesting and good writing. And when he told her about coming into the house as a kid and finding the guy hanging, I could see how it was scary and good.
The problem is that right after that, King felt the need to do a panorama of random characters throughout the town. It was terribly boring. Instead of focusing on these two interesting characters, he killed it by bouncing from character to character for a while. I didn't care too much at all, I just wanted to get back to the Susan Norton/Ben Mears part of the story.
I think the shift in perspectives also reflected a real decline in writing quality in the book. For example, the section of the book with all these viewpoints begins with this sentence: "The town is not slow to wake — chores won't wait." Can you say cheesy?
As well, the whole scene where Straker meets with Larry to buy a house...I found that poorly written. Look at this quote:
"'I have been sent to buy a residence and a business establishment in your so-fair town,' the bald man said. He spoke with a flat, uninfected tonelessness that made Larry think of the recorded announcements you got when you dialed the weather."
"So-fair town" is not something anyone would say, except a cliched outsider. The whole idea of him being "flat" and "emotionless" kept re-appearing in the scene, and frankly it also came off as a cliche.
These aspects of the writing bothered me to the point where I don't know if it's worth it to keep reading the novel to get to the good parts with Ben/Susan. I feel like King can write really good dialogue sometimes. Again, everything good about the book so far for me came from the Ben/Susan interaction. I found the writing seriously declined and it felt like King just wanted to give a panorama of the town for no real reason. I guess it gave the town a little more 'life' beyond Susan and Ben (which it didn't need), but it seemed like just filler. Even the guy at the graveyard that found a dead cat hanging on his rail was a big yawn. So, my last page read was the end of the conversation between Straker and Larry.
Does anyone have any feedback/criticism/advice? I want to hear from someone that actually likes King's writing, and this book. Do you feel my feelings are accurate? Should I keep reading? Will it get more interesting?

Thank you!

I actually love how King includes deep descriptions of the town and of the town's members. I think it adds layers to the story as well as helps us, as readers, understand why certain things are as they are (for better lack of words) in that particular town. He did the same with IT. And understanding the town of Derry definitely helps the reader understand why the events happen the way they do in the overall plot. I feel as if I've actually visited the town of 'Salem's Lot and can place the Mardsen House right where it's meant to be because of Kings attention to detail when it comes to his descriptions of the town. Also, because King believes in such strong character development, it helps the reader form an attachment to the characters. If you haven't as of yet, I hope you keep going. Salem's Lot is one of King's most terrifying novels and one that will stick with your for weeks on end.

 

[GNTLGNT]

I actually love how King includes deep descriptions of the town and of the town's members. I think it adds layers to the story as well as helps us, as readers, understand why certain things are as they are (for better lack of words) in that particular town. He did the same with IT. And understanding the town of Derry definitely helps the reader understand why the events happen the way they do in the overall plot. I feel as if I've actually visited the town of 'Salem's Lot and can place the Mardsen House right where it's meant to be because of Kings attention to detail when it comes to his descriptions of the town. Also, because King believes in such strong character development, it helps the reader form an attachment to the characters. If you haven't as of yet, I hope you keep going. Salem's Lot is one of King's most terrifying novels and one that will stick with your for weeks on end.

 

[jujuhound]

Given the nature of this book, I would expect nothing less than numerous minor characters introduced and developed to some degree. Getting the background story on the milkman Win Purinton, town drunk Weasel Craig, town gossip Mabel Werts or the manager of the town dump Dud Rogers may not seem exciting, but it is vital in painting a picture of what the typical day is like in town and who lives there.

Now this type of deep character development of minor characters wouldn't make sense in a book like Misery that focuses on two characters. However in terms of 'Salem's Lot, there is no way to tell a story about a whole town without that attention to detail.

 

[Freddy Straker]

Hello everyone,

I'd read The Green Mile many years ago in middle school. So I decided to try Salem's Lot within the past week. I ended up reading the first 60-80 pages or so (I can't tell the exact amount, I'm on an ebook reader).
I found some parts genuinely interesting. Take this sentence for example: "It was a moment he remembered for years after, as though a special small slice had been cut from the cake of time." That's a great sentence. Efficient use of metaphor and great pop. The whole meeting between Ben Mears and Susan Norton in the beginning was interesting and good writing. And when he told her about coming into the house as a kid and finding the guy hanging, I could see how it was scary and good.
The problem is that right after that, King felt the need to do a panorama of random characters throughout the town. It was terribly boring. Instead of focusing on these two interesting characters, he killed it by bouncing from character to character for a while. I didn't care too much at all, I just wanted to get back to the Susan Norton/Ben Mears part of the story.
I think the shift in perspectives also reflected a real decline in writing quality in the book. For example, the section of the book with all these viewpoints begins with this sentence: "The town is not slow to wake — chores won't wait." Can you say cheesy?
As well, the whole scene where Straker meets with Larry to buy a house...I found that poorly written. Look at this quote:
"'I have been sent to buy a residence and a business establishment in your so-fair town,' the bald man said. He spoke with a flat, uninfected tonelessness that made Larry think of the recorded announcements you got when you dialed the weather."
"So-fair town" is not something anyone would say, except a cliched outsider. The whole idea of him being "flat" and "emotionless" kept re-appearing in the scene, and frankly it also came off as a cliche.
These aspects of the writing bothered me to the point where I don't know if it's worth it to keep reading the novel to get to the good parts with Ben/Susan. I feel like King can write really good dialogue sometimes. Again, everything good about the book so far for me came from the Ben/Susan interaction. I found the writing seriously declined and it felt like King just wanted to give a panorama of the town for no real reason. I guess it gave the town a little more 'life' beyond Susan and Ben (which it didn't need), but it seemed like just filler. Even the guy at the graveyard that found a dead cat hanging on his rail was a big yawn. So, my last page read was the end of the conversation between Straker and Larry.
Does anyone have any feedback/criticism/advice? I want to hear from someone that actually likes King's writing, and this book. Do you feel my feelings are accurate? Should I keep reading? Will it get more interesting?

Thank you!

In Salem's lot there is a passage about evil being related to people and places, these panoramic views of the Lot are essential in building up the dread the foreboding and the sense of taint that the Lot itself oozes. King skips around multiple viewpoints to give us the sense of community and all the suffering going on behind closed curtains. The shops and stores are described as 'false-fronted' and that is key to the whole business,; people putting up a false facade and in this respect Straker and Barlow antiques are no different. So the panorama is one way of showing that evil is in the land. In one description of the Lot King describes the hard stones that break the blades of the harrow and cut men's arms: blood drips into the earth suggesting the soil itself is vampiric. What King offers is something he might guffawingly call "narrative girth" all the building blocks of a three dimensional reality-- normality has to be established before it can be unpicked!

 

[Freddy Straker]

King talks in Salem's Lot of how evil is attached to both people and place. In one section he describes farmers cutting through the earth in Salem's Lot and breaking the blades of their harrows , as well as cutting themselves and bleeding into the soil- the suggestion is that even the earth is vampiric! The multiple perspective and panorama are vital in building up community , a sense of what King might guffawingly call 'narrative girth'-- normality must be built before it can be unpicked.

 

[Out of Order]

I could never follow the plot, while reading ‘Salem’s Lot, my dog kept bothering me, and yes his name was spot.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

King a bad writer? I think Shakespeare is a bad writer but that doesn’t change the facts.

 

[Edward John]

Hello everyone,

I'd read The Green Mile many years ago in middle school. So I decided to try Salem's Lot within the past week. I ended up reading the first 60-80 pages or so (I can't tell the exact amount, I'm on an ebook reader).
I found some parts genuinely interesting. Take this sentence for example: "It was a moment he remembered for years after, as though a special small slice had been cut from the cake of time." That's a great sentence. Efficient use of metaphor and great pop. The whole meeting between Ben Mears and Susan Norton in the beginning was interesting and good writing. And when he told her about coming into the house as a kid and finding the guy hanging, I could see how it was scary and good.
The problem is that right after that, King felt the need to do a panorama of random characters throughout the town. It was terribly boring. Instead of focusing on these two interesting characters, he killed it by bouncing from character to character for a while. I didn't care too much at all, I just wanted to get back to the Susan Norton/Ben Mears part of the story.
I think the shift in perspectives also reflected a real decline in writing quality in the book. For example, the section of the book with all these viewpoints begins with this sentence: "The town is not slow to wake — chores won't wait." Can you say cheesy?
As well, the whole scene where Straker meets with Larry to buy a house...I found that poorly written. Look at this quote:
"'I have been sent to buy a residence and a business establishment in your so-fair town,' the bald man said. He spoke with a flat, uninfected tonelessness that made Larry think of the recorded announcements you got when you dialed the weather."
"So-fair town" is not something anyone would say, except a cliched outsider. The whole idea of him being "flat" and "emotionless" kept re-appearing in the scene, and frankly it also came off as a cliche.
These aspects of the writing bothered me to the point where I don't know if it's worth it to keep reading the novel to get to the good parts with Ben/Susan. I feel like King can write really good dialogue sometimes. Again, everything good about the book so far for me came from the Ben/Susan interaction. I found the writing seriously declined and it felt like King just wanted to give a panorama of the town for no real reason. I guess it gave the town a little more 'life' beyond Susan and Ben (which it didn't need), but it seemed like just filler. Even the guy at the graveyard that found a dead cat hanging on his rail was a big yawn. So, my last page read was the end of the conversation between Straker and Larry.
Does anyone have any feedback/criticism/advice? I want to hear from someone that actually likes King's writing, and this book. Do you feel my feelings are accurate? Should I keep reading? Will it get more interesting?

Thank you!

Well, if he is such a bad writer then why don't you write your own book, you know, show steve the true meaning of writing.