Hope this won't be one of those cases where you bother to answer and the original poster never comes back.
But, anyway, I can see to a degree what you're saying. I believe I experienced it quite similar, when I read it first. Why was all that stuff about the other people in the town needed? In fairness though, the book is called Salem's Lot, it's the story of the entire town (and its downfall).
It's surprising it's his only book that has the name of the town as its title, because over and over he has created (fictional) towns (often based on real towns) as the centre of his books.
I think though, that is his interest. He is interested in communities, in social life, in the different people that live together in a place. I think that's also why he is so interested in politics and very vocal about it.
It's not in all his books that he goes into many separate characters. You might want to try those books first. But it's something he always comes back to. In Tommyknockers (granted, one of his weaker works) the middle part of the book leaves the main characters completely and only comes back to them in the last part of the book.
As for his writing. I think he can be all over the place. He can be bad, mediocre and very good, as already evidenced by your examples. I think his books might improve if he took more time with them, but he usually writes two long ones a year, so what you get is not exactly outstanding literature. But I think he's usually above average at least.
What attracts people about him is to do with the things he has to say, rather than the quality of the writing itself I think. He kind of deals with truths about life, death, love, all the great themes, and he does so within the boundaries of the fantastic genre. So you get a fantastic yarn, but also a little more to ponder about - there is a feeling of truth about it, despite it being fantastical. And he has the ability to make situations and characters really feel tangible, stronger than a movie almost, where you feel you really met the people and been to the places. He can also be a master of atmosphere, and quite a number of his books simply have a very interesting and intriguing premise.
I think his writing is also good (or at least above average), for a reason Mary Lambert, the director of Pet Sematary, mentions in her audiocommentary for that film. He makes everything a character. The house is a character, the road is a character, the truck is a character. I think that is good advice for any writer who wants to tell stories a lot of people want to read: make everything about the story interesting and give it equal importance, that will make the story as a whole come much more alive. King himself gives a good example in the introduction of The Stand, where he compares two ways to tell the same fairy tale.
But, anyway, I can see to a degree what you're saying. I believe I experienced it quite similar, when I read it first. Why was all that stuff about the other people in the town needed? In fairness though, the book is called Salem's Lot, it's the story of the entire town (and its downfall).
It's surprising it's his only book that has the name of the town as its title, because over and over he has created (fictional) towns (often based on real towns) as the centre of his books.
I think though, that is his interest. He is interested in communities, in social life, in the different people that live together in a place. I think that's also why he is so interested in politics and very vocal about it.
It's not in all his books that he goes into many separate characters. You might want to try those books first. But it's something he always comes back to. In Tommyknockers (granted, one of his weaker works) the middle part of the book leaves the main characters completely and only comes back to them in the last part of the book.
As for his writing. I think he can be all over the place. He can be bad, mediocre and very good, as already evidenced by your examples. I think his books might improve if he took more time with them, but he usually writes two long ones a year, so what you get is not exactly outstanding literature. But I think he's usually above average at least.
What attracts people about him is to do with the things he has to say, rather than the quality of the writing itself I think. He kind of deals with truths about life, death, love, all the great themes, and he does so within the boundaries of the fantastic genre. So you get a fantastic yarn, but also a little more to ponder about - there is a feeling of truth about it, despite it being fantastical. And he has the ability to make situations and characters really feel tangible, stronger than a movie almost, where you feel you really met the people and been to the places. He can also be a master of atmosphere, and quite a number of his books simply have a very interesting and intriguing premise.
I think his writing is also good (or at least above average), for a reason Mary Lambert, the director of Pet Sematary, mentions in her audiocommentary for that film. He makes everything a character. The house is a character, the road is a character, the truck is a character. I think that is good advice for any writer who wants to tell stories a lot of people want to read: make everything about the story interesting and give it equal importance, that will make the story as a whole come much more alive. King himself gives a good example in the introduction of The Stand, where he compares two ways to tell the same fairy tale.