(
rachelmanija Nov. 27th, 2018 09:55 am)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
This is a 17-hour audiobook and I enjoyed every minute of it. I kept catching myself making excuses to take long drives so I could listen to more of it, or finding household chores I could do while listening. McLarty’s narration is great, with unobtrusive but well-done different voices for various characters. He also really brings out the humor. I nearly had hysterics at his rendition of the word “E-vap,” the foaming cleaner Father Callahan uses in a hungover attempt to remove liquor stains on the rug.
In the introduction (read by King), he discusses his childhood reading of Dracula, trashy novels, and pulp horror comics about vampires whose victims shriek things like “Eeeeegaaaah!” After he wrote Carrie, he mentioned to his wife Tabitha that if Dracula had survived into modern times, he wouldn’t settle in a city, but in a small town like the European ones he’d come from. Like the ones King knew in Maine…
‘Salem’s Lot was written long before the current flood of vampire novels, let alone sexy vampire novels, and draws on older tropes. Some aspects of it have appeared a lot since then, but many have not. For me it had the perfect blend of originality and familiar tropes done extremely well.
It begins with an unsettling prologue involving two unnamed survivors of Jerusalem’s Lot, a man and a boy, and a lengthy newspaper article explaining that it’s now a ghost town for unknown reasons.
It then goes back in time to the arrival of Ben Mears, a writer who lived in Jerusalem’s Lot as a boy and has returned as a widower, intending to write a book about the Marsten House, an abandoned house with a bad history where he may have seen a ghost as a boy. But the house has just been bought by a mysterious man from Europe, Mr. Barlow, who no one has met and who seems to communicate solely through his creepy agent, Mr. Straker. Ben wanders around the town and has a sweet meet-cute with Susan, a fan of his books.
King then proceeds to a long, bravura sequence in which he introduces us to a huge number of the inhabitants of the town, hour by hour in the course of a single day from midnight to midnight. By the end of it, you feel like you’ve lived in the town yourself. It also puts you about a quarter or third of the way through the book with no clear signs of vampire activity. If you were reading the book with no idea what it was about, you would know something sinister was afoot but not what.
The town is an incredibly vivid character in its own right. There’s rot beneath the surface, but goodness as well. The Marsten House is imbued with evil, but Jerusalem’s Lot is just a small town like many others, with child abusers and bullies and wife-beaters, but also dedicated teachers and doctors and random people who manage to rise to a situation requiring extraordinary courage. You get the sense that the group that ends up going after the vampires contained some special people, but not that they were the only ones. Had some of them chosen to confide in a different set of people, there were probably others in the town who would have stepped up.
I have no idea how I missed reading this before, because it’s King’s second novel and a quite famous one. However, I was almost entirely unspoiled for it, other than knowing that it’s about vampires and that one character survives as he appears in another King book I’d read. It’s a purely enjoyable read on every level, with good writing with some very beautiful passages, very atmospheric with a fantastic sense of place, a compelling story well-told, and a whole bunch of memorable set-piece scenes.
This book has a scary reputation. It deserves it. I nearly screamed when Danny Glick appears at Mark Petrie’s window. Thank God I finished it before I making a five-hour drive to Mariposa, which was the entire reason I checked it out on audio in the first place, because if I’d heard that in the dark I might have driven off a cliff.
I read Dark Tower before ’Salem’s Lot. Consequently, Mark Petrie reminded me a bit of Jake Chambers, I already knew that brave women named Susan tend to meet with heroic and tragic untimely deaths, and I was expecting Father Callahan to be a main character much earlier than he turned out to be.
The group that goes after the vampires formed later than I expected; in fact, they form too late to save the town, which is also not what I expected after the prologue. I had assumed the town was destroyed in a cataclysmic battle that takes out the vampires, but that’s not what happens at all. The ad-hoc vampire hunters (the ka-tet, so to speak) do kill Straker and destroy Barlow, but by the time they do so, the town is already overrun and most of the non-vamped townspeople, including all but two of the original group, are either fled or dead. The town so carefully created in the first part of the book has been completely destroyed, as if King had built and then stomped on an epically elaborate sandcastle.
That sense of creative/destructive glee also comes through in the elaboration on tropes and folklore about what to do with vampires. The doctor suggests that garlic works because they’re allergic to it, the teacher researches anti-vampire rituals from every culture that believes in them, and the priest puts his faith in the rituals of Catholocism. The latter gets the most play, but it’s unclear whether Catholic objects and rituals work due to inherent power (the power of Christ compels them) or whether the vampires are repelled by faith itself and any faith would do. It seems like the latter with a touch of the former - Father Callahan’s cross stops working when he puts his faith in the cross as an object rather than in God (or, more precisely, his faith falters when he can't quite believe that God is in him), but holy water literally lights up for Ben and Mark, who aren’t even Catholic.
(My favorite riff on vampires vs. faith is still the bit in Chris Claremont’s X-Men when Kitty Pryde, who is Jewish, thrusts a cross in Dracula’s face, only to have him laugh at her and point out that the power is in belief, not the object itself, and she has no faith in the cross. Then he goes in to bite her and recoils, burned by the Star of David necklace she always wears.)
Related to this, I was struck by how difficult the characters find it to believe in the supernatural at all, let alone vampires, until they have no other option. King ties this into the demise of belief in general, in God and government and tradition, in the 70s in which it was written and is set. Only Mark Petrie, who loves monster movies, finds it easy. (He’s also a child who hasn’t been exposed to the general cultural disillusionment yet.) There’s a wonderful bit where Mark drives off a vampire with an action figure of a ghoul by a tomb bearing a cross; he knows from the movies that crosses repel vampires, and uses a movie trinket to do so. Does it work by the inherent property of the cross, or by his faith in movies?
The vampires thrive on the characters’ disbelief, and are driven off by both faith in general, and the belief that they exist. But that’s played for irony and general social commentary, not to make the point that a lack of faith is inherently bad. The small-scale tragedies and moral rot predate the 70s by quite a bit, as Hubert Marsten shows. And the character who provokes the single greatest moment of moral indignation is neither a vampire nor a disillusioned product of modern times, but Parkins Gillespie, the sheriff who abandons the town and its last two defenders to their fate, justifying his cowardice and “I got mine” attitude by saying that the whole country’s going to hell in a handbasket anyway and citing movie violence as proof.
Nowadays characters in horror fiction tend to believe in the supernatural more quickly, which is often attributed in-text to their exposure to horror movies but is likely also due to the possibility that modern readers will find a long awakening of belief frustrating, dull, or old-fashioned. I wonder if a writer could do a similar riff on belief in modern times by having the characters be so over-saturated with conspiracy theories, fake news, and the refusal to admit to actual reality that they refuse to believe in the very real vampires that are about to suck their blood?
'Salem's Lot


In the introduction (read by King), he discusses his childhood reading of Dracula, trashy novels, and pulp horror comics about vampires whose victims shriek things like “Eeeeegaaaah!” After he wrote Carrie, he mentioned to his wife Tabitha that if Dracula had survived into modern times, he wouldn’t settle in a city, but in a small town like the European ones he’d come from. Like the ones King knew in Maine…
‘Salem’s Lot was written long before the current flood of vampire novels, let alone sexy vampire novels, and draws on older tropes. Some aspects of it have appeared a lot since then, but many have not. For me it had the perfect blend of originality and familiar tropes done extremely well.
It begins with an unsettling prologue involving two unnamed survivors of Jerusalem’s Lot, a man and a boy, and a lengthy newspaper article explaining that it’s now a ghost town for unknown reasons.
It then goes back in time to the arrival of Ben Mears, a writer who lived in Jerusalem’s Lot as a boy and has returned as a widower, intending to write a book about the Marsten House, an abandoned house with a bad history where he may have seen a ghost as a boy. But the house has just been bought by a mysterious man from Europe, Mr. Barlow, who no one has met and who seems to communicate solely through his creepy agent, Mr. Straker. Ben wanders around the town and has a sweet meet-cute with Susan, a fan of his books.
King then proceeds to a long, bravura sequence in which he introduces us to a huge number of the inhabitants of the town, hour by hour in the course of a single day from midnight to midnight. By the end of it, you feel like you’ve lived in the town yourself. It also puts you about a quarter or third of the way through the book with no clear signs of vampire activity. If you were reading the book with no idea what it was about, you would know something sinister was afoot but not what.
The town is an incredibly vivid character in its own right. There’s rot beneath the surface, but goodness as well. The Marsten House is imbued with evil, but Jerusalem’s Lot is just a small town like many others, with child abusers and bullies and wife-beaters, but also dedicated teachers and doctors and random people who manage to rise to a situation requiring extraordinary courage. You get the sense that the group that ends up going after the vampires contained some special people, but not that they were the only ones. Had some of them chosen to confide in a different set of people, there were probably others in the town who would have stepped up.
I have no idea how I missed reading this before, because it’s King’s second novel and a quite famous one. However, I was almost entirely unspoiled for it, other than knowing that it’s about vampires and that one character survives as he appears in another King book I’d read. It’s a purely enjoyable read on every level, with good writing with some very beautiful passages, very atmospheric with a fantastic sense of place, a compelling story well-told, and a whole bunch of memorable set-piece scenes.
This book has a scary reputation. It deserves it. I nearly screamed when Danny Glick appears at Mark Petrie’s window. Thank God I finished it before I making a five-hour drive to Mariposa, which was the entire reason I checked it out on audio in the first place, because if I’d heard that in the dark I might have driven off a cliff.
I read Dark Tower before ’Salem’s Lot. Consequently, Mark Petrie reminded me a bit of Jake Chambers, I already knew that brave women named Susan tend to meet with heroic and tragic untimely deaths, and I was expecting Father Callahan to be a main character much earlier than he turned out to be.
The group that goes after the vampires formed later than I expected; in fact, they form too late to save the town, which is also not what I expected after the prologue. I had assumed the town was destroyed in a cataclysmic battle that takes out the vampires, but that’s not what happens at all. The ad-hoc vampire hunters (the ka-tet, so to speak) do kill Straker and destroy Barlow, but by the time they do so, the town is already overrun and most of the non-vamped townspeople, including all but two of the original group, are either fled or dead. The town so carefully created in the first part of the book has been completely destroyed, as if King had built and then stomped on an epically elaborate sandcastle.
That sense of creative/destructive glee also comes through in the elaboration on tropes and folklore about what to do with vampires. The doctor suggests that garlic works because they’re allergic to it, the teacher researches anti-vampire rituals from every culture that believes in them, and the priest puts his faith in the rituals of Catholocism. The latter gets the most play, but it’s unclear whether Catholic objects and rituals work due to inherent power (the power of Christ compels them) or whether the vampires are repelled by faith itself and any faith would do. It seems like the latter with a touch of the former - Father Callahan’s cross stops working when he puts his faith in the cross as an object rather than in God (or, more precisely, his faith falters when he can't quite believe that God is in him), but holy water literally lights up for Ben and Mark, who aren’t even Catholic.
(My favorite riff on vampires vs. faith is still the bit in Chris Claremont’s X-Men when Kitty Pryde, who is Jewish, thrusts a cross in Dracula’s face, only to have him laugh at her and point out that the power is in belief, not the object itself, and she has no faith in the cross. Then he goes in to bite her and recoils, burned by the Star of David necklace she always wears.)
Related to this, I was struck by how difficult the characters find it to believe in the supernatural at all, let alone vampires, until they have no other option. King ties this into the demise of belief in general, in God and government and tradition, in the 70s in which it was written and is set. Only Mark Petrie, who loves monster movies, finds it easy. (He’s also a child who hasn’t been exposed to the general cultural disillusionment yet.) There’s a wonderful bit where Mark drives off a vampire with an action figure of a ghoul by a tomb bearing a cross; he knows from the movies that crosses repel vampires, and uses a movie trinket to do so. Does it work by the inherent property of the cross, or by his faith in movies?
The vampires thrive on the characters’ disbelief, and are driven off by both faith in general, and the belief that they exist. But that’s played for irony and general social commentary, not to make the point that a lack of faith is inherently bad. The small-scale tragedies and moral rot predate the 70s by quite a bit, as Hubert Marsten shows. And the character who provokes the single greatest moment of moral indignation is neither a vampire nor a disillusioned product of modern times, but Parkins Gillespie, the sheriff who abandons the town and its last two defenders to their fate, justifying his cowardice and “I got mine” attitude by saying that the whole country’s going to hell in a handbasket anyway and citing movie violence as proof.
Nowadays characters in horror fiction tend to believe in the supernatural more quickly, which is often attributed in-text to their exposure to horror movies but is likely also due to the possibility that modern readers will find a long awakening of belief frustrating, dull, or old-fashioned. I wonder if a writer could do a similar riff on belief in modern times by having the characters be so over-saturated with conspiracy theories, fake news, and the refusal to admit to actual reality that they refuse to believe in the very real vampires that are about to suck their blood?
'Salem's Lot
From:
no subject
That interests me because the importance of faith and the danger of its failures—but the handwaviness about what one actually needs to have faith in—is a major feature of the postmodern vampire-killing in Fright Night (1985). I still haven't read or otherwise interacted with 'Salem's Lot, but now I'm wondering if King was the jumping-off point for that idea or at least its popularity. (There's an earlier cross-based failure in Roman Polanski's The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967), but it's mostly a joke about the futility of trying to ward off a Jewish vampire with a cross.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
“All we have to go upon are traditions and superstitions. These do not at the first appear much, when the matter is one of life and death—nay of more than either life or death. Yet must we be satisfied; in the first place because we have to be—no other means is at our control—and secondly, because, after all, these things—tradition and superstition—are everything. Does not the belief in vampires rest for others—though not, alas! for us—on them? A year ago which of us would have received such a possibility, in the midst of our scientific, sceptical, matter-of-fact nineteenth century? We even scouted a belief that we saw justified under our very eyes. Take it, then, that the vampire, and the belief in his limitations and his cure, rest for the moment on the same base. For, let me tell you, he is known everywhere that men have been....and let me tell you that very much of the beliefs are justified by what we have seen in our own so unhappy experience." (Long long list of everything accepted as "vampire lore" by everyone writing after Stoker.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Okay, so that looks like the exact speech that was boiled down to Peter Vincent's "We'll just have to keep hoping!" in Fright Night, which I think is hilarious. I'm not sure it addresses the ambiguity of whether it has to be Christian faith or just faith in the reality of the superstitions, which is an implicit question in Fright Night and looks as though it's in play in 'Salem's Lot.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
....also I just realized that if this book is drawn-out and then all climax like Dracula is, Carrie is mostly made up out of the "documents" that the people at the end of Dracula lament is all they have. Heh.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Have you read his Danse Macabre? There’s a bit on the vampire as archetype in there that I liked.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
The problem with curtains
There's an excellent short story "Jerusalem's Lot" set in the same town; I don't know if it has an audio book version, but if it does I would rate it very highly on the list of things NOT TO listen to driving a long ways in the darkness.
From:
Re: The problem with curtains
From:
no subject
You probably do know all of that already, I am aware. But stories like 'Salem's Lot are one of the reasons we got things like Buffy and Underworld.
Interestingly, in a post-Buffy, post-Twilight world, I got shredded by critiquers at a recent writing workshop for having a character not realize right away that she was a vampire. I was trying for something resembling reasonable skepticism, as I have also been shredded by critiquers in other stories for having other characters be too willing to believe in magic. (You can't win for losing, it seems. I'm probably going to ignore my very-well-regarded critiquers in this case.)
I'm not sure where to go with the Mulder versus Scully options on skepticism versus belief, but I feel like you have to make at least some kind of an effort at disbelief.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I did not enjoy that part (though I did enjoy the utter venality of the evil in the book), which is why I have read it only the one time. But other people might have enjoyed it because of or despite that and they are allowed to have a different read on it than me!
From:
no subject
I have also found that people have very strong opinions about easy vs. difficult belief. That issue is always going to annoy someone.
From:
no subject
(I always thought Mina and Lucy influenced Darla and Drusilla a little bit....)