If You're Gonna Write a Review of a "Sequel". . .

. . . at least familiarize yourself with the source material!

Dinitia Smith's obvious lack of readership of the REAL Peter Pan is indicated here:

(Barrie’s original fairy, Tinker Bell, seems to have disappeared.)

If you'd read the book in the first place, you silly ass, you'd know that Tink doesn't reappear when Peter comes back for Wendy at a later "spring cleaning" time, nor does she accompany him when he retreives Wendy's daughter Jane. . .or her granddaughter, Margaret. . .because Tink has gone the way all fairies go when there are no children to believe in them.

Duh! Ignorance is irritating in the general population, but it's positively intolerable in a critic.

(My personal favorite edition of Peter Pan has drawings by Scott Gustafson. I think that they are particularly charming and really accompany the story, rather than try to tell it.)

Do We Also Need to Read Dracula?

Good point, there Clo.

Yes, this is late. . .I had a date last night.

As a suggestion, then, perhaps those of us who have not read Dracula, may want to give it a whirl.

Keep in mind that it's an "epistolary novel" and that's actually a unique concept in most literature. Some people think it stinks; others think it's genius.

I had trouble getting into a groove with it when I was 14 or however old I was when I first read it, but I think it's a great way to tell a story. Especially the media elements Stoker chooses to use.

Anyway, this isn't a "book-of-the-month" type of a mandate, but definitely pick up a copy of Dracula sometime. Most bookstores have cheap hardcover and paperback versions, since its copyright is pretty much in the public domain, so you can usually find a decent version for not a lot of cash. My personal copy is a hardcover that Barnes & Noble put out about 10 years ago, but the first one I read was a paperback my dad had from when he read it. I remember that the cover illustration scared me a LOT. . .and when the cover separated from the rest of the text, I was devastated, mostly because I thought my father was going to kill me for wrecking his book.

Once you get into it, it's a quick read, and worth the efforts. Try it; who knows? Maybe you'll get more out of King after reading Stoker.

Proposed discussion regarding something from Lizzy's post

Would it be safe to say that Salem's Lot would be appreciated MORE if the reader had read Dracula first? I'm not necessarily saying that's true, especially since most people know at least a fraction of vampire folklore, but since this book was written mainly because King was such a fan of Stoker, should this book be considered as a complimentary or supplimentary work of the original work it's loosely related to?

Thoughts?

The Post In Which Liz Nearly Forgets That It's THIS WEEK We Discuss the Lot

In fact, I actually did forget. (Oops! But, that's what I get for storing my not-safe-for-company reading in my in-laws' basement. . .dammit!)

My in-laws (to-be) were in AZ last week and we didn't have access to the house.

Anyway, I loved every bit of 'Salem's Lot when I read it the first time a couple years ago. Maybe the difference for me was reading it on the bus ride from Wildwood up to Atlantic City. . .and then from AC to Camden. . .and then taking the RiverLine up to Trenton. The RiverLine takes the Route 130 corridor through several of NJ's Delaware River counties; you run through sleepy little hamlets in a noiseless electric train. It's almost insidious in a way.

Kind of like when Barlow infiltrates 'Salem's Lot. He moves in quietly, sets up shop, and waits for dark. (Almost reminds me of another shadowy SK character. . .the shopkeeper from Needful Things, anyone?)

I tried really hard not to read the SK introduction before I read the book, kind of afraid that it would color my reading, you know? Whether I actually didn't read it before I read the book or not I can't remember. But what I did take away from that reading was . . . Stephen King read Dracula and it scared the pants off him.

I read Dracula, and I couldn't sleep for a week.

I re-read 'Salem's Lot with the Dracula parallels in mind. And, yeah, I found quite a few and they were rather enjoyable.

The protagonists in Dracula don't exactly leave you hanging, nor do they fully resolve that each and every crate of earth the Count had transferred out of Transylvania has been "purified" . . . in much the same way that Ben and Mark are left "listening" for clues to lead them back to the Lot, and the work they began.

In terms of how this novel serves as a commentary about the insidiousness of evil into our lives without our ever realizing it. . .well . . . so does the Rolling Stones' song Sympathy for the Devil. . . I wonder if SK had it in mind when he gave Barlow that monologue about how he was old before followers of the Carpenter were scurrying about with their secret signs?

Or maybe it's just me.

Salem's Lot by Clo the Critic ;o)

Ok, so thoughts?

I found it interesting, but not too "chilly." And, I think King was a little overzealous with the number of characters and a little long winded in the plot. And, I would have liked a little more about the shop. There were only brief mentions about it outside of the hunt, when Susan was describing how the proprietor treated his customers when she was there. In my opinion, the fact the shop was talked about so much with the other characters, something more should have happened there. But, to me, finding a body seemed anti-climatic and made the shop a dead end.

I thought Ben and Henry were very interesting characters, and I noticed on the back cover he brought the Father back in another book. But, all in all, I didn't really feel for the characters, so I didn't care if they turned or not. The only one I really cheered for was Henry, and I knew from the intro that he survived.

But, that might just be me. Comments?