Often what we, as an audience, expect from creative talent often does not coincide with that they expect of themselves.

In 'Salem's Lot, we have King's second published novel immediately after Carrie. There are many trademarks exposed here. One in particular is the haunted town; or, a town that has a horror essence that the inhabitants can sense but do not necessarily place their collective finger upon. Another is casting the lead character as a writer (write what you know). King has many, many works in which the lead is a writer of some sort. Often, they expose the tribulations of being a published author before succumbing to whatever horrors exist in their world.

The novel itself is rather slow moving. However, I did not feel that this in anyway impaired the body of work. For one, because the town of Jerusalem's Lot is written as its own character, the reader visits many of those affected by the town's lingering evils. And we get to visit those people committing their secrets, knowing their darkest aspects. Being that the last book I read was a reread of Needful Things, I considered reading 'Salem's Lot as the genesis of visiting this style of looking within the sins of the common characters within their homes. In essence, their acts were selfish and monstrous before the supernatural comes and makes slaves of the Lot.

King was a different person by far while he wrote this during the 1970s. I feel as those he was far cynical as to the happenings of his creations and focused on much more specific details. I feel as though his earlier books were less about the people and more about the interactions of people within a scheme. It is as though he were writing the largest diorama and his part is to explain the details of what's what.

As his works mature with him, King takes on a more folksy approach to storytelling. Here in 'Salem's Lot, that Americana folksiness is a mere whisper as he thinks up the next terror to throw at us.

With all of that typed out by yours truly, I should state that I did enjoy the book immensely. I felt as though the first two-thirds of the book is written like a mystery with a gang of newly-found friends wondering what the heck is going on. Many times the group is separated and each character has to mention what he or she knows to others in the group when they finally meet up again. It reminded me a bit of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, actually…. Nevertheless, the yarn that is told here is an engrossing one that leaves the reader with the cogs spinning in his head making up his own ending after reading the last sentence. (And if what you imagine for yourself doesn't answer what-happens-next? why, one could just pick up the Dark Tower series and read the Wolves of the Calla and find out.) ( )

I remember being completely enrapt reading 'Salem's Lot. I don't know if I just outgrew King or if King indeed sloughed off talent-wise over the years, but rarely have I read something so outstanding, whether genre or literary; a book so ridden with doom, so sickly sinister, and such a phantasmagoric page turner that it sucked in its lust all my free time dry (and sucked time dry I didn't have that should've been spent studying or sleeping). O what a brooding, gloomy, pseudo gothic (gothic chic, let's call it), macabre masterpiece, 'Salem's Lot.

A vampire novel written the way vampire novels were meant to be written back when they were still written right by writers with actual know-how and skills (Anne Rice's debut included): with actual, that is, creative and ingenious implementation of literary stylistic and narrative techniques such as character and plot development; creepy foreshadowing; nuanced, perverted symbolism (both libidinal and religious); and physically palpable suspense ever increasing, pulsating like punctured carotid arteries, raising high the blood pressure to a breathless denouement....suspense so intense I flipped on all the lights at night when I recklessly read it, 'Salem's Lot, alone and vulnerable to imagined, (but-it-felt-so-real!)-vampire attacks inside an isolated suburban tract on a full moon'd cul-de-sac; the skeletal-like houses under construction each side of my house, grotesque and baroque in their exposed incompletion, adding to the awful ambiance of dread and the undead, emanating like an evil breeze from outside my foolishly left open windows.

Or written, I should say, a la Stoker, a la Lovecraft, to which 'Salem's Lot paid its rightful (and frightful) homage.

The made-for-TV-movie of 'Salem's Lot, starring David Soul of Starsky and Hutch and Here Come the Brides fame, singer of the 1976 #1 Billboard hit, "Don't Give Up on Us, Baby," stunk it up like garlic - just like that schmaltzy pop song of Soul's - but not the book by Stephen King. Never the book by Stephen King. So read the book, 'Salem's Lot, by Stephen King...if you dare.

Ah hahahahahahahahaha.... ( )

I've read a lot of positive reviews about this book and eventually decided to read it. Unfortunately, because of this my expectations were high and I was disappointed. The beginning is quite slow and it takes a while before anything happens. There are good moments later in the book, but it's not really worth it. There are many other Stephen King novels that are much better than this one.

I didn't find anything about 'Salems Lot to be particularly original and probably won't bother reading it again. ( )

I enjoyed this, but I'm a quick reader--this one took me two days to get through. If I'd spent more time on it, I think I may have gotten frustrated with the slow-build; it took King quite a while to introduce the major characters (and a lot of minor, on-off characters, too), and after the first 100 pages I was somewhat impatient.

As it was, I read this one quickly, and quite enjoyed it. I like that the reader is kept guessing for so long as to the exact nature of the evil menacing the town, though once the culprit is revealed, the lore gets a bit muddy, and more than a few loose-ends are left hanging at the end.

Still, I enjoyed the characters, and there were enough truly clever sections in this book to offset the bits I was less impressed by. Not my favorite Stephen King novel, but I wouldn't warn anyone away from it. ( )

"Turn of the television - in fact, why don't you turn off all the lights except for the one over your favourite chair? - and we'll talk about vampireshere in the dim. I thibnk I can make you believe in them." -- Stephen King, from the introduction.

Yes, you did. After reading 'salem's Lot I could truly imagine a sleepy town being whittled down to nothing in the day, and vampires at night. It is mentioned that the vampiric inhabitants of Jerusalem's Lot had developed social skills and had found a way of entertaining themselves. A scary thought.

It's weird to think that this was only King's second publication (not necessarily his second written) his writing style and use of language is very advanced for such a young writer. He writes very descriptively, yet still writes so the reader is able to imagine the narration of the story being told by Stephen King himself.

King is well-known for the depth and creativeness he puts into his characters. One of which is Father Callahan, a drunk, Irish Preist who seems to have lost faith. After being defeated by Marlow, he leaves 'salem's Lot rather abruptly to an unknown location. It may seem as though the preist's story is only half told, yet I have the seven volumes of the Dark Tower series (which I have not yet read, expect for the Gunslinger) and am aware that Father Callahan makes a return for the fifth volume in the series, Wolves of the Calla. Speaking of series, the ending of 'salem's Lot is somewhat vague, and in my opinion is open to a sequel of some kind...although it doesn't make sense to write a sequel to a book you wrote forty or so years ago...if King was going to write a sequel it would have been done already...

I noticed a number of typing errors in this edition of 'salem's Lot, such as Mark Petrie was sometimes spelt Mark PetriC. Despite that I like this book a lot, and feel as though I could read it again...and again...and again :) ( )