This is a fabulous review and dead on (no pun intended). I have been a Stephen King fan since the mid-1970s, and 'Salem's Lot was the first book of his that I ever read. It remains my favorite to this day, though King has since written many tremendous books.
Yes! In regards to his standing among all writers--not just writers of horror--King is underrated by many. I believe he ranks among the top 50 American writers spanning the last quarter of the 20th century to today. Not top 10, but certainly top 50. Maybe even top 25. The excerpts you posted are proof of that, IMO.
Absolutely! He is an incredible writer, one of the best. He’s an easy target because he has pulp flair. But the criticisms have not stood. He’s written well outside the horror genre and he’s still incredible.
This is an excellent write up of a great novel. I'm currently teaching this book in a college class and the angle I'm taking is centred around King proclaiming that he was writing the Great American Novel, just with vampires. So my guided analysis looks at King's view of 1975's modern America, and suburbia specifically, and the perspective seems pretty grim about how he views where his own country is at. A connected small town is riddled with gossip and everyone there is the presented horror of the town and tale well before any vampiric elements start working.
Reading your post made me consider; he also shows that there is no hope from our usual saviours [church, school, family]; that capitalism is the foothold for all evil; and that maybe America is sinking into such a cesspool that it's a beacon for worse evil to come and snuggle in to make a nest for itself for the future.
I love that the Prologue undercuts most tensions because we know who lives [and can intuit from that who dies] and so our focus isn't on that anymore, it's on exploring The Lot, and the people of the town. And as for the ending, the monster might be defeated somewhat easily, but we already know it ends with our heroic American men fleeing the country across the border so the victory doesn't seem to work on a personal level for them, and it leads one to think perhaps the country itself is ost for good regardless, and we knew this from the start of the book.
Such a great book, and thanks for sharing that Barker intro, I'd never read that before.
I am a sucker for the way King frames his stories. Sometimes it happens in the prologue. Sometimes in the first chapter. It’s not uncommon for him to reveal who is going to live and that bothers a lot of people, but it’s appealing to me. It really does make the entire story into an exploration of the journey that leads to that ‘looking back’ introduction of the early chapters. If you want another example of this— I think it might be the best example— check out From a Buick 8. The entire novel is a group of people explaining how another person came to their fate.
Your class sounds really interesting. The 70’s were a rough time for America. Stagflation, gas rationing, crippling inflation, a lot of jobs moving overseas, disco… it was not an optimistic time. I’ve never considered his story in the light of the times in which it was written— well, except for Hearts in Atlantis, but there’s something about that story that just causes you to think about the time in which it takes place. Like Shaina says, I wish I could audit your class. It sounds interesting.
I wish I could audit that class! Really love your point about the prologue-that we know who survives, and our attention is thus on discovery. Learning about the Lot and it’s people. I don’t know enough about 1975’s America, but that is such an interesting analysis. King often has pretty grim commentary on small town America, and Jerusalem’s Lot is no different.
Thank you so much for such a nuanced response...you’ve given me a lot to think about.
I welcomed the excuse to listen to a full-length early King novel. Afterward, I sought out his short story set in the a few years after the end of the novel and listened to a couple Kingcast episodes on Salem’s Lot. That is, I very much enjoyed the novel.
I liked the Dracula in America premise. I liked the bleakness of how many survived. (2.5?) I liked how one after another failed to defeat Barlow and his cleverness. I liked the blue chalk scooby-doo discovery of his new hideout being the school. I liked how the townfolk stayed leaderless vampires even after Barlow was defeated.
I’m not a fan of stories about authors, but I thought it worked here. More annoying to me was the ring story structure of beginning with the two on the run, flashbacking to catch up, and then continuing on with the story. I know it’s a trick to introduce dread, but King does that with the death of dog, etc. I think the flashback structure is unneeded.
I was also surprised by how the crucifixes and holy water as vampire defenses were taken as a given - I assumed that post Anne Rice, it was only “superstitious” vampires that feared religious iconography. I think Salem’s Lot was written before Interview with the Vampire
I plan to this month or next! I’ve always wanted to but put it on the back burner because I honestly thought it was Twilight but old. So glad to know I was wrong!
Dracula is also (unexpectedly?) epistolary! And includes a Texan in the band of vampire hunters! Who has never been included in any movie adaptations, as far as I know? Which, as a native Texan, how could you not include a doltish but well-meaning Owen Wilson sporting a cowboy hat shouting “yeehaw!” and sixshooter popping at the undead Count?
Interesting! I think you’re right about Rice’s book coming after. I am really curious about those iconography origins. When did that first appear? Was it, like the white spots on the dogs eyes in this work, made up along the way in various novels and short stories?
I’d never heard of the white spots on dog eyes lore before! That was new to me! But interesting! I wouldn’t be surprised if it came from Bram Stoker’s Dracula!
I agree, it didn't work for me and the reason was that it killed all sense of suspense. From the outset you know who survives, even though they aren't named. It was very quickly clear who The Man and The Boy were and therefore I didn't enjoy that framing much. It also seemed somewhat anticlimactic (as Shaina points out) that they kill Barlow and then there's this very brief epilogue of them setting the fire and walking away.
This was a wonderful and very detailed review. I love 'Salem's Lot, even though I didn't find it particularly scary in the traditional sense. For me what shines in the book is King's depiction of small town American life: the scenes of the various characters in the town in the lead up to the actual action. I think this is what King is good at, the kind of small-town snapshot. The book almost channels like a Winesburg, Ohio or the stories of Shirley Jackson. And I don't know if you're into foreign films, but I love the vampire movies of Jean Rollin. He did other horror as well, but Le Frisson des Vampires (The Shiver of the Vampires) is an unusual and memorable movie, and worth a watch if you're into that kind of thing.
I agree with you. He is a master at writing small towns and his people are almost always scarier than the monsters. I like foreign films and I’d be really interested to see a non-American take on vampires! Thanks for the suggestion!
After being exposed to terrible vampire stories my whole (very young) life up to that point, 'Salem's Lot recalibrated me forever. I demanded mystique and backstory, and for my vampires to be as terrifying as these. I was usually disappointed.
I think I remember Pet Sematary being the first legit good adaptation. We always LOL'd at any made-for-TV Stephen King thing (that's what Salem's Lot was), but the mainstream movies were badly off the mark.
The Shining deviated a little from the book, but it was a great film too.
But those are probably the exceptions that prove the rule.
Great review and I haven't had chance to read the book this time. My reference is the TV series which I think is brilliant and captures so much of the towns folk and their ickyness. I also am not a fan of Twilight. But I do love a good vamp story. Dracula is one of my favourite books, along with The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova which is a kind of spin off, but calling it a spin off cheapens it, it's REALLY GOOD. I loved the first few seasons of True Blood and What We Do In The Shadows film and television versions are also some of my favourites.
Someone mentioned it in the comments, but Dracula was written as a series of letters. I’d never made the connection until you mentioned Marsten’s correspondence with the Austrian.
If you have access to MGM’s streaming channel, you should check out Chapelwaite. It’s a prequel to Salem’s Lot. It’s like any of King’s adaptations. He wasn’t involved with it, but they do a good job of staying true to the spirit of the original and the vampires are creepy.
It would be easy to dismiss Rice’s various vampire works because, in a way, she’s directly responsible for the zeitgeist that led to Twilight, but there is some value in reading them. My favorite parts are the times when she has a very long-lived immortal being (not always vampires) talking about what it was like to live in Ancient Babylon or wherever. That’s something I haven’t seen many authors tackle and she did it well enough when I first encountered her writing decades ago.
I loved that you referenced the EC Comics. Creepy has so many great horror stories in its pages.
Regarding your question about King making authors the main characters of his stories, I’m fine with that. I even think there may be some value for aspiring writers to read about those authors because their activities help give some degree of insight into King’s own habits and proclivities.
I enjoyed your write up and look forward to these discussions because they are so much fun. It’s also a great way to meet other King/Horror fans. Thanks for that.
Yes to all of these suggestions! Rice is officially on my list. I’ve heard she’s a great writer but haven’t indulged yet. I don’t know what it is about the writer thing...I wish there were some bad ones thrown in so we could change it up. They seem to always be the heroes...except for Secret Window. I’ve only seen the movie, but if the book is anything like it then that would be the exception. I’m sure a therapist could help me figure that one out!
Oh… you may enjoy the movie Let the Right One In. It was originally a Swedish film, but they’ve since made an English version. It does portray vampires as horrific, but it puts an interesting spin on things. Check that out when you have time.
'Salem's Lot was the first King novel i read. Probably around 1977, when I was 15. It scared me tremendously and, as you wrote, it made me scoff at any vampire that was at all chic.
Although I did like the imaginative take on vampires of True Blood on HBO, at least for the first season or two.
This was the first King I read. The most frightening thing to me was that it seemed personal. Not Stoker’s 19th century Eastern Europe, but 20th century small town America. My biggest impression was Susan’s death.
I hesitated to comment, but I do have a point of view to add, be it somewhat narrow and honestly not as well informed as it could be. I have yet to read anything by Mr King and even though I thoroughly enjoyed your excellent in depth review of 'Salem's Lot and the discussion about the author in general, he is probably too visceral for me still. I think you have heightened a conscious decision not to read him, made initially after hearing the book title "Pet Cemetery" years ago. Hearing of his particular penchant for using children and animals for the heightened reaction elicited doesn't improve his appeal, not withstanding his considerable talent as a writer.
I appreciate this comment very much Frank. My husband absolutely hates stories like this. He likes to hear me talk about it, describe my own experience with it, but doesn’t ever reach for these types of books. I really respect it. Everyone has a different line and it’s important to honor it.
New to the Substack. I really enjoyed your commentary and weaving in the story. You asked about why such a simple weapon, made of only wood, might be used to kill such a formidable monster like a vampire. I think it might have a religious element. Just as a wooden cross means nothing without faith, a wooden stake could mean incredible spiritual power with simple faith. Its implicitly is a symbol for be simple faith in God that Jesus describes such that faith even the size of a mustard seed can move mountains. I was also wondering why the troupe is a small group of “losers” banding together in these horror books. I’m a fan of pulp fiction a well (Conan, Solomon Kane, etc) and those are almost always alone against the monster or hordes of enemies. It could be that each member of the “losers” group somehow complements another’s weakness while the omnipotent man alone badass of Pulp would never need.
I like this analysis. You’re probably right. The ordinary defeats the extraordinary through everyday faith and love. Hmmmm…I’m liking that stake more now.
I have always wanted to know why Marstens wife begged him to kill her...that was a major part of building the sense of mystery and evil for me. I stayed up until 4am to finish this book and although it was August, I was shaking with cold.
Great write up of an amazing work, Shaina. Thanks so much.
Your discussion of how unsexy vampirism is in Salem's Lot (I agree) made me think about all the sexy vampires that King might have been exposed to growing up. It is sad that Millennials were hit over the head with Twilight, Buffy, True Blood, and so on. Though most of Buffy was great.
However, there were some cool sexy vampires in past literature and film that readers should check out. I touch on a few here, though I know there are more (Dark Shadows being one that I wish I was more versed in - though I am sure it is super cheesy).
As @DANIELODONNELL touches on, Dracula is a sexy book that many scholars argue is all about the xenophobic worry that the wrong kind of foreign man seducing all of the women in England. Gregory Kershner has a great article about this. he quotes a few great passages. one where Dracula tells Mina that she is, “flesh of my flesh, blood on my blood; kin of my kin; my bountiful wine-press for a while; and shall be later on my companion and my helper” (pp. 306-07).
Or, Harker, who is clearly not the hot boss of modern romance novels talking about being approached by a bride of Dracula, “There was a deliberate voluptuousness which was both thrilling and repulsive, and as she arched her neck she actually licked her lips like an animal, till I could see in the moonlight the moisture shining on the scarlet lips and on the red tongue as it lapped the white sharp teeth. Lower and lower went her head as the lips went below the range on my mouth and chin and seemed about to fasten on my throat" (45-46). [quotes grabbeds from Kershner’s article.]
The novel has a great balance of horror and eroticism. I was surprised when people griped that Coppola's 1992 film sexualized the story. I thought it was right on. I am excited to see what you think when you read it.
I did not seek them out until college, but the Hammer Horror vampire movies are all full of sexy vampires. I won't go down the rabbit hole of those films, but King has talked about Hammer as some of the films that shaped him and I believe he touches on some of these in his Danse Macabre.
The sexy vampires that I think about most connected to King are the ones from Weird Tales and the pulps. He has heavily talked about that genre's influence.
Two of my favorite are C.L. Moore's "Shambleau" and “The Canal” by Everil Worrell. Both are amazing stories that all should check out.
Of course, there were very monstrous stories in pulps as well. My favorites being the works of Hugh Cave. Check out “Murgunstrumm.” What a crazy piece of work.
Anyone have any other works about vampires that we should check out (monstrous to sexy and everything in between)?
Okay, I know I said I want to teach a class on monsters. But you need to teach that class as well! The hank you for all the great references and recommendations. One question: are the sexy vampires also monstrous? Or are they sexy humans with fangs? Just curious.
You should teach a monster class. Students love it. I taught a great Composition class with a monster theme years ago. It was incredibly fun. We used Stephen T. Asma's On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears as our base text. That work does a great job of tying our fear of Monsters (vampires included) to real world fears and worries.
As far as sexy vampires go, the Hammer Movie vampires are sexy humans for the most part. The ones I mentioned from Weird Tales all have some monstrous aspects. Near the end of "The Canal," our protagonist states, "I knew the reality of the dark, loathsome shapes that passed me in the dark, crawling out of the orifice in the rock and flapping through the wild night..." We do see what those shapes are and they are not as sexy as the woman he had been seduced by. Of course, King's vampire is way more gruesome. That guy can write a horrid description.
Such a great review! To be totally honest, I haven't read the book, but I'm tempted now. It looks like most of your vampire questions have been answered, but I did do a little digging on the black dog with white spots and found something interesting.
To start with, dogs were traditionally seen as being able to detect and attack vampires. Dog are scavengers and are often seen digging up corpses and eating the dead (this is the main reason coffins were invented). Dogs who were seen digging up and eating a corpse were thought to be 'attacking' the corpse, because the corpse was a vampire. Dogs proximity to the dead gave them kind of a liminal status, they were seen as guides to the afterlife and capable of predicting death and a whole bunch of other stuff. Black dogs were seen as demonic (as were vampires), so black dogs were generally feared. However, in 'Cassel's Dictionary of Superstitions' black dogs with white spots are mentioned as being lucky. It's possible this was what King was referring to. Personally, when I read the description, I thought of Rottweilers with the light spots over their eyes. I've always thought of those as an extra set of "eyes" that might be helpful to a watchdog.
Anyway, thanks for the excuse to dig into folklore! I always enjoy it!
I enjoyed Salem's Lot but always thought it failed as a "vampire" book almost in the opposite way that Twilight fails as a "vampire" book. Vampires at their best are monsters hidden by a sheen of perfection. What makes the modern 19th century and on vampire is that they are disgusting creatures, parasites cursed by God to eternal damnation and feeding on the vitality of mankind but at the same time they are sexy and alluring, they are tempters. Dracula was a baller, he showed up in London and stole all the bitches, Lestat is great, for a time being a vampire is awesome, but then deep down it's disgusting, its depraved, and empty because life without the glory of the light(represented by the sun) is just a walking grave. What makes vampires scary isn't that they are monsters, it's that we are tempted to join them. The Lost Boys being a great example.
I’ve read quite a bit of vampire fiction be it Dracula, Brian Lumley’s Necroscope series, Anne Rice, Kim Newman’s Anno Dracula or the historian, Tom Holland’s two Byron novels. They all come at the mythology from different angles but Salem’s Lot is still my favourite. However, I watched the David Soul TV movie first and the famous scene with Danny Glick appearing at Mark’s window traumatised my 10 year old mind for a long time!
I don’t find the book particularly scary but the young Ben Mears seeing the hanged Hubie Marsten was a really creepy moment
King always returns to a place being evil which then draws evil to it which you talked about with IT but same goes for The Shining and Needful Things
Thanks for reading! I’m going to read Dracula and Rice. She’s been on my mind for a long time but I haven’t gotten around to any of her books yet. Do you have a recommendation?
It’s a predictable answer, but The Vampire Lestat was my favourite. Interview with the Vampire was also an interesting start to a good series that ran out of steam by the fourth or fifth volume in my opinion. Still those first few are well worth a read
This is a fabulous review and dead on (no pun intended). I have been a Stephen King fan since the mid-1970s, and 'Salem's Lot was the first book of his that I ever read. It remains my favorite to this day, though King has since written many tremendous books.
It is incredible. The amount of lore that he includes without being distracting amazed me. I’m actually scared of vampires again!
Yes! In regards to his standing among all writers--not just writers of horror--King is underrated by many. I believe he ranks among the top 50 American writers spanning the last quarter of the 20th century to today. Not top 10, but certainly top 50. Maybe even top 25. The excerpts you posted are proof of that, IMO.
Absolutely! He is an incredible writer, one of the best. He’s an easy target because he has pulp flair. But the criticisms have not stood. He’s written well outside the horror genre and he’s still incredible.
❤️
This is an excellent write up of a great novel. I'm currently teaching this book in a college class and the angle I'm taking is centred around King proclaiming that he was writing the Great American Novel, just with vampires. So my guided analysis looks at King's view of 1975's modern America, and suburbia specifically, and the perspective seems pretty grim about how he views where his own country is at. A connected small town is riddled with gossip and everyone there is the presented horror of the town and tale well before any vampiric elements start working.
Reading your post made me consider; he also shows that there is no hope from our usual saviours [church, school, family]; that capitalism is the foothold for all evil; and that maybe America is sinking into such a cesspool that it's a beacon for worse evil to come and snuggle in to make a nest for itself for the future.
I love that the Prologue undercuts most tensions because we know who lives [and can intuit from that who dies] and so our focus isn't on that anymore, it's on exploring The Lot, and the people of the town. And as for the ending, the monster might be defeated somewhat easily, but we already know it ends with our heroic American men fleeing the country across the border so the victory doesn't seem to work on a personal level for them, and it leads one to think perhaps the country itself is ost for good regardless, and we knew this from the start of the book.
Such a great book, and thanks for sharing that Barker intro, I'd never read that before.
I am a sucker for the way King frames his stories. Sometimes it happens in the prologue. Sometimes in the first chapter. It’s not uncommon for him to reveal who is going to live and that bothers a lot of people, but it’s appealing to me. It really does make the entire story into an exploration of the journey that leads to that ‘looking back’ introduction of the early chapters. If you want another example of this— I think it might be the best example— check out From a Buick 8. The entire novel is a group of people explaining how another person came to their fate.
Your class sounds really interesting. The 70’s were a rough time for America. Stagflation, gas rationing, crippling inflation, a lot of jobs moving overseas, disco… it was not an optimistic time. I’ve never considered his story in the light of the times in which it was written— well, except for Hearts in Atlantis, but there’s something about that story that just causes you to think about the time in which it takes place. Like Shaina says, I wish I could audit your class. It sounds interesting.
I wish I could audit that class! Really love your point about the prologue-that we know who survives, and our attention is thus on discovery. Learning about the Lot and it’s people. I don’t know enough about 1975’s America, but that is such an interesting analysis. King often has pretty grim commentary on small town America, and Jerusalem’s Lot is no different.
Thank you so much for such a nuanced response...you’ve given me a lot to think about.
I welcomed the excuse to listen to a full-length early King novel. Afterward, I sought out his short story set in the a few years after the end of the novel and listened to a couple Kingcast episodes on Salem’s Lot. That is, I very much enjoyed the novel.
I liked the Dracula in America premise. I liked the bleakness of how many survived. (2.5?) I liked how one after another failed to defeat Barlow and his cleverness. I liked the blue chalk scooby-doo discovery of his new hideout being the school. I liked how the townfolk stayed leaderless vampires even after Barlow was defeated.
I’m not a fan of stories about authors, but I thought it worked here. More annoying to me was the ring story structure of beginning with the two on the run, flashbacking to catch up, and then continuing on with the story. I know it’s a trick to introduce dread, but King does that with the death of dog, etc. I think the flashback structure is unneeded.
I agree with you here. I enjoy a good flashback but it wasn’t necessary here.
I was also surprised by how the crucifixes and holy water as vampire defenses were taken as a given - I assumed that post Anne Rice, it was only “superstitious” vampires that feared religious iconography. I think Salem’s Lot was written before Interview with the Vampire
Also, if you’ve never read Dracula, you should! It’ll surprise you how “modern” it is - very much a science vs superstition set up
I plan to this month or next! I’ve always wanted to but put it on the back burner because I honestly thought it was Twilight but old. So glad to know I was wrong!
Dracula is also (unexpectedly?) epistolary! And includes a Texan in the band of vampire hunters! Who has never been included in any movie adaptations, as far as I know? Which, as a native Texan, how could you not include a doltish but well-meaning Owen Wilson sporting a cowboy hat shouting “yeehaw!” and sixshooter popping at the undead Count?
I would pay to see that, especially if it was played by Owen Wilson...
Interesting! I think you’re right about Rice’s book coming after. I am really curious about those iconography origins. When did that first appear? Was it, like the white spots on the dogs eyes in this work, made up along the way in various novels and short stories?
I’d never heard of the white spots on dog eyes lore before! That was new to me! But interesting! I wouldn’t be surprised if it came from Bram Stoker’s Dracula!
I’m going to keep my eyes peeled for a reference somewhere. Google turned up ‘Salem’s Lot references that were completely unhelpful.
Also, not in Salem’s Lot, but vampires not having a reflection was always a cool visual. Maybe a movie addition?
I agree, it didn't work for me and the reason was that it killed all sense of suspense. From the outset you know who survives, even though they aren't named. It was very quickly clear who The Man and The Boy were and therefore I didn't enjoy that framing much. It also seemed somewhat anticlimactic (as Shaina points out) that they kill Barlow and then there's this very brief epilogue of them setting the fire and walking away.
This was a wonderful and very detailed review. I love 'Salem's Lot, even though I didn't find it particularly scary in the traditional sense. For me what shines in the book is King's depiction of small town American life: the scenes of the various characters in the town in the lead up to the actual action. I think this is what King is good at, the kind of small-town snapshot. The book almost channels like a Winesburg, Ohio or the stories of Shirley Jackson. And I don't know if you're into foreign films, but I love the vampire movies of Jean Rollin. He did other horror as well, but Le Frisson des Vampires (The Shiver of the Vampires) is an unusual and memorable movie, and worth a watch if you're into that kind of thing.
I agree with you. He is a master at writing small towns and his people are almost always scarier than the monsters. I like foreign films and I’d be really interested to see a non-American take on vampires! Thanks for the suggestion!
After being exposed to terrible vampire stories my whole (very young) life up to that point, 'Salem's Lot recalibrated me forever. I demanded mystique and backstory, and for my vampires to be as terrifying as these. I was usually disappointed.
I am sure I will be disappointed regularly as I set out to find other good vampire stories. ‘Salem’s Lot is my standard now.
If you want to be disappointed by Salem's Lot as well, make sure to watch the early 80s (late 70s?) TV adaptation. Ouch!
But the novel remains genius.
The tv adaptations of his work are hilariously bad!
I think I remember Pet Sematary being the first legit good adaptation. We always LOL'd at any made-for-TV Stephen King thing (that's what Salem's Lot was), but the mainstream movies were badly off the mark.
The Shining deviated a little from the book, but it was a great film too.
But those are probably the exceptions that prove the rule.
Great review and I haven't had chance to read the book this time. My reference is the TV series which I think is brilliant and captures so much of the towns folk and their ickyness. I also am not a fan of Twilight. But I do love a good vamp story. Dracula is one of my favourite books, along with The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova which is a kind of spin off, but calling it a spin off cheapens it, it's REALLY GOOD. I loved the first few seasons of True Blood and What We Do In The Shadows film and television versions are also some of my favourites.
I haven’t read or watched any of these but I’m on a vampire kick now. I’ll definitely be giving them a go (and probably writing about them).
Yes!
Someone mentioned it in the comments, but Dracula was written as a series of letters. I’d never made the connection until you mentioned Marsten’s correspondence with the Austrian.
If you have access to MGM’s streaming channel, you should check out Chapelwaite. It’s a prequel to Salem’s Lot. It’s like any of King’s adaptations. He wasn’t involved with it, but they do a good job of staying true to the spirit of the original and the vampires are creepy.
It would be easy to dismiss Rice’s various vampire works because, in a way, she’s directly responsible for the zeitgeist that led to Twilight, but there is some value in reading them. My favorite parts are the times when she has a very long-lived immortal being (not always vampires) talking about what it was like to live in Ancient Babylon or wherever. That’s something I haven’t seen many authors tackle and she did it well enough when I first encountered her writing decades ago.
I loved that you referenced the EC Comics. Creepy has so many great horror stories in its pages.
Regarding your question about King making authors the main characters of his stories, I’m fine with that. I even think there may be some value for aspiring writers to read about those authors because their activities help give some degree of insight into King’s own habits and proclivities.
I enjoyed your write up and look forward to these discussions because they are so much fun. It’s also a great way to meet other King/Horror fans. Thanks for that.
Yes to all of these suggestions! Rice is officially on my list. I’ve heard she’s a great writer but haven’t indulged yet. I don’t know what it is about the writer thing...I wish there were some bad ones thrown in so we could change it up. They seem to always be the heroes...except for Secret Window. I’ve only seen the movie, but if the book is anything like it then that would be the exception. I’m sure a therapist could help me figure that one out!
Oh… you may enjoy the movie Let the Right One In. It was originally a Swedish film, but they’ve since made an English version. It does portray vampires as horrific, but it puts an interesting spin on things. Check that out when you have time.
'Salem's Lot was the first King novel i read. Probably around 1977, when I was 15. It scared me tremendously and, as you wrote, it made me scoff at any vampire that was at all chic.
Although I did like the imaginative take on vampires of True Blood on HBO, at least for the first season or two.
This was the first King I read. The most frightening thing to me was that it seemed personal. Not Stoker’s 19th century Eastern Europe, but 20th century small town America. My biggest impression was Susan’s death.
Susan’s death was a hard scene. The love story between her and Ben was sweet. The fact that she had to be killed pulled at my heart strings.
I hesitated to comment, but I do have a point of view to add, be it somewhat narrow and honestly not as well informed as it could be. I have yet to read anything by Mr King and even though I thoroughly enjoyed your excellent in depth review of 'Salem's Lot and the discussion about the author in general, he is probably too visceral for me still. I think you have heightened a conscious decision not to read him, made initially after hearing the book title "Pet Cemetery" years ago. Hearing of his particular penchant for using children and animals for the heightened reaction elicited doesn't improve his appeal, not withstanding his considerable talent as a writer.
I appreciate this comment very much Frank. My husband absolutely hates stories like this. He likes to hear me talk about it, describe my own experience with it, but doesn’t ever reach for these types of books. I really respect it. Everyone has a different line and it’s important to honor it.
Gratefully acknowledged!
New to the Substack. I really enjoyed your commentary and weaving in the story. You asked about why such a simple weapon, made of only wood, might be used to kill such a formidable monster like a vampire. I think it might have a religious element. Just as a wooden cross means nothing without faith, a wooden stake could mean incredible spiritual power with simple faith. Its implicitly is a symbol for be simple faith in God that Jesus describes such that faith even the size of a mustard seed can move mountains. I was also wondering why the troupe is a small group of “losers” banding together in these horror books. I’m a fan of pulp fiction a well (Conan, Solomon Kane, etc) and those are almost always alone against the monster or hordes of enemies. It could be that each member of the “losers” group somehow complements another’s weakness while the omnipotent man alone badass of Pulp would never need.
I like this analysis. You’re probably right. The ordinary defeats the extraordinary through everyday faith and love. Hmmmm…I’m liking that stake more now.
I have always wanted to know why Marstens wife begged him to kill her...that was a major part of building the sense of mystery and evil for me. I stayed up until 4am to finish this book and although it was August, I was shaking with cold.
Oh man I love that feeling-staying up all night to finish a book! I want to know that too! What happened there?
Great write up of an amazing work, Shaina. Thanks so much.
Your discussion of how unsexy vampirism is in Salem's Lot (I agree) made me think about all the sexy vampires that King might have been exposed to growing up. It is sad that Millennials were hit over the head with Twilight, Buffy, True Blood, and so on. Though most of Buffy was great.
However, there were some cool sexy vampires in past literature and film that readers should check out. I touch on a few here, though I know there are more (Dark Shadows being one that I wish I was more versed in - though I am sure it is super cheesy).
As @DANIELODONNELL touches on, Dracula is a sexy book that many scholars argue is all about the xenophobic worry that the wrong kind of foreign man seducing all of the women in England. Gregory Kershner has a great article about this. he quotes a few great passages. one where Dracula tells Mina that she is, “flesh of my flesh, blood on my blood; kin of my kin; my bountiful wine-press for a while; and shall be later on my companion and my helper” (pp. 306-07).
Or, Harker, who is clearly not the hot boss of modern romance novels talking about being approached by a bride of Dracula, “There was a deliberate voluptuousness which was both thrilling and repulsive, and as she arched her neck she actually licked her lips like an animal, till I could see in the moonlight the moisture shining on the scarlet lips and on the red tongue as it lapped the white sharp teeth. Lower and lower went her head as the lips went below the range on my mouth and chin and seemed about to fasten on my throat" (45-46). [quotes grabbeds from Kershner’s article.]
The novel has a great balance of horror and eroticism. I was surprised when people griped that Coppola's 1992 film sexualized the story. I thought it was right on. I am excited to see what you think when you read it.
I did not seek them out until college, but the Hammer Horror vampire movies are all full of sexy vampires. I won't go down the rabbit hole of those films, but King has talked about Hammer as some of the films that shaped him and I believe he touches on some of these in his Danse Macabre.
The sexy vampires that I think about most connected to King are the ones from Weird Tales and the pulps. He has heavily talked about that genre's influence.
Two of my favorite are C.L. Moore's "Shambleau" and “The Canal” by Everil Worrell. Both are amazing stories that all should check out.
Of course, there were very monstrous stories in pulps as well. My favorites being the works of Hugh Cave. Check out “Murgunstrumm.” What a crazy piece of work.
Anyone have any other works about vampires that we should check out (monstrous to sexy and everything in between)?
References:
Stoker, Bram. Dracula. London: Penguin, 2003.
Kershner, Gregory. "Horror and Eroticism: Bram Stoker’s Dracula," News@HOFSTRA. 9 Oct. 2006. https://news.hofstra.edu/2006/10/09/horror-and-eroticism-bram-stokers-dracula/
Okay, I know I said I want to teach a class on monsters. But you need to teach that class as well! The hank you for all the great references and recommendations. One question: are the sexy vampires also monstrous? Or are they sexy humans with fangs? Just curious.
You should teach a monster class. Students love it. I taught a great Composition class with a monster theme years ago. It was incredibly fun. We used Stephen T. Asma's On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears as our base text. That work does a great job of tying our fear of Monsters (vampires included) to real world fears and worries.
As far as sexy vampires go, the Hammer Movie vampires are sexy humans for the most part. The ones I mentioned from Weird Tales all have some monstrous aspects. Near the end of "The Canal," our protagonist states, "I knew the reality of the dark, loathsome shapes that passed me in the dark, crawling out of the orifice in the rock and flapping through the wild night..." We do see what those shapes are and they are not as sexy as the woman he had been seduced by. Of course, King's vampire is way more gruesome. That guy can write a horrid description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Vampire
Stephen King co-wrote this comic series with Scott Snyder. It’s worth checking out for anyone who enjoys comics.
American Vampire is a lot of fun. Snyder is a great writer as well. I wish we had more insight into the balance that was in that collaboration.
Don’t forget the sexiest vampire of all: Nosferatu.
:) He is a sexy beast. I thought you were going to say, Carmilla.
Such a great review! To be totally honest, I haven't read the book, but I'm tempted now. It looks like most of your vampire questions have been answered, but I did do a little digging on the black dog with white spots and found something interesting.
To start with, dogs were traditionally seen as being able to detect and attack vampires. Dog are scavengers and are often seen digging up corpses and eating the dead (this is the main reason coffins were invented). Dogs who were seen digging up and eating a corpse were thought to be 'attacking' the corpse, because the corpse was a vampire. Dogs proximity to the dead gave them kind of a liminal status, they were seen as guides to the afterlife and capable of predicting death and a whole bunch of other stuff. Black dogs were seen as demonic (as were vampires), so black dogs were generally feared. However, in 'Cassel's Dictionary of Superstitions' black dogs with white spots are mentioned as being lucky. It's possible this was what King was referring to. Personally, when I read the description, I thought of Rottweilers with the light spots over their eyes. I've always thought of those as an extra set of "eyes" that might be helpful to a watchdog.
Anyway, thanks for the excuse to dig into folklore! I always enjoy it!
Thanks for taking the time and looking into it! What is ‘Cassels Dictionary of Superstitions’?? Sounds like something I need to get a hold of...
Of course! Cassel’s is always on my coffee table, it’s an incredible resource. I’m pretty sure I got my copy used on Amazon.
🙏
I enjoyed Salem's Lot but always thought it failed as a "vampire" book almost in the opposite way that Twilight fails as a "vampire" book. Vampires at their best are monsters hidden by a sheen of perfection. What makes the modern 19th century and on vampire is that they are disgusting creatures, parasites cursed by God to eternal damnation and feeding on the vitality of mankind but at the same time they are sexy and alluring, they are tempters. Dracula was a baller, he showed up in London and stole all the bitches, Lestat is great, for a time being a vampire is awesome, but then deep down it's disgusting, its depraved, and empty because life without the glory of the light(represented by the sun) is just a walking grave. What makes vampires scary isn't that they are monsters, it's that we are tempted to join them. The Lost Boys being a great example.
I know I commented on notes but I love this analysis. Thanks so much for commenting.
Of course, thank you. This is the whole point of Substack in my opinion.
Yes! For me it is.
This was an excellent article about a great book
I’ve read quite a bit of vampire fiction be it Dracula, Brian Lumley’s Necroscope series, Anne Rice, Kim Newman’s Anno Dracula or the historian, Tom Holland’s two Byron novels. They all come at the mythology from different angles but Salem’s Lot is still my favourite. However, I watched the David Soul TV movie first and the famous scene with Danny Glick appearing at Mark’s window traumatised my 10 year old mind for a long time!
I don’t find the book particularly scary but the young Ben Mears seeing the hanged Hubie Marsten was a really creepy moment
King always returns to a place being evil which then draws evil to it which you talked about with IT but same goes for The Shining and Needful Things
Anyway. Great read. Thanks very much 👍🏼
Thanks for reading! I’m going to read Dracula and Rice. She’s been on my mind for a long time but I haven’t gotten around to any of her books yet. Do you have a recommendation?
It’s a predictable answer, but The Vampire Lestat was my favourite. Interview with the Vampire was also an interesting start to a good series that ran out of steam by the fourth or fifth volume in my opinion. Still those first few are well worth a read