Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.56 AVERAGE
3.56 AVERAGE
Well written, but not the book for me... I rather read the books and see the movies than read about what makes them good.
Complete waste of time. DO NOT READ. Almost never ending ramblings that never amount to anything. Entirely pointless.
informative
medium-paced
Como en 'Mientras escribo', King te cuenta todo lo que sabe del horror con la familiaridad que lo haría si te lo contara en la barra de un bar, pero al contrario que 'Mientras escribo' puede ponerse un poco intenso; reconforta comprobar que compartimos la misma manía de divagar a la hora de contar historias y tener la necesidad de detallarte alguna anécdota adyacente a la historia que te está contando.
I really thought that reading a whole book that was centered on Stephen King’s musings about the horror genre was going to be just what I’ve always wanted. I thought it was going to be utterly fantastic.
It wasn’t.
He mentions many things in this book, but he makes points about none of them. Except that he really doesn’t like John Saul. Oh, and he really loves The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson. I mean, he REALLY likes it. He goes so far off topic in many areas of this book and sometimes he wanders back around, but not really.
I found myself so bored reading this. I thought I would never reach the end, even after skimming pages of him babbling incoherently about nothing much.
Read his book On Writing. It’s better by far.
2 stars
It wasn’t.
He mentions many things in this book, but he makes points about none of them. Except that he really doesn’t like John Saul. Oh, and he really loves The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson. I mean, he REALLY likes it. He goes so far off topic in many areas of this book and sometimes he wanders back around, but not really.
I found myself so bored reading this. I thought I would never reach the end, even after skimming pages of him babbling incoherently about nothing much.
Read his book On Writing. It’s better by far.
2 stars
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
I like the book even if it is very old now. i would like to be an updated book over the last 30 or so years.
There is a certain amount of stigma that the occassional reader attaches to horror as a genre. I should qualify what the term 'occassional reader' means : the kind of person who is not bitten too hard by the reading bug ! One book in a long time gap will satisfy their appetite and they shy away from making further explorations is a common trait. I have been a constant recipient of questions and statements from this class in the lines of Do you read horror ? I have only read Dracula and that was enough for me ! and more along these lines. To a section of the reading community, horror and fantasy are genres that need to be avoided for reasons best known only to them. Personally, I got my first taste of the horror novel when I accidentally stumbled upon King's Carrie in my school days. My affair with horror literature has been very limited but something I have not allowed to die a silent death. A feeling akin to learning magic tricks from a practicing magician englufed me during the entire duration of this book. If you are someone familiar with the landscape of American popular literature, Stephen King is a name you would have chanced across one time or another.
An in depth look into the whole aspect of the horror genre is how I can sum up the book. With a writing style that speaks volumes about the author's passion for the content, I was treated to a barrage of information on the medium that brought us unforgettable icons like Count Dracula and Frankenstein's monster.King traces the growth of this aspect of human imagination from its infancy in the pulp fiction and penny dreadfuls to its more matured version as a reflection of society's woes at any given point in time. War, economic depression and fear of mass desctruction have all produced their share of horror fiction if we think along the lines of King's logic. While the tone is not entirely stentorian or academic (read dry and lifeless !), the subject is presented in an concise and understandable manner. Something that comes to mind is King's way of examining most works in the field against the archetypes : the Vampire, the Werewolf, the Thing with no name and the Haunted House. He dissects seminal works of horror literature like Dracula, Frankenstein, The body snatchers and The haunting of hill house to share what are blatantly obvious yet hitherto unseen perspectives.I would not place this on the same plane as the brilliant On Writing for the field is much more narrow but in the end King is a darn good writer of horror fiction and it shows in the content and treatment of the subject.
If you are a lover of horror fiction, then this is for you. If not, you will fall asleep in a chapter. Take that from me !
An in depth look into the whole aspect of the horror genre is how I can sum up the book. With a writing style that speaks volumes about the author's passion for the content, I was treated to a barrage of information on the medium that brought us unforgettable icons like Count Dracula and Frankenstein's monster.King traces the growth of this aspect of human imagination from its infancy in the pulp fiction and penny dreadfuls to its more matured version as a reflection of society's woes at any given point in time. War, economic depression and fear of mass desctruction have all produced their share of horror fiction if we think along the lines of King's logic. While the tone is not entirely stentorian or academic (read dry and lifeless !), the subject is presented in an concise and understandable manner. Something that comes to mind is King's way of examining most works in the field against the archetypes : the Vampire, the Werewolf, the Thing with no name and the Haunted House. He dissects seminal works of horror literature like Dracula, Frankenstein, The body snatchers and The haunting of hill house to share what are blatantly obvious yet hitherto unseen perspectives.I would not place this on the same plane as the brilliant On Writing for the field is much more narrow but in the end King is a darn good writer of horror fiction and it shows in the content and treatment of the subject.
If you are a lover of horror fiction, then this is for you. If not, you will fall asleep in a chapter. Take that from me !
slow-paced
Published right on the cusp of the 80s and its strides in horror as well as the beginnings of King’s career, in a modern context this book isn’t essential to fans of the genre.
The few mentions of King’s childhood and one mention of his writing process are somewhat interesting but the book’s commentary on the horror genre is pretty surface level (on King’s insistence to not examine works of horror too closely). King spends a lot of time going through other mediums before getting to horror books and his ability to comment on these other industries (movies, for example) is from looking at the audience (literally, he gets some of his analysis from both comments from moviegoers and the demographic of the audience he saw the movie with). Even with books, King leaves the authors of those works to comment on them while he’s much more satisfied with looking at overall themes and excerpting examples of the prose with no deeper analysis.
As for the writing itself, it feels as if King was given carte blanche with this book as it frequently goes into other topics outside of the current chapter as well as repeats lines/situations told in previous chapters without connecting them. Don’t know if this is because parts of the book are reprints of articles that were published previously in other places or if more editing needed to be done. The book as a result is a chore to get through if you’re looking for thoughts from “The Master of Horror” since it frequently gets off-track and ultimately doesn’t offer much when you do get there.
There is at least a little enjoyment from takes that haven’t aged well, from a couple of rants on TV being a bad place for horror (King would go on to make made for TV versions of his books as well as original movies) to King taking jabs at The Rocky Horror Picture Show. At least his rant about radio disappearing has a modern answer in podcasts.
The few mentions of King’s childhood and one mention of his writing process are somewhat interesting but the book’s commentary on the horror genre is pretty surface level (on King’s insistence to not examine works of horror too closely). King spends a lot of time going through other mediums before getting to horror books and his ability to comment on these other industries (movies, for example) is from looking at the audience (literally, he gets some of his analysis from both comments from moviegoers and the demographic of the audience he saw the movie with). Even with books, King leaves the authors of those works to comment on them while he’s much more satisfied with looking at overall themes and excerpting examples of the prose with no deeper analysis.
As for the writing itself, it feels as if King was given carte blanche with this book as it frequently goes into other topics outside of the current chapter as well as repeats lines/situations told in previous chapters without connecting them. Don’t know if this is because parts of the book are reprints of articles that were published previously in other places or if more editing needed to be done. The book as a result is a chore to get through if you’re looking for thoughts from “The Master of Horror” since it frequently gets off-track and ultimately doesn’t offer much when you do get there.
There is at least a little enjoyment from takes that haven’t aged well, from a couple of rants on TV being a bad place for horror (King would go on to make made for TV versions of his books as well as original movies) to King taking jabs at The Rocky Horror Picture Show. At least his rant about radio disappearing has a modern answer in podcasts.