Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.56 AVERAGE
3.56 AVERAGE
Non-finished. There was so brutal fatphobic chapter marked as ”HORROR” so i just couldn’t… damn you stephen why. Yes the book is ”oldish” but still a damn no.
This book is fairly limited in its content from where we are today (35 years later) but that really doesn't matter if you are a curious reader with a fascination for the roots of modern morbidity. There is much to be learned from the master and he loves to teach it. Upon completing this, I promptly went to a local bookstore and stocked up on Ray Bradbury, Harlan Ellison and Richard Matheson. When Stephen King geeks out to something, to the extent that he did in Danse Macabre, we can safely assume it's of cultural importance. Now I will experience the things that keep SK up at night.
An interesting look into the mind of Horror Master Stephen King himself. All about the genre that he has become notorious for. (Even though many of his best books are not even in the horror genre). King gives a detailed look into the history of film, radio, and books. Bringing in his own experiences with the genre.
Be warned, this is a bit outdated. I read the updated 2010 release that has the "What's Scary" essay in the beginning. In which he writes about the Blair Witch Project and more recent films. Would love for him to write an updated version of this, and get his take on movies such as Saw, Insidious, and the current remakes of movies that he mentioned in this. See if Wes Craven ever redeemed himself in King's eyes.
Be warned, this is a bit outdated. I read the updated 2010 release that has the "What's Scary" essay in the beginning. In which he writes about the Blair Witch Project and more recent films. Would love for him to write an updated version of this, and get his take on movies such as Saw, Insidious, and the current remakes of movies that he mentioned in this. See if Wes Craven ever redeemed himself in King's eyes.
dark
reflective
medium-paced
dark
funny
informative
slow-paced
A deep exploration of the horror genre across fiction and big screen (and small as well). It is lengthy but it's all interesting. My main criticism is the huge number of US references that have not dated well; it really is a book of it's time and of it's author's generation - although it is still well worth reading in the 2020s.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Stephen King does a phenomenal job covering almost the entire horror genre in radio, film, tv, and of course books, from the 50’s to the 80’s. It’s non-fiction and reads like an easy essay with a splash of fun autobiography thrown in. I loved it! Only one problem - I felt too young for this book (and I’m kinda old😳); I’ve not read 50% of the classics he delves into, so my book shopping list just grew 2x!
My secret wish? Joe Hill and his Pops get together and make a second, more current version - that would be epic!
My secret wish? Joe Hill and his Pops get together and make a second, more current version - that would be epic!
When the King of Horror writes about the Horror culture then it's a book bound to be perfect.
Um,almost
well, it was, but now it's a bit outdated.
King writes mainly about horror films and books from the 1950's up to the 1970's
Since then it's been more than thirty years and thousands of films and books were released and published since then so; he talks about things in the past.
With the books it's fine, because you can find all these books he recommends still available today. The same can be said for films, but watching films from the 50's-60's is not like reading a book from that time, they don't age as well as the books.
But films with this or the other way can be watched, if you want it.
Horror radio on the other hand is something unknown today.
It stopped being current since the advent of TV, and a whole chapter about horror shows on radio was a bit of a bore.
The same can be said about the archaic TV Shows from the USA, a long chapter about shows I ain't gonna watch.
The same can be said about most of the films, but of course not all of them.
But 72% of the book [334 pages (i-xxviii, 1-128, 282-460) out of 460] is about the archetypes (and their creation) of Horror (Vampire, Frankenstein Monster, Werewolf), Horror fiction in English, King's experience with the horror genre both as a writer and as a reader/viewer, and more.
So this leaves 126 pages for Radio, TV, and Films, which equals 27% of the book.
So, even mathematically this book has more positive elements than negative for me.
But even the negative ones are not exactly that. They were just not that interesting to me, as interesting as the autobiographical sections and the horror book sections.
But I knew about some of them and even watched them and liked them, like:
Radio: Orson Welles - War Of The Worlds - Broadcast (1938)
TV: The Twilight Zone (1959-1964)
Film: The Shining (1980), Nosferatu (1922)
So to sum up this uneven (just like the book) review, I liked it, I recommend it to every King and horror junkie and for me it's 4.5 stars
King even in non-fiction is a storyteller.
Um,almost
well, it was, but now it's a bit outdated.
King writes mainly about horror films and books from the 1950's up to the 1970's
Since then it's been more than thirty years and thousands of films and books were released and published since then so; he talks about things in the past.
With the books it's fine, because you can find all these books he recommends still available today. The same can be said for films, but watching films from the 50's-60's is not like reading a book from that time, they don't age as well as the books.
But films with this or the other way can be watched, if you want it.
Horror radio on the other hand is something unknown today.
It stopped being current since the advent of TV, and a whole chapter about horror shows on radio was a bit of a bore.
The same can be said about the archaic TV Shows from the USA, a long chapter about shows I ain't gonna watch.
The same can be said about most of the films, but of course not all of them.
But 72% of the book [334 pages (i-xxviii, 1-128, 282-460) out of 460] is about the archetypes (and their creation) of Horror (Vampire, Frankenstein Monster, Werewolf), Horror fiction in English, King's experience with the horror genre both as a writer and as a reader/viewer, and more.
So this leaves 126 pages for Radio, TV, and Films, which equals 27% of the book.
So, even mathematically this book has more positive elements than negative for me.
But even the negative ones are not exactly that. They were just not that interesting to me, as interesting as the autobiographical sections and the horror book sections.
But I knew about some of them and even watched them and liked them, like:
Radio: Orson Welles - War Of The Worlds - Broadcast (1938)
TV: The Twilight Zone (1959-1964)
Film: The Shining (1980), Nosferatu (1922)
So to sum up this uneven (just like the book) review, I liked it, I recommend it to every King and horror junkie and for me it's 4.5 stars
King even in non-fiction is a storyteller.
I apologize for such low-brow wording, but this book is a turd. It took every effort to finish. Of King's books up to and including this one, Danse Macabre is easily the worst. It's not really a fair comparison since this book is nonfiction.
King rambles - often droning on and on about particular books. Yet, he does so without being very interesting. The only redeeming qualities are that he discusses books that he has yet to write, and the final chapter. Perhaps the last chapter is good because his own work, The Stand, features prominently.
It is an interesting contrast with his On Writing - this book from an early 30s King, and On Writing written by an early 50s King. In the former, he is unfocused, in the latter he is warm and controlled.
This doesn't speak to King's talent as a writer, rather it shows his 30-year-old self was not good at non-fiction.
King rambles - often droning on and on about particular books. Yet, he does so without being very interesting. The only redeeming qualities are that he discusses books that he has yet to write, and the final chapter. Perhaps the last chapter is good because his own work, The Stand, features prominently.
It is an interesting contrast with his On Writing - this book from an early 30s King, and On Writing written by an early 50s King. In the former, he is unfocused, in the latter he is warm and controlled.
This doesn't speak to King's talent as a writer, rather it shows his 30-year-old self was not good at non-fiction.
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective