Scan barcode
jannagregory's review against another edition
3.0
A bit disjointed here and there, but still a good story.
thebestmark's review against another edition
dark
emotional
mysterious
fast-paced
The Dead Zone is a bizarre novel about a Stephen King everyman who, like the characters in Carrie and Firestarter, gains a superpower, only to find himself locked in the melodrama of a novel like Cujo for a couple hundred pages. The protagonist, Johnny Smith, gains the power of precognition, but loses the love of his life after falling into a years-long coma. For quite a long time, The Dead Zone is simply about this - about a man who fell into a coma, who helps people with his new mind powers, mourning his lost years. It's messy but it works, not only due to the fact that King is surprisingly adept at writing melodrama, but also because so much time is spent on subplots that don't combine into anything. The novel is almost procedural in its handling of Smith's grief, which has the effect of both deepening the complexity of the lead characters while grounding the novel's much flightier paranormal stuff.
The second half of the novel dulls its shine. This is one of the very first King novels where you can really feel he's struggling to find what the hell the book is about all the while he's writing it. In the early goings, The Dead Zone feels like the leadup to a horror novel, as Johnny's love interest can only see a hidden monster buried within Johnny's talents, comparing him to Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. Then we scoot into made-for-TV melodrama land. Interspersed throughout is a serial killer story that gets interrupted by Johnny's powers, which is probably the most engaging and cinematic part of the book. But then the novel kind of skips stones for a bit and suddenly becomes a Robert Ludlum novel concerning the metaphoric second-coming of Hitler.
How do all of these things tie together? Well, on the one hand, they kind of don't. There is a profound directionless-ness that permeates this entire novel, its key thematic concerns constantly teetering towards the edge of incoherence. The qualities that make Johnny an interesting character in a tragic love story do not interface, at all, with what makes him interesting as a paranormal detective or a mystical conspiracy theorist. The Dead Zone lacks a central thematic concern that made Cujo so outstanding, and while I don't think the novel forms something greater as a whole narrative, I will at least say that many of the smaller parts that greater narrative is built upon are fun to read.
Probing a little deeper, I would say The Dead Zone is ultimately a horror novel - but not a horror novel about a serial killer or terrifying telepathic abilities or a sinister political conspiracy. The Dead Zone is a psychological horror novel about a run-of-the-mill American liberal confronted with violent revolution as a sink or swim moment for liberal democracy. It doesn't rise to center-stage until late in the novel, but King inundates the Dead Zone with seemingly random asides about American politics that form a bigger picture when tied together. Johnny expresses support for the student protest of the '60s in the very beginning of the novel in spite of that event's irrelevance to the immediate plot, and one of Johnny's primary concerns when he's coming out of his coma is the change to America's political landscape following Nixon (of all things).
When a goofy third-party populist with a brightly-colored hat named Greg Stillson comes into power, Johnny is unsettled to the point of obsession. At first, Johnny's instinctual fear of Stillson is purely generated by Stillson's populist appeals to the general public, with Stillson's actual policies in question discarded as an aside; the policies, as I recall from the book, include strong pro-environment regulations, a job program for formal criminals, a tyrannical (although typical at this point for the US) anti-drug policy that includes locking up drug addicts, and an overall greater economic investment in the local community. Before Johnny correctly apprehends Stillson as Hitler Two, he is instinctually disgusted by Stillson's setting-aside of the typical boundaries of two-party American politics. This leads Johnny to ask the 'would you go back in time and kill baby Hitler' question to the people in his life, from his nominally liberal father to a rich republican associate who gives the very suspicious answer, 'no, I'd instead try to change the party from within through reforms.' To which I say: what do you mean, from within...? Johnny mulls it over and subsequently decides to assassinate Stillson.
If you squint, you begin to parse The Dead Zone's Big Ideological Argument: it doesn't matter if you're on the left or on the right, so long as the American political system, as it currently exists, isn't interrupted in any serious way. This requires Johnny - and presumably King - to carry some major and direct ideological contradictions within his thinking to progress the story. Some of these contradictions live ambiently within the novel, such as Johnny's simultaneous endorsement of the anti-Vietnam protests and the reveal of his vivid, abject horror at the notion of allowing a communist state to exist during a conversation with a Vietnamese expatriate. On the surface, Stillson, who stumbles into the role of primary antagonist within the novel, is a disrupter of the system of power in that he destroys the binary of American politics with his invented populist third party politicking. Yet to accomplish this disruption - setting aside any skullduggery he commits - Stillson also embodies the platonic ideal of a democratic leader by directly engaging with his constituents, asking for a ton of public feedback and putting some of his own policy decisions up to a vote. Stillson is a disrupter, an existential threat to American democracy, and yet he fulfills the unfulfilled promise of direct democratic leadership. He is also this novel's embodiment of pure evil, a figure who will bring about a literal, almost biblical apocalypse.
This is the Dead Zone's deepest most evocative expression of horror: in order to prevent this disruption of the system of power and the permanent rejection of currently-existing social norms, Johnny, himself, has to embody the role of the ultimate disrupter, the ultimate destroyer of social norms and therefore the ultimate preserver of social norms, a Christ-like sacrifice that enables liberal democracy to persevere. The horror isn't embodied in the narrative as Stillson's tyranny, which remains vague and largely speculative - instead, it's embodied by Johnny's tyranny, by his decision to heroically destroy the ever-evangelized will of the American people through violence. To destroy a tyrannical leader is a revolutionary act, and most writers would frame such a thing as at least understandable, if not outright heroic. For Johnny, the revolutionary act is miserable, transforming him into a husk of himself - literally making him plead with God for his own death. This is especially interesting considering Johnny is written very much as the American everyman, a sensible liberal who is always positioned as both the smartest and the most moral person in the room. Ultimately, in The Dead Zone, the scariest thing imaginable isn't that some new form of fascism might come to be, the sensible everyman - and therefore you, the reader who finds themself within Johnny - might have to do something about it.
The second half of the novel dulls its shine. This is one of the very first King novels where you can really feel he's struggling to find what the hell the book is about all the while he's writing it. In the early goings, The Dead Zone feels like the leadup to a horror novel, as Johnny's love interest can only see a hidden monster buried within Johnny's talents, comparing him to Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. Then we scoot into made-for-TV melodrama land. Interspersed throughout is a serial killer story that gets interrupted by Johnny's powers, which is probably the most engaging and cinematic part of the book. But then the novel kind of skips stones for a bit and suddenly becomes a Robert Ludlum novel concerning the metaphoric second-coming of Hitler.
How do all of these things tie together? Well, on the one hand, they kind of don't. There is a profound directionless-ness that permeates this entire novel, its key thematic concerns constantly teetering towards the edge of incoherence. The qualities that make Johnny an interesting character in a tragic love story do not interface, at all, with what makes him interesting as a paranormal detective or a mystical conspiracy theorist. The Dead Zone lacks a central thematic concern that made Cujo so outstanding, and while I don't think the novel forms something greater as a whole narrative, I will at least say that many of the smaller parts that greater narrative is built upon are fun to read.
Probing a little deeper, I would say The Dead Zone is ultimately a horror novel - but not a horror novel about a serial killer or terrifying telepathic abilities or a sinister political conspiracy. The Dead Zone is a psychological horror novel about a run-of-the-mill American liberal confronted with violent revolution as a sink or swim moment for liberal democracy. It doesn't rise to center-stage until late in the novel, but King inundates the Dead Zone with seemingly random asides about American politics that form a bigger picture when tied together. Johnny expresses support for the student protest of the '60s in the very beginning of the novel in spite of that event's irrelevance to the immediate plot, and one of Johnny's primary concerns when he's coming out of his coma is the change to America's political landscape following Nixon (of all things).
When a goofy third-party populist with a brightly-colored hat named Greg Stillson comes into power, Johnny is unsettled to the point of obsession. At first, Johnny's instinctual fear of Stillson is purely generated by Stillson's populist appeals to the general public, with Stillson's actual policies in question discarded as an aside; the policies, as I recall from the book, include strong pro-environment regulations, a job program for formal criminals, a tyrannical (although typical at this point for the US) anti-drug policy that includes locking up drug addicts, and an overall greater economic investment in the local community. Before Johnny correctly apprehends Stillson as Hitler Two, he is instinctually disgusted by Stillson's setting-aside of the typical boundaries of two-party American politics. This leads Johnny to ask the 'would you go back in time and kill baby Hitler' question to the people in his life, from his nominally liberal father to a rich republican associate who gives the very suspicious answer, 'no, I'd instead try to change the party from within through reforms.' To which I say: what do you mean, from within...? Johnny mulls it over and subsequently decides to assassinate Stillson.
If you squint, you begin to parse The Dead Zone's Big Ideological Argument: it doesn't matter if you're on the left or on the right, so long as the American political system, as it currently exists, isn't interrupted in any serious way. This requires Johnny - and presumably King - to carry some major and direct ideological contradictions within his thinking to progress the story. Some of these contradictions live ambiently within the novel, such as Johnny's simultaneous endorsement of the anti-Vietnam protests and the reveal of his vivid, abject horror at the notion of allowing a communist state to exist during a conversation with a Vietnamese expatriate. On the surface, Stillson, who stumbles into the role of primary antagonist within the novel, is a disrupter of the system of power in that he destroys the binary of American politics with his invented populist third party politicking. Yet to accomplish this disruption - setting aside any skullduggery he commits - Stillson also embodies the platonic ideal of a democratic leader by directly engaging with his constituents, asking for a ton of public feedback and putting some of his own policy decisions up to a vote. Stillson is a disrupter, an existential threat to American democracy, and yet he fulfills the unfulfilled promise of direct democratic leadership. He is also this novel's embodiment of pure evil, a figure who will bring about a literal, almost biblical apocalypse.
This is the Dead Zone's deepest most evocative expression of horror: in order to prevent this disruption of the system of power and the permanent rejection of currently-existing social norms, Johnny, himself, has to embody the role of the ultimate disrupter, the ultimate destroyer of social norms and therefore the ultimate preserver of social norms, a Christ-like sacrifice that enables liberal democracy to persevere. The horror isn't embodied in the narrative as Stillson's tyranny, which remains vague and largely speculative - instead, it's embodied by Johnny's tyranny, by his decision to heroically destroy the ever-evangelized will of the American people through violence. To destroy a tyrannical leader is a revolutionary act, and most writers would frame such a thing as at least understandable, if not outright heroic. For Johnny, the revolutionary act is miserable, transforming him into a husk of himself - literally making him plead with God for his own death. This is especially interesting considering Johnny is written very much as the American everyman, a sensible liberal who is always positioned as both the smartest and the most moral person in the room. Ultimately, in The Dead Zone, the scariest thing imaginable isn't that some new form of fascism might come to be, the sensible everyman - and therefore you, the reader who finds themself within Johnny - might have to do something about it.
olly_wray04's review against another edition
dark
emotional
funny
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
lizbutcher's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
rjbrown14's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
One of my favorites from King so far. The characters are just fantastic, I especially liked Sarah which was really hard (iykyk). The ending plot feels a little rushed, which is strange since it takes a while to get to the meat. Maybe sprinkle some more foreshadowing, and then ending would have felt more complete. Great ending though, all together.
devonforest's review against another edition
4.0
This was my first Stephen King book. I'm not a fan of horror movies so I've kind of shied away from his books because of that. But this had made its way into my collection so I gave it a chance.
Overall I think I enjoyed the first half of the book better than the second half. But the second half does raise the age old question: if you could go back in time would you kill Hitler? And the second half of the book was a very interesting take on that question. Overall, an enjoyable (maybe that's not quite the right word to use) book.
I probably won't be as tentative to read other Stephen King books now. (I still may stay away from some of his horror books though we'll see.)
Overall I think I enjoyed the first half of the book better than the second half. But the second half does raise the age old question: if you could go back in time would you kill Hitler? And the second half of the book was a very interesting take on that question. Overall, an enjoyable (maybe that's not quite the right word to use) book.
I probably won't be as tentative to read other Stephen King books now. (I still may stay away from some of his horror books though we'll see.)
doctorlauren12's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0