Reviews

'salem's Lot by Stephen King

kerry_s's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark emotional mysterious sad tense slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? Yes
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.5

eburgardt's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious reflective sad tense slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? Yes
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.0

  • Twice a character refers to a woman’s breasts as “jahoobies” which is something I am psychologically incapable of forgetting
  • Sometimes comically faithful to vampire lore despite the novel’s realism. At one point a character literally thinks “I remember this from the Hammer films starring Christopher Lee”
  • The book is perhaps too long, and the pace crawls, but it lends itself to a big bad that has a Michael Myers quality about it - slow, methodical, somehow always just around the corner
  • “[Adults] took laxatives, liquor, or sleeping pills to drive away their terrors so that sleep would come, and their terrors were so tame and domestic… There is no group therapy or psychiatry or community social services for the child who must cope with the thing under the bed...the only cure is the eventual ossification of the imaginary faculties, and this is called adulthood.”

kdailey86's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

4.5 stars. No glittery vampires in this book. This is the way vampires should be viewed. They're scary, creatures of the night who prey on humans. Thank you Stephen King for writing it the way it should be.

bookish_bry's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark emotional sad medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? Yes
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.5

I had a lot of fun with this book. King, as always, is great at making your skin crawl. I think I enjoyed it more since I've read Dracula already. 

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

rae2733's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark mysterious tense slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes

2.25

arnith87's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional mysterious tense fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot

3.0

I skimmed the last 3rd - it was too long for the subject to my taste. That said, I can see it being ground breaking when published. Definitely entertaining and page turning. The real horror isn't the campires, it's the humans. 

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

x_ymst's review

Go to review page

4.5

My first Stephen king novel. Had some slow boring parts but they all were necessary in the end. Man, Mark’s character and the way it talked about children’s resilience to the fear of monsters.. this was a great book. Might be a five star. 

phantomphalanges's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark tense medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? It's complicated
  • Loveable characters? Yes
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.5

johnye's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious tense medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? No

5.0

tara_crain's review against another edition

Go to review page

2.0

Slow af first half, pretty decent second half