A Vampire Novel that Most Definitely Doesn't Suck: A Reconsideration of "'Salem's Lot"

Of all of Stephen King's "classic" books, 'Salem's Lot is the one I've historically been least enamored with.  I know it's a favorite of many fans.  But me?  I was always underwhelmed by it.
 

But leading into Halloween, I decided to give it another read, given that it's been years since I first read it (probably fifteen or so), and since I always like to observe the spooky season by reading something of King's in the "horror" realm.

Folks, let me tell you: I was dead wrong about this book.  This is a great novel.  I'm a much bigger, and more knowledgeable, King fan than I was when I first encountered the book.  So I now realize that 'Salem's Lot was only King's second published novel.  Of course I also know King had been writing for a while before publishing Carrie (and that some of the books released later were actually written prior to 'Salem's Lot), but regardless, Lot is still an early work by King, and that fact must be taken into account when considering how much King tackles here. 

This novel is clearly broader in scope and depth than Carrie, which is impressive, given King's relative lack of experience by 1975.  The leap in skill level between his first two books is somewhat startling.  For example, King's prose style is sharper, more refined than in his first professional at-bat.  His rich gift for vocabulary is evident here, and there are passages that are striking and profound in their artfulness.  There is a bold and enthusiastic quality to the prose.  You can sense the joy King takes in writing, of the love he has for language, feelings, and images.

King shows an early knack here for creating evocative, memorable settings.  King's keen ability to richly depict the milieu and mechanics of small town life is, of course, something he would later become quite noteworthy for, and 'Salem's Lot is significant in one way for being his first foray into that realm.

King is also well known for his ability to stuff dozens of well-drawn characters into his stories, and again, this is essentially his first attempt at that.  Another surprising attribute of this early work?  King's strong ear for dialogue.  Conversations have a rough, naturalistic feel and cadence.  Characters sometimes struggle to articulate their thoughts, and arguments escalate with persuasive realism.  The book contains lots of thoughtfully contrived, well-observed vignettes of personal lives.  In various ways, 'Salem's Lot is a big, ambitious work, especially for a young writer who was still getting started in his career.

Even when writing "horror" fiction, King never neglects to write deeply and poignantly about the "human drama" aspects of his stories.  It's common to hear people comment on King's ability to write great characters, or to observe how convincingly he writes about child abuse or drug addiction or strained marriages, or any number of tragic real-life issues.  This book is no exception.  The darkness of domestic life is present here, and King writes with a keen sense of the complex factors underlying conflicts such as familial strife, addiction, and grief, among others. 

King uses the book's humanity to set a stage that magnifies the dread that's to come.  Jerusalem's Lot is, like many of King's fictional landscapes, not a particularly bright and happy place.  But it feels real, lived-in, full of flawed people whose lives are marked by love, joy, pain, sorrow.  In effect, King roots his story in this grounded context, and gradually brings evil into it.

 
Much of this book's success as a horror novel hinges on the terror built up around the Marsten house and the evil residing within it.  King achieves this through the perspectives and emotions of his human characters; the way they perceive the house and its history, the fear they have about it.  And while it is true that King is perhaps rarely praised for the excellence of his endings, the payoff in this book delivers; it is intense, frightening, and King puts quite a lot at stake.  There are truly horrifying developments in the book, brutal acts that are disturbing to read.  Most of the horror is embedded in the fact that we don't want the characters to suffer as they do.  To King's credit, we come to care about them, root for them, fear for them.
 
This isn't a particularly gory or gruesome novel, nor is it primarily scary because of suspense or moments intended to "shock" us.  No, this book is terrifying in the way King explores how awful it would be for vampirism to fall upon a town, to consume it, destroy it.  I admire 'Salem's Lot for all the ways King managed to thrill and unnerve me, but I appreciate it most for the ways it devastated me emotionally.  King uses vampires as a draw, but folks, be warned.  King's take on the genre is far less sensational than it is tragic.  Also tragic?  That for so long I didn't appreciate how good this novel is.  This is one of Mr. King's best.