Duma Key

[Haunted]

Just read this. It's King's latest, and I don't know. I really liked it because of the themes that he used. However, it lacks that subtle horror that builds into the breakthrough that you get at the end. Some parts left me going eh...hmmm. You know?

I think Stephen King is a master at his craft. His works are evocative. It's just a matter finding his groove.

[Zero]

Hi haunted - glad to see you back around.

I have been tempted by this book since i liked lisey's story.


z

[Haunted]

I haven't read Lisey's Story yet. I want to, but if you'll remember I too am writing a book. So my time is taken up with shit n' stuff n' things. Is it good? Duma really very slowly leads you into horror. I'm assuming LIssey's does the same thing, yes?

Thanks for the warm welcome, ma petite singe. Je t'adore!

[colubrid660]

Kings pretty good, although he has put out some serious crap (Insomnia, the Eyes of the Dragon) I haven't read his new stuff, but I want to give "Cell" a try.

I still have no idea what "Duma Key" is about.

[Despare]

Kings pretty good, although he has put out some serious crap (Insomnia, the Eyes of the Dragon) I haven't read his new stuff, but I want to give "Cell" a try.

I still have no idea what "Duma Key" is about.

That's funny because I'm looking at Eyes of the Dragon right now, it was lent to me by a HUGE King fan who says it's in her top three of his books. I'm going to give Duma Key a go soon, it looked like an interesting premise.

[jenna26]

That's funny because I'm looking at Eyes of the Dragon right now, it was lent to me by a HUGE King fan who says it's in her top three of his books. I'm going to give Duma Key a go soon, it looked like an interesting premise.

I actually like Eyes of the Dragon AND Insomnia....but neither is a favorite of mine. I think they are both quite a bit better than what I consider to be King's worst (Christine, Dreamcatcher, From A Buick 8).

I haven't read Duma Key yet, but I actually loved Lisey's Story, somewhat to my surprise.

[colubrid660]

That's funny because I'm looking at Eyes of the Dragon right now, it was lent to me by a HUGE King fan who says it's in her top three of his books.

yeah a lot of people like it. Its okay as far as most fantasy fiction goes, but then again I am not a fantasy fan. So before I get a deluge of responses of people telling how great it really is, I thought it was a lame little feel-good fable that somehow ties into the Dark Tower series. Thats it.

what I consider to be King's worst (Christine, Dreamcatcher, From A Buick 8).

Yeah those are pretty bad as well. Dreamcatcher is alright I guess, the movie was awful, but like half of the book is pretty good, the other half was boring. The same goes for Insomnia. I don't remember trying very hard to put it down.

[Despare]

yeah a lot of people like it. Its okay as far as most fantasy fiction goes, but then again I am not a fantasy fan. So before I get a deluge of responses of people telling how great it really is, I thought it was a lame little feel-good fable that somehow ties into the Dark Tower series. Thats it.


That effectively puts it even further back on my reading list...



The best King I've read in years is his short story "Stationary Bike". I absolutely loved that one and I hope Duma Key can bring me the same sort of satisfaction.

[Haunted]

If you kats want Stephen King, but "not your mother's Stephen King" try the Dark Tower series. It will blow your mind. It's kind of cool if you've read Salem's Lot and the Stand first, but not an absolute must. The series stands by itself perfectly.

[colubrid660]

If you kats want Stephen King, but "not your mother's Stephen King" try the Dark Tower series. It will blow your mind.

Yeah they are pretty good. I only got through wizard and glass, never got to finish the series. Its definitely worth giving a shot if you are in the mood for something different.

It's kind of cool if you've read Salem's Lot and the Stand first, but not an absolute must. The series stands by itself perfectly.

Almost all his novels tie into the Dark Tower series in some way as well. That universe is sort of the lynchpin for most of King's works, most notably The Stand and Insomnia. Another king favorite of mine are the Bachman books and Desperation/The Regulators.

[colubrid660]

That effectively puts it even further back on my reading list...

Thats just my opinion, you may enjoy it, so give it a shot. I just thought it was too cliche' "Disney happy-ending fairy tale" ish for my liking. But it was meant for his son to read, so there ya go.

[Despare]

Another king favorite of mine are the Bachman books and Desperation/The Regulators.

I read The Regulators years ago and absolutely loved it.

[colubrid660]

I read The Regulators years ago and absolutely loved it.

Its hard for me to say which I liked better. I guess the Regulators.

[jenna26]

I also really liked them both but I think I liked Desperation slightly better.

The Dark Tower series....well, I tried the first one, and I had a really tough time getting through it. I have been told that I should have given the rest of them a chance though, so I intend on reading them all.....eventually.

[colubrid660]

I also really liked them both but I think I liked Desperation slightly better.

Its a hard decision. Desperation was a little more strenuous, but the little boy praying and all that..idk took it down half a point. The Regulators was a little darker. It also reminded me of Silent Hill (Bachman Street). At least thats what I think of them, but I recommend reading them both.

The Dark Tower series....well, I tried the first one, and I had a really tough time getting through it. I have been told that I should have given the rest of them a chance though, so I intend on reading them all.....eventually.

I'm in the same boat.

While we are on Stephen King, I know hes the Master of Horror and all, but after reading a large number of other authors I dare say King's horror is only mediocre to pretty good. Thats just me. I am a huge fan of the man and would be more excited meeting him than Tom Cruise any day, but where he really shines is in his human horror (Gerald's Game, Dolores Claiborne, Misery) and his short stories (I really love "Gray Matter"). I'd also strongly recommend his non-fiction works (Danse Macabre and On Writing) to any fellow aspiring horror authors.

[Haunted]

There's something about the way that he writes. The fucker just tells a good story. It can be a shitty story, but he tells it so well. That's what being a writer is all about. That's why he's so famous. Dunno why he chose horror, although some of his horror is fucking great. I know what you mean, is what I'm trying to say. I think I know exactly what you mean.

[Despare]

I think too many people dismiss King because he's "mainstream" and "popular", it happens with all art; movies, music, books, hell even videogames. Something about popularity really hurts the author in the eyes of the geeks or "hardcore fans" (no I'm not talking about you cloud, just making an observation :) ). There are darker, more disturbing authors out there and even authors who write some better horror stories, but I'd be hard pressed to find an author that has written so many good to great horror novels.

[Haunted]

...Or with more raw ability to actually tell a story. That's fucking important.

Preach it, Despare.:)

[Doc Faustus]

I think It is one of the greatest horror novels of all time, and he doesn't back off when it comes to scares and squirms. I think the movie adaptations of his work lead people to think of him as PG-13, but he really isn't. His hard R is a masterful one. Clive Barker and a lot of others are of course more hardcore than a hard R, but we shouldn't dismiss a book for being less than X rated any more than we should dismiss a film for its rating.

[Haunted]

I've read some Barker. I just don't think he puts a story together so well as Stephen King. He's very descriptive and very dark. He can snag my attention, but as a story teller, he's just outranked.

[jenna26]

They both have their strong points. Clive Barker is my favorite writer, I think he has often had the better imagination. And I find myself more disturbed by his writing. But King is the best with it comes to characterization. Even when his plots are terribly derivative, his characters are amazingly real. I think he is better than a lot of people give often give him credit for. He has his problems as a writer, but no author is perfect. And yes, I agree he is one of hell of a story teller. King has managed, a few times, to genuinely disturb me. IT is one of my favorite novels, and I agree with Doc Faustus, I think IT is one of the greatest horror novels written. Not many books have gotten to me as much as Pet Semetary did, or as much as Apt Pupil. So I think he is a very effective horror writer, who has put out more than his share of great stories and novels, AND his share of those that just don't work.

[Despare]

I think It is one of the greatest horror novels of all time, and he doesn't back off when it comes to scares and squirms. I think the movie adaptations of his work lead people to think of him as PG-13, but he really isn't. His hard R is a masterful one. Clive Barker and a lot of others are of course more hardcore than a hard R, but we shouldn't dismiss a book for being less than X rated any more than we should dismiss a film for its rating.

Very true Doc, often times I see people skip a movie that may look good because it's PG-13.

[Doc Faustus]

I've caught myself doing it every now and again, but I got over it. I think when Cell the movie comes out, fans of the harder stuff will get back into him, and, as much as I love Tim Curry, I think a newer more high tech It miniseries is in order.

[Zero]

i think king is a great writer - at times i think he's a bit lazy and sometimes he really needs a better and more aggressive editor - but overall he's still got chops.

i think some of his later stuff has become more mature - which isn't always good for the kind of high-octane horror people have come to expect

[Haunted]

Exactly, Zero, Duma ain't gonna run your heart around your ass.

Jenna, I think you're right. I think Clive can go into places, see into worlds much more strange and ill fitting (to use an odd expression) that Stephen King has ever really been able to do. He's a great seer, just not the greatest storyteller, though he is pretty damn good. Now if there were an amalgam of the two... WOW! I don't particularly care much for Neil Gaiman either, but damn he's clever. Neverwhere was a fantastic book, and I did not see the movie.

[colubrid660]

They both have their strong points. Clive Barker is my favorite writer, I think he has often had the better imagination. And I find myself more disturbed by his writing.

Barker is gritty and raw as all hell. After reading a lot of Peter Benchley and King, I picked up "The Damnation Game", knowing that Barker was the guy behind Hellraiser. I gave it a shot. I turned out that this book was one of the most real and downright fucking gut wrenching books I have ever read. Not to gush about Barker too much, but his stories stick in your head, or at least mine. I still think about The Damnation Game, even though i read it a while ago.

But King is the best with it comes to characterization. Even when his plots are terribly derivative, his characters are amazingly real. I think he is better than a lot of people give often give him credit for.

I agree. Many writers fall somewhat short of characterization, but King never does. The same goes for Peter Straub. I am still trying to learn how they do it. By the second act of the book, you learn to love these characters, and thats a huge asset to a horror story.

He has his problems as a writer, but no author is perfect. And yes, I agree he is one of hell of a story teller. King has managed, a few times, to genuinely disturb me. IT is one of my favorite novels, and I agree with Doc Faustus, I think IT is one of the greatest horror novels written.

I disagree, but its a matter of opinion, and I respect that. I don't wanna argue to any length about it. I remember reading "It" and loving ...it. Its a great book, and I remember I was rather young and having people be like "oh wow, hes taking on It damn". It took a long time to read, but there were a lot of sections that could have been edited out to streamline the book a bit more, or maybe it could have used a bit more straight storytelling. Who knows? I personally enjoyed The Tommyknockers a bit more, although I admit that was overly long as well.

Not many books have gotten to me as much as Pet Semetary did, or as much as Apt Pupil. So I think he is a very effective horror writer, who has put out more than his share of great stories and novels, AND his share of those that just don't work.

Pet Sematary is amazing, and so is The Tommyknockers. Every writer puts out crap from time to time. I just read Floating Dragon by Peter Straub. Straub is an amazing writer. While the book wasn't crap per se, it just wasn't effective horror. I found myself plowing through it just because I was tired of reading it. I could name Stephen King books that are sub par too, namely his Castle Rock series (The Dead Zone to the Dark Half, although the Dark Half is alright). But they are never hard to read.

[colubrid660]

This is a lively discussion about books for once, and I enjoy this a great deal. You are all making very good points. It seems we are all Clive Barker and Stephen King fans, but I have a question; what does everyone think of Dean Koontz? Maybe I am asking a loaded question (thats my reporter side I suppose), but he hasn't been very prominent in any discussions lately.

Personally, I was weaned on Koontz. Hes the first horror author I read with any loyalty, and I have maybe 25 or so of his books under my belt. Then I got into Stephen King, Clive Barker, Peter Benchley and Peter Straub. I realized then that Koontz is sort of a hack. I mean, not many thriller/horror writers have half as many books as he has published, but hes just not very interesting. i will, however, commend his ability to blend scifi with horror in some instances. As much as I don't like most of his work, this aspect has had a considerable influence on my writing (there, I admitted it). I do think some of his work is not all that bad. Winter Moon is a good read. Watchers is his flagship book, but its decent as well. Phantoms is where he stands out. This book is pure genius, I loved it. The rest of his stuff...not so good.

[Despare]

I really enjoy Koontz, he's a decent writer and tells some entertaining stories. Some people seem to feel that he just writes to make money and that his heart and soul isn't it, well, I could care less. If the stories are good I have no problem enjoying them regardless of his endgame. The only problem I've had with Koontz are themes that seems to repeat themselves way too often in different books so I generally can't read a lot of his work back to back. Recently I've read Intensity, which seemed to inspire High Tension, and Velocity. My wife just finished a few including Bad Place and she really enjoyed that one. Nobody can deny that Phantoms is a treasure right? I guess I've always seen Koontz as one of those "popular" authors that most people write off because he's mainstream but who constantly produces very readable books. Oh, and his Christmas book, Santa's Twin, is one of the best Christmas books ever. :)

[Doc Faustus]

I liked Watchers and Mr. Murder a lot. Watchers is kind of pulpy, but I like that. I think the most unsettling thing about Koontz is the sheer volume of work. It makes a writer look lazy or moneygrubbing. The only one who gets away with putting out that much work is Joyce Carol Oates, who ironically does more sloppy writing than King or Koontz. Her commitment to grue and grotesquerie is cool, but her lit fic efforts don't always pass muster.

[jenna26]

I really like Watchers, Intensity, Dark Rivers of the Heart, Strangers and Phantoms. I never could even finish Mr. Murder, and it remains one of the few books I actually put down. I have always meant to try it again sometime.

Overall, I enjoy Koontz, but I don't think he is a great writer by any means. He can be good, really good, but I have trouble with his characters who often seem to be a little TOO pretty, or a little TOO good. Its annoying. More often than not, I would have to say I find his books entertaining, but forgettable.

[Haunted]

Wow, Heather made an engaging thread.

I loved Phantoms. I read that book, swiping it off my ex's floorboard between my parent's house and back. I read Odd Thomas too. The first was great, but I couldn't really get into the second one. Odd reminded me of someone I once knew, and old flame. Couldn't shake it. However, those books are extremely creative. I've read some of his other stuff now, but titles are elusive bastards sometimes.

All in all, I don't mind Koontz. He's not what I would consider great, except when he is, if you know what I mean. He's got some great people in his books, i.e. Odd.

Now I don't do Layman. I bought a book of his short stories on my trip back from the UK, and they were horrendous.

[colubrid660]

I never could even finish Mr. Murder, and it remains one of the few books I actually put down. I have always meant to try it again sometime.

Don't bother. I read this all the way through. The same goes for "Strangers" (another long, pointless Koontz title) and was sorry I did. I was just glad to be able to move on with my life. Instead of Mr. Murder, read "The Dark Half". For King it kind of sucks, but its still an assload better than Mr. Murder.

I have trouble with his characters who often seem to be a little TOO pretty, or a little TOO good. Its annoying. More often than not, I would have to say I find his books entertaining, but forgettable.

Well put. I think his characters lack a lot of depth. The females are always beautiful, smart and sexy yet troubled, and find it strange that the hunky, wholesome and well off male lead is interested in them. Koontz writes like he wants all his books to be made into B movies.

Overall though, hes got a few gems in the midst of his freaking hundreds of predictable formulaic work, so its not all that bad. Just promise you'll never read "Tick Tock". :p

[jenna26]

Too late, I have already read Tick Tock....;) I've read most of Koontz's work. I don't remember a lot of it, but I have read it.

I actually really liked King's The Dark Half, not one of my favorites, but I did enjoy it. I even liked the movie......:D

[colubrid660]

I actually really liked King's The Dark Half, not one of my favorites, but I did enjoy it. I even liked the movie......:D

I never saw the movie. Romero did it, right?

[jenna26]

I never saw the movie. Romero did it, right?

Yep. not just outstanding, but I think it is actually a pretty decent King adaptation. Timothy Hutton stars, and he did a fine job (but I have always liked him for some reason).

[colubrid660]

Yep. not just outstanding, but I think it is actually a pretty decent King adaptation. Timothy Hutton stars, and he did a fine job (but I have always liked him for some reason).

Yeah I'll have to check that one out sometime.

[urgeok2]

i'm never reading a stephen king book again.

havent been a fan for many many years. i find his prose to be overconfident, smug. And i really don't care that he's exorcising every demon he's ever had in print - i never need to read about another screw up writer looking for redemption again.

so everyone told me 'read cell, it's really good"

so i read it.

blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

in all fairness i think horror fiction is the worst genre of writing in existence.
sounds odd coming from both a rabid reader and a rabid horror fan - but for me it's true.

I find it's written the way low budget horror films are made ..

cardboard thin cliched characters you couldn't care less about, rushed plot developement to get to the juicy bits, and unsatisfactory conclusions.

i find the genre is far more sucessful in short story format.

i enjoy clive Barkers books of blood - cant stand his novels.


one guy did impress me though - Jack Ketchum .. I read o ne of his and he seemed to have his finger on what made a horror novel real. cant remember the name of it but it was a raw read, sort of like The Hills Have Eyes

[Despare]

i'm never reading a stephen king book again.

havent been a fan for many many years. i find his prose to be overconfident, smug. And i really don't care that he's exorcising every demon he's ever had in print - i never need to read about another screw up writer looking for redemption again.

so everyone told me 'read cell, it's really good"

so i read it.

blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

in all fairness i think horror fiction is the worst genre of writing in existence.
sounds odd coming from both a rabid reader and a rabid horror fan - but for me it's true.

I find it's written the way low budget horror films are made ..

cardboard thin cliched characters you couldn't care less about, rushed plot developement to get to the juicy bits, and unsatisfactory conclusions.

i find the genre is far more sucessful in short story format.

i enjoy clive Barkers books of blood - cant stand his novels.


one guy did impress me though - Jack Ketchum .. I read o ne of his and he seemed to have his finger on what made a horror novel real. cant remember the name of it but it was a raw read, sort of like The Hills Have Eyes


I think you're right that horror fiction is tough to pull off and please everybody, even Poe couldn't do it. Remember that Mark Twain said, "To me his prose is unreadable--like Jane Austen's. No, there is a difference. I could read his prose on salary, but not Jane's." about Poe.



Urge, have you read American Psycho or House of Leaves?

[jenna26]

one guy did impress me though - Jack Ketchum .. I read o ne of his and he seemed to have his finger on what made a horror novel real. cant remember the name of it but it was a raw read, sort of like The Hills Have Eyes

Off Season....I just read it recently, and I liked it a lot also. Have yet to read anything else by the guy, but I was fairly impressed as well.

I of course disagree about Barker and King but I do agree that with the horror genre, short stories often work much better.

[urgeok2]

Urge, have you read American Psycho or House of Leaves?

i havent read American Psycho - but i think i have a copy of it.
(i've had that movie for years but i haven't watched it oddly enough)

I haven't read House of Leaves but I've seen enough written about it to make me curious .. i'd check it out if i saw it anywhere.


keep in mind that the last author i read with high recommendations was Brian Lumley Necroscope series - but i thought it was terrible.

[Despare]

American Psycho is a dark psychological horror with deep roots in splatterpunk but it's a fun read. House of Leaves can be trying though, you may not like it but you should at least try reading the first third of it, it's quite an unusual book.

[jenna26]

American Psycho is a dark psychological horror with deep roots in splatterpunk but it's a fun read. House of Leaves can be trying though, you may not like it but you should at least try reading the first third of it, it's quite an unusual book.

I liked House of Leaves a lot, but it did frustrate me at times. Definitely worth it I think.
I still haven't read American Psycho, have always meant to, and I should because I love the movie (same goes for Fight Club, love the movie yet I have never read the book).

[colubrid660]

havent been a fan for many many years. i find his prose to be overconfident, smug.

I never really noticed this, but now that I think of it there is a certain smugness in some of his stuff, especially later on. His earlier stuff is classic though. (Success corrupts art, I say)

One instance of King sort of pissing me off (among many) is on Kingdom Hospital. I remember always seeing someone clearly reading a copy of one of his worse novels, and was like "wow, like you really need the exposure"

And i really don't care that he's exorcising every demon he's ever had in print - i never need to read about another screw up writer looking for redemption again.
Yeah, but this is only really Stephen King. Peter Straub does to a small degree. Many effective horror writers posit a question in their work, be is societal, philosophical, personal etc. and explore this question through their writing. King just happens to explore personal issues the most. For example, "The Shining" is about frustrations being a father, "The Tommyknockers" is about drug use, etc.

cardboard thin cliched characters you couldn't care less about, rushed plot development to get to the juicy bits, and unsatisfactory conclusions.

Agreed, much horror is like this (I'll say again Dean Koontz), and even from respected authors. But there is a lot of great stuff out there that doesn't follow these conventions. Try Peter Straub's early stuff if you haven't already.

i enjoy clive Barkers books of blood - cant stand his novels.

Its a matter of opinion, but I thought his novels (the earlier ones, before he became more of a fantasy writer) were some of the best books I have read in a long time. Give them a shot sometime.

one guy did impress me though - Jack Ketchum .. I read o ne of his and he seemed to have his finger on what made a horror novel real. cant remember the name of it but it was a raw read, sort of like The Hills Have Eyes

I'll be sure to give him a shot then, thank you.