Positive: There is no doubt in my mind that Stephen King truly is a marvelous storyteller. He has an ability to create characters with so much depth aPositive: There is no doubt in my mind that Stephen King truly is a marvelous storyteller. He has an ability to create characters with so much depth and clarity that, if a person didn't know better, might lead them to believe that it was easy. His affluence and reputation as an author is not without merit, and it is readily apparent that he knows exactly what he is doing.
Negative: Stephen King happens not to be my cup of tea. While I can appreciate his writing style, and I do usually love a good horror, I do not enjoy the way his novels always seem to drag on for me as a reader. I feel he goes too far in explaining the background of even the most insignificant characters, and I grew to a certain level of boredom more than once while reading this. Furthermore, as a frequent reader of horror, I don't mind the violence or "creepy-crawly" feeling that accompanies it, but I definitely became uncomfortable with the almost obsessive-like focus on child sexuality. Far be it from me to judge an author solely based upon their fictional writing choices, but the return again and again to an eleven year old's sexual desires , experiences, and/or objectification by creepy old men and monsters really started to grate on me. I've never believed you needed that kind of thing to make a horror, and it felt rather off-topic, unnecessary, and, if I am completely honest, disgusting in the wrong way. Something about adults writing these things really puts me off.
Hence, I gave the book two stars because I cannot ignore that I will never be capable of writing as eloquently as Stephen King or mastering the art of literature like him, and I never want to seem ignorant of that. He is a brilliant writer, but as I near-hated this book, I couldn't very well lie and said I liked it, now could I?
May I never have the glorious opportunity of meeting Stephen King and feeling embarrassed and wholeheartedly ashamed when remembering this review....more
I feel compelled to write a review based on all of the arbitrary diatribe I was just subjected to within three minutes of perusing the reviews on thisI feel compelled to write a review based on all of the arbitrary diatribe I was just subjected to within three minutes of perusing the reviews on this book. I, too, can use fanciful words and playground putdowns to describe people who had a different experience reading this book than I did because its beginnings as a Reddit story was considered beneath them (which, as a disclaimer: I have never been on the Reddit site and found this book on my Kindle).
However, I think I’ll continue in plain English for the remainder of my review – I wouldn’t want people to think I was a snoot, now would I?
Having read several novels in the horror/thriller category, I can tell you that the format of this story and its progression is quite unique. It kept me puzzling over how the pieces of the narrator’s childhood formed together into one complete, unified picture. Just as the character in the story has to put together seemingly disconnected pictures frame-by-frame to get a full understanding, so do the readers. I found it creepy without being too contrived, and it gave me chills that few other horrors have managed to do (for some reason, The Shining bored me to tears –sorry, Stephen King fans!).
I agree that the story does have a few plot holes, not to mention a couple scenarios that are highly implausible - such as kindergartners being allowed to send messages up in balloons for random strangers to find – the story continued to hook me and I found myself finishing the novel in very little time. Furthermore, I’m impressed that the author spent what must have been hours of time editing and reformatting their original stories on a horror site into a cohesive novel that didn’t lose its appeal. ...more
**spoiler alert** It has become evident to me that I do not learn a lesson the first time. After reading the classic horror, Bram Stoker's "Dracula",**spoiler alert** It has become evident to me that I do not learn a lesson the first time. After reading the classic horror, Bram Stoker's "Dracula", I was, to put it gently,disappointed. Not surprisingly, my disappointment over another classical horror, "Frankenstein", was for some of the very same reasons. I waited in excited anticipation for my blood to "curdle" (who ever came up with that disgusting metaphor?) but, in fact, my blood pressure was so low I could have been dead and not have known it. To Mary Shelley's credit, tales of horror were not so nearly as commonplace in her lifetime and she had far less material before her to rip off. I mean, get "inspired by" as modern writers would say. She is very original and her writing is indeed eloquent, which is what convinced me to give the novel three stars.
I will admit my review is probably biased, as I have been extremely skeptical about any possibility of my liking a "classic" novel ever since my grade school English teacher shoved "Wuthering Heights" down my throat. That being said - I like action. I enjoy action in my horror novels and I expect a quick pace. Frankenstein was too slow for me and I found myself bored with the superfluous descriptions of the many, many scenic walks/drives/rides that the characters took. In the beginning, Dr. Frankenstein is a promising character driven by curiosity, only to mar my opinion of him later when he becomes a revenge seeking imbecile. The monster? His mastery of the English language makes me feel like a zombie in comparison. I found his character development a little flawed and, like I said, I wanted more action in the novel.
It was not terrible, to put it simply. The story itself has obviously captured the attention of millions, and it is impressive that Mary Shelley wrote this novel when she was barely older than a girl. If you want to read it, have at it. As for me, I neither loved or hated it - I think I'll stick to the re-makes. ...more