Salem's Lot > Likes and Comments

Salem's Lot! Vampires! I have turned myself into a vampire this month for the read (check out my avatar). Do you think this is King's scariest book??? ? ? ?

That's kinda scary, Angie. You'd spook me for sure if I saw you stuck to my window.

Of course, I'd probably still let you in! heh...

Great shirt, btw.

His scariest book? It's certainly one of them. I'd have to think about whether to put it on the top of the list, though...

I'm almost done with it and the story really grabs me like a good King story does. I'm not sure it's as scary as I thought it would be. Maybe vampires don't terrify me anymore.

I will be starting to re-read it tonight! Can't wait, it's been too long since I have read it.

Is anyone reading the illustrated version?

I don't have the illustrated version. I just have the Penguin mass market paperback edition. Unfortunately, I'm participating but not reading again! I have way too much unread on my shelves to justify re-reading anything for the time being, but I'll be here to discuss!

Yes, Angie. I'll be reading the illustrated version. It's a re-read for me, but been a lonnnng time since the first reading..

So I copied this from Wikipedia:
This is the deleted material in the illustrated version:


* Different names for the town and the vampire; 'Salem's Lot is called "Momson" (mentioned in the final text of the book as a Vermont town whose residents mysteriously vanished in 1923), and Barlow is called "Sarlinov".
* A conversation between Ben and Susan about the true nature of evil.
* An extended version of the scene in which Straker delivers his "sacrifice" to his "dark father."
* A scene in which after being pronounced dead, Danny Glick's vampirism is foreshadowed much more prominently.
* Barlow's letter to the protagonists is instead a cassette recording. A vampiric Susan is with him.
* A more gruesome fate for Dr. Jimmy Cody. In the original manuscript, he is impaled by knives in a trap set by the vampires. Here, he is devoured alive by rats.
* More scenes of vampires causing chaos; Sandy McDougall is bitten by her infant son Randy, Dud Rogers bites Ruthie Crockett. Later, the aforementioned McDougalls are slain by Jimmy Cody.
* Father Callahan, the town's troubled Roman Catholic priest, meets his end differently. Rather than being forced to drink Barlow's blood and leaving town damned, he marks the vampire with a knife before committing suicide. Furious, the vampire desecrates the priest's body, decapitating it and hanging it upside down.
* Barlow is killed by sunlight rather than a stake through the heart. More rats are present in the final showdown as well

Did anyone know there is a movie called "Return to Salem's Lot"???

Plot:
Michael Moriarty plays an amoral anthropologist who has been lumbered with his dysfunctional adolescent son and who returns to Salem's Lot, the town of his birth, to find that it has been taken over by the undead. A few living people are kept around to provide blood for the vampires and to operate the gas station and shops in the daytime. Knowing of the anthropologist's refusal to moralise about other people's lifestyles (in the opening scene he is seen refusing to interfere in a human sacrifice and concerned only for the quality of the film he is shooting), the vampires employ him to write their story. As the vampires' evil nature becomes clear, the anthropologist is joined by a Nazi-hunter (played by Samuel Fuller) who helps him save his son, and at the climax the master vampire is impaled on the American flag instead of the traditional stake. As the trio escapes Salem's Lot, the vampires are left in the sun to burn along with their homes.

wow gotta see if i can find that as well as both versions of Salem's Lot

I agree with what computerless bob said about the short stories being scarier, I'm the same way. I find the novels scary, I've always considered "It" to be the scariest one for me though lol. The scariest short story to me would have to be "The Cat from Hell"
SPOILER**
because when my cat gets in a bad mood he glares at me and I worry that he will try to kill me like in the story!
Though I will be rereading Salem's Lot, probably this weekend, it is one of my favorites

Salem'sLot has always been scary to me because I read it first when I was so young. It pretty much formed what would be scary to me from then on. I have read it countless times, and will participate, but I don't know if I will thoroughly re-read it.

I clicked on and BOOM..there is the creepy scene from the movie...Love it!!
I personally think this is King's scariest book, I have read this one at least 20 times. I also have the illustrated version and will be starting it again tonight.
BTW..Return to Salem's Lot is not worth the rental.

I think this is King's second scariest book (the Shining is first for me).

Spoilers:
Why does King put the end of the story in the epilogue? After all, it does give away some of the ending, and tells that Ben and Mark will survive.

I think he wanted to give us, the readers, hope for them. Also, since it IS King, we KNOW horrible things will happen. He's letting us know dying isn't the worse thing that CAN happen, since it's clear they do not.

****BIG POST FULL OF SPOILERS SO IF YOU'RE NOT DONE WITH THE BOOK, YOU SHOULD BE DOING THAT INSTEAD OF READING THIS POST***********************************************************************************************************************************************************
Clear enough for all? hehe...yeah I watched the TNT version of the movie last night and today. My totally awesome independent video store dealer is getting me the 70's version soon. The TNT version I had seen many moons ago and kinda liked it. After having read the book, I can't help but be more judgemental. I was frustrated with it from the first five minutes. The movie starts out with Ben Mears tracking down Father Callahan in Detroit (brownie points to screenwriter for referencing the Dark Tower series since Salem's Lot only gets him as far as on the bus to NYC.)where he beats him up and they both land in the hospital. My problem with this is you know right off the bat that Father Callahan lives and gets away. Sort of similar to Angie's gripe about the beginning of the book.
My next problem with this movie is the introduction of new mini-story line ideas that don't go anywhere and aren't needed and elimination of characters. Jim Cody sleeps with Sandy McDougall,the young mother with the baby and gets blackmailed for it. Why? We already knew that couple was kinda screwed up, I don't think you need to add extortion to make that point. Lawrence Crockett is also, besides being a sleazy business man, making sexual advances at his daughter Ruth. I thought the extreme cases of small town secrets that King used in the book were much more believable. I'm not saying the above examples don't happen but they felt like too heavy evil for a town starting to be overrun with vampires. My biggest problem with changing of characters was that they heavily implied Mike was gay, anyone else get that from the book? Besides Mike being a bachelor I mean.
I have two major issues with plot, besides the story being restructured so things don't happen in the same order as they do in the book. First, the group goes up to the Marsten house, find Susan and don't kill her til later in the movie. They try to pass it off as Ben is so in love with her he just can't do it but at this point in the movie Ben and Susan had had a fight and weren't really dating. If a guy I wasn't really in love with became a vampire and I found him, he'd be dead. Sorry. And apparently if you become a female vampire you get really bad 80's crimpy hair. My second annoying plot point was that Father Callahan kills Mike. His motive seems to be out of revenge for Mike's hand in killing the vampires. This scene comes after Father Callahan drinks from Barlow. Again, I ask, why? Why would Father Callahan kill Mike, even if Barlow asked him to? In the book he just gets the hell out, damage done. Last gripe, Mark Petrie KILLS FATHER CALLAHAN! (sorry screewriter, you just lost all your points for that one)

On the plus side, the vampires were pretty cool and scary for a TV movie and I love James Cromwell as Father Callahan. Rob Lowe was decent as Ben Mears. I even liked the kid who played Mark Petrie. Samantha Mathis is a pretty girl and was good as Susan. I just hate stupid girls who get into trouble poking their noses where they don't belong. Like most girls in horror films. Andre Braugher was better suited for his character in the Mist than in this. Just my 2 cents.

Sorry, I forgot to add that Donald Sutherland as Strakker looked and acted like a demented version of Santa Claus.

Rachel
I think you'll like the first version better..I did.
I also thought the TNT series was off plot in places.
The first movie still gives me the creeps even though it does look a little cheesy at times.

I love your warning Rachel!

PS What does those who have read the Dark Tower series think of Father Callahan's comeback?

Did you see the average rating of Salem's Lot on goodreads is 3.79? that is kinda low!

Thanks Rachael, I never saw that version and have no intentions of ever watching it now. This was a really scary story and over all a very good story, why would you want to change the essence of it?
*SPOILER ALERT* The two scenes that really gave the chills were when Danny Glick was asking to come into
Mark's room and when Sandy McDougall was trying to feed her dead baby. Just creepy for me.
Remember this is the 2nd book that SK has published,
it was written in the early to mid 70's which makes it 30+ years old. I think for the most part it has stood the passing of time and is still one of the best vampire stories going. The whole premise of a town being taken over by vampires in the later half of the 20th century brilliant.

Marilyn, that scene where she's trying to feed the baby is so incredibly heartbreaking. I can tear up thinking about it. It always makes me think of monkeys that carry around their dead babies for days. Pitiful.

I never saw the newer version of the movie. I loved the 70's version. David Soul was perfect. I have no idea how I never knew this, but I will never watch the new one now that I know Rob Lowe played Ben. Rob Lowe is Nick Andros to me. He can't be worldly wise, vampire killin' Ben!!!!!

Kandice, the new movie with Rob Lowe is terrible. It's not anything like the book at all. Don't waste your time. (although I see you weren't planning on it anyway.)

I didn't think the new movie was horrible mind you I saw it when it came on TV and I think I like it (it was long ago). There have been way worse movies of King's books. I haven't seen the 70's version but as soon as I finish re-reading the book I am going to check it out.

I agree that there have been worse movies made of King's books.

Cat People being one!
Today, vampires are so glamorized, it makes King's vampires seem even scarier. They aren't handsome Edwards, or anguished Louis's. They have no redeeming traits and have completely lost all traces of humanity. When he wrote this, it was the norm for the genre. Now, it's different.

It's been a long time since I read Salem's Lot. I have the Signet mass market paperback. Sorry, no illustrated version. I enjoy this book though.

As with the last two group reads I enjoyed this more years later than I did the first time. Read the illustrated version (love that they do these kind of things, like extras on a DVD) which apart from the two short stories and the deleted scenes had a lovely afterword by King about his mother getting him adult (as in grown-up) books from the library, one of which was Dracula inspired him to write 'Salem's Lot years later. This meant a lot to me as it was my mother who got me into King in the first case, bringing me Night Shift from the library when I was home ill from school.
One thing about the two short stories. The first, One For The Road is great, a proper vampire tale that follows on from 'Salem's Lot. The second, despite being titled Jerusalem's Lot has nothing to do with vampires or the novel. After changing the name of the town from Momson in the original novel, King just took the title from this earlier tale. Night Flier or Popsy would have been more appropriate.

I have not read Jerusalem's Lot. Which book is that originally in?

"Jerusalem's Lot" and "One For The Road" are both in Night Shift.

Angie wrote: "I think this is King's second scariest book (the Shining is first for me).

Spoilers:
Why does King put the end of the story in the epilogue? After all, it does give away some of the ending, and ..."

Spoiler:



I always thought that it made the book scarier... you may know who survives, but you also know that they don't escape. The don't 'win' and they don't get to leave the terror and the monsters behind them... they have to go back. And King is such a good writer that he can make you feel for every person you meet in the story... even when you know what's going to happen to them. You can't help but invest yourself in the 'now' of the story even if you know it's doomed. That's what makes it so scary- you know what's coming, and you have to wait for it. It's kind of like getting a shot... the shot itself isn't pleasant, but when you factor in watching the needle be prepared, and then the nurse approach with it, and then watch the needle be pushed into your arm and the plunger slowly depressed... that is so much worse!

I finished it shortly after midnight. Here's my review:

It has been years since I originally read this book, but after all this time, it didn't disappoint. I live in the country where it gets very dark at night and the woods surrounding the house and area can be somewhat spooky. One friend said I was moving into a "Stephen King house" when I first moved in. Well, when reading Salem's Lot, let's just say I didn't want to go outside at night.

As far as this volume, it was a nice treat. The photographs were excellent and added to the dark theme of the book. The two short stories were a nice touch as well. "One for the Road" serves as a direct followup to the end of Salem's Lot, and "Jerusalem's Lot" tells some interesting backstory to the town's history. I like how it was told through letters and diary entries, reminding me of Stoker's Dracula, which the Salem's Lot novel was inspired by. It also had a deep Lovecraft feel to it.

The deleted scenes were ok. Interesting without being essential. I beleive that the original Salem's Lot editors did a good job by filtering this out or making the changes to the eventual published novel. It was cool to see some of the early writing in the novel and a variety on some of the material. Especially the rats. They were pretty nasty. But I think it was a good idea to filter them out of the story because as nasty gory as they were, the original tension in the novel served its purpose very well without rats. They actually became a distraction. So like with the majority of DVD bonus scenes, these were enjoyable for a glance through, but not important to the story experience. On a further re-read, I'll probably skip the deleted scenes.

Rob - In this book, King has a seperate section at the very end of the book for "deleted and alternate scenes". The original novel is untouched.

Also, each scene has a lead-in paragraph explaining what's different and where it fits into the novel, for reference.

Some earlier compared it to a DVD extra package. That's exactly how it felt when reading this. You could even skip the whole section and lose nothing....

I never read the edited version of The Stand, so I can't imagine the book without the parts that were cut originally. Personally, I think that when it comes to King, the more the better. I'd rather nothing be cut out of his books, but I love the character development that occurs when nothing-or very little-is technically happening.

I don't have the edition of Salem's Lot that you guys are referring to, so I can't judge for myself, but I think it would be a little weird to have deleted scenes in a book. But I guess if it can work on DVDs it can work in books too.

Is there anything in the text of the book to show that there was a deleted scene there if you wanted to read the scene where it was originally supposed to go? Like a footnote saying "To read the deleted scene that was supposed to be here, turn to page ____."?

Rob, I took that to mean that each deleted scene had a little lead-in saying where it was in the story, but what I meant was if the story itself in that edition had any marker indicating that a deleted scene was cut from there, so that a person could flip back and read the scene while reading the story.

And I don't actually disagree with you about the "updating" of The Stand when it was re-released. I love The Stand, but I think I would have preferred if he had just added back in what he had originally had to cut and not tried modernize it. But that's just me being a stickler for being able to read the original text as it was intended. Write it, and then leave it alone. :)

Becky - his lead-ins are in the deleted section only, not in the original text. Though it wouldn't be that hard if you flipped back and forth, since the scenes are in order and labeled by chapter. I think that notes in the original text would have been distracting, personally...

As far as the Stand, my underStanding is that he added back scenes he had to edit out the first time around, and then modernized the text as a whole to make it contemporary to the year of the re-release. I agree with you on that, Becky. I don't see how it made it better. It's almost insulting to the readers that it is assumed by the publishers that they can't suspend belief and go back a few years. I guess they thought the average reader wouldn't be able to understand an "end of the world" scenerio that happened a few years in the past. Obviously the world didn't end, as we are sitting here. Again, they should allow the readers to have a little imagination.....

Is this the illistrated version?

Rob - I guess they figured that if readers didn't get the cultural references, they wouldn't enjoy the novel. Not sure if that was a King or publisher decision.

Angie - yes, the deleted scenes in the illustrated version.

Maybe it was both, but I think this might have been King's own doing... The "Americana" he writes into his books are great, but it dates them, so maybe he decided that since he was un-cutting material he might as well un-date it while he was at it.

I loved this book! Yet another King novel that I hated to put down!

i too read both the original and a few years later the revised editions of 'the stand'. i actually enjoyed them both a lot. i thought it was fun comparing them...seeing if i could identify where he had added to the story and/or made the changes. i dont want anyone to get the impression that the revised story isnt worth reading.

This has always been one of my favorite King books and one of the scariest! The only "spoiler" was mentioned earlier by another poster--that is in the prologue. You learn right off that Ben and Mark survive. I think it would have been much scarier not to know until the end!

I agree!!!

In the prologue they're not referred to as Ben and Mark just the tall man and the boy so it doesn't really give anything away.

But midway through the book once Ben and Mark are introduced and it becomes clear they're part of the vampire hunting group, it's pretty easy to figure out they survive.

Yea I always thought it was strange that we kinda know what is going to happen.

I kinda feel the same way about Rebecca, which I just read. The narration is in 1st person, and there are numerous references at the beginning of the book how the couple is essentially hotel-hopping, so you know that they both survive intact. That takes a lot of the suspense out of the novel.

I wonder why authors do that? I'd much rather be on the edge of my seat biting my nails than know that everything comes out (mostly) ok in the end.

I actually read this for the first time in october/november so it's still pretty fresh in my memory. I read Wolves of the Calla a few years ago and I thought it was interesting how the same passage from the end of Callahan's journey was used in both. Since he was such a signifigant character in towers 5 and 6 it was kind of sad to see him fail so miserably against Barlow. I always assumed he played more of a heroic role. Still a great book though.

I thought it was sad what happens to Callahan too. Though I do think he redeemed himself don't you?

Yeah thats true I guess. I wonder if King knew even then that he'd bring him back at some point.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that King had wanted to do a sequel to Salem's Lot that featured Callahan. If I remember correctly, he mentioned not wanting to leave him degraded and unclean as he was at the end of the story. Which I think is mighty commendable of King, since he doesn't shy away from giving his characters really tough roads to travel and more than occasionally just killing them off unexpectedly.

I mean, look at Susan's fate...