Tracing The Trails Of The King : Salem’s Lot
FAIR WARNING – if you have not read this book, there will likely be spoilers. This is the second essay in my ongoing series on the books of Stephen King. It is intended to be a free discussion of the book and I cannot be held responsible if I inadvertently ruin the ending of the book for you. If you think this might apply to you, I would encourage you to turn back now.
It’s interesting to watch the progression of the vampire as a character throughout my life. I can still remember when I was younger, when vampires were still edgy and frightening to behold. Vampire films had an air of danger to them, an excitement as well. Flash forward to today, and the landscape of vampires in pop fiction has changed quite a bit. And I don’t want this to turn into a rant about the Twilight movies are or a discussion into the value of True Blood / Sookie Stackhouse books. Everyone has their own tastes and I don’t think I have the right to tell people that they don’t have the right to like what they like.
Speaking for myself, however, I know exactly what I want from a vampire movie and it has been a long time since I have gotten that. There seems to be a fairly severe overpopulation of vampires in popular entertainment, to the point where the impact has become fairly diluted. It is an unfortunate side effect of something becoming very popular, the notion that so many people catch on and jump on board that eventually, the spark that you loved in something in the first place dies out.
The eighties seemed like a great time for the horror genre. I love the practical special effects and the heart that I saw in those creations. And that isn’t to say that there’s no value to the genre anymore, but as this decade was when I showed up at the party, it’s definitely where my preference lies. There were some really great vampire movies specifically to come out of that time period, high-visibility films like The Lost Boys and Fright Night. But the greatness of vampires on the screen was accompanied by one particular novel that lent its take on the popular myth and culture.
The book was Salem’s Lot.
According to King, this book was essentially his exploration of what might happen if Count Dracula were to show up in small town, America. And while, when you say that out loud, it might be easy to imagine something cheesy or overdone, King manages to present it in a way that still feels completely his. One thing I really love about this book is that often it becomes an exercise of what isn’t seen and what isn’t on the page.
When I re-read this as book for this series of essays, one thing that struck me was the differences in how day to day life in America may have existed in the time period of the book, when King published it, and what things have become in 2015. We live in a culture of the “now”. We can pick up a laptop or a tablet or a phone and instantly communicate with almost anyone on the planet. It is a testament to this time that now, even email has fallen by the wayside as an outdated means of communicating with someone.
How did people communicate with each other in 1975, when this was published?
It was pretty simple. You could try calling, which involved picking up a phone (that was attached to the wall via a cord) and the only way it worked was if the other person happened to be standing within ear-shot of their phone as it was ringing. There probably wasn’t any way to leave a message if they weren’t there either, as I think even answering machines weren’t quite as widespread yet. The other method, albeit somewhat slower, was to write a letter. Not a tweet, not an instant message or a text. You placed a written document into an envelope and handed it over to someone who began the process of physically transporting your letter to its destination.
You could also go to that person’s house and actually, you know, talk to them.
What’s the point?
It’s easy for me to imagine the slow and gradual take-over of a town at the hands of an ancient and powerful vampire, made all the more possible by how much more isolated people could be from each other. Nowadays, if I hear a strange noise in my house, I can Google it and come up with any number of explanations or YouTube videos offering me solutions. In 1975, you had to rely on word of mouth, people sharing news with each other. You counted on the word getting out about something dangerous going on. As a result, disinformation became a reality that needed to be taken into account at all times. People might start to disappear and you may or may not notice. So it seemed for the people of Salem’s Lot. As the reader, we are privy to more information and a more global perspective on things, but I still found myself guessing what could be going on, what could be happening to these people who seemed to be disappearing. King provides just enough narrative description to make you feel concerned, but not so much that it stifles your imagination. As the story goes on and you figure out more of what is happening, the hooks are firmly planted, and you have nowhere to go but forward.
Salem’s Lot would also feature two character types that would become staples for King. The first, which he actually employed in Carrie as well, was that of a secondary villain in the form of a parental figure. In Carrie, we had the infamous Margaret White. In Salem’s Lot, we get the mother of Susan Norton, Ann Norton. Ann is an example of something that Stephen King does so well, namely create a character so infuriatingly irritating, you find yourself forgetting that you are dealing with a fictional character. Ann is the epitome of the overbearing parent, she thinks she knows best and expresses that knowledge by first smothering and then driving her daughter away. In a dramatic crescendo between the two characters, you find yourself both despising Ann but at the same time also feeling a little sorry for her.
The second character type that King seems to come back to again and again, even more so than the nagging parent, is that of the writer (big shock). In this case, a popular novelist is coming back home to fight the demons of his past and, in the process, possibly search for fodder for a new book. His feelings and fears surrounding the Marsten House combine with the real threats that now reside in that same house and the results are pure gold. As he tries to find his footing in the town and finds himself falling into the company of Susan Norton, you get the nagging fear that you are seeing a relationship budding that will never work out in the end. It is a feeling I would get again much later, when I read Bag Of Bones and the relationship between Mike Noonan and Mattie Devore – but that’s for a much later date. The unfortunate arc of this relationship with Susan Norton is merely wrapped up inside the larger tragedy of what happens in Salem’s Lot.
So how do I feel about Salem’s Lot, taken along with all the other books of his that I have read? I love it, especially the second half. I liked the slow burn of the earlier parts of the story and how incredibly brutal it became towards the end. I like that this definitely established the rule that truly no one is safe in a Stephen King book.
There were things that I didn’t like as much. While I generally enjoy the sparseness of his description, and how he leaves so much room for the reader, there were a few places that I wish he had gone just a little bit further. I think that he could have offered slightly more descriptions of what was happening at key points, while still keeping it ambiguous and menacing. Also, as the book moves on and the core group of characters come to believe that a vampire has been set loose in their town, I thought that everyone seemed very willing to accept the idea of vampires being real. One character suggests the possibility and pretty much everybody seems to be immediately on board, with hardly any argument offered from anyone, even the lapsing Catholic priest in town who only seems to offer up token resistance. But in the grand scheme of things, these are very minor issues. I don’t feel like the overall greatness of the book can be diminished, even with a few minute issues I might have.
To bring this all back to my original point, I think one thing that I really love about King’s writing, especially in his earlier works is in how brutal he can be at times with his characters. There are any number of characters in the book that would likely live through to the end, were this being made as a big budget summer blockbuster. When the climax of this book starts approaching, our heroes start falling, left and right and it’s almost like the book itself is starting to drip with blood. Often in modern films, I come away with a feeling that vampires are safe or tame, almost too clean for my tastes. In this book, vampires are dangerous, sinister and seductive. You can see their frightening ability to take hold of a person and sweep through an unsuspecting town like wildfire.
And it’s pretty awesome.
So ultimately, the point I think I would want to come home is that Salem’s Lot is an amazing book. It stands as a reminder for me of what vampires in literature used to be and what (hopefully) could be again. And if any of you out there reading this are now honing the edges on your machetes, poised to come after me, please understand that I am not putting down any particular franchise. If you are a fan of Twilight, take pleasure in your passion. It’s not for me, but everyone connects with things differently, and for differing reasons. If you are reading anything, you’re winning in my book. For me, if I feel the urge to experience vampires, I will always go back to what inspired me in the first place, the likes of Salem’s Lot, among others.
My name is Chad Clark, and I am proud to be a Constant Reader.
