Okay, Hurwitz has grown on me. The level of humor that's in the book makes it fun, yet still Batman. Okay, Hurwitz has grown on me. The level of humor that's in the book makes it fun, yet still Batman. ...more
I can't believe there is no consistency between volume 1 and 2. Sure, new writer, but so many differences, so many plot points dropped, and charactersI can't believe there is no consistency between volume 1 and 2. Sure, new writer, but so many differences, so many plot points dropped, and characters dropped, too!...more
Overall, I would put this on the better side of King's novels. Mr. Harringan's Phone was okay, though predictable. It's standard King fare. I actuallyOverall, I would put this on the better side of King's novels. Mr. Harringan's Phone was okay, though predictable. It's standard King fare. I actually wanted more from this one. Life of Chuck was brilliant! I haven't seen Stephen King tell a story this engaging and emotional in a long time, and never in this style! It's a case of wonderful solipsism and manages to do and say so much with the value of, well, anyone. If It Bleeds was completely predictable, from start to finish. It was like each sense was just satisfying a tick on a list of items in order. However, as a sequel 'The Outsider,' and an extension of the 'Bill Hodges' trilogy, it does its job and does it well. Even though every beat was where it needed to be and seen from a mile off, it was an entertaining and engaging read. Fans of the above-mentioned books, Holly just grows on you. In a lovely fantastic way. Rat was the least interesting. First, and the story admits this, it is not original. And what was more frustrating was the pacing. I got the building of tension and the need to create a situation where the reader is forced to doubt the protagonist's version of events (which is all spelled out). I truly do. But by the time the novella got around to the actual story, I was just bored bored bored. I'm a completionist. I have to read the entire collection of stories. So I wouldn't recommend skipping this story because I never would. It could be right up someone's alley. I just thought it was the weakest of the bunch. It could have been made an excellent farce, and while the elements of a farce were there, none were exploited for the story's sake. So, meh. ...more
Stephen King has done worse. Much worse. But this book is far from among his best. First, I feel that there was a major structural flaw in the story. Stephen King has done worse. Much worse. But this book is far from among his best. First, I feel that there was a major structural flaw in the story. There is a huge opening section that delays the start of the story and doesn't come into play until much much later. It would have fit better inbetween one of the chapter divisions. That way, it would serve a purpose of not only setting something up for later, but delaying aspects of the story in order to build suspense. The story should have started with the actual story of the book. Second, and this is a more personal opinion, I feel that King dropped several balls that should have been in there, but weren't. Yes, most of the balls I'm thinking of are fan-service balls, but still, there is precedent from his other novels, and relevance to his other novels. The precedent comes from his linking together his books into one King-Verse. Most often, a casual reference, like Pennywise in Tommyknockers (and Dreamweaver...this specific reference, I could go on and on about), or location like Castle Rock (and a few otehrs), or an expanded connection like characters from It showing up in 11/22/63, and I can't (for time and sanity) even go into the whole multi-verse of his Dark Tower series. He drops so many connections so often, that he has to LIKE doing it. He must enjoy it. And, I, as one of this constant readers, love it. But the omission of connections in this story seems purposeful. It was like King KNEW what his fans were expecting (and wanting), and purposefully kicked each and every one of us in the nuts or ovaries. This is not to say he wanted to frustrate or disappoint his reader. This is only to say, I don't get it. I did not understand why he would leave out a couple specific and, I think, relevant connections. Unless, of course, he was saying, "Hey, I want this story to be its own thing. It should not have to rely or connec to another other story for it to stand on its own feet." Or he is wanting to distance this story from all his others. And I get that. And I respect that. I just disagree because of the nature of subject matter. An organization, using kids with psychic potential, to fulfill a goal. Let's go old school King. Anyone remember The Shop? Mentioned in Firestarter? (And a few other places...) The organizations are just way too similar for there not to be a reference to The Shop. Maybe The Shop was supposed to be implied; however, I would have wanted a more explicit connection because of the difference in goals of the organizations. I think it would have been interesting in how one became the other. Or how the government has multiple and separate organizations, working parallel. Or maybe how the science and treatment used in the organization in this novel was initially developed by The Shop. Then there is what eventually happens to the children being used by this organization. It is a complete twinner of what happens to the twins in Wolves of the Calla (again, maybe King wants to distance himself from the Dark Tower series. Yes, the movie was bad and missed his thematic points entirely, but really? Really?) There was a weird (but situationally appropriate) mention of Kubrick's The Shining. It's common knowledge that King did not like that adaptation, and he doesn't have to. It's a different medium and a different story teller. To each his own. But knowing that he hates that adaptation, and then make a reference to it was just weird. So, that's the reference ball dropped. Then there was the morality issue that was brought up, explained, and, to me, just shy of dismissed. I thought (and I'm trying to avoid spoilers) that addressing the morality - the goals of the organization - was a very interesting and thought provoking idea. King did resolve it, but the resolution was almost an aside, an after-thought, a dismissal. Which isn't fair to the reader.
All that being said, like the vast majority of King's work, he knows how to turn a page. The reading was enjoyable. I was invested. But don't let the book jacket fool you. It makes some comparisons that will let you down. I know that King has nothing to do with the writing of the dust jacket, so this is not on him. It mentions Firestarter - again, even the dust jacket writers saw that there should have been a connection, giving the potential reader hope that there will be one. And it compares the kid power in this story to IT. NO NO NO. The kid power in this book doesn't even come close to the emotional resonance that the children in It had. Not even on the same map! It's a false lure to sell the book.
Read the book because you're a fan of Stephen King. He tells a good story. I just feel that this could have been a better (not great) one. ...more
Stephen King has written some clunkers. This is not one of them. Calling a book a "page-turner" is cliche. But cliches be damned, this book was a pageStephen King has written some clunkers. This is not one of them. Calling a book a "page-turner" is cliche. But cliches be damned, this book was a page-turner. Seriously. Couldn't put it down. ...more
A good and expected end to the trilogy. While I could figure out how it would ultimately end, and without giving any spoilers, I thought it would get A good and expected end to the trilogy. While I could figure out how it would ultimately end, and without giving any spoilers, I thought it would get there a different way.
And to Stephen King's credit, that different way was cliche. I had seen it so many times in so many incarnations in so much media - TV, movies, and other books. So I was pleasantly surprised and delighted that what I expected (and feared with a cringe) would happen completely did not. While the story sets up the possibility, King deftly avoids falling into that pit. For that alone, I liked the book.
And it was a pretty good book. There were character development and evolution throughout the three books that made sense to the principal players. At most, and unfortunately, at best, it was a solid read. Definitely not as good as the second, which truly elevated the genre of "thriller." With this 'standard' thriller, it is clear why King is a household name, while other 'thriller' authors fall within readers' niche.
With the second book so strong, the last seemed to run on steam. It accomplished everything it set out to do. It had everything a good thriller should have, even for King. Yet, it was standard King fodder. Good, but not outstanding.
I liked this one better than the first, which while not bad, wasn't anywhere near as good. I'm glad the series is doing well and is well done and I'm I liked this one better than the first, which while not bad, wasn't anywhere near as good. I'm glad the series is doing well and is well done and I'm enjoying it immensely. Even to the point where I'm questioning my original opinion of the first book. This one definitely out-does the first and I can't wait to see a filmed adaption of it (hopefully working together with the current series). It addressed an interesting ethical question, a bit of a cliche really, but done well. It didn't forget about the antagonist of the first one and even hinted that something more is to come with that. And I loved being able to relate with the ecstatic joy of discovering a favorite author's undiscovered writings. ...more
Wow. Five minutes into reading, I was hit with so many emotional gut punches, I knew I was back in the Harry Potter world. Amazingly, it fits perfectlWow. Five minutes into reading, I was hit with so many emotional gut punches, I knew I was back in the Harry Potter world. Amazingly, it fits perfectly with the narrative structure and plot development set up in the first 7 books. So, okay, for series, 7 is the lucky number. Going past it the told story usually doesn't add anything. But book is the exception to the rule. And so many different rules are broken. Author is different. Format (play structure) is different. Characters are 'mostly' different. And there are some surprising and very wanted returns of characters. I wouldn't mind a more narrative edition instead of a script, but even with the script, it wasn't distracting and didn't delay or hinder the immersion of the story. ...more
Yeech! Ridiculous and extremely predictable story. And the thing is, as a Stephen King fan, I wouldn't have even minded the story itself too much, norYeech! Ridiculous and extremely predictable story. And the thing is, as a Stephen King fan, I wouldn't have even minded the story itself too much, nor its predictability. It happens. What kept pushing me further and further away was how King kept trying to shoehorn and wedge in Dark Tower references. And these references had absolutely nothing, NOTHING, to do with the story. And the ONE scene that COULD have made it relevant, dropped the Dark Tower Ball. So why the references? Personal opinion? He's as big a fan of the Dark Tower as the obsessive fans are. Sounds obvious, right? But so much of a fan, as we are, that he feels compelled, for his own sake, to remind himself of how awesome the Dark Tower series is. But it not only did nothing for the narrative, it detracted and distracted from the narrative. So when that ONE scene happened, and every fan is figuratively on the edge of their reading seats knowing what should happen, we get...
Loading...
