Salem's Lot by Stephen King

Don't hate me.

I am not a Stephen King fan.  

I have read exactly 1.5 of his books and hated them both.   The first was Gerald's Game upon recommendation of my husband, back when he was just a boyfriend - almost ten years ago.  The second was Salem's Lot - a recent recommendation for a good October read.

I didn't finish Salem's Lot even though several of you said, "It's a great book!"and "Robyn! It's about VAMPIRES! You love vampire books!" ... (dot, dot, dot...).

King's stories are horror stories, as everyone knows, but the monsters in the stories aren't what is actually scary.  What is actually scary is how hateful and despicable everyone is in his books.  His characters make me sick to my stomach.  The people in his books aren't any better than the monsters he creates.  They should know better, but their actions prove they are terrible human beings. 

As I sit here staring out my office window, looking at the leaves falling from the trees that hover over my backyard, I keep thinking about the recent news about a teacher who was murdered by one of her students.  Why would I want to read a book about hateful people who purposefully hurt each other when I see enough of it in real life?  My quiet little city is impacted enough by murders and hatred (um, Salem Witch Trials anyone?).  Honestly, I don't want to read a book about people with no hope, with no compassion, with no... dreams.  

So, as much as I respect King for being a beloved horror writer, and as much as I love that he uses New England as the back drop for his books... and as much as I loved the movie Carrie as a teenager... I've given up on his books.  

#37: Dracula, Bram Stoker

I loved the epistolary format of Dracula.  It is always so interesting to get inside someone's head while they encounter strange things, like elderly men who are actually creatures of the night and crawl up and down stone walls.   For its time, I can not even imagine what people's thoughts were.  A story about a country many had never visited, about a man who lives off human blood? GASP!

What is unfortunate, though, is how "Dracula" is portrayed in America today.  Stoker's creature was evil and, bluntly, disgusting.  I was honestly surprised.  He ate people and kept witches for company.  Stoker's Dracula would never have avoided his urges.  He had no feelings, except to feed his hunger for blood, and maybe a little feeling of lust for pretty ladies.  Today's Dracula, and vampires in general, somehow (should we blame or thank Bela Lugosi?) became romantic creatures - drawn by love and able to fight their natural instincts to eat what they like to eat (us). 

Is there something to be said about people's fears in the late 1890s compared to today?  A friend commented on another post that "maybe the reason some readers (me...) found the story (Daughter of Blood) lacking is because their imagination in reading is lacking..." Have we really lost our sense of imagination?  Are we (me included...) so lost in real life that it's almost impossible to imagine those "outstanding worlds" of imagination?  I like to think not, but the more I consider what has happened to Dracula, I wonder if she's right.  Are we so obsessed with controlling our lives with iPads and GPSs that we think we can control vampires and convince them to not want to eat our blood?  

What do you think? 

Oh, and for those who are wondering: I loved True Blood.  I love Being Human.  I even couldn't put down most of the Twilight series.  I don't see why we can't appreciate both.