'Salem's Lot by Stephen King > Likes and Comments

This is the thread for sharing all comments, reactions, background information, questions, etc. about Stephen King's 1975 vampire novel Salem's Lot, which will be our common read this month. This is a well-known bestseller, so hopefully, we'll have a lot of participation this time!

I'm listening to the audiobook. The audio narrator does a great job of bringing out the nuances and emotions of the characters.

So far, I have especially loved the prologue with the unnamed man and boy. I admit to a soft spot for any form of adoption, fostering, or mentoring of vulnerable children in writing. I inevitably find myself drawn to that kind of special and unselfish love.

The audiobook includes a note to the reader from Stephen King, read by Stephen King. He describes his writing influences--his early experiences of reading and his love of libraries. I recommend King's introduction to Salem's Lot for those of us who write as well as read. (I also recommend his book On Writing to writers of any genre.)

Hi Deb. I’m glad you are enjoying it so far. I’ve just read the prologue again myself for the first time in years. The mystery is introduced to the reader and the stage is set for what is about to unfold in the actual story. The tall man and boy try to forget the traumatic experiences they have recently endured in sunny Mexico of all places. I think the usage of newspaper articles in the prologue was a brilliant way to add texture and details to the story. You might also like the epilogue, which ends the story well in my humble opinion. There are two short stories included in modern editions of ‘Salem’s Lot that I’ve enjoyed reading too: ‘Jerusalem’s Lot’, and ‘One For The Road’. Hope they are included in the audiobook?

Well, I'm out. Certainly no offense to anyone. You may remember, I felt doubtful if this book was one I'd like. I loved the prologue, all set up to be so creepy. And Chapter 1, Ben. Still in, ready to be scared. Chapter 2, Susan. Didn't like this one so much but still ok. But Chapter 3, The Lot. Honestly, the language in the first bit about the farmer boy, I put my hand over the page! And the one where the girl punches her baby, I gasped out loud in horror! I made it to the end of the chapter, but I decided I just couldn't go on. Those "ordinary" people were just too...despicable. I suppose the idea is that maybe these townspeople get their just rewards when the vampires get them, but...Just too much for me! But Mark, I did go ahead and read the epilogue on your recommendation. Sounded like a good ending. Hope the rest of you enjoy the story.

I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it Georgeann. The townsfolk of ‘Salem’s Lot are a hodgepodge of good, bad, and downright ugly. Many of the individuals were endearing, some were inconsequential, a few were loathsome, and some were frightening as well. But in my opinion one of the strengths of this story is that many of the characters are well fleshed out and believable. For some undefinable reason, this story gave me a sense of familiarity with fictional people and places I’ve seldom encountered in other novels in this genre. It is difficult to believe Stephen King was 23 when he wrote ‘Salem’s Lot.

Georgann, I'm still in Chapter 2 (I've been out of town from early Wednesday morning until this afternoon, and left the book at home). I'll be prepared for Chapter 3 now (they say "forewarned is forearmed!). We'll see whether or not I stick it out either. :-)

An issue that might be raised with the prologue, given its open foreshadowing of the fact that virtually the entire community is going to be annihilated in the course of the book, is whether or not the foreshadowing was the most effective literary technique for telling the story. That's no spoiler, since King essentially tells us so on pp. 7-9 of the 653-page novel; as it happens, I did already know that when I picked up the book, and probably most of the readers in 2019 already know it too. However, it's virtually certain that most readers in 1975 wouldn't have known it without being told. Telling them so certainly creates a mood of impending doom, in which your reading is like knowingly watching cars or a train careening towards a wreck. But I wonder if having to learn that gradually wouldn't have created more suspense, and more potential engagement with the characters.

As a factual note, there certainly are ghost towns in Vermont (see https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/vermo... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benning... ), and there have even been a number of unexplained disappearances in the vicinity of them. But there is no ghost town of Momson, Vermont, and no ghost town that exhibits the kind of sudden depopulation that King describes in the prologue here.

I've read both "Jerusalem's Lot" and "One for the Road" (the former is included in Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos, and the latter in the anthology Young Monsters), and would recommend both. It's worth noting, though, that in the 19th-century setting of the first story, Jerusalem's Lot supposedly is already a deserted and ill-regarded ghost town. It's been suggested by some fans that King intends us to understand the novel and that particular story as taking place in parallel universes, where past events have developed differently.

I’m hoping you can read the story in its entirety, Werner. But I can accept that we all have different taste in Supernatural stories. This book doesn’t romanticize the vampire but depicts vampirism -more or less- the same way Stoker did in 1897. And depictions of the human frailties of Lot residents can be disturbing for some readers. At the time I first read ‘Salem’s Lot (1979?)the notion of a European vampire setting up shop in New England was a fresh and innovative story concept. I agree with your statements about the prologue btw. :) I want to thank you for reminding me that King published the short stories I had mentioned in other publications before combining them in later printings of his 1975 novel. Maybe by novels end another reader familiar with King’s multiverse might help make sense of ‘Salem’s Lot and the Vampire Barlow in the overall scheme of things? The lasting impression I have taken from multiple readings of this story is that the Lot itself is evil. The malevolent nature of this parcel of land in Maine has attracted or lured the vampire of the story to it......

Mark wrote: "I’m hoping you can read the story in its entirety, Werner. But I can accept that we all have different taste in Supernatural stories. This book doesn’t romanticize the vampire but depicts vampirism..."

I'm actually pretty well sure I'll read the book in its entirety, Mark! Nothing I've read so far has made me consider bailing on it. :-)

I look forward to hearing more of your impressions on the story, Werner. 👍

Thanks, Mark! Whenever I write my review, I'll link to it on this thread; but hopefully I'll have some thoughts between now and then. :-)

Actually, one occurs to me now --and this isn't a spoiler, because it's only a theory. I'm guessing that the unnamed man in the prologue is Ben Mears. Both are, or have been, published writers; and that would be a pretty big coincidence for a town of around 1300 people if they're different individuals (especially in the 70s, before self-publishing was such a big thing). Is there anyone else (that is, who like me hasn't read the book before) who shares that theory?

Mark wrote: "Hi Deb. I’m glad you are enjoying it so far. I’ve just read the prologue again myself for the first time in years. The mystery is introduced to the reader and the stage is set for what is about to ..."

Hi Mark,
I'm about halfway through now. My guess is that if short stories are included, they would be after the book ends. We shall see! Sounds like you enjoyed the short stories.

Werner wrote: "Thanks, Mark! Whenever I write my review, I'll link to it on this thread; but hopefully I'll have some thoughts between now and then. :-)

Actually, one occurs to me now --and this isn't a spoiler,..."

Hi Werner,
I share your theory about Ben being the unnamed man. And that makes me worry about Susan. Why isn't she with him? Is it too romantic a notion to imagine she's back at Salem's Lot holding down the fort until Ben returns? Yeah, I know...

I have a theory that the unnamed boy is Mark Petrie. He seems like a stand-in for Stephen King himself with his love of vampire lore and his indulgent mother who buys "dreadful" comic books even though she thinks it's not literature.

I'm still in Chapter 3, Deb, but I also suspect that Mark Petrie is the unnamed boy.

The Goodreads description of the edition I'm reading (which isn't the default edition that Goodreads shows first, however) has a paragraph that, IMO, gives way too much information about both Susan and Mark. That blabbing of spoilerish information is a common defect of Goodreads descriptions. I don't recommend reading this one; but I'm copying that paragraph in spoiler tags for those who want to read it: (view spoiler)[All would be changed forever—Susan, whose love for Ben could not protect her; Father Callahan, the bad priest who put his eroded faith to one last test; and Mark, a young boy who sees his fantasy world become reality and ironically proves the best equipped to handle the relentless nightmare of 'Salem's Lot. (hide spoiler)]

Hi Deb, I can neither confirm nor deny your or Werner’s theories about Ben or Mark. But I hope we can all discuss Susan more later in the story? I agree with your comparison of Mark Petrie and Stephen King. King wrote much of himself into this story as Mark. If you ever have time, and haven’t seen the 1978 ‘Salems Lot miniseries, consider watching it. The on screen dialog is dated, but the series itself is riveting. I was motivated to read King’s book after watching it, and subsequently developed a lifelong appreciation for his writing.

'Salem's Lot is a small, insular community of a bit over 1300 people. Unlike bustling metropolitan areas, it gets new residents very rarely, and outside of tourist season (which is over by September) it doesn't attract transient visitors any more frequently. That poses a bit of a question. (view spoiler)[Now, a couple of mysterious men move into the not exactly inconspicuous Marston House, hardly a choice property, and that's immediately followed by a sadistic animal killing and the unexplained disappearance of a child under strange circumstances that obviously suggest foul play, events not at all common before. I'm not a cop, but I do have common sense. No matter how feckless the constable is (and the Barney Fife-like deputy isn't at all feckless, whatever else he is!), it seems like any newcomer to the community would instantly be a "person of interest" in the investigations, and that standard police procedure would be to look into their bona fides and see if their activities can be accounted for. (That would also apply to Ben, of course.) Why doesn't that take place here? (Other than for the reason that it would ruin the premise of the novel.) (hide spoiler)]

A couple of other questions occur as well. (view spoiler)[If Ralphie's body were left in the cemetery as a sacrifice to Satan, wouldn't it be kind of hard to conceal it so effectively the groundskeeper couldn't find it? Also, if the hospital was concerned about Danny's loss of blood, doing thorough examinations and asking questions about TB patches, etc., is it really credible that two recent puncture marks in his throat (which we can infer would be there, under the circumstances) would totally escape notice? (hide spoiler)] Mr. King, inquiring minds want to know! :-)

Well, I'm now into Chapter 5, and two of my questions have been successfully addressed! Maybe the other one eventually will be too. Meanwhile, there's a bit of a chronological conundrum.

(view spoiler)[It doesn't take much deduction to conclude that the "Hepplewhite sideboard" delivered to the Marston House on the night of Sept. 22 was vampire Kurt Barlow's coffin, with him inside. So that presumably marks his actual arrival in town. But the Glick brothers were attacked on the night of Sept. 17; and Danny exhibits what are pretty clearly (to readers of vampire fiction, anyway!) the symptoms of being bitten by a vampire. Of course, if Straker is also of the fanged fraternity, there's no issue. But he seems to be more likely the vampire's human servant, since he can go about during the day. (Of course, in Stoker's Dracula and some versions of the folklore, as we often tend to forget, vampires could sometimes be awake and active in the daytime....) Maybe this, too, will be explained further in! (hide spoiler)]

Mark wrote: "Hi Deb, I can neither confirm nor deny your or Werner’s theories about Ben or Mark. But I hope we can all discuss Susan more later in the story? I agree with your comparison of Mark Petrie and Step..."

Hi Mark. I will take you up on your suggestion to watch the mini series. I don't mind dated dialogue if it fits with the time. I watch a lot of historical K-dramas, and there's nothing like a 15th century character announcing, "I'll get on that ASAP!" to pull me out of the story. Of course, that probably has a lot to do with a mediocre translator.

That being said, I read a version of The Stand after King updated it, and it was horrible. (Tons of tpyos, for one thing.) Some of King's reworked parts were very modern, but there was a plot point--I'm pretty sure it was dependent on The Pill not being widely available--that didn't mesh with the rest of the updated book.

I'm fine with dated aspects that fit the time period of the film or book. I couldn't help thinking, though, while listening to Salem's Lot that fighting the vamps would have been so much easier if only the good guys had cell phones!

Werner wrote: "'Salem's Lot is a small, insular community of a bit over 1300 people. Unlike bustling metropolitan areas, it gets new residents very rarely, and outside of tourist season (which is over by Septembe..."

You raise some good points, Werner. Your question about the medical staff is well taken, especially since the two doctors in town seem competent.

About newcomers appearing suspicious, I understand what you're saying. Ben is viewed suspiciously at times, though, while Straker is not. One reason for the latter, I think, may be his hypnotic charm. Only the truly pure in heart can sense that his charm is false.

Deb wrote: "I couldn't help thinking, though, while listening to Salem's Lot that fighting the vamps would have been so much easier if only the good guys had cell phones!" I've had exactly the same thought at times!

Although it doesn't usually figure much in modern vampire fiction, the idea that those who died by suicide could become vampires was quite common in Balkan vampire folklore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire ). I was also struck by the fact that "God grant that he lie still" is a very unusual phrase for an epitaph --but not unattested; a distaff parallel appears in Lady Cynthia Asquith's story "God Grant That She Lye Still" on the headstone of Elspeth Clewer, who's described as "a witch and a vampire" who in life "did frequently suck the blood of birds and beasts." There's no evidence that King ever read Asquith's story, but it was adapted in a very memorable episode (that scared the bejabbers out of me as a 9-year-old child!) of Boris Karloff's TV show Thriller, which aired in 1961. King would have been about 14 then; given his proclivities, I'd bet money he was also a fan of Thriller. I've only read through Chapter 6, so it's too early to say if the suspicions these tidbits engender are justified. But I consider them interesting.... :-)

Werner wrote: "Deb wrote: "I couldn't help thinking, though, while listening to Salem's Lot that fighting the vamps would have been so much easier if only the good guys had cell phones!" I've had exactly the same..."

I'm with you, Werner. I bet King watched Thriller, too. In his introduction to Salem's Lot, he credits his mother with fostering his creativity and allowing him free rein in his choice of reading and watching material--despite her misgivings.

I really should re-read this. I read it when I was a lot younger. (I think high school.)

Kirsten #EndGunViolence wrote: "I really should re-read this. I read it when I was a lot younger. (I think high school.)"

Hi Kirsten,
I recommend this read; I think it has some stellar writing. And I'm not even a vamp-lit connoisseur!

King introduces the major "Parts" of the novel (or at least the first two of the three) with quotations from other literature. For Part II, the main quotation, which supplies the title for that part, is a Wallace Stevens' poem, "The Emperor of Ice Cream." That's a famously "elliptical" poem, hard to interpret; but a crucial fact to understand about the ice cream reference is that in Key West, FL (where Stevens vacationed for part of every winter for almost 20 years), it was a tradition to serve ice cream at funerals. The intended association is with the idea of death.

I'm now into Chapter 10, and I've encountered another apparent anomaly.

In keeping with traditional vampire portrayals such as Stoker's, King establishes early on (view spoiler)[the "etiquette of the vampire" --the Undead can't cross a threshold or windowsill without being invited in. Yet vampire Danny blithely hops right in to the McDougall trailer to chow down on the baby. That's an inconsistency that I don't think has a good explanation. It's an extreme stretch to imagine that a 9-month-old baby who can't talk somehow "invited" his killer in; and IMO it's not convincing to posit an exception to the rule for trailers (hide spoiler)].

Hello Deb, Werner, and fellow Supernatural readers.

Werner, thank you for bringing up so many interesting observations. If possible, can you allow me to see your spoiler commentary? I’m glad you brought up the subject of suicide and vampirism as it pertains to East European folklore. I had never made that correlation before, and I think it sheds light upon the nature of long deceased Lot resident Hubert Marsten. The disappearing children during his residence-presumably sacrificed?, and his eventual murder-suicide seem linked to his lengthy correspondence with the mysterious European Barlow. Did Barlow promise him ‘eternal’ life if he committed himself to some strange, murderous compact? ‘The Emperor of Ice Cream’ poem has always disturbed me. My own interpretation of Stevens’ poem is that we should cherish the brief joys we have in an otherwise fleeting existence. I’ve been trying unsuccessfully trying to link it metaphorically with vampirism. Perhaps King just wanted to interject some food for thought at a critical juncture in the storytelling?

Deb, I’m glad to hear that you will watch the 1979 television miniseries. The 2004 television miniseries isn’t as good, but might be worth your time if you like Rutger Hauer. I remember an interview I watched many decades ago in which Stephen King had criticized the portrayal of Barlow as a Nosferatu-type vampire in the 1979 miniseries. In the 2004 remake, Barlow is a tall, artistocratic ‘gentleman’, much as he was originally intended to be in Kings 1975 novel. I was elated to hear recently that a new ‘Salem’s Lot feature film is now in the works. In my opinion, Hollywood has never given this Stephen King gem the attention, the talent, or the funding it deserves. You and Werner had earlier mentioned the xenophobic nature of Lot residents and how odd it was that we Ben Mears became the immediate suspect in the disappearance of Ralphie Glick. Straker was interviewed by the local constable, Parkins Gillespie, but was not suspected by the majority of townsfolk. In my opinion, this might be accounted for by the age differential between Ben Mears and Straker. Straker was a robust man in his 50s, and Ben was a wiry man in his late 20s. A rational mind couldn’t rule out Straker completely, but his age, affluence, and hypnotic charm were likely enough to disguise his true nature and intentions. He was literally a wolf amongst sheep.

Mark, if you're accessing Goodreads through a PC, you can read the spoilers simply by clicking on "view spoiler;" but I'm guessing that you're accessing it through some device that's not as versatile, and which doesn't allow that. So I'll personal message you with my "spoiler" content.

Werner wrote: "I'm now into Chapter 10, and I've encountered another apparent anomaly.

In keeping with traditional vampire portrayals such as Stoker's, King establishes early on [spoilers removed]."

Hi Readers,
I encountered a speed bump as well that I think not quite worthy of King's stellar writing.

You know that Geico commercial in which the characters reject the getaway car in favor of hiding among the chainsaws? The lead-in is: Sometimes when you are in a horror movie, you make poor decisions.

Well, (view spoiler)[ When Susan decides to go into the Marsten house by herself, that most assuredly pulled me out of the story. King threw a bone there about how Susan didn't like it when characters did that in movies, but she was going to do it anyway. Guess the fact she was aware of the stupidity was supposed to forestall readers' objections. But that didn't work for me; it felt like a paper tiger. I think King could have figured out some other way for her to end up there. (hide spoiler)]

Did that bother anyone else?

Deb, how far into the book are you? (I want to know whether or not it's safe to read your spoiler --so maybe a better question is, how far into the book does your "spoiler" material occur?)

Hmmm...I'm listening to the audiobook, so I don't know what chapter it is. I did a search on a keyword, and the scene appears on page 398 of the paperback version.

Thanks, Deb! I'm not that far along, so I'll view your spoiler a little later. :-)

Thank you for sending me your spoilers, Werner. I’m hoping that at some point we might all discuss the deleted scenes included in most modern editions of King’s ‘Salem’s Lot? I think many of the scenes might have added more texture or depth to certain parts of the story. My favorite deleted scene depicts a meeting between Straker and Barlow outside the city limits. Hope everyone is enjoying the read thus far? I believe the McDougal baby disturbed me most. The abuse beforehand....and then.....

You're welcome, Mark! Your post brings up a point I was aware of before, and had thought about commenting on, but hadn't gotten around to doing so until now.

The text of Salem's Lot that was published (with great success) in 1975, and duplicated in most of the various editions since then, as I understand it, is not the version King submitted to his publisher. That version was apparently longer, but parts of it were edited out in the published version (hence the reference to "deleted scenes"). In 2005, Doubleday brought out an edition that included the deleted material ('Salem's Lot), and Mark is reading that one. The additional material in the novel itself, overall, amounts to around 50 pages.

I'm reading the originally published version. That's partly because it's the one the Bluefield College library (where I work) actually has, and partly because for me a 653-page book already demands a considerable commitment of time, which I wasn't necessarily wanting to make even more considerable; but also partly because some of my interest in reading the book was to experience a work that significantly shaped the late 20th-century American pop culture perception of vampires --and that work was the originally published one, not the later unexpurgated version. But there are pros and cons to reading either version, and I'm not averse to others in the group reading the longer one, or discussing the scenes specific to it. It could even be a worthwhile topic of discussion to compare the two versions.

I’ve read King’s ‘Salem’s Lot several times since I initially read it in 1979. I was unaware the deleted scenes existed until I purchased the 2005 book in digital format in 2013. I stumbled upon the material quite by accident. Needless to say, I was delighted to find ‘new’ material related to one of my favorite books of all time. I won’t mention any of the specific scenes, but I will reaffirm that if left in the story a couple of them might have improved upon the story. All of them were well written imo. I’m not a writer, but I understand the principle of ‘show vs tell’. The deleted scenes seem to be more detailed that King’s usual storytelling and were perhaps considered too revealing. 🤷🏼‍♂️ I’m rereading and enjoying the original story as well. I’m on chapter 10. 🙂

I'm on Chapter 11, part 4.

Chapter 16 page 360. 👍 🧛‍♂️

Deb, I've read your spoiler just now, and I completely agree! An abbreviation I learned through Goodreads is "TSTL" ("too stupid to live"). and that's what came to me in reading that. Sadly (although I haven't read far enough into the tale to know for sure), the fact is that people who behave too stupidly to live... sometimes don't live. :-(

Somebody in the Lot definitely should have contacted the Volturi before things got this far out of hand.... :-)

I agree with the too stupid to be alive! (I laughed really hard when I read that) I've found myself rolling my eyes a lot at the decision making going on. I'm almost finished!

Jessica wrote: "I agree with the too stupid to be alive! (I laughed really hard when I read that) I've found myself rolling my eyes a lot at the decision making going on. I'm almost finished!"

Jessica and Werner,

Haha! I'm laughing now, too. (Probably not the effect King was going for!)

For what it's worth, I couldn't help noticing another glaring contradiction in King's treatment of vampire phenomena. (view spoiler)[In much of the book, once a human bitten by a vampire dies from the loss of blood, he/she immediately rises as a murderous fledgling vampire at the instant of the next sunset --or immediately, if they die at night. This happens again and again. But Danny Glick died in the middle of the night of Sept. 23-24, was buried on Sept 28, and rose only at the sunset after his burial. (He didn't leave the morgue, unlike other victims, and didn't give his embalmers any trouble.) (hide spoiler)] Am I the only one seeing an inconsistency here?

Werner, I thought the exact same thing! I actually just questioned my understanding of King's intentions.

Werner wrote: "For what it's worth, I couldn't help noticing another glaring contradiction in King's treatment of vampire phenomena. [spoilers removed] Am I the only one seeing an inconsistency here?"

Yes, I agree about the inconsistencies in King's presentation of his vampire world. That's the thing about world building--as an author, you get to create the rules, but then you need to abide by them. The inconsistencies didn't bother me as much as they might bother others, though, because I interpreted the vampirism more as metaphor than as literal representation. Just me?

Can someone fill me in on any inconsistencies they find in Kings vampires? Sorry but I can’t view the spoiler material. I agree that a few characters seem ‘tstl’. But I think Barlow knows this and chose ‘Salem’s Lot for this purpose (among others).

“There is little good in sedentary small towns. Mostly indifference spiced with an occasional vapid evil-or worse, a conscious one. I believe Thomas Wolfe wrote about seven pounds of literature about that.” -Matthew Burke to Ben Mears

Mark, sorry to have forgotten that your device can't handle the spoiler tags! I've copied and pasted that material to you in a personal message.

I agree that the vampires here are intended as a metaphor for evil as a metaphysical reality. But for me the symbolic level doesn't work unless the story first works on a literal level. A novel inherently asks us to take it seriously enough to suspend disbelief. Frequent inconsistencies and improbabilities work against that, and take me out of the story. Telling myself that none of that really matters because the storyline is just a make-believe device to make a philosophical point doesn't really make it work any better artistically as a narrative.

Mark wrote: "Can someone fill me in on any inconsistencies they find in Kings vampires? Sorry but I can’t view the spoiler material. I agree that a few characters seem ‘tstl’. But I think Barlow knows this and ..."

Great quote, Mark. Like you, I noticed a lot of small town-small mindedness correlation in this novel. I found this interesting article on horror, small towns, and Stephen King's influence: http://www.nightmare-magazine.com/non...

Deb, thanks for sharing the article link! I read it just now, and will probably have some thoughts on it when time permits.

Another anomaly I picked up in reading the book --Mark, this is the same one you and I already talked about by personal message-- is that Mark (the Mark in the book, that is :-) (view spoiler)[packs a cross in his vampire hunting activities; but it suddenly disappears from the narrative in the scene where his parents were killed. (That scene is another case of an uninvited vampire entering a dwelling.) Of course, that's precisely the time when he could have used it. Realistically, I can't see him leaving it in the car or neglecting to have it on his person, especially at night (hide spoiler)].

Thank you for sharing the article, Deb. I plan on reading it tonight! Like you, I was upset with some questionable decision making on the part of Susan. Susan might have been a good protagonist for team VanHelsing had King equipped her with greater ‘situational awareness.’ ;) One of the things that draws me in as a reader of Kings stories is the fact that adults often seem to let children down in some form or another. For me this makes his stories more compelling. Either they abuse them outright, or they fail to protect them when they are threatened. The Glicks, the Petries, and the McDougals in particular...

Mark wrote: "Can someone fill me in on any inconsistencies they find in Kings vampires? Sorry but I can’t view the spoiler material. I agree that a few characters seem ‘tstl’. But I think Barlow knows this and ..."

Barlow, of course, got his knowledge of the Lot from Hubert Marston. The problem with that is that Marston died in 1939, so that by 1975, it's no longer very current knowledge. (That poses the question of why Barlow waited so long to come over --World War II made cross-Atlantic travel dangerous, but it ended in 1945.) Many of the characters here, like Susan and Mark Petrie, were born after 1939, or like Matt Burke and Father Callahan came to town later. Marston's input wouldn't help any in predicting what they might do, unless we posit that the townsfolk are a monolithic type --figure out what they'd do in 1939, you pretty much know what any of them would do in 1975. But that's probably not far from what King did think; the line Mark quoted from the book, which the author puts in Matt's mouth but which could have come readily from his own, is instructive:

“There is little good in sedentary small towns. Mostly indifference spiced with an occasional vapid evil-or worse, a conscious one. I believe Thomas Wolfe wrote about seven pounds of literature about that.” -Matthew Burke to Ben Mears

Writers are often sensitive, intellectual types even as kids, who necessarily grow up among a majority of humans who are neither very sensitive or intellectual, and tend to misunderstand and distrust anybody who is. For writers who happen to grow up, or spend much of their formative years, in small towns, and feel misunderstood and unappreciated, it's easy to imagine that the smallness of the town is the problem; if they'd only been in a city, they think, the people around them would have been much more congenial! It's also easy to reciprocate the negative feelings, and direct them towards small-town people in general. (It's not hard to detect, between the lines of Salem's Lot, that King didn't much like his small-town Maine neighbors, and that consigning the residents of the Lot to horrible fates was probably cathartic for him.) That probably lies behind the production of the seven pounds of literature mentioned (and a lot more tonnage from other writers).

A problem with that thinking, though, is that it's rooted in a basic fallacy. I felt the same way growing up, but I was raised in a city of 36,000 people. (It wouldn't have been appreciatively different if I'd been raised in New York City.) Since then, I've lived out in the country; in small towns; in medium-sized cities; and in large mega-cities. What I've discovered is that the nature of the human species, and its range of moral and intellectual possibilities, is exactly the same no matter how many or how few of them you group together; and that each person is an individual who makes his/her own choices and isn't exactly like anybody else, no matter how similar their physical environment is.

Mark wrote: "Thank you for sharing the article, Deb. I plan on reading it tonight! Like you, I was upset with some questionable decision making on the part of Susan. Susan might have been a good protagonist for..."

Hey, Mark--good point about children in jeopardy. It might be interesting to make a study of this motif in his books. I read that King's father left the family when he was two and that his mother raised the family alone with great financial difficulty. I get the sense that family, including the protection of children, is important to King. In his intro to the audiobook, he discusses his mother in loving terms, and it seems he is close with his own children.

Besides Salem's Lot, Green Mile, Bag of Bones, Carrie, Hearts in Atlantis come to mind as works that explore children in jeopardy. There's a strong coming-of-age thread that weaves through many of his works as well. I would say Mark in Salem's Lot has had to grow up pretty fast!

Protecting children is a community's highest calling. My guess is King taps into that primal desire both to maximize our investment in his characters and because it matters to him personally.

Werner wrote: "Deb, thanks for sharing the article link! I read it just now, and will probably have some thoughts on it when time permits.

Another anomaly I picked up in reading the book --Mark, this is the same..."

True, Werner. And there were other times when it seemed people had crosses, but they didn't work. Father Callahan mentioned at one point that you had to believe in the cross in your heart in order for it to work (yet in the beginning the cross always worked for anyone holding one, even one made of popsicle sticks). Do you find, Werner, in your study of vampire lore that there is a consistent rule about when or how crosses work?

Deb wrote: "Do you find, Werner, in your study of vampire lore that there is a consistent rule about when or how crosses work?"

I'm not an expert on vampire folklore, though I've read a bit about it. With that caveat, I'd say that from what I've read, the idea that vampires are repelled by the cross (and other Christian religious objects and symbols) seems to be a pretty general folk belief; and there's no suggestion anywhere in this body of material that the repulsion is dependent on the faith of the person holding the cross. It seems to be just assumed that this is a property inherent in the cross itself.

Of course, since there are (as far as we know!) no actual vampires, writers of vampire fiction are free to decide how much they want their portrayals to be consistent with the folklore, or which strand of folkloric tradition they follow. (Though it helps if their portrayal is at least internally consistent with itself....) Most writers whose work I've read who use the motif of the cross as a vampire repellant treat it as efficacious in itself. The only other example I know of the dependent-on-faith approach is John Schreiber's excellent vampire story "Me and Josh and Gideon," which is included in the anthology Sky Songs: Stories of Spirituality and Speculative Science. There, the power of the cross depends on actual Christian faith; where that's absent, it's "just a piece of jewelry."