Living in Stephen King’s World: 34 Years Under the Dome

I go back a long way with Stephen King.
I feel like I was there in the beta testing days, as I was with Open Salon. It started pretty much by accident. I was in book store on Union Square in Manhattan in the early Spring of 1975, just out of college, prowling for something fun to read and eagerly judging the books by their covers. One paperback in particular caught my eye: a close-up drawing of a girl’s face, with oval holes cut into the cover where the eyes should be, The holes showed flames, and when you turned this first layer of the cover, you saw a full page aerial-view drawing of a town on fire.
Cool.
The book was called Carrie. It was Stephen King’s first novel.
I opened it up and read the faux newspaper stories and was totally hooked. At the time I had no idea who the writer was or if he’d ever write another book. But I kept my eyes open. And the books kept coming. Boy did they keep coming: Salem’s Lot, The Shining, The Stand, all compulsively readable with a vivid philosophy, perhaps I should say a fully worked-out theology reverberating through their kamikaze plots and horrific set pieces. Good and Evil were going at it in these books and in the best of them the battle lines were drawn through the heart of each character, and not between them.
Jack Torrance, in The Shining was struggling for his soul against the hive of evil his son’s telepathic powers awakened in an old hotel; that an actual hive of virtually un-killable wasps figured prominently in the books early scenes struck me as a natural and effortless literary flourish worthy of at least grudging respect. But respect was precisely what Stephen King could never get in those days. Critics jeered at him and in all honesty, he jeered at himself, calling his books literary Big Macs. He spent way too much feuding with the mandarins of literature, calling them dull and pretentious, which many of them were. In his novella The Breathing Method the story-teller’s club motto says, “It is the tale not he who tells it”. That was King’s guiding principle, but even then he was subverting it, creating a style unique enough to be wittily mocked in a parody called “Id”, in The New Yorker. The target of that pastiche, It remains a nuanced masterpiece as much concerned with nature of growing up as it is with the monsters that haunt children and adults alike. None of that mattered: regardless of his best efforts, King remained a literary laughingstock, an easy short hand for mass market mediocrity.
I remember a spirited argument with someone, back in the 80s. They called King’s novel predictable. I invited them to read The Dead Zone and predict the ending. It was kind of a trick question since the climax of that novel both defeats and gratifies your expectations in spectacular fashion. The situation seems like a classic narrative box canyon, one of those narrative moments where the world is reduced to a pair of equally uninspiring choices.
During a routine campaign rally, creepy Sarah Palin type Congressional hopeful Gregg Stillson made the mistake of pressing the flesh with Johnny Smith, King’s clairvoyant hero. The touch gave Johnny a vision of Stillson becoming President and starting a nuclear war. Johnny has decided to nip this apocalypse in the bud by shooting Stillson, as he might have strangled Hitler in his crib.
So Johnny is perched in a high church balcony with a rifle between his legs, waiting for Stillson;’s big speech to begin. Will he go through with it, or chicken out? If he does go through with it, will he succeed or fail? Those seem to be the only options on the table, along with some incidental matters like, will Johnny be killed or captured or escape?
But King understands the complexity of his characters, and the bizarre random twists life can take, too well to settle for such boilerplate.
Spoilers ahead, if you haven’t read the book.
Johnny takes his shot, and misses, and Stillson grabs a baby from the arms of a local woman campaign worker, sharing the stage with him. He uses the baby as a human shield and the moment is captured by a free-lance photographer covering the event. Johnny falls from the balcony, mortally wounded, but lives long enough to grab Stillson’s ankle and see the appalling picture on the cover of Newsweek. Stillson survives the attack, but his realm self is revealed and his political career is over.
Maybe you have to spend a lot of time plotting stories and coming up against trite conclusions and predictable forks in the narrative road to really appreciate the elegance and bravura of this climax. I’m happy to say my friend finally acknowledged King’s skill.
The critics remained aloof.
Time went on. I got my hands on a manuscript copy of Pet Sematary at a time when King’s wife had apparently forbidden him to publish it. When it finally came out, it made a bright spot in a disturbing career downturn. Some of the rap on King was right, and I had to admit it: he wrote too many books, using too many drugs, and he did it way too fast. By the time he noticed that The Tommyknockers was senseless crap, he’d already written five hundred pages in a cocain-fuelled fugue state. Why not just finish it? He had momentum, but so does a tractor trailer careening down the Monarch Pass with a ruptured brake line.
I rode out the bad times and read the bad books, and things improved again. Amid talk of his imminent retirement, novels like Misery, Delores Claiborne, and Bag of Bones seemed to make a case for King as a literary novelist all over again. And then a strange, disturbing, unhealthy thing happened.
King got discovered.
Not by the shaggy teen-agers and pot smoking college students and middle ged housewives who had loved him for years. No, King got discoivered by Literaryt high society.
He had stories printed in the New Yorker (real stories, not parodies of his books)
He got respectful reviews.
He even won the National Book Award.
He wrote a craft book about writing.
He had arrived.
There was just one problem: the new books kind of sucked. They had lost both early pulp vigor of Firestarter and the focused writerly craft of The Green Mile.These new books – written over a long period, from Dreamcatcher to From a Buick 6, from Rose Madder to Lisey’s Story were bad in a much more depressing way than something like Christine or The Tommyknockers had been. These books were actually boring. And the worse they got, the more the high falutin literary snobs praised them. Suddenly he could do no wrong, at least with that crowd.
For the rest of us, the only spark left of the writer we loved was The Dark Tower. This projected series of seven books, begun when King was in college, seemed to live at the heart of his oeuvre, animating and connecting books as diverse as Desperation, Insomnia and The Talisman. The iconic tale of the Gunslinger and the Dark Man, moving fluidly between the ruined twilight wasteland of his world and the ordinary daylight of our own (The flower that can save his world is growing in a vacant lot in ours; he has to travel between worlds to rob a drugstore for antibiotics when his monster-inflicted wounds infect) jumped off the page. But we had to wait. Each book took longer than the one before. Only four of the seven were finished and it seemed like the rest would be stillborn.
Then King had his accident.
It was as shocking to me as if a relative had been hit by that van. In or out, up or down, the man had been a major figure in my life for decades – we had even corresponded from time to time (I sent a condolence letter when Stanley Kubrick’s film version of The Shining came out). But I must admit, my first thought that day was, “If he survives this, he’s going to finish the Dark Tower.”
Well, it turned out that this Constant Reader(as he calls us die-hards) knew the old man pretty well. As soon as King could sit up comfortably to write again he started churning out the pages at the old pace – an 2,400 of them in 18 months. And these books had the old vigor, the old craziness, the old headlong story-drunk gusto. Probably the New Yorker snobs didn’t like them.
That was fine with me.
Still, in the mainstream of his work, things were still feeling lackluster. The books were selling well but something was missing. Cell? Duma Key? Meh: familiar tropes (magical paintings, technology spawning end of the world), tired prose. Maybe he was actually winding down to that retirement, at last. How many more stories could he tell? He certainly didn’t owe us anything.
With a shrug at mortality, and the inevitable waning of even the most exuberant gifts, I wrote my old pal off. I toasted the old times: that night reading Pet Sematary in a creaky old house when the power went out -- my girlfriend and I shrieked like children. Fighting with wife, years later when I bought It in hardcover when we were broke, and reading in secret, late at night. Waiting like a Victorian hooked on Little Dorritt for the monthly installments of The Green Mile to arrive. Good times.
But it was time to walk away.
And then I started hearing about a giant new novel, one he had started and abandoned back in the good old days, and the rumors made it sound wonderful.
It was called Under The Dome.
It came out, and I bought it. I just finished reading it this afternoon.
This book is everything I hoped it would be –reiterating King’s favorite themes of enclosure and redemption, good versus evil, order versus anarchy, with all seven of the deadly sins and quite a few of the mildly toxic ones on full display.
A mysterious force field seals a small town away from the rest of the world and in one week the tidy little community of Chester’s Mill is reduced to virulent anarchy and then annihilated by the greed and arrogance (and automatic weapons and meth labs and propane cannisters) of its inhabitants. There are brilliant set pieces – the visitor’s day catastrophe, the supermarket riot, the burning of the newspaper office. There are murders and jailbreaks, lost envelopes of incriminating evidence, dogs who hear the voices of dead people, dead people who torment the living as the self-made holocaust descends. There are brawls and conspiracies, mean Selectmen and smart kids. There’s a real live hero and a actual heroine and they manage to both fall in love and save their small encapsulated part of the world. You learn how if feels to smoke methapmphetamine, breathe out of tires and commune with aliens. You tumble through the rush of events and walk out of the book with the same lung-filling sense of stunned exuberance that the surviving characters feel as they finally rejoin the world.
The book revisits many King achetypes, but deepens them. Big Jim Rennie is no single-minded ‘evildoer; like Gregg Stillson, or Randall Flagg. He actually believes he’s doing the right thing, working for the town, taking over when no one else has the brains or the nerve to do so, Colonel Dale Barbara (Iraq veteran and small town short order chef) brings to mind a long line of other tough minded, quick thinking King heroes, from the British Secret Service agent Nick Hopewell in The Langoliers to Stuart Redman in The Stand. But he;s his oown man, tormented by his own failures and mistakes; and it is that very ambivalence that winds up being central to his survival.
So King didn’t retire and I didn’t walk away and I’m very happy for both of us. This book is a spectacular return to form, an authentic gut wrenching page-turning, corpse moldering, firestorm igniting, corruption revealing, serial killer rampaging nobility celebrating masterpiece, and it brings me back full circle, even with it’s dust-jacket, unnerving for its complete lack of text: two blank flaps that continue the ominous cover illustration, nothing more.
It made me think of that day in a quarter of the way back into a different century, when a striking cover seduced me into buying a Stephen King novel for the very first time. I have another memory to add to my scrap book, now: sitting on my couch as a blizzard roared around the house outside yesterday, with my pug in my lap, quietly turning pages, in a calm pool of lamp-light, my phone turned off, with no one to bother me nothing in the world to do but read.
The good old days may be gone, but on that long snowbound afternoon, thirty-four years after I bought that cool paperback edition of Carrie in Union Square, they were back again, better than ever.

Salon.com
Comments
Great, great, GREAT write up!
Years later, in the early 90s I stayed at a hotel called Morgan's in NY and a gorgeous, huge arrangement of flowers was sent to my room. I had no idea why. It looked like it cost $500. I read the card and it was from the management to Steven King. He was a floor above me and they had made a mistake. I called the front desk and they removed the arrangement and presumably gave it to King. And they delivered some carnations to me for my trouble.
Thank you.
you nailed it. All of it since the 1970's.
Stephen King is great and entertaining storyteller. I'm glad to hear he is back.
Sorry.
But I've always had a problem with Frank Darabont. His "Shawshank" was fine, but it diverged from the story in several small but telling ways. Excuse me if I seem insanely nit-picking but ... the beer, for instance. Andy gets the guard to give them beer when they re-tar the roof. In the book it was warm beer ... Red made a point of saying, it didn't matter, even warm beer made them feel like free men. In the movie the beer is served in a bucket of ice. Okay, it's a small thing, but it was fake: that guard would NEVER have made a gesture like that that. Just giving them the beer at all was a grudging concession. All this tells you is that King had a stronger grasp on his characters (even the minor ones) than Darabont. Of course it also tells you that Darabont COULDN'T FOLLOW ORDERS, couldn't do what the writer told him to do; that he was a cocky jerk who thought he could tell stories better than Stephen King. Run that by me again: you can tell stories better than Stephen King? You're dreaming, fool.
Later in the movie, when Red is out of jail and looking for the buried cash, the story makes it clear that he spent a year searching, in his days off, methodically walking the county, never knowing if that stone wall and tree were even there -- they might have been lost to a shopping center or a subdivision. In the film he just finds the cash, boom, like that. All it would have taken was a little voice over -- and Darabont used Red's voice-overs all through the before this point. He wouldnlt even have had to write anything -- the voice over I'm talking about comes directly from the book ... and this would have been so much more believable.
But the worst offense against King's vision was Darabont's ending. Red says he has no idea if he'll be able to get across the border, no idea if he'll be able to find Andy, but he has hope. finally. The hope is what matters. Darabont can't leave it at that. He has to show the beach-side kissy-face reunion. Ugh. That heavy handed approach came into full bloom with his ponderous, overwrought and lifeless film version of "The Green Mile". As to "The Mist" -- what a travesty! If he was looking for a nihilistic finish, it was already there. It's clear at the end of the book that the earth has been totally absorbed into this new alien eco-system, that the mist is everywhere and humans are now at the bottom of the food chain. That should have been enough! But Darabont had to violate the letter and the spirit of the text for a hokey, cynical puny pointless unexplained and unexplainable 'twist ending'. Hopefully he won't be making any more King novels into movies.
Three strikes and you're out.
Plus which, I can't forgive the perfectly horrendous blooper of the town being able to watch CNN. The book can't possibly have gone through the whole publication process without somebody noticing and calling it to King's attention, so he must have decided he didn't care. That's inexcusable, as far as I'm concerned, and it just wrenched me out of the story every time it came up. He could so easily have made it broadcast stations the residents were watching.
Since reading "It" I have been an unabashed fan of Stephen King. I've had to justify it many times - to certain sneering literary types, girlfriends with a disdain for "genre crap", or college professors. But justify it I did, because more than just entertaining me, his work has been a huge influence on my own writing. And not just the genre aspects -- the nuts and bolts craft of his body of work: character creation, pacing, striving to always add a third dimension to two-dimensional plots and ideas.
I haven't read "Under the Dome" yet, but after having read this review, I'll be sure to pick it up soon. Thanks, Steven!
I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards. Stephen King stayed more or less the same; it was the culture around him that slowly disintegrated, such that now he is celebrated as a "writer" when in fact what he has always been is a hack. An entertaining hack, to be sure, but even at that only up to a point.
The fact that someone who has written the kinds of bloated (by the way, that *includes* "The Stand") books and hideous prose he has, over the course of three decades, could actually be allowed, even encouraged, to write a book entitled "On Writing" is an example of how far we've fallen. It's one thing to reward someone for being able to push all the usual genre buttons, especially under a system like our's. But to let him presume to tell others - YOUNG others - how they should write and about what is simply outrageous and sickening.
Stephen King has written *precisely* three works that could be referred to as vaguely literary: "The Last Rung On the Ladder" (story), "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" (novella) and "Gerald's Game" (novel). Had the spark he showed in those works been nurtured by someone who spotted them when he was young, he could have been this era's answer to Frank Norris or John Dos Passos. Sadly such a person was not in evidence, or if they were he didn't listen to them.
But then given your failure to recognize the horrific reader betrayal that was the last two books in the "Dark Tower" series, not to mention your idiotic prattle about Frank Darabont (you are aware of the difference between *movies* and *books*, aren't you?), I am not surprised that you worship at the man's pretend throne. You, multiplied by the hundreds of thousands upon millions, are the reason King is worth $500 million in cash and about five cents in literary value.
And yes, I have read most of his books, though in the last twenty-two years more out of curiosity than anything else. You see I got hooked on King in the 70s via "Carrie" too - when I was 13. By the time I was an undergrad the man's genre nonsense was utterly boring compared to Faulkner, Hemingway and Fitzgerald, not to mention Balzac, Dickens and Tolstoy. That doesn't make me better than anyone else; no, it merely suggests that my parents did not piss away all that tuition money. And I went to a state university. What's your excuse?
That 1088 pages ought to have been no more than 750.
I think he wrote "Dreamcatcher" AFTER his accident.
Lame.
I did love Under The Dome, too. However, I had some issues with it. He stated that it was much longer, and his editors pared it down. I think it was the victim of bad editing. There were things in the story that were never addressed, and parts of the plot didn't mesh.
It won't stop me from being first in line to pick up his next production, however. :o)
While I love a lot of his work, his short fiction is my absolute favorite. Everything's Eventual, the group of short stories that he wrote, has some seriously amazing work in it. I have taught "The Man in the Black Suit" (for which he won the O. Henry) as a companion piece to Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown," and it works quite well. "The Body" was fantastic.
His work 'Salem's Lot' is fantastic work as well, one that I predict will be studied quite a bit in the years to come, in large part because of its not-so-hidden discussion of the American Dream. (I'm resisting the impulse to go all too annoying professor on y'all here because it's really obnoxious. Sorry for that little bit.)
As part of the ENEMY of good pulp fiction (we live on a island together and read lots of Joyce ;) ), I too found his books increasingly dull until after his accident. My guess is it wasn't "legitimacy" (whatever that is) that hurt his writing but probably just one of the those things that happens to writers from time to time. Mid-life. Gotten comfortable. Stuff like that.
I don't remember anybody looking at his latest works in the academic world and waxing rhapsodic actually so I'm not sure that the "Important Literary Notice" killed his talent theory works as a real thing.
Anyway, I love his work in the main. I haven't gotten around to reading the latest because I'm knee deep in other reading right now, most of which is very boring, but I look forward to cracking this one open and reading the afternoon away.
I loved Lisey's Story and Duma Key, but you don't see me ripping Mr. Axelrod a new one.
Stephen King is my favorite author, and The Dark Tower is my favorite series. I have my father to thank for that, he "allowed" me to start reading his novels in grade school. The first one I read was Skeleton Crew, and I was hooked for life.
There's been one or two stories I didn't absolutely love, so I just don't include them when I do my periodic King re-readings.
I haven't picked up Under the Dome yet, I wanted to make sure I didn't get it as a Christmas present..but I know I'll pick it up sometime next week, especially after reading the commentary here about it.
However, I think Salem's Lot is the best vampire novel since Dracula (includng my own) and The Stand is my favorite modern novel. I agree with Blue about the movies that were well-made, The Shining was not. While I like Faulkner, Hemingway, and Faulkner, too, King is popular fiction done right - most of the time.
Thanks for the post and the insight, ratee
"You tumble through the rush of events and walk out of the book with the same lung-filling sense of stunned exuberance that the surviving characters feel as they finally rejoin the world."
Thank you - that's exactly it!
I'm also glad to see that the debate concerning Stephen King's place in the literary pantheon rages on. I'm sure he would enjoy that. As Kurt Vonnegut once observed: "Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae."
One last thing: I spend a lot of time in my car, so I've listened to three or four of Stephen King's novels on audiobook and enjoyed them immensely. Hearing the language, especially if it's done right (Frank Muller, for example). I've tried that with Camus and Melville and it's not nearly as much fun.
p.s. Somebody-that-isn't-me should start a new topic about the movies that Stephen King's books were turned into. Through books & movies, he has made a tremendous impact on 20th century entertainment. (2 more opinions: "The Shining" movie wasn't exactly like the book, but it WAS Kubrick-- it was spooky, interesting & well-cast. "Carrie" was a great book but DePalma made a boring mess of a movie from it-- most of the good creepy stuff was left out & the only standout performance was Sissy Spacek's.)
I admit that I skipped much of the last bit of this post, Steven, as I was afraid any information I might glean from it would spoil the book for me. But I did read the first 80% of the post, and I give you high marks for an insightful write-up.
Rated.
Anne G
I found King while a Junior in high school. Read Carrie first; then Salem's Lot; and the rest is history. Carrie was great fun, very exciting, Salem's Lot scared the bejesus out of me. And The Shining was just fn amazing, only to be eclipsed by The Stand. And I've always loved his short stories, a format not practiced often enough by those that can produce quality work.
I know, I know, he's written some stuff he didn't even like, but I have to disagree with your statement that he wrote "too many books." I don't think that's possible. Even if you want to throw it out like a failed roast, or burn it like a misbegotten picasso, it's still you and what you've produced, and it will inform the next step. And the step after that.
Maybe his only error was in allowing them to be published.
In any event, based upon your glowing review, I've just gone and ordered Under the Dome - the hard copy! (I have a kindle, and just thought this one deserved to be on the shelf, and in the hands of my eldest teen) - and await its delivery before the new year! Mazel Tov!
I will admit, however...after having woven an enthralling story in the first 1000 or so pages (at times I was so wound up in the characters' exploits and all the political drama, I forgot about the dome!) SK seemed to have tired of writing the novel and to be rushing to get to the end. Not that I found the end a TOTAL cop-out, but it was more rushed that I would have preferred. Much like Anne Rice's 'The Witching Hour'.
My greatest appreciation for Mr. King flow from his prodigious readership...he READS other writers and generously shares his opinions. A writer who reads other writers? OMG!
I can no longer keep up with SK's ouvre. I'm growing older. But without embarrassment, I contend that he will be the singular definer of this "literary" era.
I am enjoying my gradual switch to mostly audio "reading" as, particularly with an especially good narrator, I am finding that I experience audio books at a slower pace than that with which I read an actual book. I get more out of the story and am able to savor more details later, after finishing them. Raul Esparza is especially good in UTD.
Thank you for your post. Your insights made me think about how much I've appreciated SK over the years.
Really wonderful read.
Really wonderful read.