Preston Jones at the bostonherald.com has posted a review of Under The Dome. There is little new offered here, other than more literary types whining about King not doing things their way. This usually comes in the form of complaining about the structure of a novel..
Jones serves the now stale complaint that modern fears are really much worse than anythng King can think up. Personally, I would prefer to remain in the real world and not take my chances with the S.K. universe! Let's just say that Cujo, Flagg and the Cimson King all live in the Stephen King World. I'll take my chances with swine flu..
Our friend, Mr. Jones, then mentions that U.T.D. is "thematically thin." May I ask. . . what does that mean? I don't understand. I know, I'm the kid in class raising my hand and saying, "I don't get it." Now, I may play dumb sometimes, but I did make it through college, okay. But, thinking maybe I was being dense, I asked my wife -- who graduated cum laude -- "Hey babe, what does it mean when they say Under The Dome is thematically thin." She stared for a moment. "It means the theme is thin." Thank you. What does that mean? She had no idea. Anyone want to offer suggestions?.
1. The idea of people stuck under a dome gets dry..
2. There's not much theme. Yeah, that's it. . . . whatever..
I should come up with at least three or four suggestions. But, I have no idea! None at all..
For a review titled "King reigns again in ‘Dome’", Mr. Jones doesn't really see King doing much reigning..
On the other hand, Associated Press writes, "Under the Dome" is one of those works of fiction that manages to be both pulp and high art, that successfully — and very improbably — captures the national zeitgeist at this particularly strange and breathless period in American history." I guess they missed the part where it is thematically thin..
I'm sure you'll want to read this in full:
The associated press review is here: