Trevor Parker posted a pretty insightful review at Fangoria.com. I'm reading Full Dark right now, and must say that I think the book is much more energetically dark than most reviews are giving it credit for. Parker's review is generally positive, giving King high marks for his writing and story telling. Ultimately he grades the book very high.
.
Classic King?
.
Parker complains about King's recent writing style, calling it an attempt at being "important." In particular he notes "Lisey's Story." Parker also tosses the Colorado Kid under the bus. He then suggests that King returned to his older story telling technique in Under The Dome.
.
I pretty much agree with his assessments. I found both Lisey's Story and Colorado Kid difficult. But I have Lisey's Story in particular on my "return to" list. But then, I have sometimes found "classic King" difficult as well. When was the last time you gave Tommyknockers a test drive, eh!
.
Parker writes, "If not quite the quality of classic King, the lineup in FULL DARK, NO STARS at least chews over his familiar themes." This seems to be the direction most reviews of Full Dark No Stars is taking.
.
I think the stories are better than "classic King." Has anyone read classic King lately? I just finished Christine, Shawshank, The Mist and The Dark Half. I enjoyed all of them. But Full Dark No Stars is better. The writing is stronger, the horror is better, and overall it is darker.
.
Here's a great line, "this is King the way we like him best: focused, lean and very, very mean." I wholeheartedly agree!
.
Cover Gripes
.
Parker gives a surprising amount of space to complain about Full Dark No Star's cover. He says the lady clutching her head looks like an ad for headache medicine! In fact, he calls it "bland" "neutral" "shame" and ultimately "Unacceptable."
.
I liked the cover! I think it draws interest in a simple way. It beats the snot out of Insomnia, Desperation, Black House and The Dark Half.
.