Earlier this month, I posted an article titled Don't Start There!, in which I discussed which books were good for first time Stephen King readers -- and which should probably be avoided. Bob LeDrew at The King Cast took a poll at stephenking.com. He asked King readers "what's your worst first?"
The result? Well, you can see it below. Bob was kind enough to send me a screen image of the final tally. Doesn't look good for Gerald's Game! And I must agree, that is a pretty bad place to start reading Stephen King.
Why is Gerald's Game a bad place to start?
Is it a bad book? -- Not at all!Gerald's Game actually illustrates King's awesome strengths as a writer. Ever narrowing the scope of a book, he built his story around a woman tied to a bed. It was brilliant! Would she survive? Everything becomes a battle for her -- even a drink of water. The story moves around her childhood and deals with some pretty serious issues.
I would highly recommend this book to aspiring writers. It is a masterpiece in the art of writing. However, the story itself, and the scope, don't lend well to first time readers.
what do you think?
I would have to agree. There is nothing wrong with the book and it is an amazing read but it is so different from the rest of his work that it wouldn't be a good book for a first time reader to judge his storytelling style upon.
ReplyDeleteYeah well, I enjoyed the HELL outta GERALD'S GAME...but I think it was the last King I ever read. Which is not to disparage the book. It has some especially creepy parts near the end when the Gein-like ghoul pops in for a bite! DAMN! Scary shit!
ReplyDeleteAnd I like it for being something that King usually isn't: lean and compact.
I have to admit, I find it a little strange that there's all this talk lately of what is/isn't the best King book for first-time King readers to start out with. As if reading Stephen King is somehow akin to calculus, where if you haven't learned algebra and trigonometry yet, you're going to be lost.
ReplyDeleteRidiculous!
King's greatest gift as a writer is his ability to instantly connect with the reader, to create a situation that is compelling and characters who are intensely relatable. This gift -- or talent, if you'd prefer -- isn't something that comes and goes from one novel to the next; it's there in his earliest novels (Rage and The Long Walk), and it's there in his most recent novellas (Full Dark, No Stars), and it's there in practically everything he's written inbetween. Even his worst novel (whatever your personal taste says that is) is extremely readable.
The only books he's written that I would say are appreciably worse places to start than any of his other books would be The Dark Tower II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII, or Black House ... the reason being that they are sequels, and less meaningful if you haven't read the books which come before them. Oh, and also Faithful, but simply because the subject matter isn't terribly relatable unless you're a baseball fan.
Are some of his books less good than others? Absolutely. But there's not one that's weak enough that I would say it would ruin a reader's chances of enjoying and appreciating King's work.