This is another bleak one -- does that characterise all of the books Stephen King wrote as Richard Bachman? It's kind of similar to The Long Walk, in that it's a future America and a brutal form of entertainment involving death. It's easier to read than The Long Walk -- a bit more dynamic, I guess.

The trouble I had with it was predictability, in the main. You know that he's going to escape this time, 'cause there's however many pages left. It's also difficult to sympathise with the main character, despite the wife-and-child excuse, because he's not that likeable. We don't learn that much about him other than that he's slightly antisocial (by the standards of his society), that he doesn't quite fit. Well, no shit, Sherlock. He's the main character of the novel. There's got to be something special about him or he wouldn't be the main character.

Characterisation is light throughout, really. Some of the little glimpses we get of characters -- Amelia, Bradley, Killian -- are good, they sound like interesting people, but you don't get inside their skins, not very deep.

I did enjoy the ending -- it isn't a happy ending, at all, but it's a satisfying one, I think, because there's revenge and perhaps the possibility of change. The book as a whole is easy to read, both because the writing is functional and goes down easy, and because it all has a kind of energy to it. There's very little 'dead writing' where nothing is going on. It's an angry novel, though: dark and angry.

So, bottle_of_shine is hosting another cat herding book reading challenge! This time we're to pick books we've read in the last couple of years -- and only five books! I'm assuming we're allowed to read older books that we only just got our hands on, otherwise my list would be quite limited... Anyway! Each book title links to my full review of the book, while the bits in this entry are me looking back with my rose-tinted glasses on.

1. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, by Susanna Clarke.
I finished this one really recently, so it's fresh in my mind. It's a great thick brick of a novel, 1000 pages in the edition I have, and it combines the realist style of the Victorian period with fantasy! If you like Jane Austen (I don't) you might be pleased/interested to know that the style is a pastiche of her work. Which makes it pretty heavy going, but I ended up loving it a lot. You definitely have to give it a chance, and be prepared to roll with the meandering, slow plot, but I got to the end and wanted more. Good(?) news: there will probably be a movie (says IMDB) and a sequel may be in the works.

2. The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell.
This book is a really, really hard one. Not in terms of the writing, but emotionally, it packs a punch. It's science fiction, in a way, but it also focuses on the philosophy of religion and questions of faith. Sometimes the characters can be a little like cardboard cutouts, but there are some characters -- particularly the main one -- who stick in my head and won't get out. There is a sequel, but this one stands alone and doesn't need the sequel, I think. (My review of the sequel is here if you want to find out about it, though.)

3. Un Lun Dun, by China Miéville.
This one's lighter and easier to read than the previous two -- I think I read it in a single evening. It has loads of cute ideas (a living milk carton named Curdle! ninja bins!) and is just generally quirky and much easier to read than China Miéville's other stuff (e.g. Perdido Street Station, which almost made this list). I've given copies to several people who ended up loving it. Fun light reading! And Curdle. Read the book for Curdle, or he'll cry.

4. The Graveyard Book, by Neil Gaiman.
I'm a total Gaiman fan, although it seems like quite a few of my friends just can't get on with his writing. This one is pretty light, as fantasy books go, too. It's The Jungle Book, sort of, but in a graveyard. The characters are amusing and occasionally amazing, and I just love the idea of a boy being raised by ghosts and a vampire. It is also well worth listening to him read it aloud here (for free!).

5. The Shining, by Stephen King.
This time last year, I wouldn't even have considered reading Stephen King. Now I've become very much a fan, so much so that this list wouldn't really feel right without me putting one of his books on it. I think a lot of people dismiss his writing because it's popular and he's a bestseller, etc, etc. His writing may not be that complex, it might not have those slick little touches of a really intellectual novel, but his writing works and is readable and absorbing, and he writes about real feelings and characters who could be real. What he makes up are the situations he puts them into. The Shining is a bit creepy, and quite a bit sad. If you haven't tried any Stephen King on the grounds that he's a talentless hack (I point fingers at my mother), I suggest you do try. Some of his books are definite 'misses' (I wouldn't recommend Bag of Bones to a new fan, for example) but sometimes he does really good things with characters and the situations he puts them into.

You guys, this was such a hard list to make. I feel sure all the books I left out are crying.

Dreamcatcher definitely isn't my favourite of Stephen King's novels, hell no. I mean, "shit weasels"? Really? But it is a pretty gripping read, even if it is a little reminiscent of It and something else I can't quite put my finger on. The first two hundred pages or so didn't encourage me much -- I mean, there was a lot of completely gross stuff. I don't exactly have the male fascination with bodily functions!

In terms of the basic plot, though, that's just "alien invasion". And I think it's handled okay here. Not that inventively, if you look at the components: parasites travel in the ships of older races, etc, that's Animorphs. Our world is inimical to them -- War of the Worlds. Etc, etc. But the way it's put together is interesting enough. This one's definitely thicker with description and plot complications than some, kind of like It in complexity I guess. There's a lot of dodging about through time in this one, as in It.

Character-wise, it was pretty interesting. I was sad that Pete, Beaver, Duddits and Owen died, and I was very, very glad that Henry and Jonesy somehow survived. I really didn't think they would. Kurtz is not the greatest villain character ever, though, I thought he was over the top self-indulgence. Having a character with Down's Syndrome in such a key role surprised me, and I liked the scenes of the boys' childhood with Duddits. I did believe in the bond between the boys.

Definitely not one for reread, I think, and not my recommendation for anyone starting out with King's stuff.

A long time ago, I watched about half of the film, The Green Mile. I think my mum has the DVD, I'll have to get it out when I'm home at Easter, because I've read that the movie was pretty faithful to the book, and I want to see that. I actually read the book, all of it, today, putting it down now and again to eat, wash my hair and do some school work. Very reluctantly, I'll have you know.

I didn't actually cry at it, but I came pretty close. Ouch. Particularly this part, for me:

"He kill them with they love," John said. "They love for each other. You see how it was?"
I nodded, incapable of speech.
He smiled. The tears were flowing again, but he smiled. "That's how it is every day," he said, "all over the worl'." Then he lay down and turned his face to the wall.

The Green Mile is really quick to read, but I wouldn't call it easy. The characters are well-written. In fact, Percy, who is one of the most awful characters, is one of the best, because you can imagine him, right down to not wetting the sponge. You've probably known someone a bit like him, a bully, someone who never understands why people think he did something wrong. The other characters were pretty well-written, but Percy was probably the most memorable for me (just like you probably remember the bully from school, but you don't remember the quiet girl who sat in the corner and followed the rules).

Definitely worth reading. It's not horror, by a long shot, and I don't know why people dismiss Stephen King as "just a horror writer", or "not a writer", when he writes stuff like this.

"I'm not saying you should bother reading these, especially now that Koontz is openly being Christian and Stephen King thinks he is a writer, but I have a fondness for some of these books."

This, in a goodreads review, made me wonder what exactly people think the term "writer" means. I see plenty of people saying authors they don't like aren't "real writers". Stephen King isn't a real writer because he just writes horror. King isn't a real writer because he just writes stuff that'll be popular. J. K. Rowling isn't a real writer because I don't like her stuff. Stephanie Meyer isn't a real writer because she's a talentless hack.

For me, a writer is someone who writes. Simple as that. You're a writer if you do a little column in your local paper, you're a writer if you publish a bestseller every two months, you're a writer if you write one critically acclaimed book and then vanish into the ether. You're a writer if you only publish your fiction on your livejournal, or even if it never goes beyond your computer screen.

You can argue yourself blue in the face, but you'll never convince me that Stephen King isn't a writer. I happen to think he's not the talentless hack snobs like to dub him, but I've said all that in my reviews. And much as I hate her books, I have to admit, J. K. Rowling is still a writer.

But that's apparently not the only interpretation of the word "writer"? So what's yours?

Looking at the reviews on goodreads, this one didn't seem to go down that well. It's pretty different to most of Stephen King's other stuff -- very little actually happens beyond some old guys telling a story -- but I did like it. It's a story about stories, I think, how they don't really end, and I'm actually surprised that it got as much of an ending as it did. I was half-expecting the Buick to sit there for a couple more generations.

It's interesting that, I think, I identified most with Ned and Ned's father, yet we never hear anything from their points of view. We can't hear anything from the father's point of view. I feel like I'd feel the same draw of curiosity. Ned's father was possibly the most vivid character of the lot: the others, who just tried to get on with their lives, don't have that much to define them, so they blur into each other. But Curtis is pretty vivid.

I really liked From A Buick 8, anyway. It's not perhaps the most satisfying read in the world, but the idea is fascinating and the narrative just kept on ticking, pulling me on through the story. If you need a hard and fast end, though, if you need answers? Definitely not the book for you.

Say what you like about Stephen King, he really can write a gripping story. I still dislike some of his stylistic quirks,
(like this thoughts in brackets it really irritates me i)
but I always read his books really, really fast. Not the most accomplished, artful writing in the world, really, but it has a straightforward appeal, and it certainly gets its hooks into you. Or me, anyway, I'm sure there are people who don't like it, but there are plenty of people I know who turn their noses up at Stephen King without ever reading a word he's written.

I think I've observed before that he writes about real people and it's only the situations that make it horror/fantasy/whatever. I'm reading On Writing at the moment, so what he says about writing the truth is really obvious to me right now. I think everyone goes to school with a Carrie. I think I probably was the Carrie of my school, in a way -- the one who could never get it right, the one who nobody stuck up for, wrong kind of religion... in my case, wrong sexuality. And then he adds the detail: so what if this girl had a really extreme mother? And telekinetic powers? And what if she broke?

Another thing I found very interesting about this book was the idea of combining different reports on the incidents together, making this a kind of Dracula book -- made up of eye witness accounts.

The result? A book that's actually uncomfortable to read, because you see yourself in the characters. Sue Snell and Carrie White, for me; maybe someone sees themselves in Chris.

Carrie isn't my favourite of Stephen King's books that I've read so far, but it certainly fits his MO. Worth reading if you want to try one of his books minus the huge long set up that characterises some of the others (The Stand, It, etc).

I liked Insomnia a lot. I was quite surprised by the older protagonists, although of course there are things which compensate for their age. It wasn't a bad surprise, either. I thought it might be harder to relate to Ralph and Lois because of it, but it ended up not really being a problem at all. The most fascinating character for me, though, was Ed Deepneau. It was interesting how he kept the photo with him until the very end.

I loved a lot of the imagery that ran throughout this -- the auras, the "deathwatch", the "balloon strings". The Clotho/Lachesis/Atropos triad was a very, very interesting plot point. I love references to mythology. And the trade Ralph makes to save Nat breaks my heart a little, and is a lovely way to end things.

It's also interesting to see all the links between this and other Stephen King books. I'm guessing that a large amount of the references were to The Dark Tower, which convinces me that it's probably time to start reading those.

This book was a bit like a rollercoaster I've been on. It started off slowly, slowly, until you think, "oh god, maybe I'm wasting my time", and then it gets to the top and starts to roll down and twist about and sometimes seems to throw you upside down, and you're going to be sick, and if you're a braver person than me, when it rolls to a halt, you decide you're going to do it all again right away.

It is a seriously dense book. There's layers and layers of setting the scene, building the characters, placing you firmly in Derry yourself. There's so much background that, like the characters of the book, I think I'm starting to forget a lot of it now that I've reached the end.

I loved it. It certainly has its flaws -- it gets too dense, in parts, goes too slow, and sometimes it's just too obvious. We get told over and over again that Bill Denborough is the big leaderman, that Ben's the one who can build things, etc, etc. But I enjoy really solidly built characters and really deep world-building, so this was really my thing. I thought parts of it, like the Turtle, were really pushing it, but it was worked in, in little bits, throughout the story, so I could go with that.

At first I thought it wasn't going to freak me out that much, but then it did. Ohboy, it freaked me out. And now I have to walk to dinner in the pitch-dark...!

Continuing in my adventures in the worlds of Stephen King! This time: The Shining. I liked this a lot, overall. Bits of the actual style annoyed me, but the story sucked me right in. The central concept of "the shine" itself interests me, because, well, I'm not sure it's all that fictional. Extra-sensory perception and all that. The idea of the sentient house is a really creepy one, mainly because it touches on the fears you have as a kid -- the fire extinguisher really does look like a snake coiled to strike, something's going to get you while your back is turned.

It's also interesting because it's one of your POV characters who actually gets absorbed by the bad and becomes it. Jack Torrance is a subtle character, in a way, because the bad in him goes hand in hand with the good: he loves his son, and that gets twisted, he loved his father, and that twists. Of course, there's nothing much subtle about Jack's temper, and you know that he's going to be the one to break, but there's a subtlety about your feelings for him. Or so I found, anyway: even at the last, I felt sorry for him, even though he wasn't strong enough to fight it off.

In this book I'd say there's really only three or four main characters. The others that pop up are pretty superfluous -- and I liked that even so, they had bits and pieces of characterisation: Al, deciding to get sober; Ullman, loving the hotel; the characters Dick meets who have a bit of the shine... The main characters aren't actually that in depth, if I really think about it. They're easily summarised. I guess that's not a bad thing when you're looking to be frightened, when your childhood fears are being invoked. The best character is, of course, the character of Danny, psychic six year old, who loves his mum and dad and tries so hard to be brave.