What I couldn’t comprehend was how two readers – both self-proclaimed King fans – could have such a different opinion about the same book.
Anyone who is an avid reader will mostly likely enjoy Goodreads. I joined up grudgingly back in January 2013 because I thought it would be a useful promotional tool to have as an author, but I’ve come to love it as a reader.
It has practical uses. For instance, I had been meaning to read The Boys From Brazil by Ira Levin for years. But every time I wondered to myself, What should I read next? that book never rose up to the top of my memory. Now it’s on my ‘to read’ shelf on Goodreads – so I know I will get to it sooner rather than later.
Goodreads also works as a forum for discussing books. As with any site open to the entire English-speaking world there is more chaff than wheat, but there are reviewers such as this guy who evaluate novels on a professional and sometimes almost academic level. When I can’t get together with my literature-loving friends enough for my liking, Goodreads is a fair substitute.
While nosing around on the site the other day I unearthed something interesting. I was reading reviews for two of Stephen King’s more recent novels, Doctor Sleep and Revival, when I happened on this review of Revival and its subsequent comments.
I agreed with the review’s evaluation wholeheartedly, so I was nonplussed by comment number 50 on the list, from a Goodreads member called David:
Disagree. Maybe his worst novel. Plodding plot. Years pass. BORING and over hyped! And, I love Steven King.
What I couldn’t comprehend was how two readers – both self-proclaimed King fans – could have such a different opinion about the same book. So I began to explore more reviews and discovered a pattern:
Those readers who primarily liked Stephen King's more modern stuff (Lisey's Story, Duma Key etc) thought Doctor Sleep was the best thing King had written in ages and thought Revival was the worst. Conversely, those who preferred King's earlier fiction (The Shining, 'Salems Lot etc) thought Revival was the best thing King had written in years and thought Doctor Sleep was the worst. Lastly, those who liked his Dark Tower novels also seem to prefer Doctor Sleep.
Now while I believe there are concrete and definable reasons why Revival is better than Doctor Sleep, they are peripheral to this discussion. What I’m getting at is that King fans seem to have split into two factions: those who love his Dark Tower universe and its various branches into his standalone fiction, and those who think – as I do – that it results in his weakest novels.
I decided to post this theory on a Goodreads discussion board and see what others in the community thought about it. This little vox pop also appeared to reinforce my notion of two distinct groups. Here is each response in its entirety:
Truman32
That sounds like me! I prefer his older fiction and I really liked Revival... you might be on to something there...
Meran
I like much of his. I found that I liked more once I understood the connection that many have to his idea behind The Dark Tower series. So many of the novels have references to that 'verse. There's a site that shows about 35 novels and short stories connected to it. Personally, I think many of his newer works aren't full horror, but well written novels, period. All his works since his accident shook him up are deeper, more reflective.
Russ
I'm definitely a fan of his early works. Although Revival doesn't match up to the 'horror' factor of the early books I do feel it leans that way with it's weirdness and grand finale ending.
I haven't read any of his works since his accident but from reviews I've seen, they just don't sound like they'd appeal to me.
So there you go. It's time to choose a tribe. What type of Stephen King fan are you?
