From a Buick 8

[Zarathustra]

So far, about 200 pages of talking about a car in a shed. That's literally all that's happening. Now granted, it's not an ordinary car. But Hearts in Atlantis did this better than this book, in about 10 pages. I've said it before, but this time I really mean it: THIS is the worst King book I've ever read. I think it might be my first post-accident King, too. I wonder if there's a connection.

[sgt.null]

it has moments. but it is a very static book. still, I enjoyed it.

[Cail]

Not great, but I didn't mind it. Much better than Gerald's Game and Rose Madder.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not finished, so I expect it to get better (as I've said a few times now for other King books).

I don't mind static. Cail brings up Gerald's Game, which happens mostly on a single piece of furniture. But the difference there is that it's a character-driven story, not a sideshow. You get inside Jessie's head. Her choices, her growth, determine the outcome.

I do vaguely remember a cop showing up unexpectedly in one of the DT books. So I suppose this is where he came from? Interesting.

[Menolly]

I'm confused, Z. Have you read the DT books already? Or are these other King books pre-reads before you start that series?

[Orlion]

So far, about 200 pages of talking about a car in a shed. That's literally all that's happening.

I remember hearing a lot of crap about this book. As a result, I was surprised when a newer friend recommended it highly. This was a mystery to me until now: the friend was a mechanic and loves working on cars, so having a book detail a car for 200 pages seems like it would be right up his alley.

[Zarathustra]

I'm confused, Z. Have you read the DT books already? Or are these other King books pre-reads before you start that series?

I read the first 2 or 3 many years ago. I don't remember much of them.

[Avatar]

I've never bothered to read this one.

--A

[Zarathustra]

So ... I'm now up to 350 pages of talking about a car in a shed. This is unbelievable. I don't know how he got away with this, or how it got published. There's a line in the book about how the state police troopers (who are watching/guarding the car) have begun to treat it as routine over the years, how even the marvelous can become mundane. That should have been the subtitle for this book. "Turning the marvelous into the mundane." Except, it wasn't very marvelous to begin with.

The only things that have happened are a series of light flashes and three different "creatures" emerging from the car, each one dead upon arrival and usually decaying within minutes. The troopers take video, make notes, say things like, "Oh my god, that smell!" And that's about it. They sometimes put things like crickets or frogs in the car to see if they disappear. Sometimes they do.

The characters are just mouthpieces to describe these events. They don't do anything except drink iced tea, eat sandwiches, and report these events to a young kid who doesn't know about the car.

Please just let it end.

[Avatar]

Glad I never bothered.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Well, I should have realized that King knew what he was doing. I'm not saying I like it, but I respect it.

Now that I'm done, I realize that everything I complained about was intentional. In fact, it was character development. Without even realizing that it's happening, he puts the readers in the shoes of this 18-yr-old kid, Ned, who's state trooper father had recently died and who was subsequently looking for answers/meaning in a situation that didn't really have any. King dangles this theme right in front of your face, but you refuse to accept it just as the kid refuses to accept that there's not more to the story. A story is what we want, what we feel we deserve (hey, I paid for the book, after all!), just like the kid feels like he's owed an explanation for the weird events as a way to understand the tragedy of his father's death.

At one point near the end, with nothing really resolved, the old Sarge tells the kid, "It wouldn't make a very good play, would it? No third act. No resolution." But this is King playing with us, because there is a third act. In fact, things do start happening that break the "pattern of randomness," so to speak, in the repeated appearances of monstrosities from the car. Just when the reader is lulled into thinking that all these appearances are basically the same, that they are all anti-climactic and pointless, one begins to see that there is a point to all this, that it does fit together vaguely, at least in the sense that there is (or might be) purpose behind the car's manifestations, including a sphere of influence that (perhaps) stretches beyond its immediate vicinity into events that seem beyond its control.

This might sound like King is cheating, deliberately setting us up to expect randomness and pointlessness, while he's simply misleading us about the fact that there is a deeper meaning/pattern, but I believe he successfully walks the line. Even in getting answers and getting that third act, it's open-ended with new questions.

I don't recommend this book. I don't endorse using frustration and "meta" points about the nature of stories as a tool to manipulate readers and create a sense of conflict, instead of more straightforward character-driven conflicts. But I'm beginning to understand just how much King is a master of his craft, even when he writes a bad book. It is as much an exposition on the nature of stories and our expectations regarding storytelling, as it is about our basic drive for meaning in a purposeless world.