Customer Reviews

Dreamcatcher (Turtleback School & Library Binding Edition)

5 star:		(195)
4 star:		(187)
3 star:		(135)
2 star:		(116)
1 star:		(86)

 

 

Because "Dreamcatcher" is the novel Stephen King wrote (in longhand) while recuperating from his near-fatal accident, it easily lends itself to all sorts of psychological interpretations. After all, one of the characters is hit by a car and breaks a hip. To me, the first part of the book comes across as a melting pot of familiar elements from King books: once upon a time there was a group of four boys who were best friends ("The Body"), who become involved in stopping a great evil as adults ("It"), because of a spaceship that has landed in the woods ("The Tommyknockers") and a horrible infection is spreading around ("The Stand"). Fortunately they have some psychic ability ("The Dead Zone") that will help them not only with the aliens but also with the psycho running the government operation ("Firestarter"). For good measure, throw in literary homages to the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and "Alien" with a generous twist of "The X-Files," while keeping in mind that not everybody gets out alive in a Stephen King novel, and you have the general picture of what "Dreamcatcher" is about.

The four friends--Joe "Beaver" Clarendon, Pete Moore, Henry Devlin and Gary Jones--are bound together in a way that they do not even suspect. Beaver is an inventive curser who owns a cabin in the Maine woods where the group gathers for the last time, Pete can find lost car keys or anything else when he puts his mind to it, Henry is a suicidal shrink who has a tendency to lash out at patients from time to time, and Jonsey is a college professor who just "knows" when students cheat on exams. The common link in their lives is Duddits (but I am not letting that particular cat out of the bag--read the book). When Richard McCarthy stumbles out of the woods, dazed and confused, not to mention the worst case of flatulence in the history of civilization, the group has no idea that they are on the edge of the end of the world as we know it.

"Dreamcatcher" is not a great Stephen King book and even while it rehashes some familiar elements once all the pieces are in place the guy knows how to tell a story. The idea that the right people are in the right place at the right time can come across as either heavy-handed coincidence or another instantiation of King's faith in the hand of the divine. Certainly, it does not work as seamlessly as it does in "The Stand." Be warned: this book contains some of the grossest scenes King has ever created (i.e., do not read parts of this book while eating). This is not a book for King neophytes, but for his fans. In the final analysis, the important thing is the man is up and writing again.

Critics jokingly refer to King's "loggorhea", his ability to churn out several lengthy tomes of new material each year, but the underlying implication is that this is one of the signs of his greatness. Pardon me for dissenting, but when every other novel (and sometimes several in a row) are of as poor quality as "Dreamcatcher" maybe it's time to take a laxative and kick off the shoes for awhile.

This book is cookie cutter King at his worst. Not only does he bite heavily from other writers and filmmakers, constantly quoting other superior works that deal with similar themes and plot elements, but he's guilty also of ripping off his own material. We have shipwrecked aliens that use mind manipulation techniques to control humans (Tommyknockers), recurring flashbacks to life altering events in the characters' childhood (It), an intellectual infant who turns out to hold the key to everything (too many books to count)... the list goes on. Unfortunately so does the book. I suppose it's King's matter-of-fact storytelling that makes some fans feel every word that spills out of his typewriter is priceless, but it's rather obvious to the more objective reader that very little he's churned out in the past 10-15 years (at least) couldn't use some judicious editing. Most of the back story in "Dreamcatcher" is mildly diverting but not at all necessary. Not to mention it smacks of that old "Moby Dick" ploy of heightening the suspense by tossing in chapters unrelated to the current narrative at key moments. Problem is, Melville employed this technique with expertise and finesse, rarely overstaying his welcome, whereas you get the impression with "Dreamcatcher" that King just doesn't have much of a plot to work with and is padding out the opening segments with excess exposition in a vain attempt to achieve some sort of balance with the later parts of the book. This "balancing" means the novel takes over 300 pages to really get going.

I hate to even expand too much farther on my thoughts here, since most people reading this review will probably be diehard Stephen King fans and the ensuing carpal tunnel syndrome will be all for naught, but when that "4 out of 162 people found this review helpful" eventually appears above the byline I want to make sure I've earned the right to protest (after all, rating a review is not supposed to be whether you agree with the writer's assessment, but rather how well they've elucidated their opinion and given someone who hasn't read the book an idea of what they might expect).

So what else do we have here? First of all, as others have already mentioned, King's penchant for namechecking pop culture icons and including snatches of classic rock tunes in his work used to be cute and quirky, but after thirty years of publishing it's now only indicative of his inability to get up off his laurels and try something fresh.

Furthermore, though King has long been known for his realistic portrayals of children (particularly teenagers), he also has a tendency to take advantage of their youthful uncertainty to make them do things that would seem plausible to an adult. In "Dreamcatcher", the pivotal event in the lead characters' life comes when, as 8th graders, they come across some high school bullies tormenting a mentally disabled kid and intervene. That in and of itself is not all that unbelievable, but the fact that they befriend this kid (Duddits for those keeping score) for life seems like an act of charity unbefitting these capricious youths. I say this because, frankly, Duddits as written is not all that endearing a character. I'm sure his enthusiasm and baby talk were meant to be cute, but instead he comes off as a complete caricature that is bordering on offensive in and of itself. The bottom line is he's portrayed as a challenged individual that would be more likely to be tolerated for his inadequacies than embraced as a joy to be around. Furthermore, I'm getting a little sick of these "innocence as salvation" motifs in King's work, but if it had to continue here he could have at least fleshed out the whole telepathy aspect a bit more, maybe explore the possibility that Duddits' mental deficiency is tied in with his telepathic abilities, etc. And speaking of fleshing out character arcs, one character's drinking problem is mentioned repeatedly but only serves to force him into making one dumb decision that helps to drive the plot forward (deus ex machina, anyone?). Another character's accident the previous year is introduced as a psychically tramautic event but only gives King an excuse to introduce the element of intrusive thoughts before the aliens swoop in and give them something of their own to think about.

I could go on but I'm held to 1000 words and I've gotta be getting close. Hopefully I've managed to convey the depth of inadequacies in this book without beating anyone over the head, but the various levels of failings in "Dreamcatcher" do warrant more than a brief "thumbs up/down" synopsis, especially in light of King's reputation and prior body of work. I'm sure he'll bounce back (and forth), but in the meantime he might consider the idea that not everything he sits down to write needs to see the light of day. There's another book entitled "The Lost Writings of Stephen King" that I was perusing recently, and I noticed that the lion's share of unpublished fiction was either written in his younger, pre-published days or in those first 5-10 years of semi-stardom, when his work was judged strictly by it's quality and not just because it had King's name on the cover.

Like quite a few other Stephen King books, (e.g. "Christine", "Needful Things", "The Tommyknockers", "Desperation" and even "Misery"), the story starts off with life going on as normal. We go from there to an uneasy feeling that not everything's as it should be. Then things start to get slightly skewed with the protagonists feeling just a little nervous. They don't know exactly what's wrong, but something's not right. Finally, all hell breaks loose and you are left with no doubt that you have just passed into Stephen King's realm, and through all the unreality, you still get the faint glimmer that this impossible situation just could be possible. We're faced with aliens in the woods, a possible threat to humanity and average guys who, on the surface, aren't really equipped for the fight.

You will probably want to read this book if: - You're a Stephen King fan who really enjoyed The Tommyknockers. - You want to read a new explanation for all of those supposed UFO sightings over the years. -You enjoy epic, save-the-world stories that, let's face it, could never happen - could they?

You probably won't want to read this book if: - You didn't enjoy The Tommyknockers. - You like the action at a sustained fast-pace. The book does tend to lose momentum mid-way through. - You have a thing about profanity.

Although the story is rather formulaic, this formula is the reason I read Stephen King books.

Dreamcatcher may be one of the most well written novels Stephen King has ever published. From a literary standpoint, it cannot be easily topped as a modern telling of horrors both internal and external. I've been reading him for years and can think of no other novel so perfect and stylish syntactically. He mentions that he wrote the first draft longhand and maybe that's the difference. Whatever the reason, Dreamcatcher stands as a shining example of his adept knowledge of prose.

Most people compare all Stephen King books to one of two of his previous works. They either set the plumb line at The Stand or It. There are a few fringe non-conformists who choose The Shining or Salem's Lot or (in my case) Christine. For many, his books are either better or worse than those two. I try not to do that; though, as I admitted parenthetically, no one is perfect. For those who do, I'll say that this book is no better than any I've mentioned.

That's not to say it's bad. It isn't. It's fantastic - sort of an R or NC-17 rated (depending on the MPAA's stand on flatulence) X-Files. The premise is intriguing and well thought out - though there are a few wholes in the "why didn't they just do this" category. The thematic threads and persistent patterns weave brilliantly through the novel to create a beautiful, if not slightly bloated tome that any author could be proud of. Can Stephen King? I think so. Considering he wrote the lion's share of it after his accident, he ought to be damn proud. It's a fantastic story and I'm glad he told it. It's not a story that had to be told and I don't know how important it is to the benefit of man, but it made me happy to read it. And isn't happiness - from the instant-gratifying smoker to the planning financier - what it's all about?

I'm not going to give any plot away, but I will say this book needs to be finished once it's begun. I don't know if I've ever read a more subtle twist ending than when I read the final pages of Dreamcatcher. Sort of like sailing to England and washing ashore on Mars. Truly left field, I promise.

Is it King's best work? No. I prefer to think that his best work is yet to come.

For my money, Hearts in Atlantis is King's best work, narrowing out Pet Semetary, the Dark Tower series and the first half of It by a little bit. Dreamcatcher isn't quite as good as those, but it's still a good read (above all else, King is one of the best storytellers alive).

Things I liked: * The kids in his story are utterly believeable - he certainly hasn't lost touch with his childhood.

* As always, his references to other stories are clever in-jokes (and having this story set partially in Derry, I'd have been disappointed if there weren't any at all)

* The interior battle between Mr. Gray and Jonesy was VERY well written - another thing King can capture quite believably is the not-quite-reality of dreams.

* (very minor spoiler alert) The evolution of Mr. Gray from an alien 'intelligence' into something with human emotions/desires (bacon!) was nicely and subtly done.

* One thing I have always liked about King's work (and my wife doesn't) are his little sidepaths he takes his story down. The little ancedotes that let us get into his characters heads are essential, I think, to character development (my wife thinks they distract from the plot).

* Duddits was a fantastic character - even though he's essentially the same guy as the Wolf in Talisman, and Tom "M-O-O-N spells moon" Cullen from the Stand, it's a character I really like. Sort of like an old friend popping up unexpectedly :-).

Things I didnt like (and they're minor): * It reminded me a little of Tommyknockers, which I didn't enjoy at all. That has nothing to do with this book, actually, but I still don't forgive him for that one.

* Same thing with the last 200 pages of It, which was an absolutely fantastic story until he dragged in all that Spider and Turtle crap.

* His military people are very basic goons - even Kurtz isn't particularly well-drawn. The most significant insight we're given into his personality is that he never dreams and is thus 'unsane'. That's a wonderfully evocative way of describing the character, but I would've liked more of that. I suppose that King wanted to keep him sort of unknowable (we're frightened by what we don't understand, which is why Dr. Lecter was so scary in Silence of the Lambs, and so ridiculous in Hannibal when Thomas Harris gave him a back story). However, for Kurtz, it just didn't gel for me - I just got the impression he was a cranky military asshole, not some sort of insane, random monster.

* Same thing with the hunters and other victims/refugees in the paddock of Blue Area - very poor sketched out (although, admittedly, they really didn't need much character depth). Still, it would've been nice to get a little back story on a handful of them - maybe follow them through to get a little perspective (I don't think it would've distracted from the story too much).

* The only military character who got a little depth was Owen, and that's mostly because conflicted characters *have* to be given depth, or they make no sense. That said, I actually ended up liking him, but I would've liked to know more about him (in addition to the platter-breaking ancedote).

In the end, like almost all of King's books, I highly recommend it, flaws and all - it's an entertaining read, and will make you think a little bit :-)

In my opinion, horror works best when it takes ordinary people, in ordinary situations, and introduces unexplainable events. It dosen't work when the unexplainable is just too laughable...or in this case nauseating, to get frightened about. I have read nearly all of King's works, and lately he seems to be severely running out of ideas, thus the need to reintroduce some of his old ones (i.e. the aliens in the Tommyknockers who affected people by having them lose their teeth).

The book started out just fine by introducing us to the four characters who came together on a fateful day that they saved another student from harm. But just as quickly, the aliens arrive and our characters start to die! King then introduces new, much less interesting characters, and the book begins to spiral down into a kind of psychological morass of who's really in who's head.........BORING!

All of King's bad habits are here, the impossably flawed main character who sits helplessly doing nothing for most of the book, the long charactor digressions, mostly while in the middle of conversations, many of which go on for pages, the childlike fascination with bodily functions. I remember reading where King once said that if he couldn't horrify his readers, then he'd go for the gross-out. Well I didn't lose any sleep reading this mush, but it did leave me feeling sick when I finished....and that's not a good thing.

I'm glad to have "Dreamcatcher" on my bookshelf. If for no other reason than because I was almost sure, two years ago, that there wouldn't ever be such a thing as a new Stephen King novel. I remember seeing Stephen King and his wife Tabitha interviewed on tv the fall after his near-fatal accident, and his spirits were so low, it really didn't look like he would ever be writing again. The gloomy feel of that interview, coupled with the Bartelby-"I prefer not to" theme running through the end of "Bag of Bones" made me worry that that might be his last full length novel.

Which made me sad, because I've been one of King's Constant Readers since my twelfth birthday, when I finished "Pet Sematary". I've been with him through the good years and the bad. The occasional rambling blahs and the cherished moments of pure transcendent bliss, like at the end of "Low Men in Yellow Coats" from "Heart in Atlantis," where I simultaneously cried my eyes out and felt a surging thankfulness for being alive and being in the world, and having that book in my hands at that moment. A perfect moment.

For that moment, and many moments like it over the years, I consider Stephen King a good friend. I didn't like the idea of not hearing the voice of my friend ever again.

Especially when his last book, the collection "Hearts in Atlantis," contained some of the best writing he'd ever done. It left me starving for more great Stephen King. Any Stephen King, really.

So I'm extremely happy to still be hearing his voice, to be reading his words. It makes the world a better place to be in.

But I'll have to say that "Dreamcatcher" isn't nearly as good as the brilliant "Hearts in Atlantis." It's not bad--I'd rank it somewhere around the middle of his works. In my opinion, it's much better than "Insomnia" and most of the post-"It" pre-"Green Mile" stuff. There are some great characters here, some moving moments, and some places where I really felt a bit of that old familiar surge of wonder.

However, at 700+ pages, "Dreamcatcher" is much longer than it needs to be, and it's bogged down with some clunky sub-plots and some routine-ish characters. I will say, though, that despite its excess length, there is some enjoyable momentum as the story reaches its climax.

There are some great flashes of light here, as well. Enough to catch you off guard, and make you glad you came out to play. But they're just not sustained enough or consistent enough to engage you the way that King's best books do--"Hearts in Atlantis," "It," "The Shining," and "The Stand," to name a few.

First let me say I love Stephen King. I'm pretty sure I've read everything he has written. I've seen most movies he's been involved with. But I have to tell you....

Coming from Stephen King, this book is a huge let down. I am definitely more of a fan of the "old" King.I admit I haven't absolutely loved alot of his more recent works. But to be brutally honest: this book [stinks].

The plot is classic King. In a nutshell, four childhood friends are hunting in Northern Maine. Aliens land. Shadowy government organizations get involved. Our four heroes do battle with the aliens and the government and save the world and themselves. If this turns you off, you should forget reading anything by Stephen King. Pick up an Alice Walker novel instead.

"Dreamcatcher" throws alot of characters at you. Despite the fact that it goes on for 600+ pages, there is precious little character development. I found myself caring very little about any of them. King also uses alot of pyschological imagery that is hard to follow. In my opinion, most of it is unnecessary. He also uses alot of symbolism relating to dreamcatchers, which frankly, seems like a stretch. It's almost like he added it as an afterthought to the final draft. After reading his notes at the end of the novel, I'm convinced that's exactly what he did.

If you've never read anything by Stephen King, don't start with "Dreamcatcher". "The Stand" and "It" are infintely superior novels. "The Tommyknockers" is a more lucid tale featuring aliens. "Christine" and "Cujo" are very good shorter novels. In his more recent books, "Bag of Bones" and "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" are almost as good.

If you're a Stephen King die-hard, you're going to read "Dreamcatcher" no matter what I tell you. Remember what I said about the library!

After hearing so much about King's first post-accident novel, I was anxious to pick up Dreamcatcher. After all, the book jacket said: "Not since The Stand has King crafted a story of such astonishing range--and never before has he contended with the heart of darkness so frankly." Sounds good, doesn't it?

Well, don't believe everything you read. The Stand is considered by many to be a classic work of fiction--arguably well-respected and long-remembered. Unfortunately, Dreamcatcher isn't going to be one of those books that "stick" the way The Stand did. It's a mediocre novel--at least for Stephen King--and a forgettable one.

King's strength lies in his characters. He doesn't disappoint when he introduces us to four long-time friends: Henry, Jonesy, Beaver and Peter. It doesn't take King long to make us care about these guys, and to show us that, although their lives seem fairly mundane, they're far from ordinary.

Despite some likeable characters, Dreamcatcher seems a bit manipulative. The character of Duddits, a boy-man with Down's syndrome, feels like a tool to hook us into adoring the four men (the book's main characters) who were kind to him as Junior High-aged kids.

All the X-Files imagery didn't work for me, either. Perhaps it's that we're overloaded with media images of little gray men with big, onyx-colored eyes, or maybe it's just because news of UFO's and foo lights in the sky seems, well, old hat. Either way, Dreamcatcher had a sort of been-there done-that feel.

I expect a good Stephen King book to hold me captive so that I just can't put it down. I want to be kept awake reading past 3 a.m. (I believe I read in an interview somewhere that this is a goal of King's--to keep his readers up nights, not because they're frightened, but because they just can't put his book down.) I read Dreamcatcher a chapter or two at a time, and then put it back on the bedside table. I may have kept nibbling at the bait, but I was never truly hooked.

Let us start with the end, shall we? Stephen King writes in his author's note that he is grateful to have been able to write this novel at all. Given that he almost died, that would be an absolute truth. We, as faithful readers, are also glad he was able to write this novel. The fact that it is one of his worst works yet should be a moot point.

Dreamcatcher is not a good book. It is not completely terrible, but there are so many things wrong with it that it might as well be. It took me almost two weeks to finish it; I can safely say that in the 16 years I have been reading King faithfully, it has never taken me less than a few days to devour one of his works, even when I was under ten years old. Dreamcatcher is ultimately a long, tedious read, one that becomes boring, repetitive, and derivative almost at once.

The story itself starts out promising; four men, childhood friends, join for their annual hunting trip in the woods. Things immediately go crazy with the arrival of a lost man, sick and gassy, and from thereforth the story explodes. Alien landings, intestine-invading creatures, telepathy, military commanders, down-syndrome, murder, car (or Humvee) chases, and ravenous cravings for bacon abound. The story is a mish-mash of several ideas that never quite add up.

King's strongest point has always been his characters, but with all the "action" going on here, we never quite get enough of that. We touch down on several different people, back-pedal a bit to witness a few scenes from several pasts, but not enough to satisfy what we need. To center around a group of men who have a meaningful bond since childhood, King does not focus enough on this point to make us care for the story. It is easy to start to like Jonesy, Henry, Beaver, Pete and Duddits, and want more of them, but King simply doesn't give it up.

Dreamcatchers is one of King's weakest works. Many compare it to Tommyknockers, and I agree. If you didn't like that one much, don't expect to get more from this latest work. One can only hope that his next novel is better. It can't really get much worse.