From Wikipedia the online encyclopedia:
Politics during the time influenced King's writing of the story. The corruption in the government was a significant factor in the inspiration of the story. Of this he recalls,
I wrote 'Salem's Lot during the period when the Ervin committee was sitting. That was also the period when we first learned of the Ellsberg break-in, the White House tapes, the connection between Gordon Liddy and the CIA, the news of enemies lists, and other fearful intelligence. During the spring, summer and fall of 1973, it seemed that the Federal Government had been involved in so much subterfuge and so many covert operations that, like the bodies of the faceless wetbacks that Juan Corona was convicted of slaughtering in California, the horror would never end... Every novel is to some extent an inadvertent psychological portrait of the novelist, and I think that the unspeakable obscenity in 'Salem's Lot has to do with my own disillusionment and consequent fear for the future. In a way, it is more closely related to Invasion of the Body Snatchers than it is to Dracula. The fear behind 'Salem's Lot seems to be that the Government has invaded everybody.
I noticed that as well. Henry Petrie's contemptuous dismissal of Nixon as an 'unimaginative little crook with all the finesse of a shoplifter at Woolworth's' comes to mind here.
However, a novel where his politics shows even more is
The Stand, first written three years later. Not that I'm saying that is a bad thing mind you, because I do the same thing in
The Pale Horse, only my politics are a lot different than King's. I am much closer to Tom Clancy. In
The Stand, King portrays the US government and especially the military as bloodthirsty thugs, willing to mow down civilians indiscriminately.
Like I said in another post on this board, in King's world, the government is the enemy; indeed they are who let the virus loose in the first place and they are willing to kill to cover up even when there is no longer anyone around to hide things from. Witness in the novel, Stu's encounter with Elder, (in the mini-series, he was Dietz) whose orders were to kill Stu. In
The Stand, the military were no more than thugs, automatons willing to carry out any orders, no matter how illegal, evil or how pointless the orders were.
In
The Pale Horse, I present the villains as human beings, doing what they do to advance their goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat, an idyllic world in their view, in which there is no more abject poverty, and what they see as the evil of the creation of wealth for others is done away with. The villains in my novel sincerely mean well, seeing their primary duty to (forgive me) destroy that which they profess to love so much in order to save it. In short my villains want what they see as the best for humanity (never mind that they didn't ask people what
they wanted) and are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. In a word, they are Marxist fanatics.
And in
The Pale Horse, I present the US military as caring human beings, not mindless bloodthirsty robots the way they are portrayed in
The Stand.
In short, we both let our politics influence our writing. We just have vastly different political views.
reply
share
elmadman_99
9 years ago
However, a novel where his politics shows even more is The Stand, first written three years later. Not that I'm saying that is a bad thing mind you, because I do the same thing in The Pale Horse, only my politics are a lot different than King's. I am much closer to Tom Clancy. In The Stand, King portrays the US government and especially the military as bloodthirsty thugs, willing to mow down civilians indiscriminately.
Like I said in another post on this board, in King's world, the government is the enemy; indeed they are who let the virus loose in the first place and they are willing to kill to cover up even when there is no longer anyone around to hide things from. Witness in the novel, Stu's encounter with Elder, (in the mini-series, he was Dietz) whose orders were to kill Stu. In The Stand, the military were no more than thugs, automatons willing to carry out any orders, no matter how illegal, evil or how pointless the orders were.
Hi Gary,
You raised a good point as above. Believe it or not what came to my mind was the 1983 movie 'WarGames' directed by John Badham.
At the beginning of the film missile commanders (in charge of launching nukes) are give launch orders by a computer.
The dialogue from Captain Jerry Lawson (John Spencer) is as follows:
Captain Jerry Lawson: Screw the procedure, I want somebody on the goddamn phone before I kill 20 million people!
It later transpires that the launch was a test to see how the commanders would act in a 'real-world' situation.
The character of Lyle (representing the views of the senate) says: 'I’m the one who has to explain to the president why 22% of his missile commanders failed to launch their missiles? What am I supposed to tell him? That 22% isn’t so bad?'
General Beringer (Barry Corbin) then says: 'The men in the silos know what it means to turn those keys, and some of them are just not up to it.'
The point it that it is both counter-intuitive (not to mention inhuman) to take action that will result in the death of so many people, simply because you have received orders from a computer program to do something.
Unfortunately, in the case of nuclear war it is a moot point anyway, the 'margins for error' are already taken into account (i.e. the 22% of commanders who have a conscience) and in the case of M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) it is really, really, a moot point indeed - We are already in possession of enough nuclear weapons to blow ourselves to Mars, not only once abut about three times over.
Now, believe it or not, I actually DIDN'T go 'off topic' there. What that means is that it seems to point to (in this particular case) a fault in King's writing - particularly where 'The Stand' is involved.
As I have said it is counter-intuitive (and inhuman) to simply pick up a weapon and kill someone when ordered to do so.
I don't think for one second that simply giving a person a job title, and a uniform and THEN ordering them to pick up a weapon a indiscriminately kill people will be effective under the auspices of either a uniform, a job-title, or a set of orders.
It is important to remember that 'The Government / The Police / The State' are made up of individuals as well, and people simply being told or ordered to do something - in my opinion anyway - is not a compelling enough reason to have people act like mindless machines and indiscriminately commit mass genocide.
Hence the reason that I think King's writing might be faulted.
This is even more likely to be the case in the exceptional circumstances described in 'The Stand' and in the case of 'Captain Tripps.' The military might well desire a cover-up, but once it becomes clear that 99% of people will be affected (or anything even remotely like 99%) the driving question then becomes: 'Cover-up from what / whom?'
Given enough time there simply won't be anything TO cover-up, or in fact anybody left to cover it up from.
I have seen the movie presentation of 'The Stand' twice (years apart) and read the book once (in 1997) Surely in its gargantuan length and detail this point must have been covered somewhere? Meaning that surely the individuals charged with indiscriminate killing 'under orders' must at some point have revolted against that?
OK, Gary over to you for that bit. I know from previous discussions that you have a lot more detailed knowledge of the book than I do, so I will leave it with you answer that one, I guarantee that you know a lot more about the novel than me.
In The Pale Horse, I present the villains as human beings, doing what they do to advance their goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat, an idyllic world in their view, in which there is no more abject poverty, and what they see as the evil of the creation of wealth for others is done away with. The villains in my novel sincerely mean well, seeing their primary duty to (forgive me) destroy that which they profess to love so much in order to save it. In short my villains want what they see as the best for humanity (never mind that they didn't ask people what they wanted) and are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. In a word, they are Marxist fanatics.
And in The Pale Horse, I present the US military as caring human beings, not mindless bloodthirsty robots the way they are portrayed in The Stand.
Ok, good point. I read the first part of 'The Pale Horse' on Amazon, but have not read the whole thing, so - for the time being at least - you will certainly know more about it than me.
Post with any thoughts.
Cheers.
reply
share
elmadman_99
8 years ago
From 'Amazon.com' (Editorial) Review - by Fiona Webster
Stephen King's second book, 'Salem's Lot (1975)--about the slow takeover of an insular hamlet called Jerusalem's Lot by a vampire patterned after Bram Stoker's Dracula--has two elements that he also uses to good effect in later novels: a small American town, usually in Maine, where people are disconnected from each other, quietly nursing their potential for evil; and a mixed bag of rational, goodhearted people, including a writer, who band together to fight that evil.
Simply taken as a contemporary vampire novel, 'Salem's Lot is great fun to read, and has been very influential in the horror genre. But it's also a sly piece of social commentary. As King said in 1983, "In 'Salem's Lot, the thing that really scared me was not vampires, but the town in the daytime, the town that was empty, knowing that there were things in closets, that there were people tucked under beds, under the concrete pilings of all those trailers. And all the time I was writing that, the Watergate hearings were pouring out of the TV.... Howard Baker kept asking, 'What I want to know is, what did you know and when did you know it?' That line haunts me, it stays in my mind.... During that time I was thinking about secrets, things that have been hidden and were being dragged out into the light."
Interesting stuff...
Cheers for now.
reply
share
elmadman_99
8 years ago
Any thoughts from anyone who has recently read the book?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Cheers for now.
reply
share