The Dead Zone by Stephen King

I consider myself a superficial fan of Stephen King - not because I don't like his stuff, but because I don't think I can call myself a "big fan" when the number of his works I've read can be counted on one hand.  I like him for The Shining, The Stand, and The Dead Zone, for the New England identity and persona of his stories, and our shared love for the Boston Red Sox.  If that's not the definition of superficial, then I need to get a new dictionary. 

I'm not a horror junkie and I don't like being scared.  This should, right away, steer me clear of Stephen King.  I actively avoid some of his most well-known stories (Carrie, IT, Pet Sematary) because I'm just not interested, thank you very much.  I don't watch the movies made of his books, at least not before I head to Wikipedia to check out the spoilers so I know I can handle them.  That's why I really appreciate when King deviates from standard horror and goes a little more subtle.  And I read and re-read the heck out of that kind of book.  Case in point: The Dead Zone.

I found my copy of The Dead Zone on a "free books" rack outside a bookshop in Clarksburg.  It's in the condition often described as "well-loved" and sometimes "ratty."  I've read it before - my parents have an impressive King collection at home - but it's always nice to pick up a good old book for another run-through.  This time around, I was struck by the ordinariness of the horror elements.  It's not the kind of book that makes you scared to turn out the lights - it's the kind that makes you shudder and thank God you don't have the terrible talent the protagonist suffers.  If you read The Dead Zone and can get through it without seriously thinking about the implications, you're reading it wrong. 

Some other thoughts.  This book was originally published in 1979; thirty-two years later, King published 11/22/63.  King claims he had the idea for the latter novel in 1971, and it's clear he couldn't avoid shaping certain elements of it during the writing of The Dead Zone.  It's that old chestnut that every sci-fi writer must address at some point: If you could hop in a time machine and travel to 1932, would you try to kill Hitler?  It doesn't have to be Hitler in every scenario.  In The Dead Zone, it's a madman politician with the potential for causing a worldwide nuclear holocaust.  In 11/22/63, it's Lee Harvey Oswald.  Without revealing any spoilers (though really, it's been long enough, you ought to know what happened by now), I want to comment on the similarities and differences between the books. 

Johnny Smith of The Dead Zone has a psychic flash predicting the dreadful future and must decide whether he should, or even if he can, prevent it.  In 11/22/63, the future has happened and passed, and President John F. Kennedy is assassinated, with all that the tragedy entailed; it's a matter of Jake Epping trying to change the past with the foreknowledge gained by experience.  There is no indication for Johnny whether his choice was the right one, except his other psychic experiences that proved to be completely valid.  In the case of preventing JFK's assassination, as with many other stories that tackle the Hitler Question, Jake discovers that hindsight is never simply 20-20.  The two novels point out that there is a difference between changing history by being in it and changing history after it has become set.  That's another reason, I think, why The Dead Zone is a horror story and 11/22/63 is an alternate historical fiction (how's that for a unique genre).  It's an adventure to travel in time, but we never realize that we're always traveling in time - we only travel in one direction.

More thoughts.  I don't watch the movies made out of King's works, but I watched this one.  A young Christopher Walken is incredible in the role of Johnny Smith, and Martin Sheen scares the crap out of me as the crazy politician Greg Stillson.  As I read the book this time, though, I can't help but picture Johnny as a spitting image of David Tennant as the Doctor.  Come on, a tall gangly man with a terrible responsibility who goes by John Smith?  It's too much to ignore.

Finally, an explanation.  I love talking about the books I read, but most of my friends aren't interested in sitting down and listening to me go on and on.  This blog will be for me to get my thoughts out there, and I don't really care if nobody reads it.