The Talisman by
Stephen King
My rating:
3 of 5 stars
I don't know. I like the story, as I almost always do with Stephen King's books, but there are some aspects of the writing I really hate. I don't know if it's his upbringing or just the way he writes, but sometimes it just sounds so terrible to me. "Put some bop on the radio, Jackie-boy" is what Jack's mother says to him, and while I can imagine that someone, somewhere, has said something like this, it sounds unbearably cornball to me. On top of that, he can't make the villains seem threatening to save his life. "Sunlight" Gardner is a parody of a televangelist. It's not that I have a problem of him making fun of the Jimmy Swaggart-Robert Tilton types, it's that he doesn't do it well. I know King is unfamiliar with evangelicals, but the only way you would know Gardner is charismatic is because King says no, not because he comes across that way.
Another problem I had with the book overall is that I have no idea why Jack's mom keeps running from Sloat. Why didn't she just hire another lawyer and appoint him guardian over the investments that would become Jack's when she died? Why didn't she go to a hospital? It's not like they weren't rich. On top of that, Jack's mom is just annoying. Pretending there's nothing wrong and running away! Come on, lady, that's no way to take care of your kid.
I don't really have a problem with much else, except it's seriously awkward to keep hearing "white" equated with good and "black" equated with evil. Sure, I know it's been done before (and is a recurring theme in King's fantasy) but when he says "the good, the
white" as if the two are automatically the same thing just makes me want to shout out that it's a super-hackneyed cliche.
Oh yeah, and Parker doesn't really sound believable as a Southern black man. I know King didn't grow up with too many people of color around (I mean, Maine, really) so I don't know why he thought he could write a believable voice for one. Not that he's not a sympathetic character, and on the side of good, it's just he also sounds really corny and makes me cringe a bit.
Other than that, I really don't have a problem with the story itself. Kind of a modern hero's journey in the classic mold (as Joseph Campbell described it) set mostly in modern America but sometimes in a fantastical world. The more human and real King keeps it, the better. That's what he's exceptionally good at.
I'd still recommend it to most King fans, and possibly fantasy fans depending on what kind of fantasy they like. But there are definitely some folks for whom the drawbacks will be too overwhelming.
View all my reviews
Over the last two weeks I had the time to read two science fiction novels, the well-regarded Farthing by Jo Walton and Jon Scalzi's Hugo-nominated Old Man's War. Actually, it would be inaccurate to call Farthing strictly science fiction, as it occupies that odd genre of "alternative history" which is somehow considered science fiction when written by a science fiction author, but merely fiction when written by a non-science fiction author (Walton falls into the former category.) Farthing describes in careful detail the goings-on of a set of English aristocratic elite who, after the invasion of France by Nazi Germany in 1940, were instrumental in negotiating peace with Hitler (a "peace with honor" as the described by the "Farthing set", the elites for whom the novel is named.) Reading the book I found striking parallels to Phillip Roth's The Plot Against America (reviewed here by myself) and in fact, there is even one passage where a reference is made to "President Lindbergh", perhaps a nod to Roth by Walton herself. The characters of both novels could easily be operating in the same universe, as the heart of the story is a secret plot by members of the Farthing set to subvert the British government and seize power for themselves and the novel is laced with the sort of dark suspicion and paranoia that is so essential to novels of political conspiracies. However, the perspective of the novel differs from Roth's, as in Plot the characters find themselves attempting to live out semi-normal lives against the backdrop of America's drift towards fascism, while the characters in Farthing are central and occupy important places in the dark plot. The novel revolves around two characters, a wealthy young woman and member of the Farthing set who rebels against her family to marry a Jew (none-too welcome in Britain at the time) and a police inspector who is called in to investigate deeply suspicious murder. The resolution of the novel revolves around the choices they make in the face of what appears to be an unstoppable plot. Frankly, I found the end to be dissatisfying. Not for how Walton chose to conclude it, but the manner in which she did so. The ending felt rushed compared to detail with which she portrayed the peculiarities and eccentricities of the members of the Farthing set in the early part of the novel, and I finished feeling as if the book had ended too soon, or that a sequel would necessarily follow in short order (I know of no plans for one.) Nonetheless, I can definitely recommend this novel for anyone who enjoys historical fiction or alternative histories, especially the kind where no one actually takes the field of battle. 
Old Man's War was considerably more disappointing. Being a Hugo nominee, I expected from the novel something along the lines of the hard, realistic and grim military science fiction of Joe Halderman and The Forever War. Far from it. Instead, Scalzi follows in the vein of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers; lots of fighting and little character development, but even less political philosophy than Heinlein. In fact, Scalzi recognizes the debt to Heinlein in the acknowledgments, but Scalzi's work is less inspired by Starship Troopers than derivative of it. Scalzi takes an interesting premise-the idea that upon the age of 75, citizens of Earth can trade in their old bodies for new ones in exchange for joining a colonial military charged with defending humankind throughout the known galaxy-and does little with it. The main character is interesting and likeable enough, but I'm not sure Scalzi actually has any sense of what it would be like for Earth's elderly citizens to suddenly become rampaging interstellar warriors. In other words, the idea that people old in spirit but young in body might act differently than people who are simply young in spirit and young in body, seems lost on Scalzi; either he doesn't think they'd be that different, or he didn't know how to convey it. Second, although Scalzi raises the moral dimensions of protracted, unforgiving conflict with sentient alien races that's premised on an amoral "eat or be eaten" mindset that both humans and the aliens share alike, he then quickly dismisses these considerations. At one point when the main character experiences a mental breakdown (following the literal squashing of members of a race who are only a few inches tall) and begins to question the morality of simply killing other sentient beings indiscriminately, he's told that "everyone" goes through it and gets over it. Sure enough he does. Despite the obvious intelligence, compassion and humor the character possesses, he-and everyone else in the novel-come to think nothing of obliterating aliens simply to take their planets away from them for human occupation. I understand that not everyone writes a war novel so that they may opine upon the grim bitterness of war. But our age is far too cynical for war novels to be so dismissive of the immoralities of war, and novels that did so in earlier times were merely covering up an experience that has probably always been central to war; the questioning of a war's premise, or the rejection of war altogether, by those who nonetheless continue to fight it. 
