In the early eighties, Stephen King and Peter Straub embarked on the ultimate coming-of-age tale. The Talisman easily solidified the collaboration's super status. Then, nearly two decades later, they returned to their literary roots. Black House portrays a different Jack Sawyer, now a semi-retired Los Angeles detective. He won't remain there much longer, though. By requesting his expertise in a major case, a colleague-turned-friend leads him to Wisconsin, where his life will be irrevocably altered...in numerous ways. Black House is very different from its predecessor. One of the most significant changes is the unique writing style. Almost everything's shown by way of what I like to call "an eagle's eye" view. This can be somewhat difficult and frustrating to adjust to, and I completely understand that critique. It's also a little slow at first. We're not actually reunited with Jack until the first 60 or so pages. My first time through the Coulee Country, I struggled with it a bit, too. But it being a King novel, I knew a big payoff was inevitable. And maintaining his "I'm retired" mindset, Jack is reluctant to aid the local police investigation of a string of grisly serial killings. It's only until a young boy is abducted that Jack agrees to assist the authorities. With the addition of a handful of eccentric characters (including the ever positive, delightful, and beloved Henry Lyden,) we're given recurring appearances of one or more characters from The Talisman. One new addition, named Charles Burnside, alludes to a less than pleasant childhood, leaving something to be desired. I wanted to know more. For instance, how exactly was he mistreated (presuming, of course, that was the case,) what were his parents like? Who were his parents? What events helped form the individual shown throughout the novel? More importantly, can he be empathized with, knowing what we do about him? Should we be expected to? I felt next to nothing for him, whatsoever. Unless my utter abhorrence of him is put into consideration. That particular emotion resonates in every fiber of my being. But if I may return briefly to the aforementioned alluding, my heart does go out to him. Though all too fleeting... How about his time in Chicago? He displays an abundance of scorn which tells the reader of his pent-up resentment. What specifically happened there, though? That being said, I love the duality of ol' "burn, burn's" voices and/or accents. (In general, it's always a pleasure to find elements of duality in fiction, but in this case, I think King and Straub pulled it off exceptionally well.) Reminiscent of some nefarious-yet equally skilled- ventriloquist, the sequence baffles the mind in every sense of the word. Additionally, I think I probably would have been more impacted if our killer had been less supernatural and more human. Why do I emphasize this point? Because, as of late, I've come to realize that villains who are more less fantastical (Rose Madder's Norman Daniels or The Shining's Jack Torrance, to name a few) have a much larger affect on me. I almost wish that the killer's identity had been withheld a bit longer. I believe if they'd done so, it would have created a much more suspenseful, biting-your-nails quality. Then again, the story's pretty dark and creepy. King and Straub probably weren't very interested in its mystery; contrarily, this story is very horror-orientated. All throughout, a recurring theme is explored in interesting way(s:) repressed memories. This literary technique is seen in multiple characters, primarily our protagonist, Jack Sawyer. On a related note, scientific studies indicate that particularly traumatic experiences often result in repression, as a defense mechanism. And speaking personally, I'm a firm believer. I can recall very little of my childhood. I'm not the only one, either. King and Straub said it best: "Amnesia is merciful." Indeed. The final showdown (and the all-important journey toward that end,) felt slightly long-winded, but the psychological aspects almost demand it. As for the battle itself, I am torn. On the one hand, it is quite phenomenal. On the other, there's a comic book quality which renders it somewhat unrealistic. As a result, I'm left with many questions whose answers I'd be interested in learning. Then, due to unforeseen events, Jack is inadvertently transported back to his past, so to speak. By taking their story in this direction, King and Straub present a few very suspenseful closing pages. I was literally holding my anxious breath and hoping for the best. I also realized the depth of my love and admiration for this amazing man. And through certain revelations, things are left open. There simply MUST be a 3rd book!! Jack's story isn't complete.
The Talisman by SK and PS was one of the A-list books of my childhood. Part was just the presence of those two authors, but that was always just the entry point. Talisman was a great tale, masterfully told. I recently re-read it (one of about ten books from childhood/teen years not read since that I'm re-reading this year to see how they worked and how they stood up), and bottom line is that it stood up. Yes, it had a few groaners in there, and some stilted dialogue (okay, A LOT of that...especially what I call King's dialogue pun-itis...where the characters begin speaking in King's very funny but not always appropriate to character voice...which simultaneously makes me groan but also laugh, sometimes out loud, and forgive him, because he's funny and clearly having a good time). But yeah, it stood up. What a story, what an adventure, what incredible imagination on display. Likewise, a true blending of King and Straub. As said before, I'm a fan of both, so I truly appreciated this. You honestly didn't know where one left off and the other picked up. You could guess, and it was a lot of fun to guess, but you never really knew. Like trying to deconstruct a Lennon/McCartney song, and then later learning who really wrote what: sometimes it seemed completely obvious, and sometimes you were gobsmacked at the truth (I've been wanting to use that word all week). Black House came out in 2001 and I immediately bought it was behind in reading (go figure) so leant it to a friend and then life moved on and here we are twelve years later. I'm glad I read it. And when/if the promised third one comes out, I'm sure I'll read that one, too. But this novel will never be connected to The Talisman to me in that A-list kind of way. Okay, so what was the problem? And let me start by saying I generally do not write bad reviews, even on Goodreads, not overtly...but let me have a little fun and pick on these two masters. I'm sure they'll survive it. :-)I'll start small by saying the voices didn't blend as well this time. In The Talisman, SK and PS were singing in perfect harmony. In BH, it's not so much that you know for sure who is writing at any given moment, but it feels more jarring, less polished. For instance, there was a good handful of Maine voices coming out of Wisconsin characters. Know what I mean? I mean that figuratively and literally. "Dooryard?" Maine. Which is just a small thing leading up to me saying a bigger thing, and one that I'm sure I'll get heat for, because I'm sure I'm in the minority, but here it is, just gotta call it like I feel it: I don't like the addition of King's Dark Tower universe into this. Actually, let me rephrase that: in general as I would be here I'm usually a big fan of overlapping work. I do it myself. I like interconnectedness. I love easter eggs, even really big ones. It makes perfect sense logically and creatively that this tale has connections with Dark Tower universe. But what's on display here isn't a connection. It was a hijacking. A violent hijacking. We went from the standalone world of The Talisman directly deep into Dark Tower universe, and I felt like I'd been thrown out of a plane. BH reads like a corporate takeover. Yeah, the logo is the same, and a lot looks familiar. But all of a sudden everyone is talking completely differently and you don't know why and the old-timer sitting in the corner is just shaking his head and sighing. That's what this book felt like to me. An overlap with Dark Tower? Makes sense, and would have been fun. But this was a kidnapping, and I resented it.Wow. That was quite a rant. But I feel much better having said it.What else? What did I like? Well, it was great seeing Jack Sawyer again. No question. Henry Leyden was a great character. The sadistic joy with which Burny was written was a whole lot of fun to read. So...good stuff there.But you know what was missing? The Territories. And I want them back.A last sidenote: I think this is the longest review I've ever written on here, so I guess I'm all worked up about this. It's interesting to see what really gets someone's blood pounding.
What do You think about Black House (2003)?
From page one, through to the final sentence, this book had me Hooked!Jack sawyer is now a man, and a sexy one at that."Black House" is the second collaboration between King and Straub, and is the sequel to their first novel, "The Talisman".If you've read Talisman and if you're one of King's Constant Readers Black House answers lots of questions like what happened next to the Talisman's characters? who or what is the Crimson King? and it also, Tantalisingly raises lots of new ones, primarily relating to King's Dark Tower series!However, if you're new to Stephen King, don't worry Black House is also rewarding in its own right, which keeps the reader turning pages as ex-cop Jack Sawyer races to find a young boy kidnapped by a serial killer. Sawyer must fight his personal demons, work with the town's residents and challenge a few bad guys (from this world and others), if he is to save the victim (turns out there could be a lot more at stake too...)Set in a small Winsconsin town, the novel features some superb characterisation and truly great narration from both legend authors. As a sequel, I believe "Black House" is superior to its predecessor it's not as firmly set in the fantasy genre. the book has a great plot and fast paced storyline. just like it's 1st one. King and Straub will have all There readers desperate for more!
—LittleBookCove
I hate that the first thing you see of a review is the number of stars it's given. Someone's feeling about a book is not easily reduced to a five-point scale. And even once that is done, how do I know what five stars means to you? How do you know what five stars means to me? For me, a five star book is a book that I believe is worth the time and energy you're going to spend reading it. If, (and this is key) you're into that sort of book. (Horror, Mystery, Fantasy, Hardcore Gothic Gypsy Steampunk.) A six-star book, is a book that I believe is worth your time and energy even if it's *not* the sort of thing you're into. (Generally speaking, this is the sort of book I'll give a promotional blurb for.) Unfortunately, there isn't a six star option here on goodreads. Generally speaking, a four star book is one that irritates me or disappoints me in one or two moderate ways. A three star book has several moderate irritations, or one big one, or or something that was irritating all the way through. Keep in mind that I can be extraordinarily critical of my books. Things that irritate me might not ever even show up on your mental radar. Further complicating things is the fact that sometimes I'm willing to give a book a bonus star due to extenuating circumstances. If the writer is doing something new and exciting, for example. If they're trying something really difficult or if it's their first book, I'll often give an extra star. So. To the point. Did I enjoy this book? Yes. I didn't know there was a sequel to the Talisman until I saw this in an airport a week ago. I enjoyed reading it. Held my attention. Pleased me with its craft. Is it for everyone? No. So here's the breakdown. ** What I personally liked about this book:It was told in present tense, and done well. Not a lot of folks can pull that off. The narrator was almost an active character, almost like a tour guide through the story. He/she speaks directly to the reader at points, saying things like, "Let's see what's going on over at the old mill..." Again, it worked well. Extra points for that. Also, it was set in Wisconsin. Which is kinda fun for me. **What you might like about this book:Everything that you normally like about Steven King's stuff. Interesting characters. Alternate worlds. Nice tie-in with the Talisman and the Dark Tower stuff. Nice description. Nice special effects. Nice tension and suspense. Nice characterization. **What you might dislike about this book:It's a large, rambly story. A lot of the book is spent in atmospherics, developing non-essential characters, and digressions, rather than action and moving the story forward. The Talisman was a cool adventure story. A young boy goes out, explores a strange world on a quest to save his mom. This book isn't that. There's no real adventure. They don't even get into the other world until the last 80 pages or so. Children in danger. (I'm sensitive to this, having a kid now myself. It can be a dealbreaker for some folks.) Extreme potentially even gratuitous violence and gore. (But again, we're in the horror genre, so....) So there you go. Isn't that better than some arbitrary number of stars? Now you can make your own choice about whether you want to read it. Or not. It's up to you.
—Patrick
When I grabbed this book from the library shelf I wasn't aware that there was the prequel, The Talisman. And since I haven't read The Dark Tower series, many references to it were lost to me.However, I still enjoyed the book. It was veeery creepy and I couldn't fall asleep the first night when I was reading it. The gruesome details and suspense were killing me, however, there wasn't really any mystery. I knew from the beginning who the killer was and I also knew that it wasn't just that person's doing.The supernatural or the last part was a bit boring to me and that's why it got 4 stars.
—FreeNightFalls
