When I first picked this up, I had seen the Johnny Depp adaptation of "Secret Window[, Secret Garden]" (the movie cut out the last half of the title) and, though the movie was far from excellent, I realized that there was more to the horror genre and to Stephen King in particular than I had previously thought. This book showed me the light.Since reading this treatise on the genre, I have started actively seeking out more horror fiction than any other type of fiction and write almost exclusively in the genre. The best part of this book are the appendices in the back with excellent recommendations on books to read (not ONE of the novels I've read from that list have been bad) and the good recommendations on movies to watch (some were not to my liking, but they are a good place to start). Everyone should read this book if they are interested in horror or fantasy.This book is a MUST for any reader of horror. Tracing the history from, more or less, where HP Lovecraft left off in his essay on Supernatural Literature, Stephen King describes what it means for a novel/story/movie/etc. to be modern horror. From the moderately suspenseful to the obscenely gory, it's all covered ... up to 1980. And yet, it doesn't feel dated. When talking about these books, King not only treats them like classics that have been around for hundreds of years, but also gets the authors/filmakers themselves to describe their work. All of a sudden, Ramsey Campbell is beside us explaining The Doll That Ate Its Mother followed by King's expert summarization (without giving away too much) and analysis. Even for those who do not enjoy the genre, this book will be illuminating. It's far from scary, after all, it's non-fiction and about as close to a documentary as a book can get, but will lead you to many dark corners that could have you sleeping with the lights on anyway.

Okay. It's difficult to really review a book about the state of horror as a genre when that book was first written back in 1981. With that said, my real issues with the book are not really the book's outdatedness. My big issue is that the book doesn't really seem to make a point and support it. It's more like getting high with one of your favorite writers and then just sitting and listening to him talk. Some things that crossed my mind as I read this book:1) It's actually kind of cool to hear Stephen King reference books he's already written as ideas he hasn't published yet. (Example: pg 133, "...in the process of researching a forthcoming novel about a father who tries to bring his son back from the dead..." Pet Semetary, anyone?)2) I am curious as to what this writer would have to say about the state of horror television now. Since this book's original publishing, there have been numerous forays into horror on the old boob tube. I wonder if Stephen King would feel the same way about, say, Supernatural as he does about The Twilight Zone.3) Why does Stephen King hate John Saul so much? It's been a while since I've read Saul (probably almost twenty years) but I don't recall him being much better or worse than anything else being published at the time. 4) I would love to hear Mr. King's ponderings on Clive Barker. Or Dan Simmons. These two novelists, two of my favorite writers of the past twenty years, are exceptional writers of horror. I would love to see Stephen wax on these two writers with the sort of treatise he gives to Harlan Ellison or Ray Bradbury in Danse Macabre.5) I really need to read some Harlan Ellison.6) And The House Next Door by Anne Rivers Siddon.7) And pretty much everything that Ray Bradbury ever wrote. In this case, I would be rereading, but I love Bradbury and had kind of forgotten that until King went on and on ad infinitum.Overall, this was an enjoyable read. King makes some good points. He makes some fine recommendations. His theory on Dionysian versus Apollonian themes is actually quite interesting. Ultimately, though, it doesn't amount to much. It's a discussion that wears on too long.

This is what my copy looks like after finishing: There was so much inside that head that I just wanted to remember, or come back to, or... just highlight. I could have done all of that on my nook, and it would have been easier. Simpler, less restricted as to what I could fit onto the post-it, but... I dunno. This way just felt right to me. There were a lot of references to books that I hadn't read yet, and these sections I tried to skim so that I could get the idea without the spoilers, but that wasn't always possible. I do hate spoilers, but I can't hold it against King too much, I knew that was a possibility when I picked this up. One doesn't read an examination of the horror genre without expecting examples... and I'm just NOT that well read to think that I would've read every book he might have mentioned. Not by a loooooooong shot. But the books that I have read, I now have a new and deeper appreciation for. King sees things in such a different way than I do, and so getting his perspective is fascinating. Highly recommend reading this. PS. Support your local used book stores! :D