There are no novelists in Under the Dome. I spent many pages waiting for a novelist to show up, but such a character never manifested, and this was one of the earliest signs for me that Under the Dome might actually be a good Stephen King book*. Finally, after many years, a good Stephen King book.
There’s another thing missing from
Under the Dome: a van that injures or kills someone. In fact, a van plays a major role in saving the heroes of Under the Dome; maybe Steve has finally made his peace with that van that clipped him so many years ago. What he hasn’t made his peace with is the Bush Administration; in fact the entirety of Under the Dome reads like a totally on-the-nose critique of Bush and America in the months after 9/11. Which would be a really major problem if the book wasn’t also good – good enough that you’re able to give King a pass for his well past the expiration date outrage.
Speaking of past the expiration date: this review is exceptionally late, but I felt honorbound to write it.
See, I’ve been quite down on King for years, and I’ve written lots and
lots of stuff that disparaged the guy. I thought that if he did
something I liked, I should be just as vocally positive about it.
A strange forcefield encircles the entire town of Chesters Mill (yes, in Maine) one autumn day. It comes suddenly and it is invisible; the first people know of it is when a plane and a truck crash into it. Later they notice the dead birds and the animals split in half by the Dome, as it comes to be known. The Dome goes thousands of feet into the air and possibly thousands below ground; it is slightly porous to oxygen, but little else can pass through it. The government is aware and gets involved almost immediately, but the folks inside the Dome find themselves caught in a rapid downward spiral towards violence and fascism.
The first few hundred pages of the monstrously thick Under the Dome thrill non-stop. King is in fine form here, creating an entire town and its population, setting them up in the first hours beneath the Dome, putting people into position for the conflict to come. And he’s fairly meticulous in regards to the science of the Dome – what would happen to a place that is totally cut off, meterologically and environmentally speaking? It’s fascinating stuff, and the quickly-progressing environmental issues lend the story an urgency.
It’s an urgency King doesn’t need because he brought his own. The book is relentlessly nihilistic and his view of humanity seems to be slightly less cheery than Todd Solondz’ Happiness, and so in Under the Dome it takes less than a week for the citizens of Chesters Mill to end up under a violent, fascist regime. Things will fall apart, I agree, but they fall apart with whiplash-inducing speed in this book, and that speed tends to undermine drama a bit.
The speed of decay is surely hastened by the fact that King has populated the book with a cast of cartoon characters. Long gone is the complexity of the characters in his finest work, The Stand (of which Under the Dome is almost a reboot) and in their place is a group who fall directly into obvious positions. The guys who look bad at the start are in fact bad, and they’re pretty much all Christians and Republicans. The folks who seem good and thoughtful and progressive are pretty much the heroes (although he does make one hero a Republican in name, she ends the book transformed into a big leftie. Other characters actually comment on this). When the lines get drawn in town everybody’s position is pretty obvious, and this makes the middle section drag a bit. There’s no question who is going to follow which character, so why does King spend 300 pages moving them into position?
Thankfully most of those 300 pages are good. King hasn’t really improved much as a writer over the last few decades – the book is filled with shitty lines and overwrought sentiment – but he remains a master storyteller. For a while I thought he had lost even that, but his ability to weave a tale is what keeps Under the Dome afloat, especially in the almost-terrible final hundred pages. He also is incredible at world creation, and so the totality of Chesters Mill feels complete, if a little familiar – it’s essentially Stephen Kingtown, filled with the sorts of characters we’ve seen in a dozen previous King novels.
My biggest gripe about King’s writing style is how King it is. The book sometimes reads like it was written by someone trying to consciously mimic Stephen King from the 70s and 80s, and it’s filled with King-specific tics that feel exceptionally outdated. There’s the fact that every single character seems to have a thing for rhymes when they’re thinking; this is especially true of crazy characters (as always in King books), but it goes for just about everyone in this novel. And the cultural references feel simply stilted, like King is checking with someone younger than him. A pivotal plot element hinges on people in their 30s buying blank CDs… and the book is set three or four years in the future!**
Possibly the darkest bit of this very dark book is how little faith King has in the people of Chesters Mill. In The Stand the survivors split into two clearly defined camps; in Under the Dome there are two clearly defined camps, but each is made up of a handful of people each. The vast majority of the folks of Chesters Mill are just sort of there, easily swayed by the rhetoric spouted by evil Town Selectman Jim Rennie (how evil is he? He’s a Christian, he doesn’t swear and he’s the mastermind of the biggest crystal meth ring in American history). There’s cynicism and then there’s cynicism; it seems to me that the cynicism that King shows about these folks – the kinds of regular Northeastern folks who he was always affectionate for, even when criticizing them – is the exact same cynicism that Bush et al showed about them post 9/11. King believes, just as he thinks Bush did, that these folks are easily led sheep and idiots. And that’s disheartening, because eight years after 9/11 it’s become obvious that the people are just easily tricked, not easily lulled. Bush’s numbers plummeted, and John McCain couldn’t get elected on the Bush platform of fearmongering; it feels like the world has already written the counterpoint to everything King is saying in the book.
The biggest storytelling mistake that King makes is one he’s made many times before – his build-up beats his finale. Reading the book you can almost tell when he runs out of steam and moves in to just finish things off; instead of doing anything interesting with the fact that a small group of Chesters Mills residents are preparing for an armed uprising against the corrupt folks in charge, he simply rushes to the end – an end you see coming hundreds of pages before, and even earlier if you’ve read The Stand. And that abrupt ending means that King knocks off a number of characters without fanfare, even ones you’ve spent plenty of time with. But more frustrating than that is the fact that he doesn’t spend enough time at the end with the survivors you’ve come to know; once the book reaches page 900 King has focused himself on about six characters, and everyone else is simply tossed to the wayside, invisible in a crowd around the folks we are following now. I don’t know if there’s some kind of engineering issue with making a book longer than Under the Dome, but if he had brought the storytelling chops to the second half of a 2000 page version that he brought to the first half of the 1000 page version, I’d have read it all.
The revelations about the Dome were also wholly unsatisfying for me, but by the time they rolled around the book was wrapping up and I was much more disappointed with what King had done with his long slow build-up. It might have been wiser to leave the Dome’s creators unknown or unknowable, but I understand what King’s (heavy handed) point was as it pertains to religion and faith and the order of the universe. Saying much more would be a spoiler, and there may be some who embrace the identity of the Dome’s creators.
There’s not much room for argument on one point: this is King’s best book in years. But it’s not one of his best books; none of the characters sing the way folks like Stu Redman or Annie Wilkes or Bill from It do. And the outcome of the book – including who lives and who dies – feels telegraphed from an incredibly early point. But considering King is a writer I had completely written off for more than ten years, the fact that it’s a good book is saying something. It’s saying that King has it in him still, and I hope that Under the Dome marks the end of an era of declining quality that began way back in 1996 with The Regulators. A quick, often gripping read that holds together for an impressive 900 of its 1000 pages, Under the Dome has done what I thought no modern King book could do – made me look forward to what he has coming next.
* Yes, I’m well aware that many great Stephen King books have novelists as the protagonist. It just seems like in the last fifteen years ‘novelist’ has become the lazy default lead character for King.
** The book is set sometime after 2012, possibly as late as 2014. I could not for the life of me figure out why this would be the case, as the year makes no difference on events in the book. Anyone with any insight is welcome to share it with me in the comments, on our message board or in an email.
Buy Under the Dome from CHUD!
24 comments
Go to Stephen King's official website and check out a much earlier version of this story where a group of people are suddenly trapped inside their apartment building: http://www.stephenking.com/promo/utd/ (Click on the link marked "The Cannibals" excerpt.
As a very conservative Christian, I feel this review greatly misrepresents the novel. I'm a huge King fan; I've read nearly every thing he has written. King has always had the extreme, terrifying nut-jobs who think they are acting in their faith as enemies. He isn't saying that Christianity or even Conservatism is the issue. Much like Mrs. Carmody in The Mist, Jim Rennie, UTD's antagonist, is a man who is so off in his faith that he might as well have no faith at all. King, however, is most definitely still holding on to the Bush administration's failures, which is getting old. The rest of the world has moved on.
I have to disagree with one thing you said, which is that the rest of the world – a lot of it has not moved on from the Bush administration. Also, to call what they did just failures is far more generous than they deserve.
I liked the Regulators .. and Desperation as long as I'm at it. The one recent book of his I bearly got through and has made me not pick up any of his recent stuff was Lizzie's Story. Good lord did I hate that book
I agree with Devin. I'm a big King fan, but I felt the end of the novel just died. I got to the 900 mark and just grew bored. As is sometimes the case with King, he rushes to the end and it is a shame. The change Frank Darabont made to the ending of the Mist made a good story into a great one. And maybe that is the point. I don't think King has it in him to do that sort of ending. He's ruthless but not ruthless enough. King would never have made the change to the ending of the Mist that Darabont introduced, and he didn't have it in him to give Under the Dome the type of ending it needed.
I think the Dome flew when it dealt with Big Jim and how the situation was building up in the town. Perhaps it shouldn't have actually dealt with the Dome at all, just dealt with what was going on inside of it. I grew tired at the point he left his characters behind. What sort of ending would it have made if he'd ended the novel with the townsfolk still stuck beneath the Dome with the prospect of an uncertain future?
I don't think we always need a happy ending. Sometimes we don't want to know the ending at all.
Tony.
Have you seen King's picks for best movies of 2009 at ew.com? He's kind of an idiot.
White Ribbon review? Incoming?
"Bag of Bones" was by far his best novel before what might be labelled his "decline" started. Not sure when exactly "Bag of Bones" came out, but if it was after "Regulators", you're definitely wrong.
Thanks for the review. Except his last good book before the decline was "Misery".
By placing it in four years hence, he's suggesting that the United States is going to swing back toward conservativism with the next election… the US hasn't moved on from GWB's policies… if anything, the hardcore have become even more hardcore.
I like how the "very conservative Christian" dude is telling everyone to move on from the Bush Administration's failures. Apparently actions don't have repercussions on his planet.
Honestly, there's no reason to "move on" from the Bush era criticisms. Obama seems to have embraced a surprising number of the previous administration's positions, especially regarding military and intelligence issues. Love them or hate them, O and B aren't exactly polar opposites.
That said, I agree with Matt that only the worst sort of generalizer would say that King's antagonists are simply "Christian." I know lots of Christians who would stand opposed to the actions of someone like Carmody, but none that would encourage her actions, so there's obviously something more to it than simply reductive labeling.
I think it was set in the future only so that they could have it take place in our real world, but have an anonymously named president. otherwise i dont see the point. I loved this book, mostly because it was a more accessible version of the stand. it did fall apart at the end a bit, but i attribute that to the urgency of the climax of the novel. King always seems to pussy out on his endings, but this one felt appropriate enough. Also, Bag of Bones is fucking awesome
Even mediocre King is better than plenty o' other horror dime-novel rubbish.
#2: The rest of the world has NOT moved on from the failures of the Bush administration, as we are still dealing with the horrific repercussions of those failures.
As someone who was fucked over by Katrina, I want those sons of bitches strung up. And I don't want anyone to "move on," forgetting what happens when people place ideology and loyalty of logic, responsibility and competency.
The president in UNDER THE DOME isn't an anonymously named president, it's most definitely Obama, either serving the end of his first term or the start of his second.
The biggest plot issue I had with the book was the military cutting off all access to the town, but not cutting off Chester Mill's ability to communicate via the Internet (maybe it took place a couple of years in the future, when all small Maine towns have totally awesome WiFi?)
I thought this book was FANTASTIC and picked up some hints tying it into IT and the Tommyknockers, more so IT (the symbol is the same as on the door of Chud's lair) but as far as UTD dome is concerned I thought it was superb and am eagerly awaiting the proposed TV series…
The best way to look at this book is as a 1000 page long Twilight Zone story. The stuff that happens inside the Dome, the revelations about who caused it, the nature of the characters, it all fits into the style that Rod Serling and his team hacked out over their run. UTD feels more like King's short story work then his novels, it's a fairly simple morality tale when you boil down past everything else.
<p>Yes I would agree with Devin that the ending is the weakest stuff in the book. It isn't the revelations or the actual conclusions that bug me, it's just the way he revealed it and played it out. It's weird to say this about a 1000+ page book, but I wish it had been longer, I think a couple of supporting characters could have used a bit more fleshing out so that when they arrive at the clearing at the end of the path, it would be more effective.
<p>I love King. The guy could write a hundred page story about his oil change and I'd read it, and I'll argue with anybody about the endings of The Stand and Dark Tower.
<p>The one thing that confused me Devin is how you brought up the way he divides the camps and mention that in the Stand it wasn't so clear cut. Yeah it was. Trashcan Man, The Kid, the guy who ate the guy to survive in jail, was it really surprising to see them head to Vegas with the Dark Man? The thing that I loved about the Stand's delineation of good and evil (and love about UTD as well) is that King can clearly illustrate that a character is a ratfuck who needs to be brutally taken out (and i can't think of a better label to put on Junior Remmie) but still throw in little moments to show that they are in fact humans, not complete animals. The way he cared for the two kids he found is a perfect example.
<p>I think the thing King despises most, and the reason he punishes Chester's Mill's populace so brutally, is passivity. I think he can even drudge up a (limited) amount of respect for Big Jim and Randall Flagg. The people who truly earn his scorn (and who pay most harshly I've found) are the ones who allow themselves to be manipulated and pushed around, especially the people who are aware of wrong-doing in their midst, but who shy away and deny their responsibility. When justice gets metted out, it is these characters, even more then the murdering, raping villians, who are truly destroyed.
<p>I loved UTD, but then, I love most of what I've read from King. Shit, I enjoyed Cell as a fun, well-told riff on zombie movies (yes, the third act is unbelievably stupid, but that shouldn't detract from all the good stuff that's in that book). Even if you hate this book, at least be glad he didn't put in another magical retard with psychic visions that save the day.
It can't be too far in the future because Obama is president. Rennie, or one of the other villains, has an internal dialogue during the President's speech and he refers to the Big Chief as "The Preisdent with the Terrorist middle name," so without coming out and saying Obama he makes it pretty clear who is still in office when the book takes place.
King ruins another ending? I have wasted enough of my life on reading his decent books to just get to that shit storm of an ending. Even The Stand, which I thought was great, had a terrible ending. How does a guy that can't finish a story become the best selling american writer? I have had enough. You will not do that to me again, Mr. King.
So exactly what is the difference between a writer and a story-teller Devin? Anyone?
While we're jumping on the generalizing bandwagon, did you know that ALL Muslims are radical terrorists, Irish people are drunks, all Mexicans sneak across the border, and every African-American is a criminal? I love many of King's stories, but recently he's been getting a little one-sided on his political views: conservative=always evil and liberal=always good. Even if it isn't always true, do you see how easy it is to spread a prejudice? Maybe he's been living under a dome.
That you just kinda tack on. I actually liked the mutant bacteria suggestion midway through. Big Jim was just a silly, horribly inconsistent character. Everyone in town should have been a tweeker . . . and the destruction of small town USA by meth a MUCH bigger issue.
If a van didn't just "clip" me but almost killed me, as happened to Stephen King, I would probably write about it too. That part of the review seemed pretty mean. Besides which he's been writing about evil automobiles since Christine at least.
What bothered me most about Under The Dome was a tendency for dialog and thoughts to bleed from one character to another who were not even in contact with each other in a way that made them seem less like true individuals rather than just obvious vehicles for the author's point of view
Curiously, for a novel that many are bashing as being anti-Christian, it has plenty of what might be interpreted as instances when God seems to intervene in the story by providing prophetic visions and even manipulating events to provide signs to those praying to him.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.