I still agree with Vampirefan. As long as theres still vampires in 'Salem's Lot, there should be another book.
while it's all well and nice to direct a Lot fan to the D.T. 'verse...it is hardly a sequel to that great epic: more like a footnote....or an afterthought
i realize that king has oft mentioned that he incorporated some of the ideas of his original intention for a Lot sequel into D.T., Calla is is most definately NOT a sequel of any sort
for me, an avid Lot fan, 5/6/7 are more of a minor trashing of that grand memory of the Lot at the hands of serving the new-fangled version of the beam
vampires in the LOt: scary and frightening...vampires in the 'calla...wimps & fools
I guess what the people who are "dismissing" the Dark Tower books are doing is simply saying it isn't unreasonable to ask for a return trip to Salem's Lot that actually occurs inside of Salem's Lot and focuses on characters who were originally in Salem's Lot. Sure, I'll acknowledge that Callahan's arc in the Dark Tower series tells you some of what happened and that the One For The Road short story also tells you some of what happened.
However, it wouldn't be a complete waste of time to actually have a long-form story featuring one or more vampires who were established in the original book. Having the Glick's or somebody actually discussing Ben Mears ahead of another Ben Mears visit to the Lot is something I'd buy in a heartbeat.
sounds amazing, would love to see King do this. too bad there is already a sequel to the story. but again, it's a great concept
SK doesn't always tie up all of the loose ends at the conclusion of his books. I think this is for at least 3 reasons:
1 - to leave the option open to write sequels or other books with some of the same characters, such at Wolves, as mentioned above;
2 - so the readers can use their imaginations to take the story into the future. Vampirefan, if you're still checking this post, you've done a great job of doing just that.
3 - because he doesn't know himself what happens to every character when a book is complete.
Although I absolutely love Salem's Lot, and love to seek closure, I'm tending to think that sequels are not always needed (as the Hannibal Lector set has taught us, more is not always better). To the OP, that does sound like an interesting idea, but I think it would work for any type of "haunted town" story, not just as a sequel to the Lot. I like the idea, but if you're introducing new main characters anyway, it doesn't necessarily have to be about the Lot.
One problem with a sequel to the Lot (taking place in the Lot, with the characters from the Lot), is that it would either be a) a rehashing of the original story, been there; done that, or b) nowhere near as interesting. One of the most fascinating aspects of the original novel (at least in my opinion), was the fact that a lot of these people were already evil before Barlow even set foot in Maine. The town had an underlying evil to it (probably amplified by the Marsten house). A good portion of the novel occurs before any fangs are bared, and a sequel would be missing that. While Barlow could ostensibly be seen as the villain of the piece, I see him as more of a conduit or a catalyst for what was already happening to the town. While I wouldn't throw a sequel on the fire, I like that a lot is left uncertain. And while I understand that Callahan's story is less a sequel than an update, it answered enough questions to keep me satisfied.
Long days and pleasant nights.
This may be an idea he's given up on pursuing, but when Doug Winter interviewed him for his book, The Art of Darkness, this was Stephen's comment about a sequel:
I think he finished up Salems Lot with the things he put in the Dark Tower Series, so read them if you haven't. Plus the Dark Tower Series is just friggin incredible!
Bookmarks