Barlow - the Stupidity of "King" Vampire?

[La Sorciere]

Hello, new here.

I wanted to talk a wee bit about the "Big Bad" of the novel, Kurt Barlow. After reading the novel for couple of times I realized that for an ancient great cunning vampire, as he is supposed to look, he is kinda stupid and a lot. What do you think?

My reasons:

1.Speedy Vampy. Barlow moved to US cause for him it was a land of new possibilities (big area, lots of people aka food, euro people probably were not tasty anymore or he got bored with European cuisine). Within less than a month he turned a whole town into vampires. WTF? Vampires are competitors with each other, for food, for blood - the fewer competitors there are, the better for vampire, cause he gets more food. Why did Barlow need to turn so many people so fast into vamps? What was he going to do after with them - leave them behind and embark himself on grand tour around US? But as it is seen from the novel one his bite (or bite of vampire he made) is enough for a person to become vampire also, then in a year the whole country would have become the Land of Undead. But Barlow roamed the Earth for centuries, and by the time of the novel it should have been populated only with vampires, considering how little time it takes to turn whole town into bloodsucking community. So obviously Barlow restrained himself, drank little, didn't make a lot of vampires, while in Europe or Asia. Why did he go wild in US then? Wasn't pragmatic of him.

2. Toast of the town. Clever vampire who wants to go on with his non-life must stay low, be slow and very patient - but Barlow attracted too much attention with his rush over things - people were dying like flies at high speed or went missing on daily basis, his vampires were roaming around mentioning their Master as often as possible to the victims. No wonder vampire hunters party appeared very quickly.

3.Killed the Useful. Killing Straker cause he just screwed up with a mere teenager who run away from his grip. No, really, was it such a big issue that you kill your own loyal useful minion who protected you during the day, did all the daily job and was your eyes and ears in daylight? Please, vampire who "lived" so long as Barlow boasted in his self-PR letter, surely must have learned to control his temper. And what do we see with Barlow? He lost his temper so much he killed his servant at once, bled him aka drank his blood, cause he was UPSET that BOY ESCAPED. Sissy. It left him pretty much helpless during the day and the results were very quick and predictable - Barlow was staked.

4. Throw away things. Corrupting the Priest is understandable, it is the Big Evil Thing all vampires like to do, I guess. But did Barlow use that at all? Nuh, he just wasted his blood and lots of words to damn the priest, who stayed alive, was able to leave town and to roam the world unhappy, but with opportunity to redeem himself (cause, yeah, he is alive, he has got away, that's already a chance), what he eventually did after some time. Barlow didn't turn him into his new familiar, didn't use Priest against Ben and Mark to his own benefit. Probably in his last undead moments when Ben was hammering stake through his heart Barlow was happy to think that at least he made one Priest feel BAD, instead of making that Priest kill Ben and Mark during the day, lol.

5. Send in the girls. Barlow sent vampire Susan to Mark the same night she was made a vampire. We know that Barlow was strong enough to come into house without invitation, through efforts, but still. Why didn't he himself come that very night to Mark's house, kill the boy and his whole family? Susan was only beginner as vampire. There were high probabilities that she wouldn't get Mark. And she didn't, btw. Not smooth move, Barlow.

6. Super Boy. Was Mark superhero or something? When he escaped MH, not going down into the cellar, night was young, very young, has just started. Mark ran alone. At night. Through roads, woods, whatever. He was tired, he was scared. Was he running so fast that King Vampire couldn't chase him and get him before Mark made it to his home? Wasn't Barlow able to mentally communicate with one of his vampires and order them to catch the boy who is running loose in broad night light with no weapon against them?

[GNTLGNT]

Wow! When you look at it that way...what a crappy story!! Now having typed that with tongue firmly wedged in cheek, I guess I really don't understand the joy people find in picking apart the details of a ripping good read, and I feel safe in saying this-coz I pretty much drip with sarcasm(anti-fungals don't help)and freely go after many things with my numb wit-but a good story? NO! I may find some holes in it, but a well told tale is just that-and if it captures you and sweeps your mind away for a bit-who gives a flyin' rip that there are some improbables?....I am so tired and soul sore of people coming on here, amongst friends and immediately reeking of negativity....

[fushingfeef]

Hi and welcome to the board. You make some good points (particularly 3 & 5). It has been a while since I've read this one, but I think one of the ways Barlow was wise was to go to a small isolated town. Once he starts feeding it is just a matter of time before the whole town is infected, but at least it is contained and he can then move on to another town. At least that was my impression. I don't think the novel states it but I think the vampirism burns itself out after a while, as victims run out the vampires die off through either being staked, their own recklessness or starvation. That could at least explain why all of Europe wasn't turned into vampires.

[J.T. Adams]

Amen Scott. Wish I could have put it so gracefully meself.

[Haunted]

1

.Speedy Vampy. Barlow moved to US cause for him it was a land of new possibilities (big area, lots of people aka food, euro people probably were not tasty anymore or he got bored with European cuisine). Within less than a month he turned a whole town into vampires. WTF? Vampires are competitors with each other, for food, for blood - the fewer competitors there are, the better for vampire, cause he gets more food. Why did Barlow need to turn so many people so fast into vamps? What was he going to do after with them - leave them behind and embark himself on grand tour around US? But as it is seen from the novel one his bite (or bite of vampire he made) is enough for a person to become vampire also, then in a year the whole country would have become the Land of Undead. But Barlow roamed the Earth for centuries, and by the time of the novel it should have been populated only with vampires, considering how little time it takes to turn whole town into bloodsucking community. So obviously Barlow restrained himself, drank little, didn't make a lot of vampires, while in Europe or Asia. Why did he go wild in US then? Wasn't pragmatic of him.

My impression was Barlow sort of started the ball rolling with Danny Glick who took the gravedigger then his Mum and everyone that was 'infected' infected others and that is why the town went dark very quickly.

[dsurrett]

We always read things in books and see things in movies that don't make logical sense if much time is spent on them. It's not unusual to read/see mass murders where the FBI teams move in and find the culprits - stories that rarely ever happen in real life, but we understand the weekly 'bigger than life' crime or disaster is the drawing card. Or a plague worthy of The Stand infects a town, hundreds die, and the president decides to nuke it until the last minute rescue. If Salem's Lot only had one or two vampires made, the story wouldn't be compelling. I understand picking a story apart and finding mistakes or implausible scenarios, but almost every really good story has them.

[CCAL]

you call'em like you see'em Giant. I just love a good moving story-whether I believe in vampires/ghosts/alternate universes/alien worms--whatever it may be. if its a good story sit back & enjoy it! nobodys perfect & if the story doesnt appeal to you put it down. no one is holding a gun on you. In real life most of us arent gonna be running from vampires/boogiemen, etc so suspend some doubts, beliefs or whatever is causing the problem. read the book. or not.

[CarrieJo]

Wow! When you look at it that way...what a crappy story!! Now having typed that with tongue firmly wedged in cheek, I guess I really don't understand the joy people find in picking apart the details of a ripping good read, and I feel safe in saying this-coz I pretty much drip with sarcasm(anti-fungals don't help)and freely go after many things with my numb wit-but a good story? NO! I may find some holes in it, but a well told tale is just that-and if it captures you and sweeps your mind away for a bit-who gives a flyin' rip that there are some improbables?....I am so tired and soul sore of people coming on here, amongst friends and immediately reeking of negativity....

Bravo, Scott!
I don't see the point in pulling apart stories like that. If I enjoy them, I enjoy them. If I don't, I don't. If King's vampires bother you, find some that fit your standards. Isn't sitting down with a good book and getting lost in it the whole point of reading?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, La Sorciere, just offering up my opinion.

[ghost19]

Hey, I liked Salem's Lot quite a bit, and by definition, any non-fiction story can be cut up because it's not real. I read them for entertainment and because I very, very much like Mr. King's style of writing and his books are wonderful.

[Dianna7375]

Wow....not to be mean but if you are need to be that accurate about details why read the book at all....It's about vampires and they aren't real.