Danse Macabre

I have a fond spot for this book. It can be dry in spots and I'm always left wishing that he said more about his own works (although I also respect him for not taking the opportunity to tout his own works). One of the only things I disagree with is the inclusion of 'The House Next Door'. Don't get me wrong, it's a decent story but I wouldn't put it up there with the others mentioned by any means.
This edition comes with a new foreword about more recent movies but I really can't help wishing he would write another book covering the '80s until now.

I read this book twice. The book is a collection of personal anecdotes, opinions about writing/movie making, and film/book reviews. Embedded in it all are some excellent suggestions about creating horror. I wanted more background for his own creations, but he's already on record confessing that he was zonked when he wrote many of his masterpieces, and is clueless about how he created any of it while under the influence.

I write horror stories and agree with much of what King says, like...only Southerners are capable of pulling off the really bizarre depictions of horror. Others depict horror with human anomalies serving as the monsters. Only in the South do respectable ladies murder their lovers then sleep with his corpse forever. Or spawn the KKK. We dont bury our victims or hide them, we display them with pride. We're natural-born terrorists.

King, here, as everywhere, is painfully candid. He's refreshingly modest and seems to consider his gift 'found money.'

I give the book a '3' because the book/movie reviews are boring.

When it comes to serious studies in horror by actual authors (which are usually much more useful than those by academics, although those are generally good for a laugh), there's Lovecraft's "Supernatural Literature" and this.
In terms of sheer fun, this book is a goldmine and very well thought out. You can read a chapter separately, or read the whole thing at one shot, but you keep going back to it and rereading it.
Especially useful to film fans and scholars is King's analysis and dissection of the horror movie. I'm recommending this to a friend of mine in the hopes that he will loosen up a bit after reading King's sometimes-hilarious take on the truly awful horror movies out there.
"Danse Macabre" is both a lot of fun and a great study of an often misunderstood genre. Take a look!

Before I read this book, I assumed it was going to involve Stephen King providing insight on his novels up to the early 1980s. I thought he'd be talking about the best horror movies and novels and what makes them scary. Instead, I felt like I was reading a 400-page graduate thesis on the horror genre of the 1950s-1970s. As much as I enjoy King's fiction, reading his thoughts on horror writing was a drag.

This was a fantastic book. If you ever wanted to sit down for a few hours and shoot the bull with a successful writer and find out his favorite books and movies and his views on the genre he's working in, this is the book for you. King hits on everything from the origins of horror (the circus freak show, abnormally fat people and those with hideous acne conditions) to some of horror's classics (which he concludes have been made immortal largely due to the movie industry). This fascinating look at the horror genre is like an interesting book-length introduction by one of the most successful writers in the field. If you like the introductions by such writers as Kurt Vonnegut and Ray Bradbury, you'll love this little gem of a book. A must for writer and reader alike, you'll get such nuggets as the basis of horror being the quest for power and magic. "Danse Macabre" may mean the dance of death, but after reading this great analysis of horror, you'll feel more alive than ever. Although it might seem a bit dated at this late date, still lots of fun.

I had mixed reactions to this non-fiction book. As with all Stephen King books, I liked the writing style (King does an excellent job in making it feel like he's talking to you, rather than talking down to you). I also learned quite a lot about the horror genre from the period that King covers (1950-1980), a period that I had very limited knowledge.

However, I couldn't help but feel disappointed that there isn't an updated version, covering the last 3 decades. Everything here feels mostly outdated, though I now have a few more "must see" movies and books to add to my list. I also think King gets a bit too long-winded in a couple of sections, which made them tough to get through (I skimmed, more than read, the last chapter because of this).

Overall I was left wanting to read an updated version of the book, rather than the book itself.

The first time I started into this book I got halfway through and then chucked it in the bin. A year later I bought it again, promised myself I would put up with it, and finished it. Why did it take me so long? Because it's such a fiendishly intristic commentary on the horror genre as a whole, offering new insights into classics like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" which were just to difficult for me to understand? Hell no. It's because its one long, boring, tedious piece of crap. It's a grown-up version of those pompous bloody introductions King feels compelled to stick in at the beginning of his otherwise brilliant novels, making you want to top yourself before the first chapter. You'd think somebody would tell him that just because he uses the words Appollonian and Dionysian again and again it doesn't mean he's saying anything important. Frankly, he should stick to writing novels--it's a bad omen when the most interesting thing in someone's book is the quotes from other people.

Engaging, interesting, opinionated, and well-written, this book provides a fascinating look at the horror genre between 1950 and 1980, focusing heavily on comics, novels, films, and B-movies (and if you don't think there's a difference between films and B-movies, you haven't watched enough creature features). More significantly, though, it provides an intriguing look into why people read horror and what horror says about morality. King's discussion of how horror helps us deal with the Appolonian and Dionysian sides of our own personalities is extremely useful, as is his discussion of how _Dracula_, _Frankenstein_, and _Dr._Jeckyll_and_Mr._Hyde_ provide us with the three basic archetypes that still dominate the horror genre. Don't buy this book expecting a novel because it really is a critical history, but if you have a genuine interest in the horror genre, you owe it to yourself to buy this book.

I have always had a passing interest in the horror genre, but it seems to be all I can think about having finished this book. It is interesting in the utmost, and King has a conversational style at work here that is very engaging. Reading this is like sitting down with the author and talking about the books and films he discusses. It misses a 5-star rating only because it goes through patches where the writing gets soooo boring; I had to put it down and come back later. All in all: you will enjoy it, and it will make a fan out of you.

Stephen King's first real shot at non-fiction, Danse Macabre is a look at the horror genre in general. Easy to follow and filled with pictures galore, this is King shooting the sh*t about something that has always fascinated him. Charming and slightly off-kilter. King fans will appreciate his honesty here. Not for the causal reader, however. Was this, or would this be, the first Stephen King book I ever read or would ever read? No. Definitely not. Something to look into after you've had a proper introduction to King's body of work.

Dig it!

Not enough people read and appreciate this book. It is NON-FICTION. Do not get this book if you are looking for a good story, but if you appreciate the intros Stephen King has written in the past, or you are in interested in horror as a genre, or you want a few lists of what to read or see, this is excellent. King's theories are very interesting, but I was more swept up in his personal tales. Again, as long as you know what you're getting into, this is an excellent read.

When I opened this book, I thought I was going to read the insights of a master of fright fiction, what I found were rambling anecdotes and recollections.
Mr. King, for some reason, could not maintain a focus. He would begin a chapter on a certain subject or aspect of the horror/science fiction genre and by the next paragraph start remembering something from his childhood somewhat semi-related to the topic being discussed. He would digress to the point where he would even admit to it, apologize and promise to return to the original subject in a later chapter. The next chapter he would do the samething again! What was going through King's mind when he writing this book --other than constant reminiscences about his childhood in the Fifties/Sixties?
One other annoyance about this book was King's occasional oblique comments on the way his own work was adapted for the screen. For example, he teases the reader with a comment about his dislike for the movie version of "The Shining", yet he never goes into any further explanation on the subject. The reader is left hanging.
Where was the editor?

As someone just breaking into the horror genre, I found this book a wealth of information on the best horror books and movies in the time period he focused on (1950-1980). Through this book I got into Robert Bloch, Shirly Jackson, Ira Levin, Peter Straub, Richard Matheson and my personal favorite (and incidentilly King's as well), H.P. Lovecraft. The book also provided excellent insight as to how King writes (interresting to me as an aspiring writer, as well as a King fan). I'm not sure how one of the reviewers below was incapable of finishing this book, as I swept through it in a couple of days. Interspersed among the text-like sections (which are quite interresting themselves), are many autobiographical sections giving a view of his childhood and the time before he got "Carrie" published. His voice throughout is accessable and informative, and my interrest never lagged. I've used this book both as a reference and a source of entertainment, and I don't see how you could be disappointed with it.

I found this book to be and incredible account of horror fiction, movies, and T.V. throughout the lifetime of a man who influenced all of the mediums he writes about. If you can only take an over-view of Mr. Kings' literature, you can see reflections of all the greatest writers shining through. I would most like to thank him for appendix 2, and the challenge given to me by that list to compile some of the greatest horror novels and short stories ever written. Due to this list, I have been exposed to H.P. Lovecraft, Robert Bloch, and a list of writers that would boggle the mind ... and in every book I read from that list, I have gained a new insight to horror fiction ... to the styles and methods used by every one of those writers to draw you into thier writings and keep you on the edge of your seats or pulling the covers on your bed up just a little higher. Thank you Mr. King for expanding my horizons ! I would gladly recommend this book to anyone ... and recommend about a dozen more mentioned in the book as well !

I first read this book when i was 13 and just starting to write horror fiction. Now, 6 years later, I still read and re-read it. Man oh man, it's hard to express how much this book means to me--not only is (and always has been) King my favorite author, he is also the most intelligent, well-informed commentor on a genre rarely given the credit it most definately deserves. Highly recommended for writers of the genre or simply people interesting in literalture/commentary.

So far, one of the more entertaining reads from King, providing you know that this is not a fiction. It has some good insights who did know something about this field of work. What I like is how personal the writing is and how it make you feel like you are talking with a slightly mad excitable uncle on a camp fire at late night. I like King in his casual mode as much. And the texture and density of details, like his best works, are still here.
Having said all that, there are a couple of things that should be mentioned. The book is outdated. An updated edition is seriously needed. The said casual tone sometimes bordering on sloppy, even if it's never reach the point of incoherent.
It can also function as a very good guide for the genre. Again, the recommended list needs some updates, but as it is, it shall took a couple of months at least to get yourself familiar with all the works mentioned.

A very dry book. I was bored out of my wits (what little I have) trying to complete this book. I finally did and not with complete dissapointment. It was a dull book at many parts, but It was also very interesting at just as many others. If you are a true hard-core horror fan who likes a more in-depth analysis of books and movies of the genre then you may be able to get through this book with some satisfaction. My only advice is don't try to swallow it all at once (I completed it in between readin 5 novels).

I cannot claim to be a Stephen King fan since I have not read very many of his works. However, since I teach FRANKENSTIN, I checked out his only (?) non-fiction work, DANSE MACABRE. His chapter on Mary Shelley's masterpiece is superb. My students love his insight and casual, humorous tone.

I don't know if it's just my edition, but there are endless, major mistakes stated by King.

The book is split in 2 halfs. The first one is about the history of horror films, and the second half is about horror books. In the film half, King has this Quiz list about horror films. In one place he gives a hint about the film "The Midnight Express," and King hints that he's smuggling some white substance. Did King watch the movie? It isn't horror, and it was hasish that was tried to smuggle. I know this isn't a huge deal but there are endless errors like that.

Like in the book half; he talks about the book "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". And he talks about the first page of the book. It descripes Mr Utterson, who does not seem like a nice guy. R.L. Stevenson writes "...and yet he was somhow lovable." King states "I must admit that, after reading Stevenson's description of Utterson, I found myself curious as to just how he was lovable!" Well, if he was so curious about it, he should have kept on reading the next paragraphs. Did King even bother to read first page of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"? The next pages explain the statement of why he was somehow lovable.

This reminds me of King's recommendation to "Shadowland", By Peter Straub. "It was scary from page one." Or something similar, King states. Well the book is a dark fantasy, and the first chapter is about old friends meeting at a bar and one of the guys does a magic card trick. Did King read that book?

He also talks about the book "something wicked this way comes". By Ray Bradbury. In my edition King says "it is propably his best work." Then some 20-30 pages later he states "eventhough this is not Brabury's best book..." This is not word for word, but it comes down to the same point.

The examples I've just told are only a part of what my edition has. I hope they have fixed it.

I think people tend to judge books by who writes them, instead of how the books truly are. Like one comedian said that getting the status of being funny is hard, but once yo get there it is easy to maintain the status.

Mr. King introduces several chapters in this book with apologies, along the lines of, "I hate to do this to you, but now I'm going to explain ..." or "I normally hate definitions of fantasy, but here's mine...." If you think it's boring and dull, why are you boring us with it?
There are some good nuggets of insight here, as you would expect from someone who's generally regarded as a talented writer of popular fiction. On the other hand, it's all pretty disorganized and rambling (as others have pointed out), with an odd and undue emphasis on fantasy/sci-fi movies and books.

I don't know if it's just my edition, but there are endless, major mistakes stated by King.

The book is split in 2 halfs. The first one is about the history of horror films, and the second half is about horror books. In the film half, King has this Quiz list about horror films. In one place he gives a hint about the film "The Midnight Express," and King hints that he's smuggling some white substance. Did King watch the movie? It isn't horror, and it was hasish that was tried to smuggle. I know this isn't a huge deal but there are endless errors like that.

Like in the book half; he talks about the book "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". And he talks about the first page of the book. It descripes Mr Utterson, who does not seem like a nice guy. R.L. Stevenson writes "...and yet he was somhow lovable." King states "I must admit that, after reading Stevenson's description of Utterson, I found myself curious as to just how he was lovable!" Well, if he was so curious about it, he should have kept on reading the next paragraphs. Did King even bother to read first page of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"? The next pages explain the statement of why he was somehow lovable.

This reminds me of King's recommendation to "Shadowland", By Peter Straub. "It was scary from page one." Or something similar, King states. Well the book is a dark fantasy, and the first chapter is about old friends meeting at a bar and one of the guys does a magic card trick. Did King read that book?

He also talks about the book "something wicked this way comes". By Ray Bradbury. In my edition King says "it is propably his best work." Then some 20-30 pages later he states "eventhough this is not Brabury's best book..." This is not word for word, but it comes down to the same point.

The examples I've just told are only a part of what my edition has. I hope they have fixed it.

I think people tend to judge books by who writes them, instead of how the books truly are. Like one comedian said that getting the status of being funny is hard, but once yo get there it is easy to maintain the status.

Mr. King introduces several chapters in this book with apologies, along the lines of, "I hate to do this to you, but now I'm going to explain ..." or "I normally hate definitions of fantasy, but here's mine...." If you think it's boring and dull, why are you boring us with it?
There are some good nuggets of insight here, as you would expect from someone who's generally regarded as a talented writer of popular fiction. On the other hand, it's all pretty disorganized and rambling (as others have pointed out), with an odd and undue emphasis on fantasy/sci-fi movies and books.

Who better than the master to judge the genre? I am not much of a horror fan, but I very much enjoyed Mr. King's dissection of the narrative. He talks about what works and what doesn't in horror (movies) and why. We mostly all are suckers for a good story on the screen or page. King helps us understand what goes into a "good"--as in scare the bejesus out of you--story from a horror writer's point of view. Even if you are not a big horror fan, like me, but like the narrative in general, it's worth the read.

This was Stephen King's first book on writing. He describes his life growing up in his semi-dysfunctional family and goes on to talk about writing: who he likes, who he doesn't, and why. There are some gems about the writing craft if you search for them. There isn't anything in this book about being published, though. Still, interesting and worth buying.

Okay, maybe there are some okay bits and pieces here worth reading, but still I have to say that El Kabong's review really hits the nail on the head regarding Stephen King's writing and this book in particular. When Danse Macabre first came out I was in the middle of a "Stepehen King Period," of sorts, having taken it upon myself to finally read the books of this author whom so many people had raved about for a few years. Time and again, like a gullible rube, I picked up one of King's horror books, giving him chance after chance to grab a hold of me and give me these great scares everyone was talking about. Time and again, however, I found that what was supposed to have been a time bomb of fear was actually a dud. King, after the release of Kurbrick's film version of The Shining, was fond of saying that he'd "handed Stanley Kubrick a grenade and he heroically threw his body over it," or words to that effect, as if the book of The Shining was a seering work of heart-stopping, nightmare inducing horror and in comparrison the film was a pale shadow of the potential greatness there. Sure, there were a few little scenes here and there, but for the most part is was yet another dud. Say what you want about Kurbrick's film, but it was not a watering down of a fear filled novel. If anything, Kubrick tired too hard to turn [...] into gold and perhaps he failed. Nevertheless, there remain in the film version of the book just as many bits and pieces with some effect as the book itself.

Granted, I'm not calling King a hack as I'm well aware of the fact that I'm no great writer myself. Sure, he's achieved some success, he's been somewhat important to the evolution of the horror genre in popular culture. And this brings us to this book. At the time it was released, I actually found myself somewhat inspired by Danse Macabre, but I was young then and even more muddled than I am now. Still, this book did awaken in me a more serious interest in horror than I'd had previously. Various bits and pieces of Danse Macabre have stuck in my mind over the years, but only in the most basic sense, such as King's description of the EC horror comics of the fifties, and I recently found myself tracking down a used copy due to a renewed interest in horror. "Of course," I thought to myself, "Danse Macabre will be essential in my quest to uncover the heart of horror." To virtually no surprise at all, I found that every one of El Kabong's criticism's of this book, and King's writing as a whole, was true. And that was before I read Kabong's comments, which I did so only in prelude to making my own.

So, what, specifically, is wrong with this book? Well, like I said, I am no writer (as evidenced by this review), but it is shot through with King's typical style - a very poor impression of an everyman who simply loves horror like some record collecting junkie loves rock & roll - and this style is, quite simply, a drag (a word that King probably uses himself). You have to sort through several paragraphs to get to one decent point, and that point is generally quite mundane and un-insightful. My writing may not be as "good" (for what little that is worth) but I have abolutely no doubt that I could manage just as many, and probably more, useful insights into the nature of horror as King does here. King is not only far too wordy for his own good (like myself and all other sloppy writers out there) but his insights are horribly pedestrian. He comes off as yet one more of those "meaning deniers" who seem to equazte being "real" and "honest" and "truthful" and "accurate" with being as superficial as possible and denying any attempt to find more than the most superficial and common meanings in things. Just because his mind is too dull to make any real insight into matters does not mean that those who are up to this task are simply blowing hot air. King verges dangerously close to horror's version of one of those lunk-headed Fox news personalities.

Granted, King wrote this book in, I guess, the late seventies, very early eighties, and while most of the true classic of the horror genre had been created by then, there is a certain lack of freshness here that cannot be explained away by mere datedness. With such blase, run-of-the-mill insights into horror - his chosen field - it's no wonder that Stepehen King is such an unremarkable writer and his popularity it due mainly to the great number of like-minded individual's out there who are equally as unremarkable. To King and the majority of his fans, this reads as a mark of "realness" in some way. To me - and I'm not saying I'm superior, just not so easily impressed or so ready to dismiss what I don't understand at first - this seems more like some form of forced medicocrity. I mean, WHAT IS KING AFRAID OF?

Much of King's insights into the horror products of popular culture emanate from the same two-bit, superficial, dull-witted realm as many of the film and literary critics he dismisses, not to mention the ones he praises as well. I can't remember what, if anything, he had to say about Leonrad Maltin, but that is pretty much the level of critique that you'll find here. In one paragraph he will praise something for its junk-foodiness when he sees this as being solid and common, in the next paragraph he dismisses something for the same reason. Stephen King's writing exists at a level no greater than, for example, I Married A Monster From Outer Space exists as a film, yet King's writing lacks any of that film's charm. This is merely one example here.

Then again, I also have to give King some credit. He (at least when he wrote this) was clearly a true horror fan and had/has a wide knowledge of many aspects of the genre. While the quality of his mind is a mere half-step higher than that of the run-of-the-mill comic book nerd who holds forth on how Frank Frazetta is a great artist who's paintings should hang in the Louvre (not that he's a bad artist, Frazetta is very good, and not that such work does not belong in museums, it does, but mainly as an example of commercial illustration), he is, in many ways, a real professional, albeit a professioal in the same way as the guy who fixed my sink was. The sink held for a few months and worked great, but in the end I had to go to the hardware store and buy some supplies so I could fix it myself (and it still leaks, but at least I didn't have to pay an arm and a leg).

Frankly, I'm not sure how to express the deflated reaction I had to this book on second reading. Stepehen King is simply a dull, dull-witted man with flashes of unremarkable insight that leave one (well, this "one," anyway) cold and bored. His writing reads like someone with an irritating speech impediment sounds. Or, as I used to put it years ago, after my Stepehen King experiment had ended and I judged him lacking: Stephen King is an ex-high school English teacher who writes like an ex-high school English teacher.

I'm not even sure if he did teach high school English, but that's what I recall. I also feel compelled to state that Harlan Ellison - another professional writer with some measure of accomplishment in life, and one whom King gives great praise to in this Danse Macabre - is to a large extent a trite and predictable storyteller. The fact that Stepehen King can rave so strongly about Ellison proves that his sense of proportion is way off and his insights simply cannot be trusted or are simply too mediocre to really add much to the discussion.

This book gives you a better understanding of what goes on in Stephen King's mind. He recounts many of his childhood dreams and experiences, very spooky stuff. If you love to read Stephen King this is a must have.

As a memoir this may be worth something, since the best parts are all the reminiscences, at least as far as I'm concerned. As an essay it amounts to nothing: obvious, long-winded, dated, simplistic, much too subjective... Not utterly boring, but hey, stick to the novels.

Recently decided to revisit some early Stephen King books after a hiatus of 20-odd years: NIGHT SHIFT, THE DEAD ZONE and this book. Though fully cognizant that this is going to result in at least a couple dozen "NOT helpful!" votes, I have to begin by saying King - the world's richest, most-read and best-loved author - has not aged well to this reader. His stories and novels have not gotten better, just longer (interminably so, in some cases), and it was actually a pleasant surprise to rediscover how lean and fat-free his early work was. I thought NIGHT SHIFT was a great collection 25 years ago and damned if it still isn't. But DANSE MACABRE, his book-length essay on horror in pop culture, is like the seed-bed of everything I later came to dislike about King: a rambling conversational style, half Aesthete and half Reg'lar Folks and inauthentic as either; shameless name-dropping and boosterism; and a relentlessly middlebrow worldview powering the vehicle. (This book must've emerged during a major Harlan Ellison jag for King; not only does he rave about him continually throughout DANSE MACABRE, but his prose here often reads like someone doing a bad Ellison impression. Ellison himself, at least, does this sort of thing with much more elan.)

I don't quibble with this factual error, or that questionable judgment; my main problem with DANSE MACABRE is that its tone - a blowhard holding court with tiresome anecdotes and self-important pronouncements, and falling in love with the sound of his own voice besides - began insinuating itself into his later work with depressing regularity. The tightly-written, flint-hard 12 and 15-page stories in NIGHT SHIFT inevitably turned into 80-page stories, if not 150-page novellas or 1000-page novels, packed so full of lard, fillers and extenders that more often than not they collapsed under their own obesity.

Lazy, jokey and even bad writing fills DANSE MACABRE from stem to stern, King trying to be both hip and square on every page; a completely unsatisfying compromise that reads as awkwardly now as office-workers must've looked in their tie-and-jeans ensembles on the first Casual Fridays. There are apocryphal anecdotes and trivia (a lot of King's sidebars include the phrase "if it isn't true, it oughta be"...never a good sign); many putdowns of critics (perhaps a pre-emptive strike); and suspiciously fulsome praise for his friends. Additionally, the longest chapter here, "Horror Fiction" - King's analyses of ten seminal horror-themed books - is dreadful. Underneath the slangy, informal prose, this chapter is full of the sort of middlebrow obviousness and said-bookism you might find in a junior-college term paper. Hilariously, somewhere along the way King dismisses Pauline Kael as one of those stodgy critics more in love with her syntax than her content: he'd have done well to study her long-form essays a bit harder before attempting a book full of them himself. Even more hilariously, he brandishes Strunk and White's famous edict "omit needless words" as the one rule of style he lives by. No, seriously: Stephen King, the man who wrote IT, actually says this in DANSE MACABRE. Amazing.

On the other hand, NIGHT SHIFT, a King book written when he really did live by that rule, still holds up beautifully as one of the best single-author collections in or out of the genre; neither does THE DEAD ZONE overstay its welcome. He abandoned that relative restraint when he metamorphosed - permanently? - into Uncle Stevie (TM) in DANSE MACABRE. King has had a few genuine high-points, and a whole lot of middling-at-best efforts, in the two decades-plus since this book first appeared, but he can at least rest easy in the knowledge that he'll never write anything worse.