# 'Cell' by Stephen King



## FloridaJay (Feb 20, 2006)

Now I'm usually not one to review a book other than to say "I liked it" or "It was okay" to someone who asks.  This time, after becoming somewhat of a novice writer, I see what I read differently - or rather, from the point of view of a writer.  

Normally I see Stephen King's work as the best there is, and this time is no different.  He knows what he's doing.  His words are seemingly the right ones and his sentences are excellently built - in my opinion that is.   Now, having written that, here's my review of his latest book _Cell:

(Did I mention this is my first review ever?)_

Synopsis: It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.  Not really, especially if I believe that the use of a cell phone will bring about the end of civilization as we know it.  On one sunny October day a Pulse is sent through cell phones and wreaks havoc on the minds of phone users everywhere.  Violence is the name of the game and it's up to small groups of normal humans to survive and protect the species.  Not an easy thing to do when everywhere you turn there are loved ones, family members, and neighbors out wandering the streets in search of blood.   The story centers on Clay and his band of wanderers as they try to survive, travelling to the north to find a mythical land without cellphone coverage.

Not the best synopsis, but hey, it's my first.  Basically it's the apocolypse again and bad stuff happens to good people.  The book is of course very well written.  It is a page turner.  Early on I was very intrigued by what was happened and really interested in finding out why it happened.  Halfway through the book I realized thankfully it wasn't another alien invasion story or devil in jeans kind of thing.  But I was disappointed in some of the characters, in that everyone (the normal main characters) in this book was super-intelligent.  The older folks and the younger folks, the teens and the middle-agers all thought pretty much the same way.  Each one, whether they actually did or not, seemed to be University graduates with 4.0 GPAs.  Ignorance was not prevalant in this make-believe world.  Everyone understood everything, no matter how fantastic or mundane the subject.  To me this is far from realistic.  In the real world, everyone doesn't think on the same level, there is ignorance and cluelessness.  Not everyone has intellectual prowess.  In this book they do.  Each person knows what every other person knows, that is to say everyone seemed to have a 220 IQ.  Not alot of guesswork on anyone's part.  That's not the real world by a long shot.  That's the only real problem I had with this book, that and it seems to me that each one of King's main heroes (in any book, for that matter, where the male is the lead) are cookie cut from the same middle-aged/writer/smart/same fears,same desires.  The book was good, don't get me wrong, and I liked it for the most part.  But now that I'm working on characters and plots and whatnot of my own...Maybe I expect too much since I think I need to put realism in my stories.  

In a nutshell, this is a good story by a good author.  I hope to half that good by the time I actually publish something.  I'd suggest you read _Cell _and not get hung up on the minor flaws I found.  You'll have a good time if you do.

This review was hastily written on my lunch-break (right after finishing the last page of the book).


----------



## Janelle_34 (Feb 20, 2006)

I just got this book.. I don't read his work, I scare myself. OF course, when I do I usually put the books in the freezer, don't ask! So I am excited.. ITs funny in the last of the book, it says. Stephen King does not own a cell phone~


----------



## Saraneth (Feb 20, 2006)

I read the first two chapters and I have to say that I wasn't entirely impressed with Mr. King's narrative. I felt that the pop culture references were thrown in too carelessly, and that I didn't "feel" enough for the main character.

I found the entire thing laughable. Maybe I should read it again? Or the rest of the book, for that matter...


----------



## FloridaJay (Feb 21, 2006)

You're absolutely correct about his overuse of pop americana.  I thought maybe that was done on purpose, to reflect the times, because it's slackens up a bit after the violence dies down.  He did try to shove every bit of commercialism he could find in the beginning.  I thinks that's his thing, it didn't bother me so much until this book.  Ah well, it's still an interesting and well-written story.


----------



## Stewart (Feb 21, 2006)

So, by your admission, you enjoyed a cliche ridden novel?


----------



## Kane (Feb 21, 2006)

Many people do, Connor.  The hatred of cliche is something I've only seen here and a few other select places where people fancy themselves original writers.  Funny how I hear the anti-cliche sentiment mostly from unpublished "authors," though.


----------



## Mike C (Feb 21, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> Funny how I hear the anti-cliche sentiment mostly from unpublished "authors," though.



I guess you don't get to speak to many published authors then, Kane.

"Cell has plenty of gross-out moments and ascends to the level of horror more than once, but it never reaches true terror, let alone the heights achieved by King's best work. While it is a solid, entertaining read, I'm afraid we will need to wait a bit longer for that Great American Zombie Novel."

George R R Martin, Washington Post

"But once the pyrotechnics of The Pulse are over and the exodus from Boston begins, much of "Cell" is a literal trudge. 

The cell-from-hell premise gives this story an instantly powerful hook. But there are times when the book threatens to become all hook and no fish. Though "Cell" is not unduly long, it moves slowly and somewhat repetitively along its highway of horrors. "

Janet Maslin, New York Times


----------



## FloridaJay (Feb 21, 2006)

I love this quote, it fits perfectly here I think:



			
				Brendan Behan said:
			
		

> Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how its done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.



Seriously, you can't knock S. King too much, he's a successful author, novelist, etc.  Whereas _we_ are...


----------



## Kane (Feb 21, 2006)

No, I don't Mike, but I'm sure you speak to published authors all the time, by the tone of your reply.  Why you used the examples you did, I do not know, since none of them mentions cliche at all.


----------



## Mike C (Feb 21, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> No, I don't Mike, but I'm sure you speak to published authors all the time, by the tone of your reply.



Correct.



> Why you used the examples you did, I do not know, since none of them mentions cliche at all.



Because it's fun.


----------



## Mike C (Feb 21, 2006)

I guess the point is, Kane, you only hear wannabes criticising because (a) that's who you mix with (no slur intended on anyone here), so that's the only opinion you hear, and (b) readers don't, by and large, go around posting "I think King is cliché ridden" posts on readers websites. 

Part with the cash necessary to join one of the pro-oriented boards and you'll see plenty of published (not self published) writers expressing similar opinions. 

King's gift is that he can pile cliché upon cliché (and even you can't tell me that an apocalypse novel isn't a cliché, nor one about zombies, nor the self-referential writer as MC... Jesus, he's already covered 2 out of the 3 himself before!) and still have his fans lap it up. He sells a lot of books. He's arguably long past his peak, but he's still selling books.


----------



## Janelle_34 (Feb 21, 2006)

Mike do you ever say anything nice about anyone or anything?


----------



## Stewart (Feb 21, 2006)

Janelle_34 said:
			
		

> Mike do you ever say anything nice about anyone or anything?



I've seen him praise talented wordsmiths.


----------



## FloridaJay (Feb 21, 2006)

Mike C said:
			
		

> He's arguably long past his peak, but he's still selling books.



Yes, I'll argue that point with you.  Agreed that Mr. King seems to be running out of ideas (_From a Buick 8_ and _Christine_, weird cars; _The Stand_ and _Cell_, apocalypse now) but he still has the knack for telling a story.  His well-placed and paced words guide you along on a journey through darkness and light.  There is always hope mixed with pain and glory mixed with sadness.  So what if his characters are photocopies of his previous heroes and heroines, it's all good fun.  I'll continue to read what he puts out there because I know Mr. King will take me on a wild and imaginitive ride and maybe teach me a little about writing along the way


----------



## Stewart (Feb 21, 2006)

FloridaJay said:
			
		

> Agreed that Mr. King seems to be running out of ideas (_From a Buick 8_ and _Christine_, weird cars;



And both set in Pennsylvania, no less. And let's not forget _Trucks_ from _Night Shift_ which he expanded upon and directed as _Maximum Overdrive._ His lack of ideas was successfully spoofed on an episode of _The Simpsons_, when he started making crap up on the spot e.g. haunted stapler 



> So what if his characters are photocopies of his previous heroes and heroines, it's all good fun.



I've not a problem with that. He's made his money and rather than be prolific I'd like to see him take time out and try and write something that will last. He's shown he can flip between genre - with varied success - but for all his championing of literary greats he takes little from them. I think the first post on this thread does a good job of summing up my thoughts on Stephen King.



> I'll continue to read what he puts out there because I know Mr. King will take me on a wild and imaginitive ride...



May I ask...do you read other horror fiction? If so, who?



> ...and maybe teach me a little about writing along the way



I seriously doubt that. From the post linked to above, here's a quote taken from the Afterword of Stephen King's _Different Seasons:

_


> [M]y stuff ... is fairly plain, not very literary, and sometimes (though it hurts like hell to admit it) downright clumsy. To some degree or other, I would guess that those very qualities - unadmirable though they may be - have been responsible for the success of my novels. Most of them have been plain fiction for plain folks, the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and large fries from McDonald's. I am able to recognise elegant prose and to respond to it, but have found it difficult or impossible to write it myself.



What could you hope to learn?


----------



## Mike C (Feb 21, 2006)

Janelle_34 said:
			
		

> Mike do you ever say anything nice about anyone or anything?



I just said King had a gift - did you not see that?


----------



## Mike C (Feb 21, 2006)

Stephen King said:
			
		

> Most of them have been plain fiction for plain folks, the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and large fries from McDonald's.



Which is, of course, his strength. Just as soaps and sitcoms rely on repetition of familiar themes to make the viewer comfortable, King spoon-feeds us the literary equivalent of monosodium glutimate. There's nothing wrong with that; just don't confuse McD's with a gourmet meal; King himself admits he'll never be able to serve up one of those. 



			
				FloridaJay said:
			
		

> His well-placed and paced words guide you along on a journey through darkness and light.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## northerain (Feb 21, 2006)

I found this thread to be disquieting. I can't understand how someone could claim that King's work is cliche ridden. ''The Stand'' and ''Cell'' are exactly the same huh? Because...something horrible happens to the world? Then I guess all of Tolkien's work is repeating since it's like...fantasy...with...elves...stuff. So it must be the same book all over again. Not to mention that The Stand was written in 1985, and Cell in 2006. Yes, it's obvious now, after 21 years he thought he'd capitalize on ''The stand's success and write ''Cell''.
I really don't know of any horror writers today that I like more than King.

Answering Mike C, 
I'm sorry mate, but beein published means pretty much jack shit today and everyone knows that. Beeing paid in books and having to do your own promotion of your work hardly counts as beeing published. Unless these boards feauture Clive Barker, Ramsey Campbell, Richard Laymon, Douglas Clegg or someone of that caliber, we'll just stick to writingforums.com


----------



## Mike C (Feb 22, 2006)

northerain said:
			
		

> I found this thread to be disquieting. I can't understand how someone could claim that King's work is cliche ridden.



I suggest you look up cliché in the dictionary if you're not getting it, N. 

No, not because the stand and cell are the same, but because the post-apocalypse novel has become a cliché. As are many of his themes - some of the clichés he's created himself.



> Then I guess all of Tolkien's work is repeating since it's like...fantasy...with...elves...stuff.



I really don't think you understand the whole cliché thing. Tolkien's work (if you discount the mythology he based it on) was original. Fantasy has become a genre largely populated by cliché due to repetition ad infinitum.



> Not to mention that The Stand was written in 1985, and Cell in 2006. Yes, it's obvious now, after 21 years he thought he'd capitalize on ''The stand's success and write ''Cell''.



Try to understand, N. Nobody suggested that King sought to cash in on The Stand because of the apocalypse thing. I made the observation that two aspects of the book he had used before (and whether you like it or not, apocalypse and having a MC who's a writer is a cliche, no matter who's writing it. I've read probably 100 or more apocalypse novels - including the stand - and many novels and probably 1000 short stories/poems witha  writer as a main character).



> I really don't know of any horror writers today that I like more than King.



Your perogative. But please stop taking offence, we're discussing King, not criticising you for liking him. Nobody ever said there was something wrong with liking King.



> I'm sorry mate, but beein published means pretty much jack shit today and everyone knows that. Beeing paid in books and having to do your own promotion of your work hardly counts as beeing published. Unless these boards feauture Clive Barker, Ramsey Campbell, Richard Laymon, Douglas Clegg or someone of that caliber, we'll just stick to writingforums.com



Stick wherever you like, N. When I talk about published writers I mean those that get agents, get paid an advance by publishers, get paid to write. Self/vanity publishing I do not consider published and would not refer to it as such.


----------



## Kane (Feb 22, 2006)

> No, not because the stand and cell are the same, but because the post-apocalypse novel has become a cliché. As are many of his themes - some of the clichés he's created himself.



If we adopt this attitude, then what is left to write about?   Just about everything that someone can think about has been written about already.  The written word not only covers all the ages past, modern fiction, but furturistic science fiction as well.  By your definition, everything is cliche, and if cliche can be used to describe anything, then it no longer holds any real meaning, and is no longer a reason for us not to do something.


----------



## FloridaJay (Feb 22, 2006)

Connor Wolf said:
			
		

> May I ask...do you read other horror fiction? If so, who?



Clive Barker, Brian Lumley, Dan Simmons, _The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror_ anthologies, but for some reason I always gravitate towards King


----------



## Stewart (Feb 22, 2006)

FloridaJay said:
			
		

> Clive Barker, Brian Lumley, Dan Simmons, _The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror_ anthologies, but for some reason I always gravitate towards King



Clive Barker is a much better writer than King, although his reputation as a polyglot means his writing isn't as prolific as it could be. His last adult novel, _Coldheart Canyon_, wasn't all too great; not a patch on his best, _Sacrament_.

I suspect the "some reason" is simply because King puts more books on the shelves, pushing other authors you may be interested off them.


----------



## gohn67 (Feb 22, 2006)

> His lack of ideas was successfully spoofed on an episode of The Simpsons, when he started making crap up on the spot e.g. haunted staple


Wasn't that an episode of Family Guy.

As for King, I haven't read any of his latest pieces, but he knows how to tell a story and keep me reading.


----------



## northerain (Feb 22, 2006)

I know what a cliche is. Now if he created these cliches, then you can't really call his work cliched can you? That makes his ideas original, and those that follow copyists.
Tolkien ripped off every mythology that exists in order to come up with his races and backgrounds. Not to mention names. That's hardly original. But what you said, was my point. King wrote the Stand in 1985. How many apocalypse books existed at the time?
My comment on liking King was just my personal opinion. I thought I'd mention it. Besides that, i wasn't talking about vanity publishing, I was talking about ''published'' writers that get deals with small publishing houses that are more or less printing services.
I would appreciated it if you addressed me as Northerain, or go ahead and call me George. Just not N. It's....disturbing.


----------



## Stewart (Feb 22, 2006)

gohn67 said:
			
		

> Wasn't that an episode of Family Guy.


No. The Stephen King epsode of _Family Guy _was when they run over someone, said they had run over King, and found out it was Koontz. In response they run over him again.


----------



## gohn67 (Feb 22, 2006)

Connor Wolf said:
			
		

> No. The Stephen King epsode of _Family Guy _was when they run over someone, said they had run over King, and found out it was Koontz. In response they run over him again.



Yeah I remember that one, but they had another one with Stephen King and apparently it was lamp monster.  So I guess maybe the simpsons did have one with Stephen King and a stapler.

Here's a link to that Stephen King Lamp monster quote.  Just have to use the find function on your browser and enter in "Stephen" and it should get you to that quote.

http://ikevin.net/quotes/family_guy.php


----------



## Stewart (Feb 22, 2006)

Ah, you're right. Lamp monster. I think, perhaps, I was looking at my desk in work as I wrote it and believed it to be a stapler.

But _Family Guy  _got it right; he is not trying anymore. To be fair, with a fanbase like the one he has here, he has no need to.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Feb 22, 2006)

Connor Wolf said:
			
		

> Clive Barker is a much better writer than King, although his reputation as a polyglot means his writing isn't as prolific as it could be. His last adult novel, _Coldheart Canyon_, wasn't all too great; not a patch on his best, _Sacrament_.


 
Look at that. There's not a single part of that paragraph that I agree with.

Normally I rely pretty heavily on Connor's opinions, but I don't believe Barker is a better writer than king, or than anyone actually, And if _Sacrament_ is his best book, then he's got some problems, because it was crap.

What was with those overblown sex scenes? And the polar bears. WTF?

Personally I don't think you can refer to a horror writier writing about things that scare people cliche. It's generic. Making that argument is a little like saying, 'Bloody Greg Egan, writing about the future again. That's so cliche.'

Horror writers write about things that frighten people. _Cell_, while I haven't finished it, is about something that scares people right now: the end of civilisation as a result of a terrorist act. _The Stand_ was not about that. _The Stand_ was about irresponsible science.

In my opinion there is a difference between something that is generic, ie, specific to the genre, and something that is cliche.

And while I certainly agree that King's books are not as good as they used to be, if you look at _Carrie, The Shining, The Stand, It, The Talisman, Cujo_ and _The Dead Zone_, and even _Salem's Lot_ to a degree, there's no one writing horror at the moment who is _that_ good.

Anne Rice, writing about vampires again. That so cliche.


----------



## Stewart (Feb 23, 2006)

Talia_Brie said:
			
		

> I don't believe Barker is a better writer than king, or than anyone actually


 
By writer, I refer to their use of words. Barker's prose, when not being visceral, can have a poetry to it that King (who admits it himself) cannot achieve. 



			
				Talia_Brie said:
			
		

> And if _Sacrament_ is his best book, then he's got some problems, because it was crap.


 
The theme of finality, to me, was an interesting one and was, most likely, the closest Barker has got to a personal novel. Admittedly it has been aeons since I read it (_Galilee_ is another favourite) but it looked at his own mortality which, because of his homosexuality, would end generation after generation of Barkers (his family, of course, it's a common name after all).



> What was with those overblown sex scenes? And the polar bears. WTF?


 
Er, I can't remember the sex scenes....unless you are referring to these between Rosa and the guy. As for the polar bear, they're cute. :lol: 
If I remember correctly, he was a nature photographer (snapping dying/dead animals) and his location was where one would expect to find one. Overall, it was just a device to get him into the coma.


----------



## Mike C (Feb 23, 2006)

northerain said:
			
		

> King wrote the Stand in 1985. How many apocalypse books existed at the time?



I would guess several hundred, if not thousands. From mid 60's to mid 80's it was an incredibly popular theme. Ballard was writing apocalyptic novels in about 68/69. On the Beach was possibly the ultimate Apocalypse novel and was written in the 50's. Moorcock's Dancer at the Edge of Time novels, early 70's. A fair percentage of Hollywood's SF movie output from the mid 50's onwards. Dr Strangelove. All of Wyndham's novels. Need I continue?



> My comment on liking King was just my personal opinion. I thought I'd mention it.



Which you're perfectly entitled to do - but if you express an opinion, you have to be prepared to listen to counter-opinions.



> Besides that, i wasn't talking about vanity publishing, I was talking about ''published'' writers that get deals with small publishing houses that are more or less printing services.



And I was talking about authors with good agents who secured good deals with major publishers, with 4, 5 and in one case 6 figure advances. Please don't make assumptions.



> I would appreciated it if you addressed me as Northerain, or go ahead and call me George. Just not N. It's....disturbing.



Sure thing, George. Or can I call you G?


----------



## FloridaJay (Feb 23, 2006)

Do all book reviews here turn into a debate?:razz:

While I don't think Barker is a better writer than King, I do think that Barker has better descriptive capabilities.  He's poetic and (in his earlier works) visceral. He could get you knee-deep in blood and sing you a lullaby at the same time.  King, in my opinion, knows what makes America tick and knows how to tap into your fears with odd things that go bump in the night (and day).  Barker is the most original horror writer I've ever had the pleasure of reading; his stories take me to faraway places with fantastic creatures and monsters who are the heroes.  King shows me my childhood fears, makes them real, and sends me scurrying under the covers.

Stephen King and Clive Barker are my two favorite writers and each, I believe, has their strengths and weaknesses.  Both are great wordsmiths but I think they may be losing their edge (Barker has recently shunned his earlier works and then took it back;  King seems to be getting redundant).  Which is why I hope I can learn from these two and create not only a writing style different from the two but also create imaginary worlds in a way that has not been done before.  (High hopes, I know, but a guy can dream can't he?)


----------



## Mike C (Feb 23, 2006)

FloridaJay said:
			
		

> Do all book reviews here turn into a debate?:razz:



I certainly hope so.



> I do think that Barker has better descriptive capabilities.  He's poetic and (in his earlier works) visceral. He could get you knee-deep in blood and sing you a lullaby at the same time.  King, in my opinion, knows what makes America tick and knows how to tap into your fears with odd things that go bump in the night (and day).  Barker is the most original horror writer I've ever had the pleasure of reading; his stories take me to faraway places with fantastic creatures and monsters who are the heroes.



I think that's the point Connor made about Barker. He's a better wordsmith.


----------



## northerain (Feb 23, 2006)

A counter-opinion? Don't you mean a counter-argument? I'm just expressing my personal experience and of course I accept your personal opinion as well. You are indeed correct about the number of books with an Apocalypse theme. I was thinking more in the lines of horror books with that theme. Something other than sci-fi or whatever.


----------



## Mike C (Feb 23, 2006)

northerain said:
			
		

> A counter-opinion? Don't you mean a counter-argument?



No. I always say what I mean. Opinion/counter opinion, argument/counter argument. We can argue about your opinions, or have opinions on your argument, but I can't counter an opinion with an argument.



> I'm just expressing my personal experience and of course I accept your personal opinion as well. You are indeed correct about the number of books with an Apocalypse theme. I was thinking more in the lines of horror books with that theme. Something other than sci-fi or whatever.



Depends where you put your pigeonhole and how rigorously. I would class On the beach as horror, Wyndham's books also. But if we go down the 'Yeah but... route one of us will end up saying "Yeah but it's the only apolcalypse horror about a writer with Cell in the title...".

A cliche is a cliche, regardless of genre. And to whoever confused cliche with formula, no banana. Cliche is distinctly different to both convention and formula.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Feb 23, 2006)

Well, this discussion is quickly going nowhere.

If we're not going to talk about _Cell_ anymore, perhaps we should move on.


----------



## Kane (Feb 23, 2006)

Good idea, Talia.  But one quick word on 'post-apocalyptic' stories.  Mike, you call them cliche, but I think they are more of a genre, or even sub-genre, than a cliche.  Now, you kind of take a stab at King for doing it twice, and in actuality, he's done it more than that.  The Dark Tower series could be considered post-apocalyptic in many regards.  However, back in the day, I was a religious follower of the "Deathlands" and "Outlander" series by James Axler.  It's been a few years since I've read them regularly, mostly because they went downhill after Axler died, and ghostwriters took his place, but I used to love them immensely.  Sort of a guilty pleasure I guess.  Anyway, I probably read between 30-40 of the books in the series, if not more.  There are also many other books, and other series, that deal with post-apocalyptic worlds.  I'm even working on my own post apocalyptic scenarios for a book/series.  Now, as I've previously stated, if the post-apocalyptic scenario is cliche, then so is every other scenario a writer can envision.  There is nothing new under the sun.  Our only options are to give up writing/reading altogether, or to be as creative as possible with what we have.  Nearly everything that can be done, has been done.  So what do you propose?


----------



## FloridaJay (Feb 23, 2006)

Talia_Brie said:
			
		

> Well, this discussion is quickly going nowhere.
> 
> If we're not going to talk about _Cell_ anymore, perhaps we should move on.



I wouldn't agree that it's going nowhere, it's just that it's drifted away from the original topic.  

Hmm, where was I, oh yes, Stephen King's newest book is entitled Cell.  In a twist from the regular formula King uses, the story is open-ended and all of the answers are not clearly explained.  This one may leave you scratching your head.


----------

