I read a review of The Outsider by Stephen King. Sorry, don't have the link handy, but you can find it by doing a Google news search (as of when I did the search, there was only one review).
What I read seemed on the mark: per the review, apparently the author was disappointed that it wasn't a mystery with no supernatural overtones. The review stated that having the story turn into a battle with a monster, while not something we wouldn't naturally assume from King, weakened the book. In other words, have it be some weird locked-door type of detective tale that would keep readers guessing.
I sort of get that. It probably would have been better as just a mystery story. Here's a specific point: apparently there is a prosecutor who wants to progress in the system by becoming a star from putting the innocent protagonist on trial. The prosecutor goes so far, according to the review, as to basically dismissing the great alibi -- three colleagues with the guy on some trip, with a video to prove what is being stated as an alibi. It made me think that maybe a conspiracy story would have been better. Imagine getting to that part about the alibi and the video has suddenly gone missing and the three colleagues say, no, we were never with him. That would have made the story exciting. It could have turned out that the prosecutor was just trying to manufacture a case against someone to climb the system's ladder. Maybe the man goes to prison, and when he gets out, it becomes a revenge tale (the protagonist could say "I did time with no crime attached; since I did the time, I am owed a crime"). Of course, maybe such a plotline has already been done.
I still want to read this, but the review specifically pointed out that the first couple hundred pages is mostly procedural; then, the supernatural kicks in. That deters me. Nevertheless, I think I will win out in the end and read it (I hope; no guarantees).
What I read seemed on the mark: per the review, apparently the author was disappointed that it wasn't a mystery with no supernatural overtones. The review stated that having the story turn into a battle with a monster, while not something we wouldn't naturally assume from King, weakened the book. In other words, have it be some weird locked-door type of detective tale that would keep readers guessing.
I sort of get that. It probably would have been better as just a mystery story. Here's a specific point: apparently there is a prosecutor who wants to progress in the system by becoming a star from putting the innocent protagonist on trial. The prosecutor goes so far, according to the review, as to basically dismissing the great alibi -- three colleagues with the guy on some trip, with a video to prove what is being stated as an alibi. It made me think that maybe a conspiracy story would have been better. Imagine getting to that part about the alibi and the video has suddenly gone missing and the three colleagues say, no, we were never with him. That would have made the story exciting. It could have turned out that the prosecutor was just trying to manufacture a case against someone to climb the system's ladder. Maybe the man goes to prison, and when he gets out, it becomes a revenge tale (the protagonist could say "I did time with no crime attached; since I did the time, I am owed a crime"). Of course, maybe such a plotline has already been done.
I still want to read this, but the review specifically pointed out that the first couple hundred pages is mostly procedural; then, the supernatural kicks in. That deters me. Nevertheless, I think I will win out in the end and read it (I hope; no guarantees).