Book Review: Firestarter

Source: Amazon.com

Firestarter, by Stephen King

From the book’s cover:

Innocence and beauty ignite with evil and terror as a young girl exhibits signs of a wild and horrifying force.

The Review:

That isn't much of a book cover blurb, now is it?

My first impression, early into Firestarter, was: "An interesting spin on Carrie." In fact, and this may be just because I'm feeling really burnt out lately by life (as I write these notes), I wasn't too excited with Firestarter at first. For one thing, the narrator of the audiobook isn't the best. The delivery sounds like one of those '60s-type readings that makes it feel... well, corny. And not in a good way. The timbre of his voice annoyed me, personally.

But it did get better. Take the character of John Rainmaker (I think that was his last name). He was sufficiently interesting, I thought. The subtle play of how he worked to get into Charlie's confidence, and get her to start using her talent to do things so that she could get things in return, was good.

And I thought Charlie, our primary female protagonist, was fairly believable, but also seemed more mature than her age would indicate. It can be said that she was just really advanced, but there were times when it seemed the author's age was speaking instead of a child's age.

The author, Stephen King. / Source: Amazon.com

The scene in which Andy and his wife (I forget the name just now) became test subjects and got the injections of "Lot 6," and then had the experiences associated with it, was really gripping. This was probably the part where the book really hooked me. King has this ability to describe a morbid scene in such a way that it just drags the reader in. The young man who, after getting the Lot 6 drug, claws his own eyes out, and the way King kept referring back to the way his hand smacked the nearby chart and the sound it made and the blood mark left on it, was really effective for me.

The way Charlie develops in her ability to start and control the fire was pretty good too. The toilet-training analogy was also apt, I thought. In fact, King did a good job here of picking at some psychological issues that I hadn't thought much about. The ideas behind our own personal restraints, and the way we get "complexes" (as the book calls them) and then pass them on - gross as it is, but "don't poop your pants" - for one. Fascinating psychological thoughts.

The end was exciting, but I could see it going a different way. It was the author's artifice to make it so John Rainmaker and Charlie had a confrontation. King does that a lot. There has to be an inevitable clash of some sort, even if the reader can see a way around it. For instance, if Charlie's dad had just said "don't trust anyone, even people you think are your friends there" - without specifically calling John a bad guy and thereby getting the girl all upset and thus tipping John off that he'd been had. And then Rainmaker went and dug up the info proving that "Cap" was under Andy's spell (the "Push") and how he (Rainmaker - boy, ya need a scorecard for this review, huh?) was being shunted aside so the father/daughter prisoners could make good their escape. And yes, I'm sure King saw this too, but it doesn't work out as pretty and exciting, so he did what he did. But I think it could have been done better.

Drew Barrymore, in one of her childhood roles.  This, of course, is from the 1984 adaptation of the novel, which is not highly regarded by critics, in general. / Source: The MovieBlog.com

Hey, how about that climax? The firestorm at the compound was exciting. Such visuals! I'm curious to see this novel in movie form (yes, I know it was done, but am hesitant to see it since they so often fall flat in my estimation), just to see that much fire. And the novel's ending was pretty good. I liked how Charlie went to Rolling Stone magazine and spilled her guts, even as "the Shop" closed in on the farm where she had blown up the time before, and to which she went to stay between her escape from the Shop's clutches and her telling of her story.

Let me back track a bit. The time we watch Andy in lockup was ok, but I found Andy's drugged up persona to be too convenient. I'd had liked to see it written a bit more complex. Of course, all this said, it is a cheap thriller novel, tinged with generous helpings of paranoia over the government. It is just a "fun" read.

Want pyrokinetic powers of your very own?  Well you can either take highly suspect experimental drugs, consult the Necronomicon, or just get an 35mm camera with a shutter hold switch, then hold very still and move something on fire around near yourself.  I once did this myself while living in Arizona.  Used a burning telephone book to make some pretty cool effects.  But I have yet to scan that particular image into a computer, so I borrowed this one from the web. Thanks to the very clever people who pulled it off.  Very nice, indeed. / Source: Digital-Photography-School.com

Gore and language present, but sexual content was pretty low. Some pretty graphic images, as is King's hallmark. Like the guy who gets his brain messed up by being "pushed" too hard by Andy, and then eventually goes nuts and puts his hand down a garbage disposal while it is on. Yowtch. Or the death of Andy's wife, with her fingernails extracted beforehand (dark as it is to say, no pun intended there). Like I said, King has this thing for grisly death. "Duh," I hear you exclaim. Well I'm just pointing out the obvious all over, ain't I?

In the end, Firestarter was a fun read, but obviously one of King's money buckets and not on the same level as certain other works by him. As I said already, Firestarter felt very much like a switch around of the plot of Carrie. Sure, that is a good thing, but it was just not as polished as Carrie was in its execution. There you go.

Learn more about Firestarter, by Stephen King, on Amazon.com


The parting comment:


"Charlie has.. the power.  She can set things on fire."  Sounds like the beginning of an '80s pop song.  Gotta love Drew Barrymore in one of her post-E.T. roles.  And the voice-over?  They talked a lot on what the movie was about back then.  I had forgotten that.  Now-a-days, you just get a false representation of how the movie is going to be, with plenty of tight cuts and close-ups and stuff.  False advertising, I'd call it.  And was that George C. Scott as John Rainbird?  Totally not the guy I mentally pictured.