The Dead Zone

The Dead Zone

By Stephen King 

I just finished reading The Dead Zone by Stephen King, and probably what sticks out most about it is the fact that it's unlike any other King novel that I've read. While I've found King novels to typically follow a main plot leading up to one central climax, The Dead Zone begins like a typical King novel and then veers into a series of subplots like short stories until it reaches the last hundred pages, where the protagonist focuses on the central plot and its climax.

This, while similar to the styling of the way he crafted The Tommyknockers, is unique considering how politically charged the novel is. King excels at crafting a vivid picture of the 1970's and its politics (both real and fictional). One of the things that stuck out most to me during it was probably the way that he managed to infuse the lives of the characters into the events of the years he was writing about when he wanted to show how time progresses and things change. Timing like that is difficult, and King once again has shown his strength as a writer in being able to master time.

There’s a craft book called The Art of Time in Fiction written by Joan Silber which outlines a few different methods writers may employ to make their stories flow at an engaging pace for the reader. One such method is called “long time,” referring to the way a writer might condense long periods of time into only a few short sentences. In The Dead Zone, King exemplifies this tactic by covering spans of years within a few short paragraphs. He does this, simply, to keep the reader reading rather than dulling them with pages of unnecessary information. He chooses the most vital pop culture pieces to set the scene (especially to show what his main character misses) while not hindering the pacing of the tale.

At the same time, the political aspect of the novel makes the reader question the idea of leadership, our political system, and the way we choose our politicians. Do we choose them in reaction to our last choice? And if we do, does that make our choice effective or ineffective? King successfully explores this as well as a more important question: how do we know that our political candidate will be the best man or woman for the job?

On the flip side, it also explores the motive of the persona that is not as typically explored-- the political assassin. It's easy for all of us to remember the names of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, etc. but do we consider their motives? No. We condemn them as psychotics--nothing more, nothing less. We fail to consider how these people shape history.

This is not to suggest a justification of their means or their motives, but a suggestion of the fact that life as we know it would be different had their acts not been committed. (Can you imagine a world where John F. Kennedy had lived out his full term?) In turn, this exploration also explores the idea of destiny and whether or not the future can be changed. In doing so, it asks the question of whether or not an act of murder can be justified if it would be for the betterment of the future to come. It argues that we have the power-- that we are the ones that control what happens not only in the context of our lives but in the context of history and how those in the future remember this time period.

Perhaps the area where King could have spent a little more time was the turn of Johnny’s character from glorified nomad to political assassin. From a craft point of view, King hints at distortions of Johnny’s vision of the future after shaking Stillson’s hand, but the truth isn’t quite revealed until the closing chapter. It’s arguable that it could be considered held for suspense, but I’m not certain that I buy that. King’s choice to hold back this information makes a statement about justification, but with so little information to go off, it’s difficult for Johnny to remain sympathetic as he undergoes his character arc.

One of the keys to fiction I’ve discovered through many a creative writing workshop has been that it’s not about selling your character to the reader on page one; it’s about making your reader believe in your character on every page until the story is over. While I found Johnny to be a terrific character in the beginning, during the later sections of his arc, I’m no so convinced I would side with him. Rather than presenting the information Johnny is aware of and allowing the readers to decide for themselves, the readers have to trust him enough already and simply believe that a bad vision was a bad vision. It’s a bold move, and I’m not certain it serves his novel well.

Although, I have to confess that the closing epilogue is the kind of thing that sticks with the reader, especially where all the information held back is revealed. For as much criticism I just provided about holding back, I can’t deny the sheer power of the thematic message left when all was revealed. That alone compensated for the area of issue. I recommend this novel to any writer who is interested in thematic structure.