A super engaging short story. The illustrations in this book were great, though slightly disappointing when they fell out of order with the story and subsequently spoiled the next page. ( )

When I shelved this on Goodreads, a couple of years ago, I rated it 3 stars based on a 30-year-old memory of it being vaguely disappointing. I have just now re-read it for the Set on Halloween square for 2016 Halloween Bingo.

As one of Uncle Steve’s Constant Readers, I feel this just doesn’t measure up:
1. It’s written in present tense
2. The illustrations are not appealing
3. The characters are not interesting
4. The horror is perfunctory
5. It’s written in present tense
( )

Here is yet another book in Uncle Steve's cannon that holds up to a re-read. There is an element of [Needful Things] in the writing, as King structures the narrative by focusing on a different one of the townsfolk for each brief chapter. The conceit helps the suspense to build, as each person knows or experiences something different of the blood-thirsty werewolf as the story unfolds. This is obviously low-hanging fruit for me - lycanthropy and Stephen King, but it is quite a good bite-size tale to enjoy on a dark and stormy night. And the illustrations by Bernie Wrightson are wonderful in this edition. I also am fond of the cheesy 1980s film version, but I came into my own in those halcyon days.

Highly Recommended!!!!!
5 bones!!!!! ( )

Whelp, I did it. I read my first Stephen King book in full and it only took me 25+ years to do so. Why so long? Well, I've been a massive horror fan since diaper days, and Stephen King was always one of the giants that I just could never really get into, despite being recommended to me often. I watched more of his movies than read his books (Creepshow being one of my favorites). I tried Salem's Lot (since I'm a massive vampire fan) once but I was in my early teen years and didn't give it a fighting chance and couldn't appreciate a slow burner. That always stuck with me, so I figured I'd at least give his shortest book ever written a shot to see how well his writing held up with me now that I'm much older and a more mature reader. I know I was recommended Cycle of the Werewolf at least once when I was in HS, but I never picked it up since I was reading Bram Stoker's Dracula instead. I semi-forgot about it over the years, and since I'm not a fan of King's writing, I felt it was about time I gave him another go.
I digress, so here's a review longer than necessary and all you ever need to know for such a short book.

The Pros
* It's a Straight forward, simple, cut and dry easy to understand monster story. It's a quick and short read that any horror lover or monster fan can squeeze under their belt in no time.Many people who have read Stephen King's books agree he tends to overwrite and tries to overdo his horror scenes- for this one, it had just enough there to keep you invested and not see it as excessive.
* Very fast paced and the gritty action starts as soon as you flip the first page.
* I really like how the chapters are set up in this book- each one is a month of a full year, each one detailing an event that leads up to the big finish. According to my research, this book was originally supposed to be a calendar but ended up becoming a novella because Stephen King felt a calendar wasn't the best fit afterall.
* One of the things I liked the most about this book aside from it being a clear cut monster story, is that putting your faith into religion and prayers can often times be foolish- as there are times where even your own God will not help you. There's not really a good or evil- just survival and that reality is often scarier than make believe.
* Excellent art that would make spectacular mini prints on their own. I've read plenty of people who agree this book was more powerful to them simply because of the artwork featured in the story.

The cons
* I felt to bring this up only because these kinds of things truly bother me and I've heard other horror community members wishing this was addressed more, so I'll be the first to talk about it. There's a racial slur used in one page and this is the only instance it happens in the book-very close to the end. I was taken by surprise when I saw it, as it came out of the blue and was very unexpected. I'm not defending him nor condoning that behavior as I felt to bring it up, but the book is no stranger to other uncomfortable themes, such as physical abuse and more. The word was a quick flash and was not a plot device- used only to illustrate the many varieties of dirtbags that are present in the book, and amongst the wife beaters, drunks, and braggart cops- there's one faceless background racist. You could completely omit the one word and it change literally nothing about the story. I wouldn't be surprised if he used it simply because it's a horror novel and he wanted to use it for shock value to remind folks that the people in this fictional town aren't very likeable. (Apparently, King has been known to use racial slurs in his books plenty. Since this was the first book of his I read in full, I had no idea.) I'm not a sensitive reader at all, but as I said before, I had my own reasons for stating that- so readers beware!
* The Writing is a bit rough and all over the place- we get some setting skips where one paragraph happens in Place A while paragraph 2 is in place B and paragraph C is in another area, and it's all happening at once with no true distinction other than the reliance of the reader's comprehension. Not only that, but I wasn't too big a fan of the prose and style of writing as this is one reason why I'm not a big Stephen King fan, so Salem's Lot memories came flashing back to me here. It somehow felt overwritten and underwritten at the same time? I also noticed the werewolf's eyes kept jumping from yellow to green to something in between without ever having one true color but that was a minor thing that didn't affect the story at all.
* The story is more than a little predictable, but this is the weakest con of them all. The twists and outcome of the story is still good.

The Neutral
* The main protagonist is an unlikely hero, a handicapped 10 year old. I think it's fine to have a brave/mature disabled lead, and I sure do love a character that can handle themselves well and be strong, but it felt a little unrealistic at times given all what the main protagonist does- mainly for the age he is. No spoilers, however this was written during a time where younger characters were written to have more adult-like mindsets rather than match their own age. I put this under neutral only because I don't like talking about realism when it concerns a fictional story about a spooky monster (and plus I like plenty of things where the protagonists are children that do things beyond their age). It's just something to think about that doesn't really impact the story one way or another. I think the tone of the book matched the time it was written fairly well (80s).
* I would say this story is for mature readers- it isn't very graphic nor is it actually truly scary, but with some questionable language present plus the artwork I can see how it might rattle some sensitive readers. Then again, you don't find many children or pre-teens reading Stephen King novels anyway. (I'd say the age bracket is normally 16)

All in all, this book appears to be a 50/50 in the horror community and I can see why. If you can set the cons aside, this book I would say is a decent read and famous for a reason. I've read better books for sure, but I'm glad I read at least one King book entirely now. Read it fully and see what you think. ( )

This was a favorite when I was around 11, and I just revisited it with my 10-year-old son. I still liked it, though perhaps not quite as much. The story was good, imagery was great and dialogue was generally believable and sometimes quite amusing. I'm not sure I get what Stephen King was doing with his tenses during this book, though. Past tense, present tense, past tense, present tense. Make up your mind! :P Other than that though, great. Still love the illustrations (though they're not quite as shocking as they were to 11-year-old me.)

My son gave it seven stars out of five and told me to stop being a grammar cop. So there's that. ( )