Somewhat autobiographical, questions about identity, personality disorders, and paranormal manifestations blend together in one of King's average and weaker novels.

If another author, lacking King's remarkable characterization skills, had written a book with scarcely a real plot or characterization, it would almost surely have failed. However, it's still a solid, average read. I wouldn't recommend reading it. King should really have considered leaving more unfinished manuscripts like this one, along with Cujo, Christine, Tommyknockers, etc., in this ominous treasure chest of undead and half-baked works he likes to refer to. But I read it before I became a meta score swarm intelligence rating worshipper. Shame on me; it's my own fault.

What's really a bit annoying and that I can still remember vividly is the unsatisfying end and conclusion, as well as the use of some not really that terrifying elements. Birds, honestly, and sparrows on top of that, not crows, ravens, vultures or at least mutated zombie eagles. Really, it wouldn't have taken that much to at least choose an animal that doesn't immediately shatter the suspension of disbelief. I mean, sparrows! They hack one to death over hours while their little claws are massaging one's skin, their sweet chirps the last thing one hears on earth. The terror of the air.

Fun fact, nothing to do with the novel but with his addictions. Maybe "fun fact" might be inappropriate, but meh:

I am just realizing that he wrote The Dark Tower 2 The Drawing of the Three, where a character is dealing and struggling with heroin addiction just before his rehab, when some of his best other works have been produced. When one contrasts the stoned-as-hell writing and the horrible, directly afterward The Tommyknockers (not read because of the ratings), and this, one could come to the wrong conclusion that drugs give inspiration. But then came The Stand and his other amazing works.

The Dark Half and Tommyknockers definitely suffered from an insecure, nervous, sober writer who, as he said, wasn't sure anymore if he still could write without his demonic little helpers. And I see The Stand as his ultimate self-test, including one of his only writer's block moments. Creativity seems to sometimes flow better on self-destruction mode.

Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...

Brace yourself for some layers of authorship! Ready?

This book was penned by Stephen King under his own name, Stephen King, not long after the "death" by exposure of his pseudonym Richard Bachman. The story revolves around an author, Thad Beaumont, who, in similar circumstances, has just put to rest his own highly successful pseudonym, George Stark. The trouble is, George Stark isn't too eager to go quietly into the night. And George Stark can be one extremely high-toned son of a bitch.

I have a great affection for it when King writes about writers (John Irving also has a similar talent in this regard). I'm in the early stages of becoming a true Constant Reader. So, my understanding of the King Canon isn't quite comprehensive yet, but this novel combines the flavors and queries that I relished in both Misery and The Shining. The protagonists are tormented by an uncertainty regarding who exactly is in control.

Not being a writer myself, there are certain aspects that I enjoy merely as a voyeur. However, the "screw 'em all", unsustainable yet going too fast to care characteristics of George Stark or Jack Torrance when the pressure starts to build up lie within all of us to some extent. That moment of realizing that your brain, your impulses might not be on your side, might actually be driving you full speed off a cliff, regardless of the roadblocks - perhaps it's more familiar to some than others.

If I made the decision to explore 'certain' King books if not all of them (some, on the surface, just don't appeal to me), why did I choose this one? Well, I'd seen the film version some time back. I thought it was... ok... but I also recently thought that there might be more (esp. of interest) to the rather-hefty novel. Turns out that's a yes-and-no.

Because it's a long book, there are certainly things that the film omits... but what was discarded in the transfer isn't all that significant (outside of a bit of texture).

In terms of story ideas, 'TDH' may be one of King's simplest. Essentially it's the author's personal take on Stevenson's 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' (with added homage'seasonings' from works like Wilde's 'The Picture of Dorian Gray' and du Maurier's 'The Birds'; King loves paying homage) - so the basic conceit is simple.

What King does here is insert himself inside that simple idea - and then he uber-exploits its possibilities. The result?: while a whole lot happens, not a whole lot happens... esp. once you get beyond the novel's (initial) revenge angle. Once you're into the fuller body of the book, you might (as I did) find yourself noticing King's deftness with construction even as you're noticing that what starts to take over is disguised / ornate filler.

In short, at some point, the same thing begins happening over and over and over. The novel begins revealing that it's just too long: a simple idea stretched to beyond its limits.

I should interject here that a lot of stalwart King fans won't mind that (and clearly, over the years, haven't minded it) ~ because, overall, he still delivers in the way that wins them over.

But this wasn't among my favorite reading-King experiences. It feels more like part of his 'commercial' output. The quality of the actual writing isn't (to me) as memorable. Though competent and occasionally more so, it's more functional and surface (as opposed to the richness that makes its way into some of his later works; i.e., '11/22/63' and 'Joyland').

It's admirable that he went whole-hog with a central idea that reminds me of something the 'Urinetown: The Musical' character of Little Sally only partially says: \\"A premise so absurd that--\\". King is no stranger to the absurd - or, rather, the implausible. But it took what-the-hell guts to run with a plausibility-immune doppelgänger.

What did I like most in this novel? 3 things: the through-line character of Sheriff Alan Pangborn (a sort-of lynchpin for logic and sanity); the unexpected wryness of the academic Rawlie DeLesseps (changed from a man to a woman in the film); and the leitmotif of the semi-omnipresent sparrows (to be honest - at one point, they started to bore me... but then I bought into what they are said to represent).

I've read a fair amount of his work but (because he has simply written *so much*) I'm far from being a King aficionado. It seems that occasionally he really grabs me. Just not so much this time.

It is dense, extremely descriptive, going off on tangents in countless moments, in few words; it is very King-like.

But at its core, it is very well-developed! Especially the characters, Thad and George are both the same and opposite at the same time, and they have complemented each other superbly.

The sparrows are very creepy, and the other scary scenes are set in a way that makes your hair stand on end. I didn't actually get scared as such but it comes close.

After finishing the book, I started watching the movie and I think it is a good adaptation (not excellent but acceptable).

This is the very first Stephen King book that I have ever read.

It was one rainy summer afternoon during my middle school days when I randomly picked it up.

Little did I know that this simple act would change my reading preferences forever.

As I delved into the pages of that book, I was immediately captivated by King's unique writing style and his ability to create such vivid and terrifying worlds.

The characters seemed to come alive in my mind, and I found myself on the edge of my seat, eagerly turning the pages to find out what would happen next.

Since then, I have been completely hooked on King's works.

His books have become a staple in my reading collection, and I look forward to every new release with great anticipation.

Stephen King has truly become one of my favorite authors, and I am grateful to have discovered his talent that fateful summer afternoon.

When the story was made into a TV series, Gary Busey should have played the role of George Stark.

Gary Busey is a highly talented and versatile actor. His unique presence and acting style could have brought a new dimension to the character of George Stark.

With his ability to embody complex and intense personalities, Busey would have been able to capture the essence of Stark's mysterious and menacing nature.

His past performances in various roles have shown his range and skill, making him a perfect fit for this challenging role.

The audience would have been captivated by his portrayal of George Stark, eagerly following the twists and turns of the story as he brought the character to life on the screen.

Overall, Gary Busey's inclusion in the TV series as George Stark would have added an exciting and unforgettable element to the production.

I really enjoyed this more on this occasion. The phrase "the sparrows are flying again" has remained in my mind ever since I read this for the last time.

I believe that all true writers likely have a darker side, but let's hope that they are not all as violent as George Stark.

The next book on my 22nd reread of King is "Insomnia". It's always interesting to revisit these works and see if my perception has changed over time. King's writing has a unique ability to draw you in and make you feel as if you are a part of the story. I'm looking forward to delving into "Insomnia" and seeing what new insights and emotions it will bring.

Maybe this time around, I'll notice something that I missed before. That's the beauty of rereading - you never know what you'll discover.

I'm excited to continue this journey through King's works and see where it takes me.

3.5 Stars

What inspires an author to write a story? Without question, King is a man with tremendous imagination. He took inspiration for The Shining when he stayed in a deserted hotel with his wife, and Pet Sematary after his family's year-long stay near an actual one in Orrington.

But for The Dark Half, his inspiration was closer to home. King wrote several novels under the pseudonym Richard Bachman in the 70s and 80s. In 1985, a bookstore clerk figured out Bachman was King and wrote an article with his blessing. The cat was out of the bag.

Four years later, in 1989, King wrote The Dark Half. It's a dark tale where a novelist with a pseudonym reveals his secret identity and vows not to write under that pen name again. But the pen name, his Dark Half, doesn't like that one bit. So it takes a human form and starts killing those involved in exposing its identity and more!

The story is divided into three parts. Part one is the longest, bloodiest, and most enjoyable. I flew through it in hours. It's surprising as King usually builds characters slowly in the initial chapters, but not here. Part two slows down the pace but picks up as the chapters progress.

The Dark half is like a next-level Jekyll and Hyde, a wicked version of Frankenstein and his monster, and Cape fear with a crazier Max Cady. However, the plot has major issues. It feels more like a Goosebumps story than an adult novel. And there's some lazy writing. But I still bow down to King's sheer wicked imagination. I recommend this to King fans looking for a different high.

Finally, shout out to Craig AKA LoneTiger for a great buddy read. And no sparrows were harmed during our read!

I was somewhat disappointed with this. It is interesting due to the obvious King/Bachman connection. However, one aspect that this story lacks, which all other King books excel in, is interesting and great characters. Our main protagonist is a clumsy, cold, and serious writer who is really just a bit of a dullard.

I also made the error of reading this simultaneously with IT (which I am currently around 500 pages into), and IT is filled with amazing characters.

Nevertheless, it is still an interesting read, but there are numerous other King books out there that are far superior to this one.

Recommended for: King completionists.

A personal favorite of mine is this moment when King surprised me.

It was truly unexpected when he mentioned Noam Chomsky. Yah!

King's reference to Chomsky added an interesting layer to the conversation. It made me think about the various connections and influences in different fields.

Chomsky is a renowned figure, and his ideas have had a significant impact on linguistics, politics, and many other areas.

To hear King bring him up in this context was both exciting and thought-provoking.

It made me wonder what King saw in Chomsky's work that related to the topic at hand.

Maybe it was a particular concept or perspective that King wanted to share or explore further.

This simple mention of Noam Chomsky by King has left a lasting impression on me and has sparked my curiosity to learn more about both King and Chomsky.

It's moments like these that make conversations truly engaging and memorable.

I look forward to more such surprises and insights in the future.

3.5/5

This particular work is not Mr King's finest creation, yet it is also far from being his worst. In my personal experiences, his worst works are extremely rare.

However, it should be noted that even an average Stephen King book manages to outshine the best efforts of most other authors.

King has this unique ability to craft stories that grip the reader from the very beginning and keep them engaged until the very end.

His writing style is both captivating and immersive, allowing the reader to easily envision the scenes and characters he描绘s.

Although this book may not reach the same heights as some of his more renowned masterpieces, it still contains the essence of what makes Stephen King such a great writer.

It is a testament to his talent and creativity that even his average works are worth reading and enjoying.

Before reading THE DARK HALF, I, as usual, read some reviews of this book. Some of them I liked, while others I didn't. I don't typically engage in arguments with others about their thoughts on a novel because everyone has the right to their own opinion. However, I must say that I really dislike it when people call Stephen King a hack. Okay, I understand that you may not like him and may never read another word he writes, but name-calling is truly unnecessary. It not only insults the author but also those who enjoy his work. Some people read for entertainment, and in my humble opinion, if Stephen King does one thing well, it's entertaining.

Stephen King wrote THE DARK HALF right after he was exposed for being Richard Bachman. A bookseller read the book Thinner and became suspicious that Bachman's writing style was very similar to King's. THE DARK HALF seems to be King's way of purging any bitterness he felt about that experience, and boy, does he do it thoroughly.

Thad Beaumont is an author who lives in the town of Ludlow, Maine. He writes serious books under his own name, which don't make much money, and decides to write pulp fiction under the pen name "George Stark". When Thad's authorship of Stark's novels becomes public knowledge, Thad decides to kill off his alter ego. But his alter ego has other plans.

I'm glad I finally read this book. It was a relatively quick read for a Stephen King novel. It was suspenseful, fun, and a bit gory. What more could you ask for in a horror novel?