This is my second Stephen King novel, and I still haven't made up my mind about the so-called 'King of Suspense Novels'. One could argue that I started from the top, when I read 'The Stand' as my first King-book, but I wanted to gain an idea of what King was capable of - and as a result, I was a bit underwhelmed. 
 'The Dead Zone' was given to me by a huge King-fan, and recommended with such a dear warmth and enthusiasm, that I couldn't help but to be intrigued. But once again I'm torn, and left with an itchy feeling of confusion and disappointment. 
 While 'The Dead Zone' isn't as grand in its scope as 'The Stand', or even as impressive in its very form, it gives me a clear picture of an author with an immense imagination. King has the most interesting ideas and asks the most puzzling questions (such as "Would you have killed Hitler, if you could travel back in time?"), ultimately creating something that I have never seen before. 
 My only problem is this: unfulfilled potential. While the story did surprise me, it did not absorb me. It seemed like a suspense novel without suspense, excitement or even a hint of feeling. I did not invest myself in Johnny's story, because I didn't care. While he most certainly is a genuinely good guy, he is also quite boring at times. Which may seem heartless to admit. 
 The villain, Greg Stillson, seems like King's typical arch-enemy, every possible kind of evil encapsulated in an abusing and vile body. He is unbelievable as a person and a human-being; but he is at least more interesting than Johnny. 
 The plot mainly consists of four 'episodes', that only work vaguely together. They felt fragmental, and the basic fundament of the story turned scarily fragile as a consequence. I did however like the ending, and especially enjoyed King's use of articles/letters. They felt right and set the mood perfectly. 
 I also adore King's use of intertextuality. In both of those two books I've read by him, he has referred to a multitude of books and pop-culture, and I quite enjoy that. It makes his heavily constructed (and fantastical) worlds seem more real. 
 This book was interesting at times, lacking at others, and enjoyable in the very end. I found myself shifting and turning against it constantly. I was bored, and I was disappointed; I was interested and I was puzzled. Not a bad second meeting with King, but still not a fulfilling one. With so many books on my TBR-list, I do not think I will turn back to him anytime soon. I can't make my way around his authorship either; it is gigantic, and I never know where to start, where to search for that particular King-novel that I'll be able to love. I do not even know if it's out there. Is it possible to regard King as an 'adequete' writer and nothing more? Is it even allowed? If so, that might be my final conclusion.