Joe Hill (aka, Stephen King’s son) kicks off this graphic novel series by working his father’s side of the horror street. A family is dealing with the murder of their father and retreats to a strange New England mansion with doors that when opened with the right key leads to fabulous adventures.
Gabriel Rodriguez’s artwork is stunning and the plot promises much more amazement and suspense ahead in the next volumes:
- Welcome to Lovecraft. February–July 2008.
- Head Games. January–June 2009.
- Crown of Shadows. November 2009 – April 2010.
- Keys to the Kingdom. August 2010 – March 2011.
- Clockworks. June 2011 – April 2012.
- Omega. November 2012 – June 2013.
- Alpha. September–December 2013
If you’re interested in a compelling horror series, Locke & Key fits the bill. There was also a TV series based on these books: “It premiered on Netflix on February 7, 2020. The series stars Darby Stanchfield, Connor Jessup, Emilia Jones, Jackson Robert Scott, Laysla De Oliveira, Petrice Jones, and Griffin Gluck. In December 2020, ahead of the second season premiere on October 22, 2021, the series was renewed for a third season which premiered on August 10, 2022. In April 2022, it was announced that the third season would be its last, as originally planned by the show’s creators.” (Wikipedia)
Are you a Stephen King or Joe Hill fan? GRADE: B+
King is wildly uneven; I like him as a public person more than I do as a fiction writer, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s averaging better now than he was in the ’70s and ’80s when his work was putting me off (Gunslinger stories, “The Cat from Hell”, “The Mist”, “The Crate”, much of the rest of his work I tried, too many aspects of DANSE MACABRE) more often than I enjoyed it (CARRIE the novel; “Mrs Todd’s Shortcut”, some aspects of DANSE MACABRE, one of his other shorter works I’m trying to recall). I’ve heard little but good about “Joe Hill”‘s work (I suppose a labor activist’s name is as good a pseud as any) but I haven’t gotten around to it. Nor Owen nor Tabitha King’s.
I do intend to give SK’s short CF novels a try some time…his logorrhea in much of his early work is one of the turn-offs.
“Children of the Corn” is the one I was blanking on. Surprising how good that one was, considering how famously bad the film adaptation was (and its sequels were).
Karl Edward Wagner, with his BOTY horror volume, was better at culling King’s wheat from chaff, in my experience, than other editors.
Todd, “Children of the Corn” is a classic story. The movies…not so much. Karl Edward Wagner was a wonderful writer…with a Big Problem.
Todd, I read all the early Stephen King novels and short stories…until CUJO. After that book, I took a few years off. I read most of King’s short story collections, but his massive novels like UNDER THE DOME hold no appeal for me.
It’s no surprise that I’ve read all of Stephen King’s books (with the exception of the baseball book written with Stuart O’Nan). As Todd, says, he can be uneven. But when he knocks it out of the park…man o man! I’ve also read many of Joe Hill’s books (I’m especially fond of NS4R2), but what hooked me on Joe Hill was LOCKE & KEY. Great Stuff. There have also been a couple of standalones. And Hill’s other graphic novel are pretty good, also.
Jerry, Stephen King and his son have successful careers when publishing is a troubled sector.
Yes, I’m a fan of King, though I haven’t read him on Jerry’s level. No Gunslinger series, for one.
I’ve liked the Hill I’ve read too, mostly the shorter stuff.
Jeff, Joe Hill inherited some of his father’s writing chops!
I read “Salem’s Lot” in high school and “Night Shift” a few years later in college when everyone I knew was a King junkie. I also read “Danse Macabre” which is entertaining and full of alternately smart and oddly dumb insights (I agree in theory with his take on “The Twilight Zone” and the Jack Finney issue but still love the show regardless; he’s inexplicably clueless about Robert Wise’s “The Hauting). I never caught the bug though and the doorstop size of “The Shining ” and especially “The Stand” as well as many of his other novels put me off. I’m more of a short story horror fan. I’ve heard good things about Joe Hill but never checked out his work.
I’ve seen this graphic novel in bookstores and I remember reading about the Netflix show but as a number of filmmakers have pointed out, Netflix shows and movies come and go as if they never happened.
Byron, I watched some LOCKE & KEY on Netflix but wasn’t impressed. I’m a big fan of SALEM’S LOT and King’s short stories (and his longer stories). The long novels don’t interest me.
Never read Hill (or any other of King’s family). I think the last King I read was “The Mist” or maybe “Pet Semetery.” I liked “Salem’s Lot,” “The Shining,” and “The Stand” (the earlier, shorter version), but a lot of his stuff (The Dark Tower cycle and the Holly series) doesn’t interest me. Wait, I did read “Doctor Sleep,” only middling. I have to give the guy credit for making horror popular again (maybe not singlehandedly, but certainly major influence), and for his longevity.
Fred, I’m with you on “The Mist.” While Stephen King is one of the most prolific popular writers around, his quality level stays consistently high.
I’ve dipped my toe in the King ocean but not enough to call myself a fan or follower!
Bob, I prefer the early Stephen King works. You have plenty of King books to chose from if you want to dip your toe in the King Ocean!
Another voice on King, stumbled across just now:
https://www.reddit.com/r/stephenking/comments/1jwyzrk/unpopular_opinion_the_group_sex_scene_in_it/
r/stephenking icon
Go to stephenking
r/stephenking
•
9 hr. ago
woodpile3
Unpopular Opinion: The Group Sex Scene in IT Deserves a More Nuanced Conversation
Discussion
Okay, hear me out—because I know that scene in IT gets a lot of flak, and honestly? I get it. It’s jarring. It’s uncomfortable. And if you first encountered it as a teenager or an adult, it probably made you go, “Wait, what now?” But I really think there’s more to it than just shock value or poor judgment on King’s part.
First off, the context matters. King was writing a story that’s not just about a monster clown, but about childhood, memory, trauma, and the loss of innocence. The Losers’ journey is mythic in scope—they’re not just fighting Pennywise, they’re fighting everything that adulthood strips away: magic, faith, connection, and belief.
The controversial scene happens right after they’ve defeated Pennywise for the first time, deep in the sewers, completely cut off from the adult world. They’re disoriented, terrified, and unsure they’ll even find their way out. The bond they shared during the fight is starting to fray, and in that moment, Beverly—who has been sexualized and abused by adults her whole life—reclaims her agency in the only way she knows how. She uses sex not as something shameful, but as a unifying ritual. Something that grounds them in their shared love and belief in each other.
This taps into something ancient. Across many mythologies, sex magic has been used as a way to connect with divine forces, to unlock power, or to create spiritual binding. In Tantric traditions, sexual union is a literal merging of energies meant to transcend the physical and enter higher planes of consciousness. In some pagan practices, sex was seen as a sacred act that could bring about healing, fertility, and balance. That might sound lofty in this context, but symbolically, what Beverly initiates isn’t that far off: it’s a ritual of grounding, of binding, of keeping them tethered to each other when they’re on the verge of being lost.
Is it clumsy? Yes. Could it have been written in a way that still honored that symbolism without involving children and explicit sex? Probably. But it’s also worth noting that King didn’t write it to titillate—he wrote it to make a statement about connection, trauma, and the power of love in all its messy, human forms. It’s supposed to be uncomfortable. The whole book is.
And Beverly isn’t being exploited in that scene—she’s the one who leads, the one who offers. It’s not about male fantasy; it’s about a girl who has been used and objectified by adults choosing to do something her way to bring her friends back to her. That matters.
Anyway, I’m not saying everyone has to like it. But I do think it deserves more thoughtful discussion than just “WTF was King thinking?” He was thinking mythically. He was thinking emotionally. He was writing from a place of metaphor, not realism. And I don’t think we should erase that just because the scene makes us squirm.
Curious to hear other takes—especially from folks who’ve re-read it as adults.
Todd, thanks for this alternate opinion.