# Why do people hate King?



## blademasterzzz

Granted, Stephen King may not be the most prolific and lyrical writer who ever walked across the face of the earth, but many people hold his writing for nothing more than utter and complete pop-trash, and even put Dan Brown over him. 

I think he is a great storyteller and a very good writer, and his stories are certainly more imaginative than most of the sorry fiction nowadays. His horror stories are some of the best I've read. 

So why do people hate him so much?


----------



## VinrAlfakyn

I haven't read much of King, but I've liked what I have read. He's a very good writer. Can't imagine why people would hate him.


----------



## Hodge

He is a formula writer. Most of his books follow a very similar formula that makes them a tad predictable. But then, Shakespeare was a formula writer, too. King's good, although I hate how there's unexplained psychic shit in all of his books.


----------



## BookLover

I have read only one King's book so far and that is 'bag of bones.'

I really crawled through the book. The novel was stretched too far like a rubber band and for me, the rubber band broke. I enjoyed neither the story, nor the book, so decided not to read any of King's book again.


----------



## BookLover

Oh, BTW, I am not much into horror stuff anyway. Thats one of the reasons why I don't read King.


----------



## Hodge

_Bag of Bones_ was very sad... 


Try his Bachman books. _The Running Man_ is excellent—and his Bachman stuff isn't horror.


----------



## Talia_Brie

Hodge said:
			
		

> He is a formula writer.



Could you explain how you come by that opinion? (Not trying to get up your nose, genuinely curious) I personally don't think of him as a formula writer, but rather a genre writer.

And I think if you look at the reasonably broad range of stuff he writes, is quite impressive (The Talisman/Black House - mod fantasy, The Shining - pure horror, the Dark Tower - Pure American Fantasy).

I also think he's an excvellent craftsman who consistantly creates likeable and engaging characters. His dialogue is brilliant, and he writes childredn better than anyone I know (IMHO)


----------



## lisajane

I've only read _Carrie_, which I did like and found entertaining, but aren't very interested in reading anything else by him.


----------



## Stewart

blademasterzzz said:
			
		

> Stephen King may not be the most prolific


He's _too_ prolific. 



> many people hold his writing for nothing more than utter and complete pop-trash, and even put Dan Brown over him.


I would concur with the "pop-trash" assessment although I would never put Dan Brown over _anyone_. Dan Brown is trash, plain and simple.



> I think he is a great storyteller and a very good writer,


He may be a storyteller, with his conversational tone, but he's certainly not a good writer. A good writer knows how to use words and picks the appropriate ones for the page; King, in his prolificity, has no time to select the _best_ words.



> his stories are certainly more imaginative than most of the sorry fiction nowadays.


I have to disagree vehemently here. 2005 has been one of the best years for fiction. Robert McCrum, in The Observer discusses how good a year it has been.



> His horror stories are some of the best I've read.



I'm unsure what you mean here. Do you mean his horror stories are the best horror stories you have read; or that his horror stories are the best stories that you've read?

If it's the former, then there's a glut of horror out there much better. Of course, there's the classics from Poe and Lovecraft. Up to date, there's tales from Christopher Fowler, Poppy Z. Brite, Caitlin R. Kiernan, which piss on King.



> So why do people hate him so much?



Probably because they get bored of the way the horror market has saturated due to his, and a few others', output. That, and he's a jerk: his comments two years ago at the US National Book Awards, where he said that more attention should be payed to popular writers. They _need_ the attention, of course.  :roll:  If they put out worthy literature then they may be deemed worthy. (Source[/url)


King writes too much; in his forewords and afterwords, he typically talks about all the greats he reads. He may get a bit more credit if he takes some time off to attempt the _Great American Literary Novel_; but he won't.

I read King when I was about 12 to 17. But, like all crap, I grew out of him and moved on to better books.

The following is a post, from [url=http://palimpsest.org.uk/index.php?]Palimpsest, whereby one of the members, under the recommendation of others, read some Stephen King. 



			
				John Self said:
			
		

> ...or, Palimpsest Gets Popular. And writers don't come much more popular than Stephen King. Why, he's had more books adapted for the stage and screen than William Shakespeare. I've never been tempted to try him before, mainly because of his reputation as a horror hack, but also from his occasional snippy public proclamations, like when he argued that more critical attention should be paid to popular writers ... just because they're popular. Go tell it to your accountant, Stephen. And he's oddly defensive in the midst of self-satisfaction when he writes about being warned by his agent early in his career that he would get 'typed' as a horror writer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I decided ... that I could be in worse company. I could, for example, be an 'important' writer like Joseph Heller and publish a novel every seven years or so, or a 'brilliant' writer like John Gardner and write obscure books for bright academics who eat macrobiotic foods and drive old Saabs with faded but still legible GENE McCARTHY FOR PRESIDENT stickers on the rear bumpers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chill, Stevie! So Heller is 'worse company' because he takes so long to write his books? Or bright academics aren't supposed to be catered for? These comments by him, it's worth noting, aren't in response to criticism from these writers, or others, but unsolicited salvos from King that show more how he feels about his own writing than how others feel about it.
> 
> Anyway. At the same time one shouldn't ignore a writer just because they're popular, of course, so I asked about and was told that a good place to start with King was his collection of stories (novellas, really, ranging from 70 to 200 pages) Different Seasons (1982). It's mostly non-horror, none of the stories is as long as one of his usual behemoth novels, and there is a high adaptation rate, with three of the stories becoming films, the first the frequently poll-top-tenning The Shawshank Redemption.
> 
> And I have just finished reading the story it's based on, entitled Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. This is a good time to swipe at King's cloth ear for a title. You what? His book titles aren't much better, ranging from the merely pedestrian (Misery, The Shining, or the hilarious names-beginning-with-C series of Christine, Carrie and Cujo) to the downright abominable (Gerald's Game, The Tommyknockers, Everything's Eventual, From a Buick 8). This does not bode well for a reader who thinks a good title is not necessarily essential, but certainly heavily important to the overall satisfaction of a good book. And it reflects on the author's ear for words generally.
> 
> I suspect King's greatest fans would not claim he has a good way with prose. Indeed, King himself in more conciliatory mode accepts it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [M]y stuff ... is fairly plain, not very literary, and sometimes (though it hurts like hell to admit it) downright clumsy. To some degree or other, I would guess that those very qualities - unadmirable though they may be - have been responsible for the success of my novels. Most of them have been plain fiction for plain folks, the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and large fries from McDonald's. I am able to recognise elegant prose and to respond to it, but have found it difficult or impossible to write it myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This quote, and that above, by the way, are both from the Afterword to Different Seasons, which may well be the most interesting thing in the book. Certainly Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption is not very interesting. I haven't seen the film, which I know a lot of people rate highly, so don't be offended: it's probably entirely different. The best I can say about the story though (and the publishers can have this for the back of the next edition if they like, crediting it to A Literary Fusspot), is that it wasn't painful, and I can think of worse ways to spend your time (like watching Big Brother).
> 
> Needless to say, the prose never rises above pedestrian. Although it's written in a first person narrative, there's little character to it, and no style at all. Occasionally King strains for effect - "time drew out like a blade" (no it didn't) - but mainly the problem with 'bad prose' like this isn't a lack of clever metaphors or poetic words, but just too much slush. King can't shut up. "Let me tell you a little about solitary confinement" he says - OK then, a little, not two solid pages. The story itself should be half the length it is, if you get rid of all the extraneous detail and water-treading blah. Under the prose, then, is there a good story trying to get out? Well, not really: the main spring of the story was completely obvious to me as soon as Red mentioned the large Rita Hayworth poster than Andy Dufresne wanted him to get for his cell wall. And sure enough, it happens, presented baldly in a separated-out paragraph as if we're meant to be surprised. But King, or Red, doesn't end there, and drags the thing beyond all consciousness, to a couple further ending-ettes, which clear away any possible ambiguity - I was willing him, when he went to look for the black stone, to find it undisturbed, to give us a little bleakness - and leave the story festering in sickly sentimental Hollywood optimism (no wonder it was optioned for the screen).
> 
> This doesn't take account of the other problems with the story: Red tries to persuade us on page 2 that he killed his wife because of all the hatred that had built up from his being under the thumb of her bullying father - but on page 1 he has already told us that he did it for the insurance policy he took out in her name. If a more careful writer did this, I would presume it was an indicator that our narrator was not to be trusted: but I don't think King meant it that way, so it's just carelessness, in which case we're meant to believe everything Red tells us, with nothing to put in for ourselves.
> 
> So that's the first hundred-pager. Crimecat said this book was reputed to contain two of the finest American short stories of the 20th century - though I don't know if that was cc's own view or just passing on that of others. Was Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption one of the two, crimecat? And - everyone now - should I bother reading on, to Apt Pupil, The Body (filmed as Stand By Me) and The Breathing Method? Do we have any King fans in the house?
Click to expand...


----------



## Lobe

I don't have a problem with King as a writer, but he is certainly vastly overrated.  He's just one of those saps that managed to get a big hit with the lucky stick.  He's pretty readable though, and sometimes that's more admirable than having a technically brilliant, yet boring and pretentious piece of writing.


----------



## Stewart

Lobe said:
			
		

> more admirable than having a technically brilliant, yet boring and pretentious piece of writing.



Why would stylistic fiction be pretentious?


----------



## BookLover

Hodge said:
			
		

> Try his Bachman books. _The Running Man_ is excellent—and his Bachman stuff isn't horror.


Ok, I might give it a try. It's just that I didn't enjoy his writing either. The book I read could have been easily 100+ pages lesser! It was far too stretched. And moreover, there are so many other authors and books I want to read... 

Thanks for the suggestion, Hodge.


----------



## Ralizah

He's an immensely popular and best-selling author. I wouldn't say people hate him.

 Anyhow, King's problem is that most of what he turns out is crap. He does know how to write good, and when he's good he's _good_, but really just churns out too much garbage on a regular basis (like the Dark Tower series).


----------



## Hodge

Connor: can you find any author who actually says, "yes, I'm an incredible writer"? It's called humility. If King had stated otherwise, you'd instead be calling him an arrogant ass.


Yes, quite a few of his books are far too long. _The Stand_ could have been much shorter. _Insomnia, Bag of Bones,_ and a few others as well. I haven't read them all. But he's created so many modern classics as well, and his prose does appeal to the common man because it's very realistic. 

Sanyuja: give his Bachman books a try. They're much different (except _The Regulators_, which is only a Bachman book in name).


----------



## blademasterzzz

> can you find any author who actually says, "yes, I'm an incredible writer"?



Christopher Paolini.


----------



## Hodge

Bachman's his real name? That's weird, because according to the "about the author" parts of his books, Bachman died in 1985...


----------



## Talia_Brie

> In fact, isn't there an article, or a dedication in one of his books where he said "thanks for everything Bachman?" or something to that affect? I can't remember.



That was probably The Dark Half. Are Richard Bachman and George Stark the same person? One can only wonder.


----------



## Kane

King doesn't claim to be a great writer, so I don't know why anybody would feel the need to point that out as if they are cut from a superior literary cloth.  Most of the "literature" I have read has put me to sleep, or put me off within the first few paragraphs.  I've enjoyed King for years; regardless of his rank on the scale of literary genius, I have found his stories to be entertaining and engaging.  It all comes down to preference; if you don't like him, don't read his work, but don't think for an instant that it's due to any superiority you may posess.


----------



## BookLover

Hodge said:
			
		

> Sanyuja: give his Bachman books a try. They're much different (except _The Regulators_, which is only a Bachman book in name).


Two recommendations? I can't ignore that. Sure, Hodge, I will pick it up next time I go to the library!

I read on some other forum that Bachman is King's pen name! Weird!


----------



## Stewart

Hodge said:
			
		

> Connor: can you find any author who actually says, "yes, I'm an incredible writer"? It's called humility. If King had stated otherwise, you'd instead be calling him an arrogant ass.



If you can't gather what King's implying by the bit quoted by a friend above, then you'll see it's not called humility.



			
				Stephen King said:
			
		

> And I decided ... that I could be in worse company. I could, for example, be an 'important' writer like Joseph Heller and publish a novel every seven years or so, or a 'brilliant' writer like John Gardner and write obscure books for bright academics who eat macrobiotic foods and drive old Saabs with faded but still legible GENE McCARTHY FOR PRESIDENT stickers on the rear bumpers.



He sees "important" writers as bad because they are not prolific (like him) and "brilliant" writers as bad because they include references he doesn't understand. His note about others' diets and politics is an insult on people who don't appreciate his pedestrian writing. He may not be saying "i'm a great writer" but he certainly believes that his prolificity and cheap prose makes him great; confusing popularity with ability.





> he's created so many modern classics as well



We'll reconvene in fifty years and decide if that is truly so.


----------



## woodman

I think S/K has good story ideas, but several of his books read as though he only had a partial story, then cheaply conjured-up the rest.

I read The Dead Zone in 1980 and thought it was excellent; by the time you finish the book you realize you've been tricked and it was a love story all along.

The Stand had an interesting collection of characters, but the end was so tacky, very hollywood-ish. I figure if a guy can do such a great job creating such characters then he can at least put a little more effort into writing a decent finale.

But what really soured me to S/K was when I read the book, "It".

King needed to figure out a transition in the story where a group of five *eleven-year-old kids* (one of them a girl) have to find their way out of a tough situation. The solution that the kids in his story came up with was that they all had to gang-bang the little girl.

So that was Stephen Kings breakthrough idea for a transition at that point in his story: to have an eleven-year-old girl pull a train.

What a Fuckin' Ass!
..


----------



## Hurley

He's more of a story teller and his product is entertainment, not literature.   His writing leaves much to be desired but it's not the writing he's selling.


----------



## whitt45

I'm not much of a King fan (like the early stuff, but I'm not compelled to read him), but I read On Writing.  He presented some dumb ideas in that book and I really didn't care to hear about his childhood, but one thing that I got from it was that if you want to write, you have to work at it.  If you sit around and wait on The Muse &lt;dramatic crescendo> to arrive, then you'll never get anything done.  Working at it is what brings the inspiration to you.  I think that some people find that sort of blue-collar attitude about writing to be insulting, for some reason.

In the end, fiction is like any other art form, it's split into pop fiction and serious fiction.  Not everyone wants to work with both, and writers of one complain that those who work in the other don't respect them.  It never ends.


----------



## Hodge

But really, in 100 years so-called "pop fiction" will be fodder for literary study classes all over the world. What we consider the "classics" nowadays were not back then. When Dickens was around, Hawthorne, Poe—everyone—the "classics" were Greek works. Most fiction writers back then were regarded in the same way that Stephen King is now.


----------



## Talia_Brie

> He may not be saying "i'm a great writer" but he certainly believes that his prolificity and cheap prose makes him great; confusing popularity with ability.



I don't agree. I believe he is saying he'd rather be popular than great, and that his prolificity makes him popular.

It comes down to what he wants out of his writing. And he decided he wanted to be popular, use writing as a source of income. He's been enormously successful at that.


----------



## Hodge

Well, look at how his first book got published. He was a struggling school teacher who didn't even have a home phone. His publisher had to call him at school to tell him they wanted to publish his book. 

At one point he took the manuscript of _Carrie_ and threw it away because he was so stressed out and depressed. Luckily, his wife rescued it. Good thing, too, because that book netted King something like an $150,000 advance.


----------



## duende

I don't so much as hate King, I used to like his books quite a bit, but I stopped reading him after "IT" because I just lost interest. He's a decent storyteller, but the stories aren't always worth telling. I'm not of the mind that I wasted time reading him, but I'm just not interested in reading anything he's done lately - or since about 1985, really.


----------



## Kane

He's written so many books since '85.  How many have you read, and if none or not many, how can you know if the stories are worth telling?  Also, how does one determine whether a fictional story is worth telling or not?  Surely, every theme has been covered, everything  explored in one way or another; should we stop writing altogether, or should we appreciate stories for their entertainment value rather than always searching for something momentous in nature?


----------



## Hodge

I just finished _Desperation_ by King and it was pretty damn good. Make sure to read _The Regulators_ first, though. King does do something truly unique with the two books (those of you who saw the hard backs on display back in 1996 must have noticed how the two covers form a single picture).


----------



## Kane

I don't think I've ever read The Regulators, but I've read Desperation twice.  It's been a while, but I really liked that book.  I think Clancy Brown would play the cop perfectly.  =)


----------



## Hodge

Oh no, Kane, you read the wrong one first... Read _The Regulators_. You may recognize some of the characters. Or rather, all of them. Or maybe you won't.

_Tak ah lah!_


----------



## colvin11

I'm not saying he's a great writer, but he has written some good stories. Rita hayworth and the shawshank redemption is good, as is the body, hearts in atlantis and Eyes Of The Dragon


----------



## Shepard

Why hate King? 

Bag of Bones AKA Silas Mariner by George Eliot. 

The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon? What the hell? I mean, seriously, what the hell? 

He obviously stretches books that would strain as short stories into tedious three/four hundred page novels. 

His books are filled with cliches he uses as devices for narrative flow, hiding the fact he's painted himself into a corner.

He needlessly ties in novels, frequently ruining stories that might otherwise be readable.

Endings that drag on. Apt Pupil is a great novella, but it ends on an ellipsis. Even the horrid movie had a better ending.

Plagiarism! Shakespeare did it, too, but still... Low Men in Yellow Coats was as obvious lift from a Twilight Zone episode, the title of which escapes me. It was nearly word for word except for the ending. Salems Lot was Dracula set in Maine. It was pretty good, though. Shining through Christine are just haunted objects.

He publishes things that are just embarrassingly bad. Why? Because if it has his name on it it'll sell.  If you ask a fan what their favorite King novel is, no one will say Rose Madder or Insomnia. 

Why love King? When he gets it right, its great storytelling. And he gets it right frequently. 

Dolores Claiborne is a great novel. Ruined by the movie. Different Seasons is a great collection. The Breathing Method would make a brilliant David Lynch film.

Rage is an awesome novella he stupidly (he's a left wing nut) withdrew from the market.


----------



## Hodge

_Apt Pupil_ had an excellent ending. The movie bastardized it—made the kid look a lot better than he actually was. Ian McKellan couldn't save it.

Every writer has a few misses. Stephen King has a very large volume of published work, so it's expected that he's going to have quite a few stinkers as well. _Bag of Bones_ was far too long, but I still enjoyed it. _Insomnia_ was far too long, a bit boring, and tied into his _Dark Tower_ world, although _Black House_ which also tied into that world I thought was very good.

King is a good writer. I don't see any compelling reason to "hate" him, except the fact that he's more successful than any other writer ever. He does know how to write, he does know how to make a story interesting, and he does come up with his own ideas.


----------



## nieros

As someone who has read every book and short story King has ever written, I will say that he is a GREAT story teller. But, and I do want to stress this point, he is a TERRIBLE writer. It's not so much that he lacks basic grammer mechanics, it's just that he doesn't care. And, like Tolkien, you simple don't edit King.

I've noticed that people have called to the attention that many of his works are incomplete. Ahhh, there is a very good reason for this. But, to understand this reason, you will hafta read the Dark Tower series, which Hodge briefly referenced. You'll find that most of his work connects to this world. AND, should you ever read the last four books in the series (Wizard and Glass, Wolves of the Calla, Song of Susannah, and The Dark Tower), you'll find that his obsession, no, his curse of the Dark Tower series spilled over into every profound piece he wrote. The Stand's Randall Flagg is a prime example. Finally, in the last three books, Stephen King becomes so obsessed with the tower, that he even incorporates himself into the stories. Heh, and people wonder why he said DT 7 was to be his last major work?

Later.

John


----------



## A_MacLaren

Here's an interesting point: You could consider that Stephen King writes scripts in prose form .So much of his stuff has been optioned you have to wonder whether he writes books with the intention of having them converted to film. You get twice the takings that way.
Also, what we consider to be a bad book we can consider a brilliant film. See The Shining. 

Something else I noticed.



> Why hate King?
> 
> Bag of Bones AKA Silas Mariner by George Eliot.



Why is remaking a book a bad thing? Movies do it all the time, and not always to cash in on a brand a second time round. We like remakes sometimes. Why can't I rehaul Maskerade by Terry Pratchett? Or Paradise Lost? Or Frankenstein (Dean Kootz, you bastard)? What makes a remake of a book plagiarism, and remakes of movies 'reimaginings?'


----------



## nieros

Why improve on an old rundown house? To take what you know, and make it better. There are many original ideas in Bag of Bones, although it isn't my favorite.


----------



## Shepard

> What makes a remake of a book plagiarism, and remakes of movies 'reimaginings?'



It just feels wrong. LOL Lots of classic books ARE copies, though. In some small way or another.


----------



## nieros

Entirely off topic, but I just bought the uncut version of The Stand in hardbound. Makes me happy it does.

Later.

John


----------



## duende

> He's written so many books since '85. How many have you read, and if none or not many, how can you know if the stories are worth telling? Also, how does one determine whether a fictional story is worth telling or not? Surely, every theme has been covered, everything explored in one way or another; should we stop writing altogether, or should we appreciate stories for their entertainment value rather than always searching for something momentous in nature?



A story is worth telling if the author is writing to express a theme or idea or engage in entertainment and diversion. But from a reader's perspective, and I readily agree it is entirely subjective, it ain't worth telling if it fails to engage me or is a rehash of someone else's ideas without adding anything to the original or if the voice it is presented in fails to break out of cliche. There may be a whole host of other perspectives on this issue.

There are books I've read which fail in the market. _I_ think they contain stories that are worth telling. If others do not buy the book, then it wasn't "worth" it to them to tell the tale. I'm not in favor of the only "value" of a book being the commerical potential. Certainly there is a ton of crap writing out there. Probably some of it is mine, from someone's perspective.  I feel no obligation to finish a book if it doesn't connect with me. I feel the obligation, though, of the opportunity cost for money I feel is wasted on an unenjoyable book.

For the record, I have not purchased a single book by King since the mid '80s. "IT" was the last one for me. I don't find myself drawn to what he writes anymore. I don't think he's a crap writer but there is enough in his catalog that fails to appeal to me to warrant the time and money to seek out any more from him. Similarly, I never felt drawn to erotica, romance novels, or Jungian interpretation. The stories may be worth telling to someone, just not me.[/i]


----------



## Dephere

WARNING: I am not in a very good mood so this will be much harsher than is intended, also I have not read most of the posts, but thought I would let people know why I hate King.


I feel like King is the epitome of "stupid" America, an average (below average in my opinion) writer who attracted the masses with his simplistic style. I have an aversion to him probably due to the fact that he shows a BAD writer can outshine a plethora of GOOD writers who go unnoticed. His stories are horrid compared to many other authors. Perhaps I have a skewed perception, but that is my opinion.


----------



## JL Hartfield

A lot of people don't like King because since he's become a "big writer", he (like many other horror writiers, sad to say) turns them out for quantity instead of quality. In the beginning, his books and short stories were really quite good. But once he had made a name for himself, it turned into "Well, people like me, and I'm making money off this so I'm going turn out more books of lesser quality." That's just my opinion.

Most Sincerely, 

JL Hartfield


----------



## ThatSmokingGuy

This is a fairly old thread, but I wanted to put in my 2 cents. 
I've read a lot of SK and think yeah, he may be slightly over rated - but not much. He's no Shakespere but he's never claimed to be, in fact he once said he considered his works the literary equivilent of a Big Mac and fries. Pretty nice mataphor, I thought, and have to admit I do like Mickey D's.
I dont think he's a bad writer. He picks up detail that need's to be related and weaves the story within the reader's imagination. People don't realize how much of a story is conjured up in the mind of it's reader. I think King is very good at that, although I also think he's oft times long winded. When the story is boring, then it's boring, but when the story is cooking then it's very complelling. And it's _only _astory. Just like every other fiction book.
Content-wise I think he's hit or miss. About half his books work well, for me. The older stuff is the best. I don't think I'll read another new book, but I may go back and re-read The Stand, Shining, It (yeah that preteen gangbang scene was pretty weird, but it was only 3 pages.) 
I would kill to read more 'novellas' written in the same non-horror style as _Rage, Roadwork, Long Walk, Running Man, Thinner, The Body - _basically Bachman stuff.


----------



## Dephere

I like Burger King myself.


----------



## ThatSmokingGuy

Yeah, but I don't dig on pickles and BK shoves FOUR of those suckers in there.

Also our Ronald MacDonald was a confirmed alcholic and possible pedophile, so that bought a certain element of morbid interest to the store.


----------



## amusinglackoftalent

*The galvanic King...*

You guys have given the subject of King quite the going over.  For those who don’t care for him or his writing, why the effort?  Perhaps a dose of introspection might be employed with regard to this question.  He has accomplished success beyond the average writer’s wildest dream.  

If one writes purely for the love of the art, the craft, and the self-satisfaction derived, then why not stand on the street corner and hand out stapled together manuscripts to the ‘reading public’ without a thought to what another might think of the finished effort?  Writing is in the end worth only what you, the creator, consider it to be worth with the exception of one other person, the reader.  Without these two essential components I find justification for anyone to put pen to paper for other than educational purposes hard to come by.  He has done what I strive to do with the completion of each sentence.  He has succeeded.      

I read where some criticized him for being ‘too prolific’.  For me, a writer who often struggles with lazy fingers and a tendency to look for just about anything there is to do besides sit with pen in hand, or keyboard at the ready, King’s gargantuan initiative and ability to keep on keeping on turn me green with envy.  Give me production like that any day.  I can always go back to edit, or throw one out of every three works into the trash bin.  And I prefer a spicy hot chicken filet with large fries from Wendy’s…


----------



## Stewart

amusinglackoftalent said:
			
		

> For those who don’t care for him or his writing, why the effort?



It's a discussion. It would be a sad thing if it were a thread where everyone posted nothing by praise.


----------



## R.J.T

*This is my reply!*

Thank God amusinglackoftalent has some common sense in his head. Everything he said was dead nuts right. My opinion is that most of you that posted nothing but negative comments about Mr. King are trying to make yourselves seem like your so much more into literature because your going against the norm. Spare me your sorry babble about proper grammar prose, did you people forget that King was an English major that taught both English and creative writing. And don't give me this bullshit about his "simplistic style" I don't know if any of you amazing unpublished writers forgot, but the strong majority of people who buy books are looking for a good story. Not metaphors or poetic paragraphs. What they want is a good interesting story that will entertain them and for a little while take them away from the real world. Another reason people love reading King's books (even the shitty ones) is the fact that the characters ring so true that you could swear he was writing about someone you know. People can relate to the characters, and believe it or not that makes the stories that much more real and the reader is taken into that other world that much easier. So please do me and yourself a favor. If Kings work isn't your particular brand of chocolate, fine, don't read it. 
But don't sit there and tell me a man who happens to be the best selling author of all time (yes you read that right, only GOD has sold more books) does not have any talent. He has the talent to take us away and make us believe his lie (at least for alittle while) and any writer that can do that does not deserve to be bashed. Because honestly folks thats what its all about.If you want to write fiction then you should already know that. I love writing and I love stories, I love the magic that comes with them. I love that feeling I get when I know I've put the words on the page just right, and I love the anticapation I get of what people are gonna thing when they read it. I know and respect the power that words hold, as I'm sure you do. Stephen King feels the same way we do about literature, he loves, cares and respects it. Does he have his share of stinkers? Of course, but so does every other man or woman that ever dared put a pen to paper and create.


----------



## epone

R.J.T - try using the return key.

See, it's easy!

People dislike King because he's so normal. But if its normal to dislike King then we should like him to be different. Personally, I love him! Which I think is a little too strong.

(Actually, I can't stand his work. The man makes me yawn).


----------



## Gizzmo0411

amusinglackoftalent said:
			
		

> You guys have given the subject of King quite the going over.  For those who don’t care for him or his writing, why the effort?  Perhaps a dose of introspection might be employed with regard to this question.  He has accomplished success beyond the average writer’s wildest dream.
> 
> If one writes purely for the love of the art, the craft, and the self-satisfaction derived, then why not stand on the street corner and hand out stapled together manuscripts to the ‘reading public’ without a thought to what another might think of the finished effort?  Writing is in the end worth only what you, the creator, consider it to be worth with the exception of one other person, the reader.  Without these two essential components I find justification for anyone to put pen to paper for other than educational purposes hard to come by.  He has done what I strive to do with the completion of each sentence.  He has succeeded.
> 
> I read where some criticized him for being ‘too prolific’.  For me, a writer who often struggles with lazy fingers and a tendency to look for just about anything there is to do besides sit with pen in hand, or keyboard at the ready, King’s gargantuan initiative and ability to keep on keeping on turn me green with envy.  Give me production like that any day.  I can always go back to edit, or throw one out of every three works into the trash bin.  And I prefer a spicy hot chicken filet with large fries from Wendy’s…




BAM! That's it right there. I agree wholeheartedly. You all may dislike him for your various reasons. But the simple fact of the matter is that Mr. King has already done what everyone here on this board is striving to do. Not only did he do it, but he NAILED it. "...with flying colors" doesn't even apply to the man, he's simply got his market, his followers, and his style and there ain't nothin' you can do or say to convince me that he's not a good writer. Regardless of how brilliant, stylitic, metaphorical, poetic etc...he may or may not be. Good writer's need nothing more than a story to tell, the means to tell it, and someone willing to hear it. You would be hard pressed to argue that King lacks in any of the three categories.


----------



## A_MacLaren

You know, I'd like to think I'm above replying to a post like this, but what can I say?



> My opinion is that most of you that posted nothing but negative comments about Mr. King are trying to make yourselves seem like your so much more into literature because your going against the norm.



What the hell is this? Do I dare to claim I don't like King? Surely I must be a wanker of the highest order- sitting up in my small bedroom, a well-worn volume of Martin Amis casually open on my lap while I smoke a finely-rolled cigarette and sip at whisky. My shelves are lined with paperbacks, my eyes full of self-righteous literary candour as I laconically type a scathing verbose criticsm of another idiotic internet neanderthal.

No, sorry, that's not me. But yes, I do enjoy Amis. And hell, I even like a bit of Kerouac. If I was dumb enough to believe that reading these immensely popular books made me a rebel I wouldn't be here; I'd be doing overtime at university talking to my lecturer and trying to get in on the literati.
The fact that Stephen King is so immensely popular does irritate me, because he holds the same views you do; that being clever is being pretentious and being scarce is being lazy.
If I thought I could make a really good story out of cellphones turning the world into ravening zombies I could probably churn out a few hundred pages, but I think I saw Dawn of the Dead a few years back. And Land of the Dead. And Day of the Dead, and Night of the Living Dead, and hell, even Shaun of the Dead. And wasn't I playing Resident Evil a few days ago?



> I don't know if any of you amazing unpublished writers forgot, but the strong majority of people who buy books are looking for a good story. Not metaphors or poetic paragraphs. What they want is a good interesting story that will entertain them and for a little while take them away from the real world.



Oh, shit, that's right- I don't have a published novel. Hell, I haven't even written one. Sorry guys, my opinions are void; I didn't realise. Only published writers can criticise books, only directors can criticise movies, and only athletes can dare to claim that the ref was an idiot.
What world do you live in? If I can't say he's bad, why can you say he's good?

And a lot of people do like a little more than a rollicking plot. Not to say that a bit of rollick is bad, but a clever metaphor, an insight or even (dare I say it) a bit of imagery can make a book better. Maybe some people do want something other than 'Argh! Zombies/Devil Children/Psycho Father!'.

Ah, that's nice.


----------



## Kane

> Maybe some people do want something other than 'Argh! Zombies/Devil Children/Psycho Father!'.



King has written far more than what you list here.  If you don't like him, fine, but you can't knock his success.  He's a good writer as well as successful.  I haven't liked everything he's written, but I've liked a good portion of it.  Everyone who achieves success will inveritably have a following of fans, as well as haters, jealous of that person's success.


----------



## PeterMc

I don't know if what I'm saying is redundant, but I'd like to add that Stephen King is actually a damn good writer. Sure, much of his work (especially from the second half of his career) needs tightened up, revised, revised!, but over the past few years criticism and reviews of his stuff have change dramatically. He is now respected by many.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is this. If King's interests and imagination were a little different, he could have written great literary novels. But they aren't and he didn't.

But as we all know, in the end it all comes down to taste. Me? Well, I've loved reading a lot of his work, but I still prefer Chekhov and the like.


----------



## Stewart

Kane said:
			
		

> If you don't like him, fine, but you can't knock his success.



No one is knocking his success; it's there for all to see. What they _are_ knocking is his ability as a wordsmith, something he himself has stated he will never be.


----------



## Kane

He's just humble.  King has more talent than anyone here.


----------



## A_MacLaren

Why does the issue of King's success always come up? Do you really think that we're all so petty as to dislike a writer because they're more successful than us? I'd never get anything done; I'd just spend my time being resentful.


----------



## Kane

The issue of King's success comes up because if he wasn't successful you wouldn't be talking about him.  But because he is successful, we have to hear about how much you don't like him, or how you don't think he is worthy of his acclaim, etc...  But I agree, it is pretty damn petty.


----------



## A_MacLaren

If he wasn't successful I wouldn't know about him, but he'd still be unoriginal and comparatively untalented (note the qualifier).
But, yeah, the way you turned my words on me was clever. Real clever. I know when I'm beaten.


----------



## Stewart

Kane said:
			
		

> The issue of King's success comes up because if he wasn't successful you wouldn't be talking about him.



Still coming at us with your myopic perception of success, I see. Success isn't always about money because a bunch of armdragging knucklecrackers buy your books.

Looking at my shelves just now I see that I have Guillermo Arriaga, Stefan Zweig, Tibor Fisher, Halldór Laxness, Andrey Kurkov, Dorota Masłowska, and Gao Xingjian, on my to-be-read list. They've not had the success as you seem to view it, but I would certainly be talking about their work after I've read it, whether I find it good or bad. 

They've had different levels of success, two of them (Laxness, Xingjian) have won the Nobel Prize in Literature, which kicks the crap out of King's achievements to date. Masłowska had her first novel, _White And Red, _published when she was nineteen; I'd count that as being a success. Zweig, pretty much unknown, is still in print almost seventy years after his suicide; for a lesser known author I'd count that a success.

If King can win a Nobel then I'd see him as a success. If he remains in print long after his death, then I may see him as a success. But because he makes a shitload of cash by prattling away on a page I don't view him as a success because I appreciate well-written literature, something King accepts he cannot do. 




> But because he is successful, we have to hear about how much you don't like him



So, using your definition, because he is successful we have to hear about you much you _do_ like him. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing; you're meant to see the others' point of view but you are blocking it from entering your perspective.



> how you don't think he is worthy of his acclaim



What sort of acclaim? He doesn't deserve a Nobel.


----------



## Beardedtroll

Kane said:
			
		

> The issue of King's success comes up because if he wasn't successful you wouldn't be talking about him.  But because he is successful, we have to hear about how much you don't like him, or how you don't think he is worthy of his acclaim, etc...



Funny. I could have sworn people have been talking about why they don't like King because someone asked them about it. I can't seem to recall that people spontaneously broke out in a collective Halleluja-choir of King bashing. I suppose I might be misremembering.

However, I'm a little puzzled. Why is it wrong to dislike King's writing and mention that fact in a so far polite discussion? So if someone find King's prose too pedestrian and prefer more refined or baroque styles -- so what? Aren't they entitled to? 

Why do you appear to believe that any criticism of a popular and successful artist must be based on envy and jealousy?  Can't I be allowed to dislike the Spice Girls because I honestly think their music sucks?


----------



## Kane

> Still coming at us with your myopic perception of success, I see. Success isn't always about money because a bunch of armdragging knucklecrackers buy your books.



Still?  I wasn't aware we've had this convo before, but it's possible.  However, I'm not judging King's success by his wallet, though that is a pretty damn good indication.  King has written many books, and continues to do so at a regular rate.  He is a success because all he wanted to do was to be a novelist, and he has achieved this goal.  Not only is he a novelist, but he is one of the most widely acclaimed novelists of the day.  Nearly everything he writes is a bestseller.  Now, obviously you seem to have rather high standards when it comes to good writing, although I really don't care whether King gets a Nobel prize or not.  However, millions of readers love King's books, and nothing I have seen from you would indicate that you are of a higher caliber than the armdragging knucklecrackers you make fun of.  




> Funny. I could have sworn people have been talking about why they don't like King because someone asked them about it. I can't seem to recall that people spontaneously broke out in a collective Halleluja-choir of King bashing. I suppose I might be misremembering.



Indeed, but obviously you haven't been around long enough that this thread is just a repeat of the same old King bashing.  



> Why do you appear to believe that any criticism of a popular and successful artist must be based on envy and jealousy? Can't I be allowed to dislike the Spice Girls because I honestly think their music sucks?



Of course, and I would never try to silence your opinion.  However, we're not talking about someone saying they don't care for King.  What I was addressing was the vile bile that is spat against King because of his success.  You don't like him?  That's fine.  But we don't ever just hear about how someone doesn't care for them.  Instead we hear about how he isn't a good writer, how unoriginal he is, how all the people who do like him are troglodytes, etc.  I've read a lot of books by a lot of authors.  Some I have liked, and others I have not, but I don't think I've ever felt compelled to harp on their success because I don't like them.


----------



## Beardedtroll

Kane said:
			
		

> Indeed, but obviously you haven't been around long enough that this thread is just a repeat of the same old King bashing.



No, I haven't read other threads on this subject here. That said, in _this_ thread, while people have voiced negative opinions about King, the only part of it that I would label "bashing" are the apparently knee-jerk counter-attacks. 

I mean, listen to yourself: "nothing I have seen from you would indicate that you are of a higher caliber than the armdragging knucklecrackers you make fun of." That's the oldest ad hom in the book -- is that really the level you want to conduct the debate on?  

So you like King. Fair enough, but rather than attacking the people who don't, why don't you just tell us why you like him? What qualities of his writing, on its own, separate from its success, have made you of the opinion that he is a good writer? 

"You're only say you don't like him because you're jealous of him" is not an argument.



> Of course, and I would never try to silence your opinion.  However, we're not talking about someone saying they don't care for King.  What I was addressing was the vile bile that is spat against King because of his success.  You don't like him?  That's fine.  But we don't ever just hear about how someone doesn't care for them.  Instead we hear about how he isn't a good writer, how unoriginal he is, how all the people who do like him are troglodytes, etc.



But my opinion happens to be that King _isn't_ a particularly good writer and that's part of why I don't like him. Judging by your former argumentation I shouldn't voice that opinion because a) "I'm just jealous" and b) "I'm not half the author King is." The first of which is false, the second of which is true and the both of which are quite irrelevant for my opinion of King's authorship. 

In _this_ thread I haven't seen anybody imply that "all the people who do like him are troglodytes," but I have seen some people imply that "all the people who don't like him are arrogant, envious snobs."



> I've read a lot of books by a lot of authors.  Some I have liked, and others I have not, but I don't think I've ever felt compelled to harp on their success because I don't like them.



You have never, ever, in your whole life said you think something was overrated? High quality is not a necessary condition for success, nor is success a necessary result of high quality. Is it really that insufferable for you that people voice their opinion that King's success doesn't match the quality of his writing?


----------



## teflon

He is popular with people who need no-frills suspense with the typical, iconic, predictable horror hints and images. Looking back at his works, Salem's Lot and Shining (more so) stand out as richly artistic works.


----------



## K-P

Really, it's ridiculous to call Steven King a stupid writer for the proles. He has a simple, conversational style, true, as do many contemporary writers like John Grisham and Dave Eggers. None of these men are geniuses or writing prodigies; they are simply good authors who create enjoyable stories.

Frankly, I'm tired of people who voice contempt for popular authors simply because of their celebrity status. They are the same type of people who suddenly hate hate a band once they're featured on MTV (not that MTV actually plays videos).



> Still coming at us with your myopic perception of success, I see. Success isn't always about money because a bunch of armdragging knucklecrackers buy your books.


 Here, we have the uber-intellectuals conception of the common man: an entire army of gorilla-men dragging their knuckles and slobbering over any New York Time's Best Seller at Barnes and Nobles. And the common women? Oh, they're there, tossing their brasiers and flashing their boobs whenever Mr. King has a book signing. Man, I'm with you, brother. These proles make me stink.

On the serious tip: Steven, keep on keepin' on. Sure, some of your books are hit and miss, but you openly admit that yourself. And, I learned more from _On Writing_ than I had in the previous fifteen years I've been trying to create good stories.


----------



## IJS

Stephen King is very much overrated. His earlier works, I applaud. Most of his books since the Richard Bachman days just don't grasp me... I don't see how they grasp anyone else either. The only book I enjoyed past the Bachman days was 'Cujo'. 

His latest book 'Cell', people on their cellphones get turned into zombies... gee, like I haven't seen or heard that one before.


----------



## Mike C

This is the world's most stupid thread.

Someone asks "Why do you hate king?" Then everyone gets upset when someone answers the question.


----------



## IJS

Mike C said:
			
		

> This is the world's most stupid thread.
> 
> Someone asks "Why do you hate king?" Then everyone gets upset when someone answers the question.


 
I agree. Nobody should be getting upset; it's a topic about a renowned author... we are all individuals and we all have different opinions. A difference in opinion should have been expected.


----------



## Mike C

Especially when the question was actually asked... it's not like someone started an "I hate King" thread.

Enough people like him to make him a rich man. Enough people dislike him to stop him being richer than Bill Gates.

King acknowledges that his writing is not 'literary', and likens it to McDonalds. Lots of people like McDonalds. Some prefer steak.

I admire King's output. I envy his wealth. I don't like the product.


----------



## K-P

No one is getting upset here. It's not like we're getting together and forming the Steven King Anti-Defamation League.

It's quite obvious that this thread interested people, since there are seven pages of posts here. But, really, it's not your place to call this discussion stupid. And really, what's stupider: Having a discussion about the merits of King's work, or taking the time to complain about other people having a discussion about the merits of King's work?

But, really, I'm sorry. We'll continue debating more pressing issues, like God's existence and Hillary Clinton's sexuality.


----------



## IJS

K-P said:
			
		

> And really, what's stupider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid 'stupider' is not a word.
Click to expand...


----------



## K-P

I beg ta differ.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stupider

Actually it's slang; just like saying ain't.

Oh, and you can't invalidate someone's agrument simply by pointing out a grammatical blunder.


----------



## Mike C

K-P said:
			
		

> Hillary Clinton's sexuality.



You're a sick, sick bunny. I don't think even Bill ever got a handle on that one; it's why he developed a taste for cigars.


----------



## Mike C

K-P said:
			
		

> Oh, and you can't invalidate someone's agrument simply by pointing out a grammatical blunder.



Yeah, thats the stupiderest thing ever..


----------



## glennstewart

I'm new to the forum...Greetings to all.  
I'm not a fan of King's books, but I know a fine writer when I read one.  I envy his ability to do in a sentence what I am lucky to accomplish in a page of text.  He is gifted and wildly sucessful, and deserves tribute.  Leveling him is unproductive.  Opinions can vary as to the place he holds among writers, but his ability and success are an inspiration.


----------



## IJS

K-P said:
			
		

> I beg ta differ.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stupider
> 
> Actually it's slang; just like saying ain't.
> 
> Oh, and you can't invalidate someone's agrument simply by pointing out a grammatical blunder.


 
My only point was to point out the grammatical error not to invalidate your argument, sir. I agree with you.


----------



## Avarice

he writes loadsss of books, so many that I still find more that I havent even heard of, so I guess writers would be annoyed and think hes not writing because its heartfelt, just to mass produce.


----------



## Kane

Even if that's the case, why must it be heartfelt?  Writing is story telling, nothing more.  Sure, here on a forum filled with writers, we try and pump up what it is we do, or want to do at least.  But, in the end, authors are only telling stories.  King is a great story teller, and millions of people like to read his stories, which is all that really matters in his profession.


----------



## Beardedtroll

Kane said:
			
		

> Writing is story telling, nothing more.



Says who? Even if we for the moment ignore technical writing and poetry to concentrate on fiction, there is certainly more to writing than story telling. Orwell didn't write 1984 just to "tell a story." Salamon Rushdi didn't get a fatwa spoken against him because the Ayatholla didn't like his _story_. It wasn't the _story_ in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that made it important.

Writing fiction has been used by authors to explore ideas, influence opinions, express love, warn against dangers, speak out against social unjustice, explain themselves or fight with their own demons. Yes, some writing is "just" story telling (and there's not an iota of judgement in that; a good story is a grand thing,) but there is certainly a body of writing that is not only about telling stories.


----------



## Kane

First of all, since we are speaking of Stephen King, feel free to assume I am talking about fiction.  Obviously, there are technical works, non-fiction works, etc., all of which are not necessarily about telling a story, although, in a bare bones way, they are.

Any way you look at it, fiction writing is story telling.  Perhaps you are trying to make a political point, or some allegory, or you are trying to change common thinking or make whatever statement; that's fine, but by doing so with fiction, you are telling a story in order to relate your point to the readers.  If you have a social statement, you can come right out and make that statement.  However, if you do so with the medium of a fiction novel, you are telling a story.


----------



## aliceedelweiss

I have some King books, and I've tried reading them but I always get stuck because I don't really get pulled in...I'll read them eventually, but from what I have read, I think his stories start out slow. And sadly, I'm a fan of his adversary, Dean Koontz.
Alice


----------



## ramseydbz

Stephen King is my favorite writer.  Why ?

Because I keep coming back to his books.

The Dark Tower is a great read by the way.


----------



## Stewart

ramseydbz said:
			
		

> Stephen King is my favorite writer because I keep coming back to his books.



The same ones, over and over?


----------



## ramseydbz

Connor Wolf said:
			
		

> The same ones, over and over?


 
No.  Every time I go to Barnes and Noble I get a book of his.

I have to admit though some of his books are trash.

Cujo
The Sun Dog (short)
Pet Sematary
etc.


----------



## Lucifiel

Some of his books are really over-rated and some of his writing is really horrible, though his stories are quite good. 

Anyway, in a business sense, though he now produces quite a bit of trash, at least he's making enough to live comfortably for a long time.  

*sighs* If I could become like him... Uhm, making good money that is. 

Still, the last time I read his books was around 15 years old. =P Many, many years ago.

Edit: And it's true his book titles are less than desirable but even any writer has his/her weak points. A writer who specialises in Civil war might not be able to handle say, romance, sci-fi or even fantasy.


----------



## Walker Pierce

He's written several public blow-outs, though, which I like him for. Say, The Talisman, Black House, It, The Dark Tower Series, etc.


----------



## IJS

ramseydbz said:
			
		

> No.  Every time I go to Barnes and Noble I get a book of his.
> 
> I have to admit though some of his books are trash.
> 
> Cujo
> The Sun Dog (short)
> Pet Sematary
> etc.



You thought Cujo was bad? He turned a simple 'rabid-dog' case into something a lot more exciting in that book... it's actually one of the only King books I enjoyed.


----------



## WordBeast

I wouldn't go so far as saying that I 'hate' Stephen King, but I am disappointed in him. He appears to have lost his touch. I keep hoping that he will write another great book like "Satan's Lot", "The Stand" or "The Dead Zone", but all he has been able to muster in the last decade or so, are uninspired and formulaic tales. He was a better writer when he was hungry.


----------



## ramseydbz

IJS said:
			
		

> You thought Cujo was bad? He turned a simple 'rabid-dog' case into something a lot more exciting in that book... it's actually one of the only King books I enjoyed.


 
I dont like his older stuff, you know, the rabid dogs, the crazy cats, people on wheel chairs.

Why do people hate him?  Is it because his writting is not up to par with Brothers Karamazov?


----------



## robbiejayfan

The original post says Stephen King may not be the most prolific writer.  Well, the fact that he turns out an average of 2 books a year would make him the most prolific writer I can think of.

Everytime I step into a bookstore there is a new Stephen King book.  He was definitely better about 10 to 15 years ago.  He seems to have lost his edge.  I do think he develops characters better than any horror writer I'v read, but he usually turns what should be a 300 page book into 600 pages.  You definitely can get bogged down.

As far as horror writers, I rate Clive Barker and Peter Straub ahead of King.


----------



## Beardedtroll

ramseydbz said:
			
		

> Why do people hate him?  Is it because his writting is not up to par with Brothers Karamazov?



Actually, it's because he let the romance novelist in _Misery_ live.


----------



## ramseydbz

Beardedtroll said:
			
		

> Actually, it's because he let the romance novelist in _Misery_ live.


 
8)


----------



## Kyle R

robbiejayfan said:


> The original post says Stephen King may not be the most prolific writer. Well, the fact that he turns out an average of 2 books a year would make him the most prolific writer I can think of.
> 
> Everytime I step into a bookstore there is a new Stephen King book.



As far as quantity, James Patterson churns out over *twelve *books a year. One new published book every month. It's eye-popping.

Per the OP, I don't hate King. I think he does what he does well. I think there will always be those who envy others who have achieved success.


----------



## Kevin

Perhaps he's got a lot of extremely important stuff to say....orrrr...he just can't help it; the stuff forms in his head and he's just got to get it out. Evidently some people are entertained. You just may not be one of 'em.


----------



## Trilby

I'm not into horror, therefore I have not read any of his novels, but I will not pull a successful author apart - he must be doing something right. He is the one laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## Dave Watson

I really can't understand why people would have a beef with King, unless they're the kind of literary snobs who only read Proust and such, or are just bitter and jealous! I've been reading ever since I learned how to, and after thirty five years, think I can tell the good from the bad.

To say that he isn't a good writer is just elitist nonsense. If anyone truly believes that and isn't just saying it to appear edgy, cool and possessing of highly refined taste, then I'd say they couldn't tell a good writer if it bit them square on the arse.

Then again, it's all about opinions, right? Saying that, if you don't like King, your opinion is WRONG!


----------



## PassTheDrinks

I have not read any of his books except is short stories in his "Everything's Eventual" book. I loved all the stories except maybe one or two. I have not yet decided on if I want to read anything else he has written though. I tried reading Dreamcatcher once, but couldn't read past a couple pages.


----------



## Max22

I've read two of his books - Cell and Under the Dome. Cell was good, I'd recommend it. Under the Dome was so confusing, there was so many characters I lost who was who and what they were doing. I really liked the idea of it but I disliked the execution. I've heard it might become a TV show, which will work better for it given the amount of characters it has. I've met a few people who love King, but I heard of a few people that really dislike his work.


----------



## rebekahmichel

I don't hate King but he scares the bejezus out of me! I read Pet Cemetary when I was 12 (okay probably too young to be reading his book in the first place but still) and I've never read another one of his books since. Talk about creepy. On the other hand, I read a book by Bari Wood called Amy Girl which said on the cover is very similar to King's style (I believe it may have even had a recommendation from King himself but I can't remember for sure) anyway I was 12 yrs old when I read that and even though it would be considered a horror novel it didn't give me nightmares, it was just extremely fascinating.

That said, the movie Apt Pupil which was adapted from a King book I believe was really amazing. Scary yes, but still amazing.


----------



## killem2

woodman said:


> I think S/K has good story ideas, but several of his books read as though he only had a partial story, then cheaply conjured-up the rest.
> 
> I read The Dead Zone in 1980 and thought it was excellent; by the time you finish the book you realize you've been tricked and it was a love story all along.
> 
> The Stand had an interesting collection of characters, but the end was so tacky, very hollywood-ish. I figure if a guy can do such a great job creating such characters then he can at least put a little more effort into writing a decent finale.
> 
> But what really soured me to S/K was when I read the book, "It".
> 
> King needed to figure out a transition in the story where a group of five *eleven-year-old kids* (one of them a girl) have to find their way out of a tough situation. The solution that the kids in his story came up with was that they all had to gang-bang the little girl.
> 
> So that was Stephen Kings breakthrough idea for a transition at that point in his story: to have an eleven-year-old girl pull a train.
> 
> What a Fuckin' Ass!
> ..




IT is a remarkable book. Probably one of the best I've ever read. I've read and listened to it I think 8 or 9 times now.  I think you are just wrong. If you have grown up so much that all you see in that 2-3 pages is "gang bang" I am sorry for your loss of innocence.  

That's all.

*EDIT: *Ok, maybe that isn't all. See, when I read any book, not just Stephen King's books, it is because I want to be told a story.  I don't read fiction to better my vocabulary, I don't reach fiction to improve my grammar.  I don't go out on a quest to build my self esteem up because I feel intellectually superior to another person. Therefore, instead of just accepting the fact there is story in front of me, placed here to entertain me, I would go out of my way to waste my time dissecting the words much like a bully will pick on the runt of a litter instead of the entire bunch of targets. 

If anyone reads any book by any author and feels the need to bash that writing or that person, you might need to step back and see if *YOU* are the problem.  Not every book is going to be great for every person.  I'm not going to go jump into a romance novel no matter how well written it is. Its not my thing. 

In almost all of the notes or little side blurts King gives you in his books or short stories, he's constantly telling you to get ready for a ride, or get ready for an adventure.  I don't go into a movie theater to critique a directors ability to do just that. I go there for a story and to be entertained. 

So all this snobbish attitude about how King can't write is ridiculous. Good writing isn't from the intellectual superiority of your word choices, its about the reader. As King put it in his notes of Nightmares and Dreamscapes 

_"The intellectual's definition of a hack seems to be an artists whose work is appreciated by too many people."
_


----------



## Terry D

KyleColorado said:


> As far as quantity, James Patterson churns out over *twelve *books a year. One new published book every month. It's eye-popping.
> 
> Per the OP, I don't hate King. I think he does what he does well. I think there will always be those who envy others who have achieved success.



I know I'm jumping into this one a bit late, but I just read Kyle's comment about James Patterson and have to point out that Patterson isn't writing many of those books himself these days.  If you look at most of the books with JAMES PATTERSON emblazoned on the cover it's usually followed by "with Arvid Fogenberry" or some other name.  Patterson may be outlining and approving the story, but someone else is doing the work.


----------



## garza

This thread only now caught my attention.

No hatred for King here. There's no need to hate that which one finds boring. _The Shining_ was a pleasant enough read and the only King book I've been able to stick with past the first 20 or 30 pages. To each his own.


----------



## jakeocallaghan

He simply sells many books. As soon as an author (or any artistic person for that matter) is successful, people inevitable hate to sound nonconformist.


----------



## TinyDancer

I like king... I liked under the dome, and his short stories, I'm reading his biography ( or was, then stopped) but I was really enjoying it! I once looked through a bunch of his 'beginnings' through Amazon (using the look inside option) because he truly is a magician with his fantastic beginnings that just capture the readers attention right away... so I read lots of first sentences to see how he does it..he is gifted.. I think I remember our teacher saying he wanted to sell as many books as Charles Dickens ( don't quote me on that) but maybe he's so great because he aims high! well, that and pure talent.


----------



## Sardonis

My thoughts are that people are only aware of his sub-par horror and completely unaware of his EXCELLENT books. _The Dark Tower_ series is quite literally my favorite series of anything ever. The comic books they are putting out based on the series are phenomenal as well.


----------



## jacqueline

I think people tend to hate it when someone is too popular......
they get sick of hearing about one author all the time....
they don't like his type of writing and get angry because of the praise awarded to him....


----------



## AZzed

Different people like different things. I love King, and have read most of his stuff. I think he's probably our greatest living writer, some of his stuff is so powerful. James Patterson has been mentioned - I'm not sure in what context because I'm new and haven't read all the way back. Patterson can't write for toffee - he's said it himself, in not so many words. But he's obviously found a formula that's made him very popular; I read an article that suggests it's to do with his vocabulary, sentence structure etc. being in line with a kid's book. ie. it's an easy read. Whereas much of King's stuff is twice the length it really needs to be. For instance Insomnia is literally one of the most boring books I've ever read. But then novels like 11.22.63, Dreamcatcher, The Tommyknockers, Duma Key, Needful Things, The Dark Tower etc. etc. are simply breathtaking. IMO.


----------



## RichardScribe

I actually liked the Dark Tower series, which is the only thing of King's I've ever read. But I was slightly annoyed with his decision to interject himself as a character in the story and I have to say I was very disappointed with the ending. I remember getting to it and saying aloud: "Really, that was the best you could come up with?"


----------



## Kevin

RichardScribe said:


> I actually liked the Dark Tower series, which is the only thing of King's I've ever read. But I was slightly annoyed with his decision to interject himself as a character in the story and I have to say I was very disappointed with the ending. I remember getting to it and saying aloud: "Really, that was the best you could come up with?"


 I always say that. He has great starts and middles, but doesn't know how to finish...


----------



## Kyle R

AZzed said:
			
		

> I think he's probably our greatest living writer



What definition of "greatest" are you using here? Volume of output? Skill-level? Literary impact?

I'd say he's a master of his genre, but greatest living writer is a bit of a stretch (for me).


----------



## AZzed

KyleColorado said:


> What definition of "greatest" are you using here? Volume of output? Skill-level? Literary impact?
> 
> I'd say he's a master of his genre, but greatest living writer is a bit of a stretch (for me).



 I guess I'm talking about the ability to merge great writing with great storytelling until you almost forget you're reading a book. Few authors have managed to hook my imagination like King does, to make you feel like you're _in_ the story. Rowling and Pullman are two others.

He'll never win the Booker Prize, but in my experience the Booker Prize seems to be for the most boring book. Life of Pi was great, but I remember forcing my way through Midnight's Children (which won the Booker of Bookers) and wondering how anyone could think it was good, let alone great!


----------



## Kyle R

AZzed said:
			
		

> the Booker Prize seems to be for the most boring book



Lol!

That would be the accolade nobody wants to win. "Most Boring Book Award"

I agree, though, the best authors have that ability to make the world around you virtually disappear; to pull you headfirst right into the book, almost as if you are being physically sucked into the pages themselves.

I haven't read enough King to experience that, but admittedly I don't read much horror/suspense. Michael Crichton's "Sphere", though, was a book I remember being completely entranced by. Have you read that novel? It's in the suspense/thriller/supernatural category.

If there was one book of King's you'd recommend a non-King reader to check out, what would it be?


----------



## AZzed

I've read State of Fear and Prey and Next, but not Sphere. Shall have a look! Ooh, well, for suspense I would look at Firestarter as I couldn't put it down - I think one of the main criticisms with King is that he doesn't write fast paced page-turners, but Firestarter is a gem. But I think my favourite has to be 11.22.63, which made me cry in about three separate places.


----------



## Terry D

KyleColorado said:


> If there was one book of King's you'd recommend a non-King reader to check out, what would it be?



One of these four (don't hold any of the movies against the first three)

_'Salem's Lot_ (my personal favorite)
_The Shining
The Stand
11/22/63_


----------



## cazann34

I certainly don't hate Stephen King but I do find some of this endings weak.


----------



## JosephB

I guess I should get around to reading a Stephen King book one of these days -- see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Kyle R

I'm in the middle of reading two other books right now--but!--I just got "Salem's Lot" per Terry's recommendation. I read the first page and he (Mr. King) seems like a good writer. Clean, simple prose, with a touch of depth, and the story moves continuously forward with no dilly-dallying.

He seems to have one of those narrative styles that disappears when you read it, like it's your own head-voice--a slightly wiser, calmer version of yourself.


----------



## Bilston Blue

Kyle, if you get the chance, try _Full Dark, No Stars_. A collection of four long shorts or short novellas or whatever you want to call them. I hadn't read King for years, but this truly reminded me of why I loved him years ago.


----------



## AZzed

I totally agree, Full Dark No Stars is brilliant, especially if you like short stories, Kyle.


----------



## Soft Rains

I am a big King fan. It's a goal of mine to read all of his books before I die. This goal seemed a bit more attainable when he said he was going to retire....but alas. The stack just keeps getting bigger and that's mainly due to the fact that each book could weigh down a hot balloon all by itself.
I thought the Dark Tower series was amazing. That was one of those series that I completely lost myself in. I felt like all the characters were my best friends. I worried about them when I wasn't reading. And to me, that's the sign of a great author. To make me care that much.
Two other great King books that I don't hear a lot about but were great (and shorter) reads are The Eyes of the Dragon and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon. So those might be nice ones for people to try who just want to test the King waters.


----------



## Kyle R

Thanks Scott and AZzed. I'll look for _Full Dark, No Stars_ in the next few days when I head to the bookstore. If they have it I'll buy it. :encouragement:

I've also heard most every King fan say they love his _Dark Tower_ series, like you mentioned, Soft Rains. I haven't heard of the other two, though, but they are good to know!


----------



## bebarce

I think there are a lot of things I love about stephen king in both his personal opinions and in his work.   While it may be formulaic, it's a formula that I enjoy.  A group of people, each bringing their own strengths and weaknesses working through something out of their control.  Some times I'll find myself in an odd setting, filled with a lose assortment of interesting people and think to myself "This has the makings of a King novel."

He does write very weak endings though, and at times his characters or story elements are silly beyond the tone of the story.  It kind of pulls you away from the narrative.  His attempt to "bind together" all of his books via the Dark Tower series especially was poorly executed and seemed more of an after thought.  

Oddly enough, I did have a dream where I told Stephen King that if he was honestly suggesting that the rugged good looks that he used describe Rolland Deschain were in fact based off his own appearance, than he truly is a writer of great fiction.

edit: fun tip, search for Stephen King on Reddit and you find a treasure trove of reasons to like him.


----------



## DanesDarkLand

I've read a few of his older works, It, Tommy Knockers, and a couple of others.  The thing I dislike about his stories are the sheer amount of material, angles, side stories that take so much time to bring to conclusion, most of the book, but the end is wrapped up in only a couple of pages, like he couldn't figure out how to pull all the various threads together.  The majority of the book is good, but the ending is so lacking that I am disappointed every time.  So now, I just don't read his work.

I did read the Gunslinger series, up to a point, but once I got into the third or fourth book, I realized that there was just too many weird story lines for him to bring it together properly and stopped reading them.  They were getting pretty far out there too.


----------



## Nemesis

See I like how he handles multiple stories, its just the cop outs that he takes that I don't like.

Things like characters "just knowing things" kind of ruin it for me, but I loved every minute of the gunslinger series, I loved how weird and off the beaten track it was.


----------



## Comrade Yuri

I've enjoyed several of King's books, but he's often overly verbose.

In his book on writing, his wife commented negatively on this very same subject. She'd read one of his drafts, I don't recall which one, and said she didn't like all that background/sidebar stuff. He was defensive at first, explaining that it was the background for the story, but she replied even more emphatically that it was boring. 

He ended up editing a bunch of it out. I took the whole exchange as an object lesson regarding "fluff."

Yuri


----------



## erusson

I haven't read a whole lot of King, but out of the ones I have read, I've liked most of them. He's definitely good at making you want to read on, and there's never a page without some sort of action, which I think is the mark of a good writer - I can't stand those books that just go on and on with flowery descriptions and hardly anything seems to happen. (Although, saying that, I really like _Rebecca_, which is the epitome of flowery descriptions.)



Hodge said:


> I hate how there's unexplained psychic shit in all of his books.


 Agreed; _Cujo _was the first of his books that I read and I was loving it until it started going on about the dog being possessed or some crap like that. No, King, the dog has rabies.


----------



## the antithesis

Talia_Brie said:


> Could you explain how you come by that opinion? (Not trying to get up your nose, genuinely curious) I personally don't think of him as a formula writer, but rather a genre writer.



I'm not sure if calling King a formula write is right, but he is rather predictable. He had written a Sherlock Holmes story as part of a collection of Holmes stories by various popular writers and later put in his collection, _Nightmares & Dreamscapes_ called "The Doctor's Case." The plot involved a locked room murder deal but Homes was incapacitated due to a cat allergy, so it was up to Watson to solve the case using that same deductive reasoning and snap "Aha!" moment that Holmes would use to solve the case. King made this unpleasant. It ended with Watson stating that he hoped he'd never go have that experience ever again. Why did King make the sudden mental clarity and sudden coming together of all the clue to point toward a solution unpleasant? Because King makes everything unpleasant. He writes horror, so everything is a terrible experience and his characters hope they never have to go through that ordeal ever again. Murderous clowns from beyond this dimension would be terrible, but he didn't know how to make it pleasant or the thought just didn't occur to him That was the story where he made something unpleasant for the sake of making it unpleasant. Like he didn't know what else to do since he doesn't spend as much time with other human emotions or because that's what people expect. Kind of like how Kiss still dresses up like escaped circus freaks despite being a tad old to be doing that.


----------



## Lewdog

Stephen King writes with a darkness that some people just aren't adept with.  There are just some authors that as you read their books you have a voice in your head set to a mood.


----------



## Kevin

A friend once said he thought king was 'demon-possessed'. He said that had to be his inspiration, and that evil in his stories was never fully defeated. I just like the initial premise of his books, and the setting.


----------



## Lewdog

Kevin said:


> A friend once said he thought king was 'demon-possessed'. He said that had to be his inspiration, and that evil in his stories was never fully defeated. I just like the initial premise of his books, and the setting.



That wouldn't make sense.  In, "The Green Mile," John Coffey eats the evil and gets rid of it.  Yes he dies in the electric chair, but he had to, it was a metaphor for Jesus.


----------



## Morkonan

I'm sometimes entertained by King's stories. (I loved "The Stand" and it's one of my all-time favorites.) But, sometimes I have to slog through what little I have read from him and end up feeling that it was a waste of my time. HOWEVER (Notice the caps...), King is a huge success. Many people love his work. He is also a MASTER (more caps...) at creating believable and interesting characters. His characters carry his stories and while the plots may be simple, the development of characters is as complex as anyone could want. Unless they're standard archetypes, which he uses from time to time.

But, no writer as a reader should ever "hate" King. Who can argue with his success? King's success is not due to fad publishing, but due to his skill at attracting readers with interesting subjects and wonderful characters. Though I am not a regular fan of his work, I have to acknowledge his expertise when it is so plainly evident. Many of his stories don't appeal to me, but of the one's that did, they were masterfully done.


----------



## Whisper

I've always like Stephen King and his book _The Stand _is still one of my favorites. However, there isn't a book of his I've read that I've disliked. That said, I don't read his stuff anymore. Not because I don't like his stuff anymore but because I've moved on to a different type of book reading. More sci-fi, fantasy, and Apoc stories (which a huge dose of history thrown in).


----------



## Tipseas

I love Stephen King. 
That's the thing with pop-fiction. Either you like it or you don't. You can be on the fence, but more times than not, you know which way you are leaning. People tend to forget that "popular fiction" is written in a style for readers to rapidly, and easily pick up on the authors ideas. Stephen King is not a literary fiction writer and he does not elude to being one. I admit, some of his stories are a little hard to digest, but some are very complex and he explores parts of the human psyche that are dark and strange. The best series I have ever read, in the horror genre, was the _The Dark Tower _series. 
King has also interchanged or entered his characters/objects/locations into each of his works. Somehow and in someway, all his books tie together, without really tying together. He has been writing for almost 3 decades, and I think that is genius, to write an interchanging series for so long, without the books really being a _series_. I know it was somewhat intentional, but sometimes I wonder if _he_ even knows what he is doing with some of his books. To me, that is the best writing, to always be left guessing and wanting to know where I am going next. Granted, some of you have "figured him out", I have been reading him since the 80's, and though I know some of his books may seem a little cookie cutter, I still experience surprising glee at the end of a book.


----------



## BenTurnbull

Noxicity said:


> See I like how he handles multiple stories, its just the cop outs that he takes that I don't like.
> 
> Things like characters "just knowing things" kind of ruin it for me, but I loved every minute of the gunslinger series, I loved how weird and off the beaten track it was.



I absolutely loved _The Gunslinger. _After the third book I began to question whether or not I should finish the series. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and kept on. By book five I was cringing in horror at each new plot development. It took me three months to finish book seven; I kept getting pissed off and would have to put it down for awhile. 

If I ever have the pleasure of meeting Stephen King, I will first congratulate and thank him for writing _The Gunslinger. _I will then slap him for writing the rest.


----------

