# Stephen King, good? Or overated?



## J.C. Fiske (Mar 27, 2011)

I was just curious to see what other avid readers think. It seems I am all by my lonesome in my circle of friends who happens to not just like Stephen King's writing but loves it. I am also talking about his older classics, not so much his newer stuff. Part of me believes he's lost touch with his audience in recent years but classics like It, The Shining, Firestarter, Carrie, Bag of Bones are all fantastic in my book. Hell, I'll even go as far as to say the Dark Tower series kept me captivated all the way up to the ending.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on his yarns. Part of me believes my group of friends to be pretentious hipster [expletive] that sit around sipping port wine. If that visual didn't help, maybe this link will . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMfCG6nn1w&feature=player_embedded

_I've edited your post as we request that all posts be family friendly.. Please review our Forum Decorum.
--Betsy, KB Moderator_


----------



## gryeates (Feb 28, 2011)

I think King gets a lot of unnecessary attacks. I think he is a writer whose prose has great flow. There are few out there I have read that have me turning pages compulsively in the same way King does. That said, I think his more recent books have become weaker but that still leaves us with a lot of good material to enjoy. My personal favourites are It and Gerald's Game which he wrote after the period most of his fans cite as his heyday.


----------



## J.C. Fiske (Mar 27, 2011)

Gerald's game, eh? I'll have to check out that one if it is as good as you say. I recall seeing an article online recently where King won some big writing reward and many of his writing peers who write high brow fiction felt he in no way, shape or form deserved it. I feel for myself, his book, "On Writing" has helped my writing far more than anything else. For once, I am glad for a required reading in college. If I was not forced to read it, who knows if I would have ever picked it up.


----------



## LDHesler (Mar 25, 2011)

He is definitely not overrated. Stephen King has so many strong books; of course, as with just about any writer, he has some weaker pieces. But even the weaker pieces show a writer who can get to the heart of a character and stab at the soul of the reader. 

Stephen King gets unnecessarily attacked too often. It may be due to the fact that he seemed to define the horror and suspense genres for so long; when something or someone gets popular, even rightfully so, some critics don't deal very well with the matter. 

For all the naysaying and ridiculous attacks, I can't help but think that there's a reason he's been consistently publishing books for nearly forty years.


----------



## J.C. Fiske (Mar 27, 2011)

I agree Hesler, The Stand and It had characters you feel you grew up with and know. All of them had some heartfelt place within them you could relate with. I feel anyone who gets moderate success is going to come under attack, such is life. I remember when the New England Patriots were a bunch of nobodies. Now that they have won three SuperBowls, they are close to the same hate factor as the Yankees. I feel writing is no different. When you have a name everyone knows, everyone is going to have an opinion.


----------



## Sarah Woodbury (Jan 30, 2011)

Stephen King knows how to string words together so that you forget you're reading like nobody's business. I think that's part of the reason behind the criticism--that he is so 'good' that he shouldn't somehow be wasting his time writing horror. But as he says himself, that's what he likes to write. So more power to him.

Firestarter, Bag of Bones, and his incredible book _On Writing . . . horror may not be your thing, but that doesn't diminish his story-telling abilities._


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

I like some of his books and others do not resonate with me at all. I was very disappointed in Salem's Lot, for example, (and The Stand) which others loved. But I loved The Shining, IT, and Dumas Key. His book On Writing is fantastic. Unlike others, I don't consider horror (or any other genre) to be a waste of a writer's talent. I think writers write what they need to write. He is in good company as many famous authors down through history have written horror. It takes talent to make you believe the unbelievable and sympathize so strongly with the characters.

One of his real strengths is the create "an ordinary Joe" (or Jane) that pulls you in and seems TRUE. That's where his talent lies.

Characters (and of course, scaring you half to death.)


----------



## LiteraryGrrrl (Jan 24, 2011)

Stephen King is the MASTER...and my personal literary hero.

And for anyone who doesn't like his newer stuff I say read Under the Dome. It's amazing!
And of course On Writing is one of the greatest books of its kind.

Shana


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I'd say he wrote some great books before he became a household name and even a few more afterwards, but somewhere between _It_ and _Needful Things_, he started slipping, at least in my mind, and became just an example of a mediocre author. That was around the time of his severe drug addiction or maybe it was just me liking different things to read. The last three books of the Dark Tower series were just plan bad, and as a reader I've differently parted ways with King. In high school through college, he was my number author, and now I didn't read him at all.

Three books you should check out:

_The Shinning_
_The Stand_
_Pet Semetery_ (If you like horror and I mean _horror_. )


----------



## justin hempson-jones (Mar 27, 2011)

I think it is not so much his wordsmithing, but his utterly wild imagination. He goes off course sometimes but his books of short stories are classics - especially these two:
http://www.amazon.com/Nightmares-Dreamscapes-Stephen-King/dp/1439102562/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301328930&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Night-Shift-Stephen-King/dp/0385129912/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301328968&sr=1-1


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I've written about this on the Jump the Shark thread, but I don't think it's a simple matter of "King used to be great, now he stinks."

For my money, King has gone through several solid periods, interrupted by at least two periods where he just didn't click with me.

But I don't want to write that all up again, so look for my Jump the Shark post for details.

I'd say career-wise, King bats close to .600 with me, so that's doing pretty good for a guy with nearly 70 books out.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

He's a master craftsman, and his last couple of efforts seem to be a return to his early form, which is astonishing after 70 plus books. He lost me a long time ago when the novels got bloated, but "Cell" was good, "Under the Dome" sucked me in and "Full Dark, No Stars" was 80% amazing. I'm looking forward to the one on the Kennedy assasination, due this fall.

And many of the early works are amazing, "Carrie,"Salem's Lot," "The Shining," "Pet Semetery," "The Stand," "Different Seasons," are just American classics.


----------



## PG4003 (Patricia) (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm like you, I don't just like Stephen King's books, I LOVE them!  And frankly I don't really care what anybody else thinks about them.  That's why there are so many different authors and genres, something different for everybody.


----------



## J.R.Mooneyham (Mar 14, 2011)

I've never really been a horror fan-- but fortunately King has written other things besides straight horror.

I've probably seen more King story-based movies than read King books. But I've read some (including the Stand).

King's reputation would probably be far less tarnished today if someone could have held him back from letting his publishers have all the contents from his trash files too, after he became popular. They ended up publishing some awful crap from him then, which made King look bad to lots of fans. So King DOES have some trash out there. However, King's best writings can hold their own against any other author's in history, I believe: he seems to be a natural born story teller.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I have never finished any of the half dozen or so King novels that I've tried (with the possible exception of _Carrie_, which I picked up way back when it was still pretty new, and I don't actually recall if I finished it or not). Does this mean I think he's overrated? Not really. It means he's not for me. Besides the fact that his typical supernatural/horror/whatever genre is not my cup of tea, his stories and characters do not resonate with me and I tend to quickly lose interest in them. Obviously they _do_ resonate well with many, many other people. It does not mean my tastes are better or worse than theirs, just different. _Vive la différence!_.

I did "finish" _On Writing_, but I skimmed/skipped a lot of the autobiographical stuff, as it also did not resonate well with me. Perhaps that is some sort of significant clue as to why his characters and stories don't resonate for me either?


----------



## Sean Thomas Fisher (Mar 25, 2011)

King admitted a couple years ago he has written about all of the monsters he wanted to, so anything from him nowadays is just icing on the cake. He has nothing to prove, yet still puts out killer stuff like Cell. As much as many try, no one has been able to come close to filling his shoes in the horror world.

I'm also hoping he and his son, Joe Hill, will sign on to co-write an episode of The Walking Dead on AMC this season. They are in talks with the producers now, but I can only imagine how sweet that would be!


----------



## RVS78 (Mar 13, 2011)

I love his works, especially the early ones. One of the first horror books I picked up were his short story collections. Definitely made an impression on me as an adolescent and influenced the way I write.


----------



## Ben White (Feb 11, 2011)

I think he's a good writer who knows how to put together a story, and his productivity is to be admired, but I've never felt attached to any of his characters and I've always felt that his dialogue isn't particularly strong or interesting.

So, basically, I think he's earned his success and certainly deserves it, but his books just aren't to my taste.  Overrated?  Mm ... I'll say 'no'.  Especially these days, if you compare him to what's popular now he looks like a super-writer.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

I think what comes across crystal clear when I read Stephen King is that he is a writer who LOVES to write and tell a good story.  Even when I don't enjoy a particular piece of his, I can tell he had fun writing it.  That kind of joy on the part of a writer (or any artist) is intoxicating to readers.  He writes because he enjoys it, not because of the fame or money or because someone else told him that's what he should be doing.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

There is a big difference between not liking an author or not liking some of his books and an author being over-rated.

You don't like a lot of what he has done. Fair enough. It happens I don't either because it is not to my rather picky taste. That doesn't mean that the people who do are wrong, just that it isn't to my taste. And some of the works that he wrote earlier are, in my opinion, some of the best American writing of the last century. It will be read when some of the much touted literary lights who have long poo-pooed his work are forgotten and in the dustbin.

He would have that from _The Shining_ alone. No, he is a very long way from over-rated in my opinion.


----------



## WilliamVitka (Mar 28, 2011)

Stephen King is a hero of mine. I love his stuff, but he can also deus ex machina himself into some terrible endings...


----------



## ronvitale (Mar 11, 2011)

My wife has always been a Stephen King fan and I never crossed paths with reading any of his works in growing up. However, about 5 years ago I did read "On Writing" and thought that to be an extremely thoughtful and useful book to read as an author. 

My favorite King book would be "Wizard and Glass" as the only King books I've read are those in The Dark Tower series and "On Writing." I must admit that when I finished The Dark Tower series (the very end--as I read on after King suggested that you stop reading) that I wanted to throw the book across the room as I was so frustrated with where he took the series. My wife and I had some good conversation over that as I see life as being half-full and King's ending (to me) was so thoroughly depressing that I couldn't believe I had read all the books and then it ended like THAT. 

I've been meaning to read "The Stand" but I haven't made time and, honestly, I haven't wanted to carry the book around. But now that I am a Kindle owner, I wouldn't have to worry about that any longer...


----------



## kCopeseeley (Mar 15, 2011)

I think Stephen King is a fantastic writer.  I remember the first time I read one of his books, I was blown away by how great the actual WRITING was.  However, I have just not found a book of his that I like.  I think I'm under the category of "he's just not for me."  It pains me to say it. I'm not keen on Toni Morrison either, and I think her writing is amazing, too.


----------



## Robert Gregory Browne (Mar 10, 2011)

Most writers can only dream of having Stephen King's talent and imagination.  The man's writing is virtually flawless and has been from the beginning.  I count him among a handful of greats who inspired me to become a novelist.

It's okay not to care for King's work.  That's a matter of taste.  But anyone who says that King isn't a brilliant craftsman doesn't understand writing, period.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I have thought of something new to say here, that doesn't replicate what I wrote in the Jump the Shark thread.

The definition of "overrated," really, is "not as talented as some make him out to be."

On that technical level, I would have to say that King's anything but overrated.

Why?

1) Most critics denigrate King. You can't be overrated when people are constantly trashing you.

2) King downplays his own talent level. ("I'm the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries. But I'm a d*mn good Big Mac and fries.")

3) Even many of us who admire him don't oversell him.

One must be over-sold as a genius before they can be considered "overrated." Therefore, King simply isn't. The only folks overselling him are his publisher's publicists, that THOSE folks oversell anyone paying them to do so... 

If anything, King is underrated. It's easy to dismiss him as "just a horror novelist" and miss out on the fact that there are many things he does as well or better than any other writer of his generation.

And I'll admit, King is, bar none, the biggest literary influence on my own writing and always will be. There are many worse influences to have.

Yet he also has weaknesses, and even King himself is aware of this. After 70 novels, he has an annoying habit of writing several novels on the EXACT SAME THEME.

Examples:

King likes the write about writers. Exhibits: Salem's Lot, The Shining, The Body, IT, Misery, The Dark Half, Bag of Bones (I think)... it gets to be a bit much.

King focused on spousal abuse a lot for a while. Exhibits: The Shining, Gerald's Game, Delores Claiborne, Insomnia, Rose Madder, Bag of Bones, and maybe some of the more recent stuff I haven't read yet. But Gerald's Game though Bag of Bones all came out very close together, so it became overwhelming.... it's like, "Stop with all the spousal abuse themes, please! Give it a rest and try something else."

I suppose "everything's eventual" and that once a writer has produced that many books, that many words, one is bound to start repeating oneself. But it is periods like that which tend to drive me away from King. When he overcomes them, he draws me back in.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Craig, the fact that he denigrates himself as a "big Mac and fries" doesn't necessarily mean that you should believe him. Dickens was a "big Mac and fries" man as well. Austen was a "big Mac and fries" lady. Amazing how they're now on the classics list. So will King be. You getting tired of his themes is really irrelevant. 

Edit: I don't like his Dark Tower series or a number of things he's written. That won't keep him from being a classic.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

I think the only reason King doesn't have a stronger critical reputation is that he has the same inescapable problem all prolific artists do: some of their work just isn't very good. Much easier to say "If you think King's good, you obviously haven't read [junky clunker X]" when an author's written 70 books than if they've written five.

Personally, having read somewhere around 15 of his books, I liked some, didn't care for others, and thought a few were great. In terms of "greatness" or fitting into the canon or whatever, his career might have some parallels to the baseball Hall of Fame: what do you value more, a player's peaks, or his longevity? Or do you only induct players who were a) great and b) great for a long time?

In those terms, I wouldn't vote King in as first-ballot Hall of Fame writer (*adjusts Bicoastal Elites ballcap*), but I'd probably be campaigning for him after that.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Craig, the fact that he denigrates himself as a "big Mac and fries" doesn't necessarily mean that you should believe him. Dickens was a "big Mac and fries" man as well. Austen was a "big Mac and fries" lady. Amazing how they're now on the classics list. So will King be. You getting tired of his themes is really irrelevant.
> 
> Edit: I don't like his Dark Tower series or a number of things he's written. That won't keep him from being a classic.


Re-read my post. Did I say he wouldn't become a classic? No. I gave him trainloads of praise. "as good or better at many things as any author of his generation." "The single strongest literary influence on my own writing."

I like King's "big Mac and fries" reference because it shows humility... which means he's not OVER-rated.

My comments on his repetitive themes is simply being honest... he has weaknesses, just like any writer who's written as much as he does would.

But I never came close to suggesting he won't be a classic, or possibly even the most influential voice of his generation.

Re-read my post.


----------



## RS Ramdial (Mar 30, 2011)

King is a Master. I think he's just disliked by literary types because he writes genre fiction and by other folks because he puts in a healthy dose of swearing. But one of the hardest things to accomplish is to make your writing effortless to read, which he does every time. He can write beautiful sentences as well as anyone (and perhaps better than most) as _Bag of Bones_ and parts of _Wizard and Glass_ show, but even in those instances, he's the consummate writer, not wanting to call attention to the prose, just wanting to tell the story.

He also wrote a short story called _Head Down_. I wasn't raised in a baseball culture and have no interest in the game, but damned if I wasn't riveted from start to finish. I didn't grow up in 50's or 70's America but whatever _Stand By Me / The Body_ and _It_ say about childhood and friendship feels true to me. He makes you care about characters and people. Again, that's not easy to do.

"A lot of people were outraged that he was honored at the National Book Awards, as if a popular writer could not be taken seriously. But after finding that his book On Writing had more useful and observant things to say about the craft than any book since Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, I have gotten over my own snobbery." - Roger Ebert, reviewing Secret Window, Secret Garden.


----------



## WilliamVitka (Mar 28, 2011)

RS Ramdial said:


> King is a Master. I think he's just disliked by literary types because he writes genre fiction and by other folks because he puts in a healthy dose of swearing. But one of the hardest things to accomplish is to make your writing effortless to read, which he does every time. He can write beautiful sentences as well as anyone (and perhaps better than most) as _Bag of Bones_ and parts of _Wizard and Glass_ show, but even in those instances, he's the consummate writer, not wanting to call attention to the prose, just wanting to tell the story ... He makes you care about characters and people. Again, that's not easy to do.


This, a million times over.


----------



## Patrick Skelton (Jan 7, 2011)

I really respect King.  A lot of his books aren't my cup of tea, but the man is a brilliant writer.


----------



## Steve Emmett (Mar 31, 2011)

I'll admit I haven't read all his books (has anyone?) but he is brilliant. OK, that's my humble opinion BUT it was reading his novella 'The Mist' that first got me hooked on the idea of writing myself and his 'On Writing' defined and refined the way I write. Some people are just gifted - and he is one of them.


----------



## JMCornwell (Apr 1, 2011)

Stephen King is a master storyteller. You want to read whatever he puts out, or watch it on DVD. Like most prolific writers, he does tend to repeat himself and sometimes misses the ball. He's not hit or miss, but he does miss on occasion. As a writer, he is consistently interesting and worth reading, and his ability to create a visual and tactile world is wonderful. He's even a great writer on occasion. In that, I mean that he is technically brilliant, but that does not always translate into a believable or riveting story. Although there are a few books that I just couldn't get into, I look forward to reading whatever he brings out. As for classic King, I reread IT and THE STAND every year or so. They always surprise me. It takes talent and strong ability to be able to juggle so many elements and do it so well.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I'd balk at calling him overrated, but I've not been blown away by any of his books I've read.  Off the top of my head I've read The Stand, Needful Things, Salem's Lot, Eye of the Dragon, the Dark Tower Series and maybe one or two more.

He writes well, but too many of his stories go off on tangents not too related to the main plot (The Dark Tower series was terrible about this IMO with the flashback, the overlong bit with the Wolves etc.).  And more importantly, he just stinks at writing endings I enjoy.  Long books, with tons of build up, and then some lame ending comes up very quickly in most of them.

But again, I wouldn't say he's overrated.  Just not my cup of tea and I doubt I'll read another of his books.


----------



## CoffeeCat (Sep 13, 2010)

While most of my favorite SK novels are from his earlier works, I still enjoy his newer pieces. Even if I'm not completely in love with a story, his craftsmanship always amazes me. I also find On Writing to be the best of it's kind.


----------



## JMCornwell (Apr 1, 2011)

CoffeeCat said:


> While most of my favorite SK novels are from his earlier works, I still enjoy his newer pieces. Even if I'm not completely in love with a story, his craftsmanship always amazes me. I also find On Writing to be the best of it's kind.


_On Writing_ is one book I recommend to beginning writers. I also recommend Mark Twain.

I have to admit that I could not get into the Dark Tower series at all. I may have to try again. Maybe not.


----------



## DanDillard (Mar 10, 2011)

Fantastic storyteller. He hits and misses, but even the misses have captivating moments. There aren't many who can draw a character so well. He created an entire city of people that wandered in and out of his books as if they were people in our own communities. He also has a knack for taking the average thing sitting in all our houses, a dog, a car, a toy soldier, a cell phone... and making them terrifying. IT (while not my favorite) may be the personification of his writing... it's a little different for each reader. I hope to have one novel in my lifetime that fires on all cylinders the way so many of his have.


----------



## JMCornwell (Apr 1, 2011)

DanDillard said:


> I hope to have one novel in my lifetime that fires on all cylinders the way so many of his have.


Even if they don't write horror, I'd say that most writers want to have characters that come to life and are remembered as clearly as King's characters have. Sometimes, though, it's not the people that are as memorable as the place. The hotel in _The Shining_, the house that built itself in _Rose Red_, and so on. The situations seem as though they could happen today or happened last week in some podunk town somewhere. He taps into something elemental and, even when he's off the mark on part of the story, something still rings true. That's what I want, for my stories to ring true, to be so believable that the reader is sure they happened somewhere.


----------



## aaronpolson (Apr 4, 2010)

I used to feel so-so about King.  

I love his work, now.  Is it all brilliant?  No.

But he is a master craftsman.  I never feel like putting down a King story, even one's I don't like. (Full Dark, No Stars was a mixed bag).  

If I could produce 1/10th his quality and quantity, I'd be a happy writer.


----------



## JMCornwell (Apr 1, 2011)

aaronpolson said:


> If I could produce 1/10th his quality and quantity, I'd be a happy writer.


I think most writers feel that way about someone they respect and enjoy. I sure hope people enjoy my work. Respect will come.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

I've not read a Stephen King book but I have watched some of his movies. They creep me out. He has the weirdest imagination. Can't fault him at what he does. I do find him odd, but brilliant.


----------



## markarayner (Mar 14, 2011)

RS Ramdial said:


> King is a Master. I think he's just disliked by literary types because he writes genre fiction and by other folks because he puts in a healthy dose of swearing. But one of the hardest things to accomplish is to make your writing effortless to read, which he does every time. He can write beautiful sentences as well as anyone (and perhaps better than most) as _Bag of Bones_ and parts of _Wizard and Glass_ show, but even in those instances, he's the consummate writer, not wanting to call attention to the prose, just wanting to tell the story.
> 
> "A lot of people were outraged that he was honored at the National Book Awards, as if a popular writer could not be taken seriously. But after finding that his book On Writing had more useful and observant things to say about the craft than any book since Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, I have gotten over my own snobbery." - Roger Ebert, reviewing Secret Window, Secret Garden.


I agree. A lot of the invective used against King is snobbery, and some of that is just plain old jealousy. When he's in hack mode, he still writes a damn good story, and when he's really trying, he writes some great stuff. His book On Writing is worth the read, as much for the autobiography part of it as the notes on what to do and what not to do.

One of the things I really appreciate about King is that he continues to get better -- this is inspiring for any writer. I think two of his strongest books are recent efforts: Duma Key and Under the Dome is as sprawling and complex (and interesting) as The Stand.


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Personally, having read somewhere around 15 of his books, I liked some, didn't care for others, and thought a few were great.


That's about right, imo. It also appears that either the publisher have very hands-off editing, whether to stretch the size of some of the books or at the behest of King ("you can't cut that!") himself is unclear.


----------



## David Kazzie (Sep 16, 2010)

He's dropped a few stinkers, sure, but his body of work overall has been amazing. 

And The Stand is a classic in every sense of the word.


----------



## CaedemMarquez (Mar 23, 2011)

My favorite book of his is "On Writing." If all of his books were that well written, I would have bought them all.


----------



## medicalhumor (Feb 15, 2011)

Oh Please!  overrated?  Just read the green mile.  Incredible!

Mike Cyra


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2011)

The guy is fantastic. I do worry that he doesn't get edited all the much at times though.


----------



## Mjaydakid (Apr 3, 2011)

Not overrated.  When he's good, he's great.  My only example of how great he can be is:  I had to wake up my roommate while reading Salem's Lot.  It frightened me so.  I am not easily frightened.  And never by a book.


----------



## Robert Smart author (Mar 28, 2011)

I think King started out strong, then dipped considerably, then entered a period where every third or fourth book is strong with a lot of weak efforts in between. But that's just me.

_--- edited... no self-promotion (book covers, web links, mentioning your book/blog/etc.) in posts outside the Book Bazaar forum. please read our Forum Decorum thread. future posts containing self-promotion will be deleted without notice._


----------



## Chuck Heintzelman (Feb 18, 2011)

When I sit down with a King book I know what I'm getting, an enjoyable story that will likely keep me up late trying to finish it.  I can't think of a book of his I didn't like. That said, some I liked far better than others.

Stephen King is one of the few authors I'll cough up the dough for a new-release hardcover.

So ... the questions.  Is he good? I'd say he's great. Is he overrated? In general I'd say no. There are those who do overrate him, but I think there's far more that underrate him, imprisoning him in the horror category and saying things like "I guess he's okay for one of those types."


----------



## Bandeau (Mar 20, 2011)

Personally I'm not a fan. My husband and his family love King, but his books never manage to really captivate me. I'm a big horror fan, but I guess I enjoy a bit more grit and (don't kill me!) I always find his work a little bland. Though I am an oddball when it comes to my choice of authors, his books just aren't for me.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Some of the endings of his books are weak. But he keeps you reading and reading long since you know you should be in bed. Is he great or overrated? Maybe a little of each. There are people who hate King with a passion because he sells books and they don't. He may not have the staying power of a Jane Austen or a Charles Dickens, but that's not exactly a minimum standard of quality.


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

I've been a Stephen King fan since his very early days, and he's always been my favorite writer. Some of his work gets churned out a bit too fast, but a lot of it is brilliant, and it displays why he is as popular as he is.

He sometimes gets kicked around because of his popularity, but some of his strongest work is the kind of stuff that I can imagine still being read for centuries after he's gone (if he's really human and actually does die like the rest of us, that is).


----------



## Mainak Dhar (Mar 1, 2011)

A couple of thoughts- with the vast body of work someone like King has, it's inevitable that there will be some books that work better for an individual reader than others. But that vast array of work in itself to me is testament of his genius and ability to keep surprising and engaging readers. The second point is that as a reader, and someone who has been a big fan of his for a long time, what really makes me come back for more is his sheer imagination- and ability to keep coming up with new ideas and situations. The only gripe I sometimes have is that his work is sometimes just too long for my liking and takes more storytelling than I personally like- Under the Dome being an example. But having said that, I admire his genius and perseverence and keep coming back to his work.


----------



## Rick Chesler (Jul 17, 2010)

He's definitely good. He's produced such a vast library of work that it's not hard to find some material that doesn't please everyone, but it's undeniable that King has created some of the most provocative works of fiction of our time. Plus, he wrote an entire novel about a big dog terrorizing people, what else do you need!


----------



## Sean Thomas Fisher (Mar 25, 2011)

This is such a lame thread. First off, that's not even how you spell _overrated_. And what's next? "Water, good? Or overrated?" "Air, good? Or overrated?" "Puppies, good?" Or overrated?"

If someone find themselves questioning The Master, just take a look at the scoreboard. It never lies.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Sean Thomas Fisher said:


> This is such a lame thread. First off, that's not even how you spell _overrated_. And what's next? "Water, good? Or overrated?" "Air, good? Or overrated?" "Puppies, good?" Or overrated?"
> 
> If someone find themselves questioning The Master, just take a look at the scoreboard. It never lies.


I quite enjoy King. Equating his essential-to-life qualities to air and water, however, might just be overstating the case just a tad.


----------



## Sean Thomas Fisher (Mar 25, 2011)

Okay, what about puppies??


----------



## Tony Rabig (Oct 11, 2010)

If memory serves, in THE FOUR SEASONS OF SUCCESS Budd Schulberg likened a writer's body of work to a mountain range, and that's not a bad way to look at it -- not every mountain is Everest. Not every King book is an Everest, of course, but when he's cooking there are damned few people working today who can touch him. When a new book comes out, I lay my money down (ebooks rather than print these days) without waiting for the paperback or hoping for the ebook price to drop; and even though they're not all Everests, I've never felt that I wasted my money.

Bests to all,

Tony Rabig

_--- edited... no self-promotion outside the Book Bazaar forum. please read our Forum Decorum thread._


----------



## Rick Chesler (Jul 17, 2010)

Good. Wide range of talent, entertaining, at times original. The Different Seasons short collection is fantastic.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2011)

I really like his work.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> I think the only reason King doesn't have a stronger critical reputation is that


....he writes about what he wants to write about, in a genre that is not t"he most respected."

He loves to write....and people love his stories....he has the right balance, the right combination. Reading him is effortless, great for those who dont want to put any energy out....you can save it for the scary stuff that comes later.

I dont EVER read horror...but I read everything King in the early yrs and loved it...he's just a darn 'easy-to-read' writer with good stories. The Stand is my all-time favorite book (I dont consider it horror, but post-apocalyptic fiction).

And yet I havent read him in more than a decade, not sure why, probably because there are so many other books out there on topics/in genres that I want to read. But I have Under the Dome waiting (as it fits more into the post-apoc. genre) and I thought I'd give it a try.


----------



## Riven Owler (Jul 9, 2011)

This looks like an old thread that was recently revived, but I'll pipe in and say that Stephen King was one of my early favorites.  The Shining, The Stand and Green Mile are my favorites.  On Writing was so helpful and inspiring.  His persistence despite many rejections is encouraging for anyone thinking about writing/publishing.  I think some of his short stories should be in American textbooks by now.  He's under appreciated, but I predict history will favor him as much as E.A.Poe.


----------



## Numi Ash (Jul 26, 2011)

I *love* Stephen King, however, I only consider him to be Stephen King until 1987 when he wrote _Misery_. After that, some impersonator seems to have taken over his writing and made it into redundant and condescending junk. I say condescending because there is something about the way he tries to make his characters into "everyman" that annoys me. It's like he thinks there are only certain personalities in the world, and he already knows them and doesn't need to think any further about what makes a person a person. After a while the characters all talk the same, they all have the same relationships with their mothers, and they all have the same tragedies in their pasts.

I know this is an over-generalization, but the man who scared the crap out of me with _Carrie, The Shining, The Stand_, and _It_ cannot be the same man who wrote _Secret Windows._ (Which, by the way, come on, is the same basic story as _The Dark Half,_ right?)

The same thing happened happened to "The Simpsons." Except for a few exceptional episodes, I don't even consider it to be "The Simpsons" anymore after season 7.

After a while everyone jumps the shark.


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

King is The Master and was the most influential author before I began writing. I LOVED his earlier works...but not so much his stuff in-between. I was super-happy with _Under the Dome _and felt it was "Stand-esque," in its rhythm. I hate to defend him at all because I understand he's so rich he's probably chucking bundles of cash in his fireplace to keep warm. But! I have read his account(s) of where he started and he seems hyper-aware of his place in this world. He seems more grounded than many [famous] authors. I'm a fan!


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I think some of each. The strongest anti-King reaction I have ever seen was on a writer's forum, the explosion of vitriol at the mere mention of his name was truly epic. They seemed jealous that he was able to sell books. His books are good, but I don't think they will be classics read ages from now. But books don't have to be legendary to be good. His endings do tend to be weak and disappointing.


----------



## Stephen_Melling (Jun 26, 2011)

Stephen king is a good writer and great storyteller. I'd say his talent as a storyteller is what sets him apart. I particularly his early stuff. 'Salem's Lot alone puts him in a league of his own. Overrated? Not in my opinion, but then, I suppose it depends on what you are rating him against.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

There are many who think he is overrated.  My girlfriend likes to get me irritated by insisting he hires college writing students to write his novels and then he just stamps his name on the cover.  

I have been a fan of his from the time I was in 6th grade and read Cujo.  I have bought every one of his books for a long time.  I used to buy them the day they came out in hard back...now I buy them electronically.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> I think some of each. The strongest anti-King reaction I have ever seen was on a writer's forum, the explosion of vitriol at the mere mention of his name was truly epic. They seemed jealous that he was able to sell books. His books are good, but I don't think they will be classics read ages from now. But books don't have to be legendary to be good. His endings do tend to be weak and disappointing.


I suspect many would have said the same about Dickens during his lifetime.


----------



## ciscokid (Oct 10, 2010)

LiteraryGrrrl said:


> Stephen King is the MASTER...and my personal literary hero.
> 
> And for anyone who doesn't like his newer stuff I say read Under the Dome. It's amazing!
> And of course On Writing is one of the greatest books of its kind.
> ...


I agree about Under the Dome. It is a fantastic book. I read Stephen King, but much of what he has written I haven't been crazy about. In fact, after I read Pet Cemetery, I didn't read another of his books for over 10 years. That book was just too disturbing. The thing that got me back into reading his books was seeing the miniseries of The Stand on tv. I went out and bought the book afterward. Since then I've read most of his books, but only really loved, The Stand, The Talisman, the first few Black Tower books and Under the Dome.

King is a wonderful writer and I've always thought it was a shame that he just writes horror. No one can paint a picture with words like he can. Unfortunately, I like books where the characters I've come to like actually make it out alive. LOL


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> I suspect many would have said the same about Dickens during his lifetime.


You're seriously comparing King to Dickens? He's a good writer, but not in that league. It is this sort of thing that leads people to call him overrated.


----------



## Miss Laura (Jul 27, 2011)

Stephen King is my favorite author. I think he is amazingly talented. His body of work speaks for itself. If you can read It and say that King is overrated, then you aren't much of a reader. That book is incredible. Not only the story, but the way it is written. He jumps flawlessly from 1985 to 1957, and the characterization? OMG - I felt like I knew these people, even the ones who are only in it for a few pages.

Because King has such a prolific career, I don't like everything he publishes. I didn't like Gerald's Game or Rose Madder. However, the books I love (It, Bag of Bones, The Dark Tower Series, Nightmares & Dreamscapes) are some of my favorite of all time. I think there is something for everyone in King's body of work. Short stories, novellas, horror, supernatural, etc.

What I like about King is that his writing progresses. He doesn't stick to horror anymore, though there is a little horror in all his novels. He knows how to tell a tale, and he keeps producing. The man is incredible. His novels can touch your soul, and I will probably read every book he ever publishes.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I agree with J.C. entirely. His early books were genuinely terrific. He still pens something worthwhile sometimes but -- writing-wise -- he's become a bit of a victim of his own success.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I'd say for me he's both good and overrated.  I like his books, but I don't love them and thus find him a bit overrated.  I like his writing style, but my biggest gripe is he generally sucks at writing endings.  Too many of his books have a huge build up and very anti-climatic ending.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Yuh. Even the ending of 'The Shining' -- a terrific novel otherwise -- was a bit of a damp squib. But he does build up wonderfully, and he is a very good chronicler of ordinary people's lives in his part of the world, which is what he'll probably be best remembered for.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

I think he's great

I may have mentioned it before but....

For anyone coming in new to this discussion and you are curious to try him out or if you love him but have been busy with your life and wonder what's new.....

Sept 1 he has an e-book (novella) coming out on Kindle called Mile 81

Nov 8 he has a huge new novel that concerns time travel and the Kennedy Assassination

And in April 2012 there will be Dark Tower # 8

Love him or hate him, he just keeps on writing

for much more detailed info check this webpage out
http://www.liljas-library.com/


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

Stephen King is a great writer.  He's not a critical darling, he writes for the average Joe.  And that's not a bad thing at all, in my estimation.  He's earned every bit of praise that's been heaped upon him.  When your name becomes synonymous with the genre you write in, that's a hell of an accomplishment.  Last night I listened to the audiobook version of "On Writing" and it's only further cemented him as a genius in my mind.


----------



## KathyGleason (May 5, 2011)

I love him. Bag of Bones is one of my all time favorite books. The only ones I didn't like were the Dark Tower ones. Oh, and Cujo. My second favorite from him is The Shining. The Stand was also amazing.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

KathyGleason said:


> I love him. Bag of Bones is one of my all time favorite books. The only ones I didn't like were the Dark Tower ones. Oh, and Cujo. My second favorite from him is The Shining. The Stand was also amazing.


My favorite was "Misery." Read it all in one sitting. Then I immediately watched the movie and was severely disappointed, despite all the acclaim it got.


----------



## Riven Owler (Jul 9, 2011)

A lot of the movies aren't good.  The Shining and Green Mile were though.  I look forward to the Dark Tower series film (s).


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

Riven Owler said:


> A lot of the movies aren't good. The Shining and Green Mile were though. I look forward to the Dark Tower series film (s).


I always found it odd that King was unhappy with The Shining movie. I like that one, Children of the Corn, Green Mile, Shawshank Redemption and a few others, but some of them have been really disappointing. It's hard to capture on film what he puts on paper, I guess.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Well, the making of The Shining movie is interesting.  King said he would get a call in the middle of the night from Kubrick who would ask him strange questions like, "Do you think there's a God?'  And King would say, "yes."  Stanley would say, "I don't think there is" and then hang up.

King felt that Jack Nicholson, who at the time was fresh off of One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" was the wrong choice for the main character.  In King's mind the book and story was a sad, slow descent into madness by the father.  He felt that as soon as the audience saw Nicholson, that they would know he was crazy.  Thus, he was a villain right from the start.

Of course, King was also just too close to the material.  I always just separated the two.  I like the book as a book and the movie as a movie, if you get my meaning.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

balaspa said:


> Well, the making of The Shining movie is interesting. King said he would get a call in the middle of the night from Kubrick who would ask him strange questions like, "Do you think there's a God?' And King would say, "yes." Stanley would say, "I don't think there is" and then hang up.


Weird.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)




----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

A 4-star restaurant will be overrated if people act like it is a 5-star restaurant. Similarly that same restaurant will be underrated of people act like it is a 3-star restaurant. I think King is overrated if people are putting him on the same pedestal of the greatest writers ever. But he's still a good writer.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

balaspa said:


> said he would get a call in the middle of the night from Kubrick who would ask him strange questions like, "Do you think there's a God?' And King would say, "yes." Stanley would say, "I don't think there is" and then hang up.


This story strikes me as odd.

Here's why:

When interviewed in the mid-1980s by Douglas Winter, King was asked about his religious beliefs.

King at that time (granted, probably a decade after this exchange with Kubrick) colored himself as an agnostic. Not a convinced atheist, but also not a believer of any shade or hue.

But he did tell Winter a fascinating story about how the scariest thing he was ever told came from the lips of a youth pastor for whatever church he attended as a kid... Methodist, I think, if I recall the interview correctly.

To recap briefly, King said the youth pastor told him (and a bunch of other kids) a story that somewhat goes like this:

"Imagine the tallest mountain in the world. Once every 1,000 years, a sparrow flies to the top of this mountain and sharpens its beak by rubbing it against the mountaintop. This is the only form of erosion this mountain ever suffers, just that sparrow sharpening its beak every thousand years. By the time that mighty mountain is worn down to dust ... that is the length of time equal to the first second of your stay in hell."

No wonder King's so spooky!


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

When King is really "on," he's one of the best writers of the last half century as far as pulling in the reader. When he's "off" ... well, he's just off. But even when he's off I find him generally a better writer than most of the other top sellers out there.

I have to agree with others that he's not very good with his endings. Probably his weakest point, with a handful of exceptions ("The Dead Zone" comes to mind).


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

As to the endings of King's novels... I think it depends on what you're looking for from an ending. King actually uses several different types of endings.

For example, I felt very satisfied with the ending of Misery. Great resolution. Strong sense of closure/lasting impact.

Similarly, Gerald's Game had a decent ending.

Ditto "The Body" and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption"

But some of his endings are more... literary? As in, he offers up a sense that life goes on but he's not going to write about it. He'll give you the sense of the general direction of their lives, but that's it.

I recognize that type of ending because it's what writers like John Irving do. Irving's last 20-40 pages of World According to Garp is to tell you how Garp's wife, kids, and those close to him finished out their lives after Garp's death. I like to call it the "and they all died ... eventually" chapter. But it fit with his theme, which I think was the closing line of the novel, which read, "In the world according to Garp, we are all terminal cases."

King attempts that sort of thing at times. Usually he's not as good at it as Irving was with Garp... but then, I'd argue that even Irving only pulled that off successfully once. It's a tough think to get right.

I wasn't a big fan of the resolution to PET SEMATARY, but not because of any deficiency in the ending he chose, but because of the ending he teased but ultimately didn't go with... (that the son would come back... but "wrong" ... that caring for his poorly-risen son would be something akin to caring for a child with autism or some other affliction... difficult, but not at all impossible.)

If King hadn't teased his readers with that fake-out ending, I think they would have accepted the more standard resolution he ultimately went with. But because he did tease a more interesting resolution than the one he went with... that's bound to be a problem for readers.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> This story strikes me as odd.
> 
> Here's why:
> 
> ...


I always heard that story and variations on it growing up, too. My favorite was a robot picking up one grain of sand at a time from a desert planet, traveling millions of miles through space to another until he had moved the entire desert. _ And that's just the beginning of eternity! Do you want to spend it in Heaven or Hell?_ And what sends you to hell? Merely thinking about sex. And what do young boys think about? Sex! So yeah, that kind of stuff has quite an impact on kids.


----------



## JeffMariotte (Jun 4, 2011)

King, to me, is one of the four or five best writers we've got working today. A lot of people only like the early stuff--and that's cool, appreciation of any writer is a subjective thing. But a truly creative person, which King is, has to change and grow and stretch. He has done so, and in the process has let behind a lot of his early concerns in favor of bigger subjects.

A few years ago I was one of the judges for the prestigious World Fantasy Awards. There were, I think, five of us, and we received somewhere around 250 books from publishers large and small. Some we could agree to skip over after just a few chapters, but when we narrowed down the good ones, the arguing got tougher. I was pulling, start to finish, for King's _Lisey's Story_, which utterly blew me away. It's not about a group of friends fighting a monster, it's about where ideas and stories and creativity have their genesis, and it's told in brilliant prose, with compassion and suspense and terror and love in about equal measures. There aren't many better books in any given year, in any genre.

He's written a few dogs, too. Cell was one, in my opinion--he couldn't get the basics of comic book art right, which is bad for a book in which the protagonist is a comic book artist. Still, would I have been proud to have written it? Probably so. I've been compared to him a time or two, but I am nowhere near on his level. He's still at the top of his game, and I can't wait until the new one...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jeff,

Query Marvel. Maybe they can hire you to pitch King on you doing the graphic novel version of CELL.

That'd scratch the itch, wouldn't it?


----------



## youngadultfiction (Jul 28, 2011)

Really want to read 'Lisey's story' now, sounds great. There is so much King out there and i haven't read any yet. I was thinking that perhaps the Shining would be a great place to start.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

I'm an old geezer so I've read King since the days of Carrie.  I think he does incredible "what if" scenarios and writes some of the best characters. I still remember each and everyone of the people from The Stand even though I've not read it in probably 25 - 30 years.  The one complaint I have is with his endings - which don't live up to the great start the books have. I think it stems from him being 100% discovery and not outlining (or so I've heard).


----------



## Pamela Davis (Feb 7, 2011)

I've loved most of King's books, with _The Stand_ as an all-time fave. But it was when I read _Delores Claiborne_ that I felt he was a great writer. Written from a woman's point of view, he captured the feelings and thoughts perfectly. I've never seen a male writer do such an amazing job of portraying a woman's voice.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Regarding endings and why I don't like a lot of his----to use 'Salem's Lot as an example



Spoiler



That book was very good, but it gets to the end and they kill the main vampire very anti-climatically, IMO. I hate books that have a lot of build up, and then a very lackluster climax. On top of that, things are still up in the air in general as the town is still full of vampires etc., so the plot isn't really fully resolved. Which is another pet peeve of mine.



But that's just me, and I realize that type of endings don't bother others and some may even like them.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Does '100% discovery' mean that King doesn't have the first clue what the ending's going to be when he starts writing a novel? Most writers have at least a vague idea -- Dororthea Brande called it 'a raft to swim towards' -- so that's pretty unusual


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Of course, the stories about King and Kubrick may be entirely apocryphal.  King himself may change the story as he sees fit just to get a different reaction out of the audience.  The story that I related is one that I read somewhere along the line, and I no longer remember where...it might have even been one of King's columns when he was a regular contributor to Entertainment Weekly.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Michael_J_Sullivan said:


> I'm an old geezer so I've read King since the days of Carrie. I think he does incredible "what if" scenarios and writes some of the best characters. I still remember each and everyone of the people from The Stand even though I've not read it in probably 25 - 30 years. The one complaint I have is with his endings - which don't live up to the great start the books have. I think it stems from him being 100% discovery and not outlining (or so I've heard).


Mike,

You're probably not much older than me; I came to CARRIE and SALEM'S LOT and THE SHINING a bit late because I was fairly young and it took me a bit to discover him, but I think NIGHT SHIFT was out when I started reading King (it was more a matter of discovering him than it was being old enough... I read junkier horror in my pre-teens, LOL) and it didn't take me long to catch up.

I'm not as convinced that his endings are weak, but I will say this: I'm not a huge outline/preplanner, either, and if I could have as many of King's strengths as King has, I'd take on the burden of his "weak endings" with gladness, as a pretty fair trade.


----------



## soyfrank (Feb 2, 2011)

I'd say he's probably underrated. After all, he rarely has support from the big critics who don't see him as a serious writer, but he's still managed to have an amazing career that few will ever match. Personally, I've only read Four Seasons and thought it was solid -- although the films were way better in my opinion.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

The genuinely remarkable thing about King is the fact that lots of people read his novels who read _no other works of horror whatsoever_. That makes his achievement pretty extraordinary, and is why the man is in a league all of his own.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

I think he's an excellent writer. If his topics didn't usually have a supernatural element, he would have received recognition as such a long time ago, but I think eventually he will be considered part of the twentieth century canon. No, I am not being facetious.


----------



## JeffMariotte (Jun 4, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Query Marvel. Maybe they can hire you to pitch King on you doing the graphic novel version of CELL.
> 
> That'd scratch the itch, wouldn't it?


Marvel hires lots of ex-WildStorm guys, of which I am one. My problem is that with very few exceptions, I can't stand Marvel comics, so I've never bothered pitching them anything.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

Tony Richards said:


> Does '100% discovery' mean that King doesn't have the first clue what the ending's going to be when he starts writing a novel? Most writers have at least a vague idea -- Dororthea Brande called it 'a raft to swim towards' -- so that's pretty unusual


I don't know, but I'm going to try that.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JeffMariotte said:


> Marvel hires lots of ex-WildStorm guys, of which I am one. My problem is that with very few exceptions, I can't stand Marvel comics, so I've never bothered pitching them anything.


I understand. Then again, they seem to work with King a lot. So you could always look at it as working with King rather than Marvel per se.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

JeffMariotte said:


> Marvel hires lots of ex-WildStorm guys, of which I am one. My problem is that with very few exceptions, I can't stand Marvel comics, so I've never bothered pitching them anything.


Is it the people at marvel and the way they operate you dislike, or the characters in general? I have no idea what's going on with their comics nowadays, because they're so into the whole "Buy issue #647 of Thor to find out what happens next" thing that I just lost interest. If I subscribe to X-Men, I want a story arc that is contained within that title. I don't want to have to go out and buy an issue of Fantastic 4 to read the conclusion.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

PatrickWalts said:


> Is it the people at marvel and the way they operate you dislike, or the characters in general? I have no idea what's going on with their comics nowadays, because they're so into the whole "Buy issue #647 of Thor to find out what happens next" thing that I just lost interest. If I subscribe to X-Men, I want a story arc that is contained within that title. I don't want to have to go out and buy an issue of Fantastic 4 to read the conclusion.


Unfortunately, that's as endemic to current DC as to Marvel. (Brightest Day, Flashpoint, etc.)


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Tony Richards said:


> The genuinely remarkable thing about King is the fact that lots of people read his novels who read _no other works of horror whatsoever_. That makes his achievement pretty extraordinary, and is why the man is in a league all of his own.


That would be me.

And somehow, The Stand ended up my favorite book. However, he could have left all the supernatural/horror elements out of it...Randall Flagg didnt need to be a supernatural being, he could have just been an evil guy with a huge cult of personality....and that book would still have meant the same to me.

Captain Tripps....now HE was the main character for me


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Unfortunately, that's as endemic to current DC as to Marvel. (Brightest Day, Flashpoint, etc.)


And that's probably why I gave up on comics. It's a shame, because they were always such a cheap source of entertainment. Now you pay 4 bucks for a largely dialogue-free comic that takes about five minutes to read. And as far as superhero comics go, these days they try to be far more sophisticated and avante-garde than they have any right to be. Ultimately you're reading a story about a guy in a spandex suit that fights crime, and that's really all there is to it. He's wearing his underwear on the outside of his pants, for crying out loud. How deep does this really need to be? They're trying to make something super-serious out of a premise that's essentially ludicrous. I'll just stick to reprinted collections of comics from the '70s and '80s, thanks.


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

I think King is a fantastic author, but can anyone maintain perfect standards with the volume of writing he has published? I like to read his books and I have never been disappointed, but I only read books I'm certain I will enjoy. As I've said in other posts - Title, cover blurb price.


----------



## Scribejohn (Jul 2, 2011)

On the strength of The Stand, he's a great writer. On the weakness of 'Cell', he's pants.


----------



## rayhensley (Apr 16, 2011)

I think King is pretty groovy. I really like his short stories; my favorite being *The Moving Finger* ^_^


----------



## BenCheetham (Jul 24, 2011)

Just finished reading 'The Shining'. I'm sure it's been said thousands of times before, but Kubrick's film blew the novel out of the water. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the novel, which is rightly called a masterpiece. My main complaint about all the Stephen King books I've read is that they're stuffed full of padding. There are many passages that can be skipped over without taking anything away from the story. Still, he's definitely not overrated. The guy has an almost unsurpassed genius for telling stories that capture the popular imagination.


----------



## nmg222 (Sep 14, 2010)

Last night I finished 'Under the Dome', the 35th novel I've read of King's along with a handful of short story collections.  As others have said, what really grabs me about his writing is that he is a masterful storyteller.  I feel as though someone is reading me a story or telling me a tale.  There are times in his works when he steps outside the story and talks directly to the reader (Hear me now dear reader and pay attention...).

What I think really seperates him from most of the other authors I read is his depth of characters.  When I read his opus novels (IT, The Stand, Under the Dome) I feel like these characters, good or evil, have become my friends and I need to get back to the story to see what they are up to.  And when I come to the end, as I did last night, it's as though some of my friends have moved away.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

Tony Richards said:


> The genuinely remarkable thing about King is the fact that lots of people read his novels who read _no other works of horror whatsoever_. That makes his achievement pretty extraordinary, and is why the man is in a league all of his own.


Yeah, that says it all. He's got all this insanely disturbing stuff going on in his books, but he makes it so accessible and fun to read that everybody from your preacher to your grandma to the guy down the street cooking meth in his kitchen loves him.


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

He's one of my favorites. I find it interesting that he's synonymous with the horror genre, and yet, so much of his work has a sci-fi or fantasy element instead. Take the entire Gunslinger series, or other titles like Eyes of The Dragon, The Green Mile, or Hearts in Atlantis. Whenever someone says they don't read his books because they don't read horror, I try to steer to those books, especiall Wizard and Glass or Eyes of The Dragon, they're my favorite non-horror stories of his.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

rweinstein6 said:


> He's one of my favorites. I find it interesting that he's synonymous with the horror genre, and yet, so much of his work has a sci-fi or fantasy element instead. Take the entire Gunslinger series, or other titles like Eyes of The Dragon, The Green Mile, or Hearts in Atlantis. Whenever someone says they don't read his books because they don't read horror, I try to steer to those books, especiall Wizard and Glass or Eyes of The Dragon, they're my favorite non-horror stories of his.


It's just because that's how he made his name. He'll forever be tied in with those early books like Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Shining, etc. Plus he looks like a serial killer in many of the pics on his book jackets, and I can't help but think that's done on purpose.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

See, personally, I don't find his books filled with padding. I think what makes King's novels so powerful is how three-dimensional he makes his characters.  So, even the chapters that, at first, don't appear to be moving the story forward, help make the characters more real.  Of course, I am kind of biased and full admit if he published his grocery list, I would buy it and read it.


----------



## Tony Rabig (Oct 11, 2010)

> I think he's an excellent writer. If his topics didn't usually have a supernatural element, he would have received recognition as such a long time ago, but I think eventually he will be considered part of the twentieth century canon. No, I am not being facetious.


Nothing at all facetious about that statement. And I think it's on target. Some of the critics who turn their noses up at King and believe that he'll be forgotten ten minutes after he's planted just don't seem to bear in mind that a respectable number of older tales of the fantastic are not only accepted as canon but are still read by people who aren't forced to read them.

For instance, _Dracula_, _Frankenstein_, _Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde_, most of Poe and Bierce. A number of stories by Kipling, Hawthorne, and Henry James have that supernatural element. _A Christmas Carol_, whether you buy into the sentiment of it, is a nice little ghost story. Verne and Wells wrote science fiction rather than supernatural horror (though Wells had a number along that line) -- in your local libraries you may have a hard time finding _Michael Strogoff_ or _The History of Mr. Polly_, but you'll almost always find _Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea_ and _The Time Machine_.

The fantastic tale appears to have quite a bit of staying power, and King is one of its most prominent contemporary practitioners. I don't have a bit of difficulty in believing that people will still be reading him a hundred years from now.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> Regarding endings and why I don't like a lot of his----to use 'Salem's Lot as an example
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with your sentiment, and "take" on Salem's lot - and is part of what I was talking about - great build ups but endings that are lack luster in comparison.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

Pamela Davis said:


> I've loved most of King's books, with _The Stand_ as an all-time fave. But it was when I read _Delores Claiborne_ that I felt he was a great writer. Written from a woman's point of view, he captured the feelings and thoughts perfectly. I've never seen a male writer do such an amazing job of portraying a woman's voice.


The Stand is indeed one of my favorites - but again...an ending that did not live up to the greatness that came before. I was totally blown away by Different Season - 2 of the best novellas ever in my opion (The Body, Shawshank)


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

Tony Richards said:


> Does '100% discovery' mean that King doesn't have the first clue what the ending's going to be when he starts writing a novel? Most writers have at least a vague idea -- Dororthea Brande called it 'a raft to swim towards' -- so that's pretty unusual


I really can't say - I'm sure he has an idea but I know he doen't belive in outlining.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

soyfrank said:


> I've only read Four Seasons and thought it was solid -- although the films were way better in my opinion.


Actually, I think the movies were some of the best film adaptations of a book ever. I enjoyed them both equally and greatly.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

nmg222 said:


> What I think really seperates him from most of the other authors I read is his depth of characters. When I read his opus novels (IT, The Stand, Under the Dome) I feel like these characters, good or evil, have become my friends and I need to get back to the story to see what they are up to. And when I come to the end, as I did last night, it's as though some of my friends have moved away.


THIS! Here. Here.


----------



## JeffMariotte (Jun 4, 2011)

PatrickWalts said:


> Is it the people at marvel and the way they operate you dislike, or the characters in general? I have no idea what's going on with their comics nowadays, because they're so into the whole "Buy issue #647 of Thor to find out what happens next" thing that I just lost interest. If I subscribe to X-Men, I want a story arc that is contained within that title. I don't want to have to go out and buy an issue of Fantastic 4 to read the conclusion.


They just haven't put out a comic in recent years that I found worth the money. I know most of the execs and editors and like them--just don't like their product, or the way they market them. I wrote a Spider-Man novel almost purely as an antidote to the ridiculousness that was "Brand New Day"--my novel was a pure Peter & MJ love story, with horror and superhero action mixed in. But that's as close as I've ever come to working with them (since my long-ago involvement in something called "Heroes Reborn" that long-time fans might remember), and probably as close as I ever will.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JeffMariotte said:


> I wrote a Spider-Man novel almost purely as an antidote to the ridiculousness that was "Brand New Day"--my novel was a pure Peter & MJ love story, with horror and superhero action mixed in. But that's as close as I've ever come to working with them (since my long-ago involvement in something called "Heroes Reborn" that long-time fans might remember), and probably as close as I ever will.


Jeff,

We must be of a similar mindset/generation of comic book fan.

One More Day, One Moment In Time and Brand New Day is absolutely the point where I feel Marvel's handling of Spider-Man (regular, not Ultimate) went off the rails. It had been going downhill for years, I'd argue ever since the Howard Mackie run.

For me, the only meaningful Spider-Man for the past few years has been the Ultimate version and now they've killed off Peter and replaced him with a kid who's apparently every minority type they could stuff into one character. (Half-black, half-Hispanic, and apparently will be revealed as gay later on... I think this missed a couple more that might've fit, but oh well... after all, they could have made him Muslim, gluten-allergic, and, I don't know, sporting three types of genitalia, I suppose... apparently being a science geek doesn't make one enough of an underdog anymore...)

Not that any of those things are bad, but they sure piled in as much as possible into one character. Oh well... I doubt I'll continue reading even the Ultimate version anymore. Marvel's had contempt for older fans for about 20 years now, even though we're the only ones who can (barely) afford $3-$4/book... so... yeah.

My affection is for the characters as I knew them growing up... from the Stan Lee originals through the Jim Shooter era... It was about the time Shooter was fired that the company kinda went to hell. (Even though I like Bendis...)

Done right, Daredevil (Frank Miller version), Moon Knight (Moench/Sienkiewicz), Fantastic Four (Byrne), and some other runs are among my all-time faves, but ... well, as Stan often said, 'nuff said.

Heroes Reborn, eh? I do remember it, and most of WS's run. So I probably read your work.

I think it would have gone over great had Marvel not done short-term runs prior to Heroes Reborn launched, that ending up being good, too, which made HR less well-received than it otherwise would have been...

(The Waid/Garney run on Captain America, for example; the Waid/Davis run on Fantastic Four...)


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> "Imagine the tallest mountain in the world. Once every 1,000 years, a sparrow flies to the top of this mountain and sharpens its beak by rubbing it against the mountaintop. This is the only form of erosion this mountain ever suffers, just that sparrow sharpening its beak every thousand years. By the time that mighty mountain is worn down to dust ... that is the length of time equal to the first second of your stay in hell."
> 
> No wonder King's so spooky!


1. I think King has become more spiritual over the years. At least that's the impression I get from interviews. His daughter is a minister of some kind.

2. Jonathan Edwards, an 18th century theologian, public domain, makes the King recollection sound like a bedtime story. Sinners in The Hands of An Angry God, in particular, will mess with your head. Linkmaker not working.

http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Sermons-Jonathan-Edwards-ebook/dp/B004UJAE3U/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1312523660&sr=1-1


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Tony Rabig said:


> Some of the critics who turn their noses up at King and believe that he'll be forgotten ten minutes after he's planted...


Does anyone believe that anymore? Hope it, perhaps. 

Anyone who buys that is an idjit who is utterly unaware of the culture around him, or her, or it.

"Going to the prom?"

"Yeah."

"Watch out for the bucket of pig's blood."

"Ha, ha ... bite me!"

***

"Man she said her dog was friendly, but he should have been called Cujo."

***
"We stayed at a hotel that, I swear, was just like the Overlook. I expected to turn a corner and see those girls holding hands and telling me I'd be there forever, and ever, and ever..."

***

"I was flipping through the channels and Shawshank was on again. I have to watch it every time I come across it."

***
"Hey, Percy Wetmore from Green Mile married a 16-year-old who looks eerily like she's 40 -- King should write a book about that." 

And this is the superficial stuff. He aint going anywhere.

By the way, King's response to the snobs: (and a great love letter to the Mrs.)

http://www.nationalbook.org/nbaacceptspeech_sking.html


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> and now they've killed off Peter and replaced him with a kid who's apparently every minority type they could stuff into one character. (Half-black, half-Hispanic, and apparently will be revealed as gay later on...


That sounds awful. Stick with the original formula, I say. Leave the experimental stuff to graphic novels, don't screw up classic characters. No wonder nobody cares about superhero comics anymore. A reader who's trying to get back into comics after a long hiatus picks up a random issue of Batman or something and thinks, _What the hell is going on? I've just wasted three dollars_. On the other hand, this kind of gimmicky shit has always gone on in comics. What baffles me is that with all the success these superhero origin movies have had, the comics just seem to get weirder and weirder, with outlandish story arcs and drastic costume changes, like they're actually trying to commit commercial suicide.


----------



## J.C. Fiske (Mar 27, 2011)

Well folks, I think I'm officially tapped out on Stephen King for a while. It was good while it lasted but recently I tried picking up three more of his books only to put them down due to boredom. _Firestarter_ had an interesting start then died out for me. I loved the opening for _The Other Half_ but damn, as soon as it got interesting it went into page after page of details on the recent murders and strayed away from the parts that made it interesting. Ugh! So, upon that loss I just picked up _Dreamcatcher_ and man, no matter how hard I try I cannot get into this. So, anybody want to recommend me any new authors? I really want a good page turner. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated


----------



## joanhallhovey (Nov 7, 2010)

If anything, these days he's underrated. I believe if a new writer had written 'Under the Dome' it would have been considered a breakthrough, a masterpiece.  I'm obviously a big fan of Stephen King. met him in London England many years ago at a writer's workshop (have a photo on my website-gallery) and was thrilled to have him sign his latest book at the time, Different Seasons.  Recently, I read Full Dark No Stars and loved it. There's a serial killer story in the book that's totally different. 

Best, Joan


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

joanhallhovey said:


> If anything, these days he's underrated. I believe if a new writer had written 'Under the Dome' it would have been considered a breakthrough, a masterpiece. I'm obviously a big fan of Stephen King. met him in London England many years ago at a writer's workshop (have a photo on my website-gallery) and was thrilled to have him sign his latest book at the time, Different Seasons. Recently, I read Full Dark No Stars and loved it. There's a serial killer story in the book that's totally different.
> 
> Best, Joan


I believe you're right. King has been writing for quite a long time now and readers are familiar with his mind to the point that he is taken for granted. I don't think that every book is a gem, but I do think that the books that get dogged in recent years would knock readers on their behinds if King has been a schoolteacher all this time, or worked a factory job, and was just getting started on his writing now.

Which brings up the whole paradox involved with being a successful writer. A writer has the mind he has, and it has its fixations and interests. The reader comes along and falls in love with the author, but realizes a handful of books in that there are certain recurring themes that can be anticipated. A little of the honeymoon is over. However, when a writer tries something new, readers lament that he's changed. Readers always want to feel that flush of first love again, and that feeling of discovery, but unless a writer can branch out, it might not be possible to recapture that -- perhaps not even then.

King gets grief both for not writing another, I don't know, any of his early stuff -- The Shining -- but also for a voice that is so known. He is expected to be simultaneously true to his roots and new, when perhaps the best thing is just to enjoy his work. Find for the surprise that can only come from the first discovery of a writer by looking to the young turks, but give the master his due.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> I believe you're right. King has been writing for quite a long time now and readers are familiar with his mind to the point that he is taken for granted. I don't think that every book is a gem, but I do think that the books that get dogged in recent years would knock readers on their behinds if King has been a schoolteacher all this time, or worked a factory job, and was just getting started on his writing now.
> 
> Which brings up the whole paradox involved with being a successful writer. A writer has the mind he has, and it has its fixations and interests. The reader comes along and falls in love with the author, but realizes a handful of books in that there are certain recurring themes that can be anticipated. A little of the honeymoon is over. However, when a writer tries something new, readers lament that he's changed. Readers always want to feel that flush of first love again, and that feeling of discovery, but unless a writer can branch out, it might not be possible to recapture that -- perhaps not even then.
> 
> King gets grief both for not writing another, I don't know, any of his early stuff -- The Shining -- but also for a voice that is so known. He is expected to be simultaneously true to his roots and new, when perhaps the best thing is just to enjoy his work. Find for the surprise that can only come from the first discovery of a writer by looking to the young turks, but give the master his due.


I would hope that he's reached a point in his life where he doesn't care what the naysayers think. Like you said, he is the master. He doesn't owe anything to anybody but himself.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

After reading this thread, I can say that yes, King is officially overrated. Quite good, but still overrated.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

J.C. Fiske said:


> Well folks, I think I'm officially tapped out on Stephen King for a while. It was good while it lasted but recently I tried picking up three more of his books only to put them down due to boredom. _Firestarter_ had an interesting start then died out for me. I loved the opening for _The Other Half_ but d*mn, as soon as it got interesting it went into page after page of details on the recent murders and strayed away from the parts that made it interesting. Ugh! So, upon that loss I just picked up _Dreamcatcher_ and man, no matter how hard I try I cannot get into this. So, anybody want to recommend me any new authors? I really want a good page turner. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated


It's all in what you choose.

Firestarter was a nice choice, for the most part.

The Other Half came from a period where he was repeating himself over and over again.

Dreamcatcher was a point where, even now, I'm not sure I'd go back and read that...


----------



## JeffMariotte (Jun 4, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Jeff,
> 
> We must be of a similar mindset/generation of comic book fan.
> 
> ...


I wasn't a writer on Heroes Reborn, but was WS's VP of Marketing at the time, so there were lots of meetings at Marvel throughout the process, and I've known most of the Marvel folks for years and years. I was with WS almost from the beginning--12th person on payroll--and stayed for 5 years after DC bought them (as Senior Editor) then. I wrote most of WS's major characters at one time or another, and created a few series of my own there (Desperadoes, Hazard, Countdown, and most recently Garrison).

My favorite Marvel stuff was through the mid-70s. Stan and Jack were brilliant, of course, all along. I really loved the early-70s stuff, though: Tomb of Dracula, Thomas and Smith on Conan, Thomas and the Severins on Kull, Savage Tales, Gerry Conway and Gene Colan on Daredevil, Engelhart and Brunner on Dr. Strange, Gil Kane's Spidey... those are the ones that stick in my brain, and that I'm constantly comparing new comics to (seldom favorably).

And don't get me started on the DC relaunch...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

JeffMariotte said:


> And don't get me started on the DC relaunch...


I'm still asking myself how Dan Didio and Paul Levitz and whoever else is in power thought that hiring Marvel's worst EIC of the last 20 years was a good idea.... Not a fan of his.


----------



## J.C. Fiske (Mar 27, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> It's all in what you choose.
> 
> Firestarter was a nice choice, for the most part.
> 
> ...


Oh, believe me, I loved The Stand, Dark Tower Series (tough getting through but good!), The Shining, IT and Bag of Bones but man do I need a change of pace. As for the whole Spider-man topic, I could care less as it is in the Ultimate universe, not the main one. What I am really upset about is this d*mn DC re-launch! Superman's parents are both dead, Superman will be single and now he will apparently be wearing work boots, jeans and a Super T-shirt now? Oh yeah, if you didn't know I'm a Superman fan  Also, as far as I can tell there will be no more Hal Jordan monthly. Instead, Sinestro is the main star of Green Lantern. Wha?


----------



## JeffMariotte (Jun 4, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I'm still asking myself how Dan Didio and Paul Levitz and whoever else is in power thought that hiring Marvel's worst EIC of the last 20 years was a good idea.... Not a fan of his.


I'm not either. My guess is that the conversation went only as far as "Who was EIC at Marvel when they were making the most money?" instead of continuing on to "Who was still there when they went over the cliff?"


----------



## JeffMariotte (Jun 4, 2011)

J.C. Fiske said:


> Oh, believe me, I loved The Stand, Dark Tower Series (tough getting through but good!), The Shining, IT and Bag of Bones but man do I need a change of pace. As for the whole Spider-man topic, I could care less as it is in the Ultimate universe, not the main one. What I am really upset about is this d*mn DC launch! Superman's parents are both dead, Superman will be single and now he will apparently be wearing work boots, jeans and a Super T-shirt now? Oh yeah, if you didn't know I'm a Superman fan  Also, as far as I can tell there will be no more Hal Jordan monthly. Instead, Sinestro is the main star of Green Lantern. Wha?


I also got to write a Superman novel, but it was a couple of years ago so I didn't get to reverse DC's editorial decisions on that score...


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

PatrickWalts said:


> It's just because that's how he made his name. He'll forever be tied in with those early books like Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Shining, etc. Plus he looks like a serial killer in many of the pics on his book jackets, and I can't help but think that's done on purpose.


I can totally agree with you on that one!!


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

Has anyone read Duma Key? I have it, I've read some of it, but it's just not holding my interest. Please tell me it's so awesome I should go pick it up right now.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

rweinstein6 said:


> Has anyone read Duma Key? I have it, I've read some of it, but it's just not holding my interest. Please tell me it's so awesome I should go pick it up right now.


I did the audiobook, narrated by John Slattery, and really liked it. I don't know about "awesome" -- simply because I saw it as a slow ratcheting up of the scary.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

J.C. Fiske said:


> Oh, believe me, I loved The Stand, Dark Tower Series (tough getting through but good!), The Shining, IT and Bag of Bones but man do I need a change of pace. As for the whole Spider-man topic, I could care less as it is in the Ultimate universe, not the main one. What I am really upset about is this d*mn DC re-launch! Superman's parents are both dead, Superman will be single and now he will apparently be wearing work boots, jeans and a Super T-shirt now? Oh yeah, if you didn't know I'm a Superman fan  Also, as far as I can tell there will be no more Hal Jordan monthly. Instead, Sinestro is the main star of Green Lantern. Wha?


Yeah, personally, if they were going to hire an old Marvel EIC to head up DC, they should have hired one who knows about storytelling: Jim Shooter. There are those who Shooter rubbed the wrong way, but look at all the careers he launched... but Paul Levitz would veto that in a hot second.  Not to mention that much of DC's staff, even now, is made up of former members of the "I hate Jim Shooter" club...

I'm just relieved that I'm not that big into DC titles, because now none of this is ticking me off big-time. And JC, the reason I brought up the change on Ultimate is because the mainline Spider-Man's been messed over for years now.

As for Stephen King, this changes a lot, but here's my off-the-cuff, true-right-now Top 10 list:

10. HEARTS IN ATLANTIS
09. MISERY
08. CELL
07. THE DEAD ZONE
06. CHRISTINE
05. BAG OF BONES
04. UNDER THE DOME
03. "A Good Marriage"
02. IT
01. "The Body"


----------



## Michelle Muto (Feb 1, 2011)

I love Stephen King. Not every book or every story, mind you, but I love his work just the same. The critics who say he'll be forgotten the day he's buried and those who say he can't write? They can throw all the stones at him they want. I'm not a fair-weather fan of anything I like. Every reader is different and I can certainly see where his methods of story telling are not for everyone, even those who love horror. He can get a bit long winded when it comes to description, but he's one of the best when it comes to character development and story - at least for me.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Shooter on mainstream comics today (recently, on his blog in a comment thread):

"For as much as they're charging these days, they (comics) should be better-told."


----------



## hakimast (Jul 23, 2011)

Long winded descriptions tend to frustrate me. I'd have to give him the thumbs down.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

gryeates said:


> I think King gets a lot of unnecessary attacks. I think he is a writer whose prose has great flow. There are few out there I have read that have me turning pages compulsively in the same way King does. That said, I think his more recent books have become weaker but that still leaves us with a lot of good material to enjoy. My personal favourites are It and Gerald's Game which he wrote after the period most of his fans cite as his heyday.


I never read anything past Pet Sematary. Scared me senseless. That's good writing, can't get around it. I agree his prose flows, even his weak sentences flow. His voice carries. To those who say his later stuff may be getting weaker, perhaps. He'll always be the master of horror. Deservedly.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I think the idea that "his later stuff is worse" is short-sighted. His career has had more than one rise, more than one dip.

Since Cell, he's been on the rise again.

I wouldn't limit him to just being the best horror writer of his era.

I think he ranks as "among the best" writers of any genre of his era.

Maybe not the best, but among an elite few, certainly. And of those, because of his popularity, perhaps the most influential.

I mean, in Writers Cafe, regardless of genre, you'd be shocked how many authors cite King as a primary influence, even outside of those who write horror.


----------



## Tony Rabig (Oct 11, 2010)

The late Budd Schulberg (WHAT MAKES SAMMY RUN, THE HARDER THEY FALL, WATERFRONT) wrote a book called THE FOUR SEASONS OF SUCCESS dealing with several writers who failed to cope with early success.  In that book, he likened a writer's work to a mountain range.

Not every peak in the Himalayas is Everest.

King's work is no exception -- we've all got our own ideas of which peaks stand highest and which are simple hills by comparison.  But that particular mountain range is going to be there for a LONG time.  People will be reading him long after he's gone.  Long after the rest of us are gone too.  The man is so good with character that he can write anything; there have been some King titles that just didn't do it for me, but not once have I had the feeling that he was just doing it by the numbers or that the people were just cardboard.  He means business every time out, and there are very few in his league.  

As for his endings... if memory serves, there was a line in Samuel Delany's FALL OF THE TOWERS that went something like this: Endings, to be useful, must be inconclusive.  I don't usually find King's endings all that inconclusive, but they're not always like the high-octane grand finale endings of most thrillers and horror stories.  I've found that appealing more often than not -- it strikes me as more lifelike than the neat finish, but your mileage may vary.  For instance, one nice King ending that really made the story for me was in his television story STORM OF THE CENTURY.  After the town had gone through its lottery, and given an innocent child to the monster who'd come among them, the last part of the movie told what had happened to the people of that town as a result of their decisions that day.  A lesser writer might have omitted that, but King followed it to the end.  Beautiful stuff.  Grim, but beautiful.  And again, your mileage may vary.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Well-expressed, Tony. Thanks!


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

hakimast said:


> Long winded descriptions tend to frustrate me. I'd have to give him the thumbs down.


I agree, except that there are some writers that can do that for me and keep me drawn in. King is one of them, Victor Hugo is another. Gabriel Garcia Marquez is another. It's (to the reader) effortless.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

I hate him for getting better. Again.    His last couple of efforts have been a return to early form, and I'm really looking forward to the time travel story this fall.


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> I did the audiobook, narrated by John Slattery, and really liked it. I don't know about "awesome" -- simply because I saw it as a slow ratcheting up of the scary.


Thanks for the input. I've been reading it off and on and the buildup has been sooooo sloooooooow.


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

Harry Shannon said:


> I hate him for getting better. Again.  His last couple of efforts have been a return to early form, and I'm really looking forward to the time travel story this fall.


I don't know how this man cranks out doorstops all the time. I think he writes in his sleep.

On another note, a lot of posters seem not to like _Cell_, whereas I loved it. It freaked me out so much I didn't want to have my phone anywhere near me!


----------



## JeffMariotte (Jun 4, 2011)

Tony Rabig said:


> As for his endings... if memory serves, there was a line in Samuel Delany's FALL OF THE TOWERS that went something like this: Endings, to be useful, must be inconclusive.


Completely agree with you on King's power and timelessness, Tony. And it's nice to see Chip cited here (or anywhere). Another of the modern greats.


----------



## JeffMariotte (Jun 4, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> but Paul Levitz would veto that in a hot second.  Not to mention that much of DC's staff, even now, is made up of former members of the "I hate Jim Shooter" club...
> 
> Paul left his position at DC a while ago. He's writing for them as a freelancer, and teaching at Columbia and elsewhere. Co-publishers now are my old boss Jim Lee, and Dan Didio. Jim made a LOT of money working with Harras, which might have something to do with it.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Personally, I think that if you want to bandy about 'overrated' or 'one of our greatest writers' then the only thing separating him from 'the greats' is that 'the greats' all have books with 'windows into the human condition,' 'deep meaning,' blah blah blah.

And I dont esp agree with that definition. Because having *had* to read some of the greats, I hated reading many of them. In some cases the writing was slow and boring, even painful. And often the stories while 'illuminating,' were depressing or nasty or saccharine.

Because he _IS_ a very good writer. And he tells good stories. If he doesnt tell classic stories of human triumph and tragedy, too bad. (Altho he certainly does examine the human condition....just in everyman terms).

I like his books. And I dont even like horror. Or humans much for that matter.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

You know, the grumbling about "long-winded descriptions" is funny to me. It reflects how literary tastes have changed since King debuted.

Back in the 1970s, King's descriptions were considered a bit bare-bones. Not necessarily skimpy, but not long-winded by any stretch.

Of course, back then the standard-bearers were big ol' windbags like James Michener and Herman Wouk. And Alex Haley. Compared to those guys, his prose was considered lean, almost to the point of being terse at times.

Now, here we are 40 years after CARRIE and he's considered a windbag because people like James Patterson are pretty much dialog-writers with only the thinnest of narration.

I'm not saying what's right or wrong here, it's just an interesting contrast on how reader tastes have changed.

(Heck, I was called "overly descriptive" on Most Likely and I think the longest I go without dialog is 2-3 paragraphs... not necessarily long ones! LOL)


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

I'd love to know what people think of 11/22/63. I am a fan, but don't know if this is my thing or not.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

9MMare said:


> And I dont esp agree with that definition. Because having *had* to read some of the greats, I hated reading many of them. In some cases the writing was slow and boring, even painful. And often the stories while 'illuminating,' were depressing or nasty or saccharine.


Yeah, sometimes the so-called "greats" aren't so great after all. It's all in the eye of the beholder. But anyway, I don't get this idea that something has to be old to be valid. Some of the most iconic books/writers, now considered classic, were looked down upon by the literary snobs of their time, anyway. Sure, everybody loves Charles Dickens now, but critics looked at him the same way they look at somebody like James Patterson now. "Oh, he's just cranking out these popular books with no substance, he'll be quickly forgotten."
Shakespeare was popular entertainment, too, nobody sat through a performance of Macbeth thinking, "This is the greatest thing ever written! This masterpiece will be cherished by all, worshiped and revered until the end of time!" Lol. They'd probably think such an idea was ludicrous, just like we would think it was ludicrous if we hopped into a time machine, traveled into the future and found required courses on the works of Tyler Perry being taught at every university. The idea makes me shudder, but you never know.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> You know, the grumbling about "long-winded descriptions" is funny to me. It reflects how literary tastes have changed since King debuted.
> 
> Back in the 1970s, King's descriptions were considered a bit bare-bones. Not necessarily skimpy, but not long-winded by any stretch.
> 
> ...


I'd say he's gotten wordier over time. Carrie WAS a small book. How many pages were eventually added back to The Stand? I love the guy, but how would any editor really edit him?

Conversation with my grandmother yesterday.

Grandmother: I finished that Stephen King book the other day. (She means Duma Key.)

Me: Oh, how did you like it?

Grandmother: The worst thing I've ever read.

Me: (surprised) Oh? You were liking it the last time we discussed it.

Grandmother: It was just too crazy or something.

Me: Well ... it's Stephen King.

Grandmother: Just too freaky.

Me: We liked it.

Grandmother: Who is we?

Me: Me ... and Dale. Tall guy who wanders around here a lot.

Grandmother: Oh.

:erson in question enters room, buckling belt.::

Me: She _hated_ Duma Key.

Husband: Really?

Grandmother: (Speaking over husband.) I didn't say that! Why do you misrepresent what I say?

Me: You said it was the worst book you'd ever read. I thought it was fair to categorize that as "hate."

Husband: What didn't you like?

Grandmother: Too freaky, too out there. That stuff couldn't happen.

Husband: (laughing) You've read too much true crime.

Me: I mean, worst book ever and hate -- how are those different? I don't see ... those things are the same to me.

At that point, I'm just ignored while my husband explains that we listened to it on audiobook and it took a round trip car ride to Michigan and the "to" portion of a 4 hour drive to The Cities to finish it. (21 Hours)

***​
WriterCTaylor:

I think a lot of people have it on pre-order, but are there any copies in the wild yet?


----------



## robertk328 (Jul 8, 2011)

Harry Shannon said:


> ... and I'm really looking forward to the time travel story this fall.


Same here... going to be a long read but looks interesting.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I think since his accident SK has grown as a writer and I find more depth in his writing.  He has his own style and either you like it or you don't and I do agree that sometimes...he gets draggy.  I liked Duma Key, The Dome and On Writing very much.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I haven't read all of King by a longshot, but _Pet Sematary_ was one of the creepiest novels I've ever read. Loved loved loved it!


----------



## Patrick Reinken (Aug 4, 2011)

LiteraryGrrrl said:


> Stephen King is the MASTER...and my personal literary hero.
> 
> And for anyone who doesn't like his newer stuff I say read Under the Dome. It's amazing!
> And of course On Writing is one of the greatest books of its kind.
> ...


I agree with Shana (and a number of others here) - King is a master, and that's on many levels for me.

First, it's hard to quibble with his success, which speaks greatly to his broad appeal, and it's equally hard to challenge the breadth of his skills - he can write everything from short stories to novels to screenplays, in horror and thriller and apocalyptic and even intimate and personal stories (I mean, come on - "The Body" or "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption"...!). He's amazingly prodigious and produces that volume at least at a solid B average across the board - who among us wouldn't be thrilled to produce even a couple books over a couple years, at a consistently-quality level, and have them be well-received and enjoyed? He's done that for decades....

Second, speaking of decades, he must rank as the single most influential writer working since the late 1970s. Certainly part of that is his sheer longevity, but it's something more, too. Simply outlasting others and being successful in your run isn't enough for hundreds of people, and possibly thousands, to list him as their greatest influence as a writer. And they do - you can see it in discussion boards and profile listings, and those people write in genres that range from horror and suspense to thrillers to general fiction. Even romance (doesn't _Twilight_ have a little King bloodline in it?).

Third, he's at the forefront of the business of writing, too, having produced digital books before digital books became what they are today (_The Plant_ and _Riding the Bullet_). He's written serialized fiction (_The Green Mile_, _The Plant_ again, and arguably _The Dark Tower_). He's written a book on writing, literally _On Writing_, that many would cite as one of their favorites, and it's intensely personal at the same time. He's a fierce proponent and outspoken supporter of the First Amendment, not just for writers but for all creative expression. He's just as fierce a supporter of individual writers, routinely and publicly offering his views on great books that few would be exposed to without his mention of and advocacy for them.

Fourth, his writing includes fine detail and pitch-perfect dialogue, set out in a conversational manner that can feel as though he's in the room with you, telling you the story himself. I would kill for that written voice.

He's even a recipient of the Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters!

With the volume of work he's produced, in all the genres and lengths, there's bound to be something in it that any given reader wouldn't like. It's unavoidable. But in the end, my opinion is that a man with this body of work is - _must be_ - considered a master of his craft.


----------



## Lambert (Nov 12, 2010)

I do prefer his earlier books to his recent ones. Firestarter, Carrie, Dead zone, Salem's lot, Christine and the Stand are my favorites.

Lambert


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

WriterCTaylor said:


> I'd love to know what people think of 11/22/63. I am a fan, but don't know if this is my thing or not.


I think... it hasn't been released yet and can't have an opinion on it yet, other than... King's in a resurgence lately and I trust him to deliver the goods.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> I'd say he's gotten wordier over time. Carrie WAS a small book. *How many pages were eventually added back to The Stand? *


The Stand was huge to begin with. A very thick, Gone With the Wind-size just about.

I'd say...a story is a story, period.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

I think King is great at what he does best. Come up with imaginative themes. He does tend to have the same sorts of characters over and over again but there is an appreciation in that. I always equate it with liking Adam Sandler. He is what he is and you either like the character he plays or not. I also think King gets knocked too hard for not being the best writer. That's not really what his writing is all about. He's not the best but it's the story lines that captivate the reader in his case. In the end, he's a nice read from time to time.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> I'd say he's gotten wordier over time. Carrie WAS a small book. How many pages were eventually added back to The Stand?


That's not quite fair.

Not everything "Steve-o" writes is long. (And BTW, he LOVES when people call him Steve-o, muahahahaha... err, I mean, LOL)

After all, one of his best works of late is "A Good Marriage" which is shorter than "The Body."

Yes, UNDER THE DOME was long, but during the same period he also wrote UR, the forthcoming Mile 81, Colorado Kid, Blockage Billy, and Cell. All of which are nowhere near UNDER THE DOME length.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> That's not quite fair.
> 
> Not everything "Steve-o" writes is long. (And BTW, he LOVES when people call him Steve-o, muahahahaha... err, I mean, LOL)
> 
> ...


I don't think it's unfair. I'm not saying everything he writes is wordy -- he did start out with short stories. What I am saying is that -- if left to his own devices -- he likes really fleshing out a story. Also, just because a story is a novella, doesn't mean it's not wordy for the story actually told. I'd agree with you that A Good Marriage is not an example of that and moves along beautifully.

I don't even see it as a bad thing -- it's part of his style.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

I went to Half Price Books today and loaded up on a whole bunch of King books I've never read.  "Cycle of the Werewolf" is one.  (I love all the cool illustrations.)
Firestarter, Danse Macabre... And I'm ashamed to admit this, but... Salem's Lot.  I've never read it!  I even bought a few that I'd read years ago that I'd like to revisit.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Fair enough, Michelle


----------



## BrianPBorcky (Aug 7, 2011)

King takes a lot of abuse he doesn't deserve, mainly because of his popularity and style. 

The guy probably did more for the horror/suspense field than anyone short of Poe, and it's not really a glamorous genre to be in. In books or movies, horror and comedy are seen as lesser arts - when was the last time you saw a comedy win best picture? or a horror film - the first (and to my knowledge, only) one was The Silence of the Lambs, and I don't consider Demme's movie or Harris's book to be horror.

To me, King is like a power hitter in baseball -- he's David Ortiz or Ryan Howard -- he's either going to strike out or knock it out of the park.

At the end of the day, it's less about the things that go bump in the night and more about him having his finger on the pulse of humanity. Look at two of his novellas, from the same book mind you, that were made into movies: Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption and The Body, both of them are at their core about friendship and they're all-time classics because King knows what makes us tick.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I think where one stands on the thread's question (is King overrated or underrated) just comes down to each individual's personal opinion on his books and these two facts:

1.  He's very popular, one of the best selling authors of all time etc.
2.  His critical reception has been fairly mixed over his career.

Given those, if you love his work you probably feel he's a bit underrated due to number 2.  If you don't care much for his work, then you feel he's overrated due to number 1.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

"Dying is easy. Comedy is hard." - Groucho Marx

"Not the way you die in my novels." -Stephen King


----------



## Thomas D. Taylor (Oct 12, 2011)

gryeates said:


> I think King gets a lot of unnecessary attacks. I think he is a writer whose prose has great flow. There are few out there I have read that have me turning pages compulsively in the same way King does. That said, I think his more recent books have become weaker but that still leaves us with a lot of good material to enjoy. My personal favourites are It and Gerald's Game which he wrote after the period most of his fans cite as his heyday.


Any writer's career ebbs and flows, and writers also change with time. I think "Bag of Bones" is an excellent novel and enjoy re-reading that one more than I do some of his earlier works.

While everyone seems to revere "The Stand" and considers this King's literary triumph, I have a number of problems with it. (Comments to follow are in regard to the extended version, not the original).

1) I cannot stand The Kid.
2) I cannot stand Frannie and I do not see her and Stu as a realistic couple.
3) I have trouble sympathizing with The Trashcan Man.
4) I see Flagg as a weak nemesis.
5) There are a few things that King doesn't address in his book that makes it seem weak. 
a) When the flu is overwith, we don't hear the truly pathetic things, like babies crying in their cribs amid their dead parents.
b) Will ALL the nuclear reactors all over the world shut down properly?
c) etc.

The movie version doesn't work for me either. Here our intrepid characters are, walking to Boulder weeks after everyone has died, passing houses with cut grass and pruned bushes, but making no explanation how these manicured neighborhoods came to be after so much death. Of course that is the fault of the movie directors and not King, but still, there are similar laspes in the novel.


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

King is one of those writers who you either love or hate. Some people love his early books, others only love his later books and some love everything he has ever written. Personally I think he is a great author and I wonder where he gets some of his ideas from. Others think he is highly over rated, but each to their own I say.

Personally I think the Rolling Stones are over rated, but  millions love and adore them.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Thomas D. Taylor said:


> Any writer's career ebbs and flows, and writers also change with time. I think "Bag of Bones" is an excellent novel and enjoy re-reading that one more than I do some of his earlier works.
> 
> While everyone seems to revere "The Stand" and considers this King's literary triumph, I have a number of problems with it. (Comments to follow are in regard to the extended version, not the original).
> 
> ...


LOLOLOLOL

It's my favorite book of all time but I'd never consider it a 'literary triumph' of any kind. lol

It's one of 2 books that started my love of SHTF/post-apocalyptic fiction and now that I've read a ton of it, it still holds up well. No author can cover every detail of the consequences of such a catastrophe....not to mention it would bog the reader down in ridiculous amts of detail. King integrated an enormous amount of such detail well into the story, yet didnt go off on it unnecessarily.

You could be right about the characters, but I am not a person who is into character-driven stories...I LOVE the details and the story when I read. I've written on here that King could have kept Randall Flag and all supernatural elements out of the book...and I'd still have loved it (would have liked it more actually....evil & antiheroes dont need to be supernatural). And were we _supposed _ to sympathize with Trashcan Man? Oops, my bad, lol.

And as someone who loves to read non-fiction about epidemiology, he handled Captain Tripps very well. As someone with that interest, I would have _loved _ more science around that flu, but King smartly stuck with realistic generalizations that just supported his story.

Edit: and after treating myself to a Kindle version, I now have the extended version in hardcover, softcover, and e-book. heh My next time reading it will be the 'lightest!' That book was a brick _before_ they extended it.


----------



## ariespoppy007 (Oct 15, 2011)

a litter overrated, but still good. I like him.


----------



## Michelle Muto (Feb 1, 2011)

Personally, I love Stephen King overall. Yes, he's written some stories that I didn't like. But overall, he's still one of my favorite authors.


----------



## S.A. Reid (Oct 3, 2011)

This is a great topic. Lots of passion in the responses.

I was heavily influenced by Stephen King's early work when I was a teenager. Then somewhere around _The Tommyknockers_ he lost me. I've been told he's matured into an even better writer these days and I should give him another try. As I read through all thread, it hit me how much I really did enjoy _The Shining_, _Salem's Lot_, the original edited version of _The Stand_, etc. So I had to ask myself, why did I click here to see if anyone considered him overrated? And it hit me: _On Writing_.

I think what I'm so tired of is (fellow) indie writers posting snippets of King's writing advice. King says this about writing for money. Kings says this about adverbs. In _On Writing_, King says ... and I'm like, please, what's next? Anne Rice's tips on self-editing? Danielle Steele's guide to crafting realistic characters? And yet none of this is King's fault or reflects badly on him in any way. He wrote a book of writing advice that many people adore, chapter and verse. If I'm irritated by the continual invocation of his rules, that's on me, not him. And I really did love _The Shining_. Jack Torrence's struggle with alcohol and his background of abuse made a big impact on me. I still think of those glasses in the mashed potatoes.

So I am glad I dropped by here and remembered how much King influenced me.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

DDark said:


> Of course, I haven't tackled "The Dome". Every time I see that hard cover I can't help but think that if it fell off my shelf when i was reaching for it, I might get knocked unconscious and bleed to death in my apartment.


Ah, another 'brick.' It's one of the first e-books I bought for my K3. One of the true advantages of electronic books!

I'm still looking forward to it but what did I do last nite instead? Start re-reading The Stand. (on my K3).....couldnt resist after posting about it here last nite. It's been at least a decade, if not more.

I cant get myself out of the house now! Dang it, I have chores to do and wood to split.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

S.A. Reid said:



> This is a great topic. Lots of passion in the responses.
> 
> I was heavily influenced by Stephen King's early work when I was a teenager. Then somewhere around _The Tommyknockers_ he lost me. I've been told he's matured into an even better writer these days and I should give him another try. As I read through all thread, it hit me how much I really did enjoy _The Shining_, _Salem's Lot_, the original edited version of _The Stand_, etc. So I had to ask myself, why did I click here to see if anyone considered him overrated? And it hit me: _On Writing_.
> 
> ...


Have you *read *_On Writing_?

It is one of the best books ever written on the writer's life and craft. It is a life he has lived and a craft he has spent his entire life working at. THAT is why people quote it.

In the unlikely event Danielle Steele wrote a truly great book on crafting realistic characters then I rather suspect people would occasionally quote it, but I doubt it would have the profound effect on writers that _On Writing_ has had.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

King's work is very accessible to a large number of readers, which makes him popular for the same reason that the accessible Norman Rockwell was popular in his day as an artist.

There was a lot going on behind the easy-to-understand art of Rockwell, classic technique and perspective and so forth -- 
but not so much with King.  

A Roddy Doyle, or many of the Latin American authors, have more depth than most of the "popular" American authors, any day. Same for several current French and Italian authors. We get lost in our own culture and assume it is the universal benchmark. Not necessarily.


----------



## BrianJJarrett (Aug 25, 2011)

I very much like King; I've read virtually all of his books.  I love his short stories too.  Sometimes it's tough to get through all that exposition, but for me he always delivers in the end.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

King has always been hit or miss with me, though I've enjoyed to some extent or other everything of his that I've read, which is just about everything in print except the most recent 4 or 5 books.

I've always said King's writing is like pizza and sex ... when it's good, it's really good, but when it's bad ... eh, it's still pretty good.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

Without reading the entire 8 pages...

I loved King in the 80's and early 90s.  Carrie, Pet Semetary, The Dark Half and Misery to name a few.  I pretty much read everything.  Tho I didn't care much for Salem's Lot or The Dead Zone in all honesty.  Not to mention some of his short stories... The Boogeyman will stick with me forever I think.

Then about the time of Gerald's Game (Which I apparently wasn't smart enough to understand because I hated it) I lost interest.  He became so wordy that a simple walk down the street took 3 pages to describe and by the time I got to the end of it I didn't even care WHY the character was waking down the street.  IMO, his editor needs to rein him in a bit.

There have been a few exceptions since then that I enjoyed... The Green Mile and Cell come to mind.  I recently tried UTD and found it as grating as most of his newer things.  *shrug*  And most of his newer things tend to not have the same punch at the ending that his older stuff did.

Is he overrated?  For me maybe, but obviously not for millions of other people.  As far as him being a horror writer... bring it on!  I love horror!  And I don't understand why writing horror makes you less of a writer than something else.


----------



## Vanessa Wu (Sep 5, 2011)

BRONZEAGE said:


> There was a lot going on behind the easy-to-understand art of Rockwell, classic technique and perspective and so forth --
> but not so much with King.


Oh, I think there is a lot more going on with Stephen King than you give him credit for. He is one of the most literate modern writers in the world and there is a lot of craft behind his accessible sentences. It is very hard to write as smoothly as that for so many pages. Readers don't tire of him. There's a good reason for that.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

WriterCTaylor said:


> King is one of those writers who you either love or hate.


I neither love nor hate him. Have tried reading one or two books. Didn't hate 'em. Didn't like 'em. Neither one did anything for me (well, I think one put me to sleep).

That said, I'm enjoying the _Haven_ series on TV. . .may try _The Colorado Kid_ just 'cause.

Or, may not.


----------



## S.A. Reid (Oct 3, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Have you *read *_On Writing_?
> 
> It is one of the best books ever written on the writer's life and craft. It is a life he has lived and a craft he has spent his entire life working at. THAT is why people quote it.
> 
> In the unlikely event Danielle Steele wrote a truly great book on crafting realistic characters then I rather suspect people would occasionally quote it, but I doubt it would have the profound effect on writers that _On Writing_ has had.


Have I read _On Writing_? Yes, when it came out. I thought it was fine. At that time I worked in a bookstore that didn't do a lot of business, which paid almost nothing but was otherwise *the best job in the world*.  All I did was read, and read for FREE. So I worked my way through the entire (small) writing advice section.

For whatever reason, though, some of his writing comments in _Danse Macabre_ were more useful to me. Maybe because I was younger? I need to find that book and read it again.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

S.A. Reid said:


> For whatever reason, though, some of his writing comments in _Danse Macabre_ were more useful to me.


Actually, I felt the same way. I've enjoyed _On Writing_ the few times I've read it, and I found it useful, but I don't understand why it's considered this great book about writing. It's more entertaining than most, I'll admit, but it was more memoir than helpful for the writing process, in my opinion. Larry McMurtry's memoir _Books _is just as good, though it's more about antique book collecting and selling than writing.

I'll take _Danse Macabre_ over _On Writing_ any day.

However, I feel _Danse Macabre_ probably holds more for the horror fan/writer while _On Writing_ reaches out to a broader, more general writing audience.


----------



## Math (Oct 13, 2011)

Didn't he write the original story for the Shawshank Redemption?  That is one of the best feel-good stories ever...ironic?

I really enjoy the movies based on his books - and I suppose that sums up my thoughts - when all the bumfph is edited out into a tight story - he is one hellova story-teller.

I recently read American Vampire - which is a graphic novel he co-wrote, and I really enjoyed that. But again, he was forced into keeping things tight.


----------



## N S Cooke (Sep 27, 2011)

I agree with you JC: his old stuff is better - I've tried some of the newer titles and haven't got on. I'm now going back over old stuff. Currently reading 'Bag of Bones,' and loving it. There's a point where he finds his wife's book under the bed....and then returned it there, _that_, had me in chills.

Yep......went off Stephen, and now I'm back: I'm gonna read _The Shinning!_


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I neither love nor hate him. Have tried reading one or two books. Didn't hate 'em. Didn't like 'em. Neither one did anything for me (well, I think one put me to sleep).
> 
> That said, I'm enjoying the _Haven_ series on TV. . .may try _The Colorado Kid_ just 'cause.
> 
> Or, may not.


Count me as one who doesn't love or hate him. I'll read his books, even if I've been a bit burned by weak endings. I read the whole Dark Tower series, and I was satisfied with the ending of it. I won't put him on the pedastal with the greatest writers ever, but I generally like his books. They can keep my reading hours past my bedtime.

The only people I have encountered who truly hated King was an a writer's forum years ago. One of King's books had a foreward from Larry Niven that said something to the effect of "If you find yourself breaking out of the story to observe how clever the writer is, the writer has failed." (a heavy paraphrase from an old memory. Perhaps someone knows the foreward better than I remember.) That did not go over well. The anti-King backlash was pretty epic. Hell has no fury like a writer who can't get a publishing deal. 

So, I'd say King isn't on the level of Dickens. But not many are.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I've written about this on the Jump the Shark thread, but I don't think it's a simple matter of "King used to be great, now he stinks."
> 
> For my money, King has gone through several solid periods, interrupted by at least two periods where he just didn't click with me.
> 
> ...


I like Stephen King Myself


----------



## JackWrites (Oct 16, 2011)

No question Stephen King is one of the great current authors. He may not get the literary credit he deserves because of his genre writing horror novels. Much like Steven Spielberg, whose earlier movies were phenomenal examples of directorial skill but did not get the recognition because they were "popular" movies, Stephen King's ability to create characters and weave them into stories is right up there with the best.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

On more of a side note, does anyone know if "Under the Dome" will be published in a smaller form? I think I've read somewhere that the large-sized trade paperback is the last version to come out: there will be no paperback.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Dave Dykema said:


> On more of a side note, does anyone know if "Under the Dome" will be published in a smaller form? I think I've read somewhere that the large-sized trade paperback is the last version to come out: there will be no paperback.


It's purty durn small on my Kindle.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

Yeah, I know. It's just that I have a paperback copy of every Stephen King book to this point and want to continue.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

on Topic about King, but Off topic as his writing ability... sort of..

There's a pic floating around Facebook atm, with a quote from King on it.
"Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength, and doing what is right in the face of adversity.
Twilight is about the importance of having a boyfriend."


----------



## BrianJJarrett (Aug 25, 2011)

That made me actually LOL.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

I'm a big fan of his older "stuff". The saying goes there's only so many plot lines, themes, etc. and, IMHO, King used them and is recycling in his newer fiction. But I have to say, I haven't read everything new.


----------



## Joel Arnold (May 3, 2010)

I think Stephen King is fantastic. I spent many winter breaks as a teenager reading his newest tomes! He totally transported me to his worlds and kept me in their grip. I haven't read him as much lately, but I happily recommend him to anyone who asks.


----------



## yingko2 (Jul 26, 2011)

Definitely not overrated, in my opinion. His short stories I think were  mostly awesome, with The Monkey from Skeleton Crew still a favorite. I do feel his material got a bit "tired" for a while, and at times he was a bit too word bloated, but it doesn't get much better than The Dead Zone, Misery and It. However, I cannot get through The Tommyknockers for the life of me.
Cheers,
Howard


----------



## Thomma Lyn (Oct 21, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> There's a pic floating around Facebook atm, with a quote from King on it.
> "Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength, and doing what is right in the face of adversity.
> Twilight is about the importance of having a boyfriend."


Hee. I got a kick out of this.

Count me as a Stephen King fan. I grew up reading his books. They're real page-turners, and his command of storytelling craft is impressive. His characters spring to life in my mind. King has a gift for bringing his readers deep into his characters' psyches.

The quality of his books is a bit uneven, but then again, he's written _so_ many novels. Some of his books feel to me as though he spent a great deal of time thinking them through and crafting them, while others feel a bit rushed. I guess it stands to reason that some of them he liked writing better than others. At any rate, my very favorites are earlier novels like _The Stand_ and _It_, and I adored _The Talisman_, which he co-wrote with Peter Straub.

And Stephen King is, to my mind, the unimpeachable master of the creepy short story.


----------



## BrianJJarrett (Aug 25, 2011)

Thomma Lyn said:


> ...And Stephen King is, to my mind, the unimpeachable master of the creepy short story.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## WFMeyer (Apr 14, 2011)

I was a BIG fan of King when I was younger, during his early works. I still read his novels, but they don't do it for me like they used to.

That said, he is still the master of creepy horror, creating unforgettable characters and world-building.


Werner


----------



## libbyfh (Feb 11, 2010)

OVerrated  Not by a long shot. Stephen King is one of the most UNDER rated authors around. His prose is careful, beautiful, and smooth. He is a master of the craft of fiction, and I hope he doesn't have to die before the world recognizes it.


----------



## VeroWriter (Oct 23, 2011)

I think he's a fabulous writer. He has a well-honed ability to put you in a scene, and use everyday objects or situations to scare you on a visceral level. His book _On Writing . . _ is a must-read for any writer, or anyone who wonders if they are a writer.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

King is a great writer, although he is somewhat inconsistent and of course some books are better than others.  But you really have to look at the breadth and scope of his works and most of the time he did get it right.   Some love to knock him because of his genre etc, yet I think he has had a profoundly positive effect on American storytelling and that coupled with his prodigious output has set a very high mark for other authors to follow.  Also, I greatly enjoyed "On Writing" where he generously gives the writer some guidance, which is better than what most courses can teach.

If anything King has been underated, especially by the high brow literary cliques.


----------



## N S Cooke (Sep 27, 2011)

Stephen King is like Marmite (for all those without a UK postcode that's a yeast extract; you put it on your toast) and you either love it....or you hate it. And when you love it....King's books are V best: Misery, Pet Cemetery, Bag of Bones, IT. But then he goes and changes the flavour - his new stuff, all weird and psychedelic - our taste buds just take a little time to catch up. But I'm sure as we grow and mature in our own tastes, in time we'll eventually understand the new flavours -  'Dreamcatcher.' What the hell's that all about? I read a couple of pages and put it down. But Stephen, I promise, I'll go back. You R....the master.


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

King's upcoming book is set around the assassination of JFK. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576651540980143566.html

... but the protagonist is an English teacher from a small Maine town. I would have thought a different angle would have been more appropriate by now.


----------



## Chris Barraclough (Jan 25, 2011)

john_a_karr said:


> King's upcoming book is set around the assassination of JFK. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576651540980143566.html
> 
> ... but the protagonist is an English teacher from a small Maine town. I would have thought a different angle would have been more appropriate by now.


Ha, shocker. If Maine was as bad as he makes out, surely there'd be no one left alive.

Def agree about his short stories, stuff like The Monkey, Quitter's Inc, Last Rung on the Ladder and Children of the Corn have stuck with me ever since I read them. I actually prefer his non-horror writing though - Green Mile and Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption are amazing pieces of work.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

john_a_karr said:


> King's upcoming book is set around the assassination of JFK. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576651540980143566.html
> 
> ... but the protagonist is an English teacher from a small Maine town. I would have thought a different angle would have been more appropriate by now.


It's common to write best what you know best.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Chris Barraclough said:


> Ha, shocker. If Maine was as bad as he makes out, surely there'd be no one left alive.


Yeah. . . between Stephen King and Jessica Fletcher, Maine doesn't seem to be a very safe place. . . . . . .


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2011)

I've never read more than a sample of his work. I know, it's some kind of reading sin, isn't it?  

I liked his story ideas a lot, but usually watch the movies. The reason being that when I read his samples, they seemed a little bit too detailed for me. I remember reading his book on writing, and he says to cut 10% of your first draft. ALWAYS. Reading his work, I see why he thinks that, but it's not true for everyone. In fact, as a writer, I usually need to ADD about 10-20% to my drafts. I once asked someone who'd read my book if I was doing something wrong, since S.K.'s advice is to CUT 10%. They told me that is SK had written my book, it'd be 200k ... so I guess cutting 10% isn't always the answer lol.

I do, one day, want to read one of his books, just so I don't feel so left out. Who knows--maybe I'll love it!


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> I've never read more than a sample of his work. I know, it's some kind of reading sin, isn't it?
> 
> I liked his story ideas a lot, but usually watch the movies. The reason being that when I read his samples, they seemed a little bit too detailed for me. I remember reading his book on writing, and he says to cut 10% of your first draft. ALWAYS. Reading his work, I see why he thinks that, but it's not true for everyone. In fact, as a writer, I usually need to ADD about 10-20% to my drafts. I once asked someone who'd read my book if I was doing something wrong, since S.K.'s advice is to CUT 10%. They told me that is SK had written my book, it'd be 200k ... so I guess cutting 10% isn't always the answer lol.
> 
> I do, one day, want to read one of his books, just so I don't feel so left out. Who knows--maybe I'll love it!


Oh the irony in your post.....

But coincidentally, this am I was just thinking of something related. I am re-reading The Stand for the first time in at least 15 yrs. I'm not a horror fan, but it's my favorite book for other reasons.

As I read thru this enormous work (thankfully lighter on a Kindle!) I just flow thru it. It has TONS of details, most of which I could normally care less about as I am not a character-driven story fan. Altho I do eat up the situational details. But READING his details is so effortless it just blows me away, as a writer and a reader. It's _how _ the details are written...._not how many_, IMO.

For me, that is his talent..._HOW _ he writes the _most normal things_. (Again, I dont even like horror...to me, his stories are just entertaining and absorbing).


----------



## Steverino (Jan 5, 2011)

Stephen King has an amazing knack for having ordinary people react to extraordinary circumstances in a believable way, every time.  That's an underrated skill.  If you were confronted by a zombie cat, or a girl with telekinesis, or tentacles in the fog... how would you react?

King knows.


----------



## davidestesbooks (Nov 4, 2011)

Stephen King is an unbelievable writer, but I actually prefer Dean Koontz.  But it's really hard to compare two writers who are as good as they are.  There are times when I am reading each of them that I have to just stop and admire the way he weaves the words together to create suspense.


----------



## Alicia Dean (Jul 11, 2011)

I think King is a master storyteller. He puts a lot of detail into his stories, yet, as someone else said, the way he writes details is what matters. He captivates me simply by describing an inanimate object. And, he is a genius at character development. I don't love everything he's written, but everything I love that he's written, I REALLY love. I think writing is about entertaining and drawing readers into a story, not about satisfying some kind of high brow literary expectation. I read to escape, and he certainly provides escapism. And I also love the way his 'everyman' has to deal with the unimaginable. He's truly gifted.


----------



## Fredster (Apr 11, 2011)

> But READING his details is so effortless it just blows me away, as a writer and a reader. It's how the details are written....not how many, IMO.


So much THIS. 

Also, a plug: If you're not a King reader, you have a chance tomorrow, when _11/22/63_ is released. I'm looking forward to picking it up on the way home from work!


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

My copy of 11/22/63 arrived today. The book is enormous, more like an encyclopedia


----------



## Darlene Jones (Nov 1, 2011)

Read one of his books. Scared me so much I never read another. I guess, if you like that sort of thing, he's okay. Darlene Jones, Author


----------



## W. B. Emerson (Oct 29, 2011)

I've read good Stephen King novels and bad Stephen King novels. But I don't think anyone can deny he's a masterful writer.


----------



## lifestylebook (Nov 10, 2011)

I think he is mostly brilliant, especially when writing as Richard Bachman. "Running Man" is one of my Top 10 favorite short stories.

Oli Hille


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Darlene Jones - Author said:


> Read one of his books. Scared me so much I never read another. I guess, if you like that sort of thing, he's okay. Darlene Jones, Author


LOL

What part of 'horror' didnt you understand?


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

I think he's up and down. Some books are better than others, but everyone seems to have a different favorite, which is interesting.


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2011)

davidestesbooks said:


> Stephen King is an unbelievable writer, but I actually prefer Dean Koontz. But it's really hard to compare two writers who are as good as they are. There are times when I am reading each of them that I have to just stop and admire the way he weaves the words together to create suspense.


Dean Koontz writers marketable stories, for sure, but his writing is HORRENDOUS. If he's comparable to Stephen King, then I guess I'm not missing out on anything. Don't get me wrong--I love a good story. I SEE why "story is king". But I can get that from authors who also endear me with their writing style. The best authors to me are the ones who I read thinking... "I'll _never _be this good." And it's not about sales or what others think. I'm talking about my personal tastes and perceptions here. But it's great to be humbled and inspired by another writer. There's only so much time in my life and so many books I can read.


----------



## Seanathin23 (Jul 24, 2011)

I love his short fiction, but as a slow reader his longer works scare me. I started The Stand the other day and while next to nothing has happened so far in almost 60 pages I am enthralled, he builds characters so wonderfully.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Seanathin23 said:


> I love his short fiction, but as a slow reader his longer works scare me. I started The Stand the other day and while next to nothing has happened so far in almost 60 pages I am enthralled, he builds characters so wonderfully.


Srsly? I just finished re-reading it after 15 yrs. In the first 60 pages, _Campion escapes from the secure facility with Captain Tripps..._ LOADS of details besides character development (altho lots of that too).


----------



## robertk328 (Jul 8, 2011)

Seanathin23 said:


> I love his short fiction, but as a slow reader his longer works scare me. I started The Stand the other day and while next to nothing has happened so far in almost 60 pages I am enthralled, he builds characters so wonderfully.


While maybe 200 pages longer, I found _IT_ to read a bit slower than the new _11/22/63_ - not sure why, and maybe it's the % on the Kindle going faster because of the fewer pages. I just remember with _IT_ that the numbers seemed to lag for a while. Great story though - so _The Stand_ might be similar - it's next on my list (well along with re-reading _Bag of Bones_ so I can be fresh for the mini-series in December). The story is complex and good enough though, that you're in no hurry


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

I really hate to say it but I have "11-22-63" on my kindle and according to the meter, I have 25 percent of the book read.

And I'm already skipping pages!

******* REALLY MINOR SPOILERS HERE SO FEEL FREE TO SKIP PAST IF YOU WISH **********

When will his publisher sit the man down and beg him to pay attention to his editor? 
This thing could use another month or two at some cutting.

But then- if they push too hard he could jump to another publisher.
But then-if I'm right...and they keep letting him ignore the editor, they'll take a bath on the hardcover sales. Especially a huge book like 11-22-63.

I really think they are trying to get more than just the usual faithful Constant Readers here. And that requires more than just the usual 900,000 sales. (This figure is taken from Publishers Weekly who reported that another huge tome of his, Under the Dome sold 900,000 copies after 6 printings of the hardcover)

And of course that's my opinion but still.... His big books don't start sagging for me until the middle and I ain't there yet!

There is a subplot that I really don't think needs to be there and in fact could probably have just been a really good short story elsewhere. He already has the whole Kennedy thing going and and a romance (That I haven't come upon as yet) and that's more than enough for the book.

*************** END MINOR SPOILERS ******************

And yes I am aware many of you out there love is attention to detail but then- I think the thrust here is to grab the attention of people who normally don't get a Stephen King book. And they are a finicky bunch plus there are a few dozen OTHER novels out these next few months begging for attention.

And NO- while I have not read the whole book as yet I'm aware that I shouldn't be jumping ahead of myself and yet... King DOES have the baggage of running a little long in the past.

If the publisher (as well as King) wanted to attract a larger than usual audience this time out they should have really, really REALLY hammered away at this one so that it was just a bit shorter. But that's just my opinion as a long time fan of his. I really prefer his shorter works. Most of his longer stuff feels like a visit from an old friend who, after a very nice weekend visit, decides to stay on a few more days into the following week and you start to wonder by Friday when the visit will be over

If you are intimidated by 11-22-63 and yet you'd still like to sample some really good Stephen King... check out FULL DARK, NO STARS This is a recent work that features four novellas. And this one has horror in inside. This book will will haunt you for months

Good luck!


----------



## iPublish (Oct 31, 2011)

He sells a lot of books so he must be doing something right. Is his work great literature like H.P. Lovecraft or Edgar Allen Poe? Probably a step below, but that's not exactly an insult.


----------



## Brian Edward Bahr (Nov 12, 2011)

His early stuff was great, but after the Dark Tower Series he should've called it quits.  Even the last few books of the Dark Tower Series were starting to get bad.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

lifestylebook said:


> I think he is mostly brilliant, especially when writing as Richard Bachman. "Running Man" is one of my Top 10 favorite short stories.
> 
> Oli Hille


Except that THE RUNNING MAN isn't a short story. It's not a 900-page novel, sure, but it's not a short story. It's just one of his shorter novels.

It was 219 pages... around 65,000 to 72,000 words. Novels start at 45,000 words...

THE RUNNING MAN may be short by King standards, but short stories STOP at 5,000 words... this is about 13 times longer than a short story.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I pre-ordered the ebook of 11/22/63 several months ago (saving a couple bucks as an early-bird pre-order) and it appeared on my Kindle automatically.

I've only read the first little prologue so far and love it... but I have a lot of other things I want to finish before I start this...

...Including UNDER THE DOME.

I went off King for a while... some time after THE GREEN MILE. I got picky, skipping books like DESPERATION and THE REGULATORS, but picking up books like BAG OF BONES, HEARTS IN ATLANTIS and ON WRITING.

I stayed away for a while longer, after ON WRITING, reading virtually nothing of his until UR, BLOCKADE BILLY, and UNDER THE DOME lured me back.

I doubt I'll ever delve into all the GUNSLINGER books, though... I don't care for his dark fantasy as much as his contemporary stuff and modern horror stuff. I'm one of the few who is more impressed by THE DEAD ZONE than by THE STAND...

Now I'm back and slowly catching up on the books I missed.

I'll say this: Even at his worst, King is better than most writers at their best.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

iPublish said:


> He sells a lot of books so he must be doing something right. Is his work great literature like H.P. Lovecraft or Edgar Allen Poe? Probably a step below, but that's not exactly an insult.


This is the point I make about EVERY bestseller. Like when people harp about Twilight. No, it's not the best written, but she did SOMETHING right to sell that many copies. Might not hurt to look at what she did right (if going to spend any energy on that at all) than to talk about how horrible it was. That said, doesn't mean everyone will want to read her books.


----------



## Miss Laura (Jul 27, 2011)

Brian Edward Bahr said:


> His early stuff was great, but after the Dark Tower Series he should've called it quits. Even the last few books of the Dark Tower Series were starting to get bad.


Bad compared to whom?

In my humble opinion, King is the greatest writer of our generation.


----------



## Brian Edward Bahr (Nov 12, 2011)

Miss Laura said:


> Bad compared to whom?
> 
> In my humble opinion, King is the greatest writer of our generation.


I agree that he is a good writer and that his stories are very captivating. However, I think you're overlooking the fact that J.D. Salinger and Kurt Vonnegut are both his contemporaries even though they recently died. Also, if you've never read the collection The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien, you're really missing out.
Also, King's later work is bad compared to his earlier work.


----------



## StarlaRamcy (Nov 1, 2011)

To be honest, although I love him, I also lost him several times. 
Some books are just too lenghty and too bizarre to follow.


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

StarlaRamcy said:


> To be honest, although I love him, I also lost him several times.
> Some books are just too lenghty and too bizarre to follow.


With you there.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Brian Edward Bahr said:


> I agree that he is a good writer and that his stories are very captivating. However, I think you're overlooking the fact that J.D. Salinger and Kurt Vonnegut are both his contemporaries even though they recently died. Also, if you've never read the collection The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien, you're really missing out.
> Also, King's later work is bad compared to his earlier work.


Salinger wrote ONE book, before King was ever even published. No comparison to King in terms of career. And hate to say it, but Salinger's overrated.

Most of Vonnegut work was 1960s and 1970s... Good stuff, but to compare him to King, whose work has now spanned five decades? That's a stretch. But I'll give you Vonnegut as prolific enough for comparison.

Tim O'Brien wrote one great book on Vietnam, the one you named. Good as it is, the rest of his output is disappointing by comparison. King was better for far longer.

And saying all King's later work is bad is too broad a blanket statement.

He's had career peaks and valleys... but I'd hazard that UNDER THE DOME and 11/22/63 are among his finest works, both of which would be covered under the "bad" blanket by that statement.

I'd even put A GOOD MARRIAGE up there with RITA HAYWORTH AND THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and THE BODY as among his finest novellas.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

ImmortalInk said:


> Dean Koontz writers marketable stories, for sure, but his writing is HORRENDOUS.


Have to agree with this. I read one Koontz book and hated the first 200 pages. So repetitive. I've never read another.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

JFHilborne said:


> Have to agree with this. I read one Koontz book and hated the first 200 pages. So repetitive. I've never read another.


You know, I have read about 4 Koontz books. Topically, I would think that I would like them alot better than I do. I dont know why they've never caught on with me. Maybe it is the writing, altho lacking in that area didnt jump out at me....maybe it's just 'eh' and hasnt grabbed me?


----------



## Kimberly Llewellyn (Aug 18, 2011)

Judging by the crowd that camped out for his booksigning held last night in Sarasota, FL, I'd say people LOVE him! I had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to work this event. People came from everywhere for it; a group drove from Missouri to Florida just to have him autograph his latest book, 11/22/63. And Mr. King was really nice! Almost 1000 books signed in two hours!


----------



## wordsmithjts (Nov 14, 2011)

I feel that Stephen King is a great storyteller and has a very unique imagination. I dont think you can fairly say that his writing is unoriginal. Although a few times he definitely gets very wordy and gets away from the story. For instance during the beginning of It where he spends 20 boring pages describing the complete layout of the town and the sewer system. Now this plays an important part of the book but he could have cut that down to 3 or so pages and kept the story moving along. He seemed to get more verbose later in his career. His first few novels such as carrie,salems lot, the shining,were great novels. He was direct and to the point. But I dont think It needed to be 1000 pages long, although it is one of my favorite novels. I read it at least once a year, but i do skip a lot of the boring pages.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I am enjoying his newest one very much, so far.  Hooked me, like always, from the very first page.


----------



## Darlene Jones (Nov 1, 2011)

I have to say he's good, because someone reading my just released first novel said parts of it reminded them of "Under the Dome" and that that was a good thing.


----------



## Izzy Hammerstein (Jul 6, 2011)

Stephen King over rated
Definately Not.
If you took out all the supernatural stuff you would still have a Writer on your hands - That's how good he is.


----------

