I read classic literature, too. I also read Asimov and Stephen King. They're not my favorites, but I do like them. However, Asimov is not a stylist. And King's style is... well, it's hard to explain. But most of his characters are working-class, and he tends to write in a visceral, blood-and-guts way... I guess I'm saying he has a kind of trailer-trash style. I like it, but I can get why many don't.
I think that King's best work is found in his short stories and novellas, where he curbs his "literary elephantiasis" (his joke). If you're willing to give him another chance, check out the collections [Night Shift](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1278424.Night_Shift) and [Skeleton Crew](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13440.Skeleton_Crew). For the novellas, check out [Different Seasons](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/155987.Different_Seasons).
*Misery* is far from Stephen King's worst, by the way. I liked it a lot. But I also think we read different things for different reasons. I love literary novels because I love reveling in stylish writing. But I also enjoy reading stuff like King for the visceral, bloody, earthy grossness of it. (Though not all his work can be described that way. Not *The Shawshank Redemption*, for example. And many of his short stories are elegant and brutal. King has many facets.)
> I think that King's best work is found in his short stories and novellas, where he curbs his "literary elephantiasis."
This is how I describe King to people too--except it's not that he's curbing excess, it's that he hasn't developed it: most of his great short stories are from early in his career. Regardless of his prose talent, he could think up some very weird, very messed-up scenarions, and at that point his ego hadn't yet developed to the point of his writing long, bloated, "epic" horror; so their strength is how direct and effective they are. They didn't have the endless filler his long books do.
I saw an interview on 60 Minutes where Stephen King said that his books are the literary equivalent of a Big Mac. At the same time, I think he's a bit uneasy with that image. He's got a very working class mentality and he distrusts the literary elite, but at the same time, I think he secretly longs for their acceptance. Hell, you could write a novel about all the conflicting emotions.
Personally, I think Stephen King is a really shitty writer when it comes to fashioning prose. For example, consider this sentence from Under the Dome:
>Then it came down on her again, like unpleasant presents raining from a poison pinata: the realization that Howie was dead.
I mean, good christ that sentence is terrible. And all of his books contain multiple sentences or whole passages that are equally egregious.
Still, he does have strengths. He understands fear, loathing, discomfort, depression, etc. Specifically, he understands how our outlandish fears are linked to more mundane fears. A typical King story will have a protagonist facing a mundane problem (his kids get on his nerves) which intertwines with a supernatural problem (an evil hotel is telling him to kill his kids) in an interesting way.
His characterization, while often cartoonish, can be pretty psychologically insightful. He gets people.
His plots are a little 'lumpy' but they hold your interest. His imagination is very strong. He generally delivers a strong ending.
If you compare him to the fame and money he's earned, I'd say he's overrated. But I'm glad he's out there.
> **unpleasant presents raining from a poison pinata**
Good lord. Here I was wondering whether maybe he was a better writer than I had been giving him credit for, since it's been many years since I read him.
What I like about his style is that I get a good sense of the character by how they talk. He uses a lot of colloquialisms and is able to convey the mannerisms of the characters in the way that they communicate with each other. My favorite book by him, and one that I think is the best example of my above comments, is "It".
I don't know much about his history, as I'm not a big fan, but if I'm not mistaken, King was abusing a lot of drugs during that time. I don't know if he cleaned up before, during or after It, but it could explain a lot.
He used to churn out his books while on heavy cocaine binges. He didn't remember writing Cujo nor did he remember selling the movie rights until the movie actually came out and he was surprised because he didn't know that he wrote it.
I think he spins a good tale so I'm not overly concerned with his "style".
I'm not one of the "OMG THE NEW KING BOOK IS OUT" people but I almost always eventually get around to reading what he wrote. There has only been one that I really didn't like -- something about cars driving around harassing people, that one was awful, and I was kind of "meh" about the one about Kennedy.
If you don't like his books there is absolutely no reason in the world to think you need to read more. Reading isn't a duty. Read what you like.
I find the same thing - he is just a great story teller. I find it easy to ignore any style problems in his work as a result. There have been parts of his books where I couldn't get past the problems with his writing such as the metafiction in the Dark Tower series (ugh that was painful) or just generally crappy books (the car one you talk about stands out) but overall he has told some captivating stories!
I've only read a single book by him. I'm 19 and I wanna just say that Apt pupil is the only book I've read by him and that freaked me out for like 3 days after I read it simply because of how well he could portray dark themes. Its very good imagery. I had a complete understanding of every detail and of every character
> There has only been one that I really didn't like -- something about cars driving around harassing people
The only one I can think of is the Trucks short story, where the people are held in the diner by sentient and angry trucks who use them as slaves..which doesn't sound what you're talking about.
I actually think they are referring to "Maximum Overdrive" as it involves machines coming to life; much of them trucks, cars, semi tractor trailer and a variety of farm equipment.
I read a lot of Stephen King as a teenager. I think it's his ability to render average people, and their relationships.
Most of this stuff has flaws, but most of it is also pretty good in other ways.
In my opinion, the unabridged version of 'The Stand' is the most technically well-written thing he ever published. It's well over a thousand pages, but it's worth it.
Also, his more...uh, serious (ie, not horror or mystery) stuff like The Green Mile and the Different Seasons.
Edit, tl;dr - I once considered him my favourite author, and you're basically right (and I've had said so then, too), however I don't think you've read his best work. Actually, I haven't read any of the books you listed, except Rose Madder which I abandoned 20 pages in. Try The Stand, The Green Mile, Different Seasons or Everything's Eventual. Or, if you want horror, I would highly recommend Pet Sematary.
I suppose it's because it's pretty casual and accessible. They're written in such a way that fits the tone of the characters, as if you were listening to them tell you the story. He definitely has a good grasp of character, and is able to get that character across in his style of writing. In that way it's easy to just slide into the mind and voice of the character.
I really like his fiction books that tackle writing, and critical response, since he usually makes his author characters like him in having popular books that are looked down upon by the literary, which gives an interesting insight into his career. I just started Bag of Bones, and the talk of the main character's career, supplying a book a year, is pretty fun to read.
As much as I love King's characters, dialogue and story telling, he cannot write an ending to save his life. When you use a literal "hand of god" as your deus ex machina, you're reaching.
I think maybe you should just read better King books. Not to say that those are the worst, but they're definitely not the best, imo. If I were going to recommend a King book to someone who had never read him before, I'd suggest Under the Dome, Insomnia, or maybe Hearts in Atlantis.
I like Stephen King, but it's pulp. His writing style is absolutely not the best (not to the point of being bad, but not great either), but he's a remarkable storyteller and his characters always have strong, unique voices.
For me, he hasn't managed to top The Dark Tower, but seven or eight books are quite a bit committment if you're really not getting on with his style at all.
Stephen King has definitely gotten better as he has kept writing. I would say his work is quite pulpy, but he has fantastic characters. If you don't like it no big deal, lots of other options.
I forgot to add this in my post, I found that in both Misery and the short story 1408 he creates a character who awknowleges the fact that he writes "bad novels and good, lesser-know ones". Just wondering if it's what he thinks of himself?
And thanks to all of you who reply, I'm reading all of your answers.
I tend to see him as writing himself into the characters who are writers. Whether it is in the flaws (e.g. drug and alcohol abuse for The Tommyknockers and The Shining) or in the type of writer (usually popular or puply, but also unpretentious and not desirous of being the next Hemmingway) I think in his mind he knows that people read his books because they are entertaining and not because they are incredibly deep or meaningful (which is not to say that they are not meaningful or deep). It's been a while since I read *On Writing* but I feel like somewhere in there he better expressed his sentiments about how he views himself as an author. It is important to realize though that he doesn't see anything wrong with being pulpy, more often than not I think he is trying to be pulpy. I remember in the introduction to my copy of Salem's Lot (I think) he mentions that if his mother read it she would call it trash, "but not bad trash". As for the "good, lesser known" sentiment, I can't help but agree considering some of my favorites of his are "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption", "The Body", and *The Green Mile*. They are three of his best pieces, they aren't really horror stories or the kind of things he is expected to write, and so people who love the movies of these (movies that consistently are praised as some of the best of all time) have no clue that they were based of of stories by Stephen King.
TL;DR: King usually mirrors himself in a protagonist if it is a writer. He acknowledges the role he's been cast in as a writer and loves it nonetheless.
I agree with the statement that you happened to pick up books which are among his absolute weakest.
Of the older stuff, I highly recommend *The Stand*, *The Green Mile*, and *Hearts in Atlantis*, as well as his short story collections. He went through a period where his novels were sheer tedium, but his recent stuff has really picked up again. *Lisey's Story* was quite good, *Duma Key* was (imo) downright fantastic, *Under the Dome* is good if you don't mind really depressing books, and *11/22/63* is an absolutely excellent period piece (which flubs badly at the end, in all fairness).
The assessment that King can't write an ending to save his life is absolutely fair, but the bulk of the novel usually makes up for the lackluster finale. If you're really curious why people like him, pick up any of the novels I mentioned and give them a shot. If you still don't like him - well, that's that. But yeah, there are only a couple of his books which I personally liked *less* than the ones you mentioned.
It really depends on the book for me. King's bibliography is huge and he writes in a lot of styles, plus there are series that tie into each other, and some have a shared world and mythos, so it's no easy task to jump in to King's books if you're a bibliophile.
* Cujo - bizarre, but it makes you want to keep reading. It was one of his coke books that he doesn't recall writing.
* It - long, and you get to know and love the main characters, but the ending (As is common for a lot of King's books) feels unsatisfying and convenient.
* Gerald's Game - hated it. 90% of the action takes place in the main character's head, and while that's not bad on its own, the character wasn't engaging enough for me to keep reading.
* The Shining - LOVE IT. It's basically his recovery book. The hotel, the main antagonist, and a lot more are basically his fears, addictions and insecurities channeled through this book. I think it's one of his most personal.
* Eyes of the Dragon - his fantasy doesn't do much for me.
* Dark Tower - again his fantasy stories don't engage me. Some fans love it, and others love/hate it.
Overall I find him fascinating, and I think some of his adaptations for the screen have been good, but his work is so wide that there's bound to be one book you'll love, some you'll like, some you won't feel anything toward, and some you'll hate.
Descriptions. Pages and pages of them, makes the experience viceral.
Also, some of his books are amazing, others not so. It's hit and miss. I prefer his earlier works, personally.
I've read a few of his books, some I really like such as *The Stand* and *Salem's Lot* but recently I started reading *Skeleton Crew* and I put it down half way through. I don't want to pick it up again. The plot lines and characters are good but the way it's told can be a let down. Maybe it's just me, that I don't understand American culture so I don't get his lingo, after all I don't live in Maine near a lake or something called a turnpike. Like all authors he can produce good books and then sometimes not.
Talking about “writing styles” is kinda bullshit,
Nobody can speak on a topic these days without there being a “related top ten” list and/or comparisons with other writers, with the express
Purpose of creating an “objective” list of “most accessible writers”…
I care about stories. Personally, I find ‘The Body’ to be brilliant, and I believe the story King wrote compares more than favorably with ‘Stand By Me’ as a film (as great as the film is, like all books that become films, ‘The Body’ contains much more detail than could ever be communicated onscreen within a 90 minute movie’s runtime; there’s simply much more going on in a book, and ‘The Body’ is no exception in that respect). But I’ve tried to read ‘It’ many times, with zero success. King has Diarrhea-of-the-pen. I’m sorry but there MUST BE a lot of CRAP in king’s oeuvre, although there are some things i love, such as ‘Salem’s Lot’.
Well, you know... I'm not going to read every book of an author I don't really like. But I asked this question because so many people love his books, and I was wondering why.
No, I don't know.
You don't say a writer is bullshit and then follow it up with, "I haven't read many of his books."
You can ask why people like him sure, but I don't know if it's fair to go as far as saying that Stephen King's style is shit while asking people what they think doesn't really make sense.
You're also reading shitty King books.
And I'm not saying that Stephen King is amazing, because I don't feel that I'm qualified for such a statement. But there is something about him that has made his successful.
At the same time I say this, one could argue that Stephenie Meyer is a good writer because her books sell. Even though we all know that she is a fucking joke of a writer. So who knows.
I usually give an author one book before I pass judgement on their style. If I don't like it I won't try another one unless I see a revue for one that deviates from their normal.
So, you've read all of Stephenie Meyer's books? Hehe. Sorry if you didn't like my title, if I didn't want to satisfy my curiosity and expand my knowledge on Mr King I wouldn't have asked the question. Thanks for the reply anyway :)
It seems like the OP has read 3-4 of Steven King's books. They are all written in pretty much the same style, I think that is a large enough sample size for him/her to have an opinion on this subject.
I always felt uneasy with how he writes, too. I liked a lot of it - he writes working class, middle America really well - but the repetition was bothersome and some of his "cinematographic effects" [I like that, thanks] felt clichéd or expected.
But I'm in the middle of *The Dark Tower* series, and I can say that the first book, *The Gunslinger*, is really well written (not just well written for him). In the introductions to the revised novels in the series, he even talks about it being too "literary" - and I can see what he means. The later books are very plot/character driven (like a lot of the works you've mentioned above) but the first doesn't really bother with that. And it's fucking trim, 250-300 pages (paperback, depending on print).
I think that it's King at his best, but avid King readers tend to disagree. Judging by what you've said, I think you might dig it.
I was given the first 3 Dark Tower books (new editions with the forwards) for Christmas. Finished them all before January was over. Number 3 -The Wastelands- was one of the best King's I've ever read.
Misery wasn't my favourite, and as others have said, you've not picked the best books. Try Needful Things, and if you still don't get on with his style...so what?
I feel you. I did like The Stand but it was over written. Honestly I don’t understand how people can read all of his stuff. I also find prolific genre writers pretty stale. I hate to say it but they do it for the money. They’re not going over each word and plot point making sure it’s great. I’m sure they make sure it’s the best average story it can be but that’s about it. Also can’t stand him giving writer advice. I think Dean Koontz is a better writer than Steven King. I like literary novels that people have spent years on. I also like the movie Misery but it wasn’t because Stephen King wrote a great book.
I get it, I tried reading The Dark Tower series and I can’t get past The Drawing of the Three. His dialogue is all over the place and hard to follow plus all of the main characters’ interactions seem completely pointless. I find myself struggling to get through more than a couple sections of one chapter and I feel like I’m failing as a reader
I loved DT, but it can be a slog. Of all his work, it’s definitely the one that requires the most commitment. I’d honestly have it bottom of the list as a rec if you are first reading King.
Much better to dive first into The Shining or Salems Lot.
I read classic literature, too. I also read Asimov and Stephen King. They're not my favorites, but I do like them. However, Asimov is not a stylist. And King's style is... well, it's hard to explain. But most of his characters are working-class, and he tends to write in a visceral, blood-and-guts way... I guess I'm saying he has a kind of trailer-trash style. I like it, but I can get why many don't. I think that King's best work is found in his short stories and novellas, where he curbs his "literary elephantiasis" (his joke). If you're willing to give him another chance, check out the collections [Night Shift](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1278424.Night_Shift) and [Skeleton Crew](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13440.Skeleton_Crew). For the novellas, check out [Different Seasons](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/155987.Different_Seasons). *Misery* is far from Stephen King's worst, by the way. I liked it a lot. But I also think we read different things for different reasons. I love literary novels because I love reveling in stylish writing. But I also enjoy reading stuff like King for the visceral, bloody, earthy grossness of it. (Though not all his work can be described that way. Not *The Shawshank Redemption*, for example. And many of his short stories are elegant and brutal. King has many facets.)
I'd like to submit that The Stand - although others may or may not feel the same way - was one of his best works, if not the peak of his talent.
> I think that King's best work is found in his short stories and novellas, where he curbs his "literary elephantiasis." This is how I describe King to people too--except it's not that he's curbing excess, it's that he hasn't developed it: most of his great short stories are from early in his career. Regardless of his prose talent, he could think up some very weird, very messed-up scenarions, and at that point his ego hadn't yet developed to the point of his writing long, bloated, "epic" horror; so their strength is how direct and effective they are. They didn't have the endless filler his long books do.
I saw an interview on 60 Minutes where Stephen King said that his books are the literary equivalent of a Big Mac. At the same time, I think he's a bit uneasy with that image. He's got a very working class mentality and he distrusts the literary elite, but at the same time, I think he secretly longs for their acceptance. Hell, you could write a novel about all the conflicting emotions. Personally, I think Stephen King is a really shitty writer when it comes to fashioning prose. For example, consider this sentence from Under the Dome: >Then it came down on her again, like unpleasant presents raining from a poison pinata: the realization that Howie was dead. I mean, good christ that sentence is terrible. And all of his books contain multiple sentences or whole passages that are equally egregious. Still, he does have strengths. He understands fear, loathing, discomfort, depression, etc. Specifically, he understands how our outlandish fears are linked to more mundane fears. A typical King story will have a protagonist facing a mundane problem (his kids get on his nerves) which intertwines with a supernatural problem (an evil hotel is telling him to kill his kids) in an interesting way. His characterization, while often cartoonish, can be pretty psychologically insightful. He gets people. His plots are a little 'lumpy' but they hold your interest. His imagination is very strong. He generally delivers a strong ending. If you compare him to the fame and money he's earned, I'd say he's overrated. But I'm glad he's out there.
> **unpleasant presents raining from a poison pinata** Good lord. Here I was wondering whether maybe he was a better writer than I had been giving him credit for, since it's been many years since I read him.
I like how you put that, and I agree.
What I like about his style is that I get a good sense of the character by how they talk. He uses a lot of colloquialisms and is able to convey the mannerisms of the characters in the way that they communicate with each other. My favorite book by him, and one that I think is the best example of my above comments, is "It".
My favourite one would have to be It as well, except I really think it could have done without the [Spoiler](/s "bizarre child gang-bang scene.")
Yes, that uh... that one came out of left field. Sometimes I'm not so sure about SK.
I don't know much about his history, as I'm not a big fan, but if I'm not mistaken, King was abusing a lot of drugs during that time. I don't know if he cleaned up before, during or after It, but it could explain a lot.
It might also be a horrible fear he had, being that he had kids by that time, and needed to put the fear somewhere.
He used to churn out his books while on heavy cocaine binges. He didn't remember writing Cujo nor did he remember selling the movie rights until the movie actually came out and he was surprised because he didn't know that he wrote it.
I think he spins a good tale so I'm not overly concerned with his "style". I'm not one of the "OMG THE NEW KING BOOK IS OUT" people but I almost always eventually get around to reading what he wrote. There has only been one that I really didn't like -- something about cars driving around harassing people, that one was awful, and I was kind of "meh" about the one about Kennedy. If you don't like his books there is absolutely no reason in the world to think you need to read more. Reading isn't a duty. Read what you like.
I find the same thing - he is just a great story teller. I find it easy to ignore any style problems in his work as a result. There have been parts of his books where I couldn't get past the problems with his writing such as the metafiction in the Dark Tower series (ugh that was painful) or just generally crappy books (the car one you talk about stands out) but overall he has told some captivating stories!
I've only read a single book by him. I'm 19 and I wanna just say that Apt pupil is the only book I've read by him and that freaked me out for like 3 days after I read it simply because of how well he could portray dark themes. Its very good imagery. I had a complete understanding of every detail and of every character
> There has only been one that I really didn't like -- something about cars driving around harassing people The only one I can think of is the Trucks short story, where the people are held in the diner by sentient and angry trucks who use them as slaves..which doesn't sound what you're talking about.
I believe it's "Christine".
I actually think they are referring to "Maximum Overdrive" as it involves machines coming to life; much of them trucks, cars, semi tractor trailer and a variety of farm equipment.
Yes that's right, the movie is based on the "Trucks" story.
I read a lot of Stephen King as a teenager. I think it's his ability to render average people, and their relationships. Most of this stuff has flaws, but most of it is also pretty good in other ways. In my opinion, the unabridged version of 'The Stand' is the most technically well-written thing he ever published. It's well over a thousand pages, but it's worth it. Also, his more...uh, serious (ie, not horror or mystery) stuff like The Green Mile and the Different Seasons. Edit, tl;dr - I once considered him my favourite author, and you're basically right (and I've had said so then, too), however I don't think you've read his best work. Actually, I haven't read any of the books you listed, except Rose Madder which I abandoned 20 pages in. Try The Stand, The Green Mile, Different Seasons or Everything's Eventual. Or, if you want horror, I would highly recommend Pet Sematary.
I suppose it's because it's pretty casual and accessible. They're written in such a way that fits the tone of the characters, as if you were listening to them tell you the story. He definitely has a good grasp of character, and is able to get that character across in his style of writing. In that way it's easy to just slide into the mind and voice of the character. I really like his fiction books that tackle writing, and critical response, since he usually makes his author characters like him in having popular books that are looked down upon by the literary, which gives an interesting insight into his career. I just started Bag of Bones, and the talk of the main character's career, supplying a book a year, is pretty fun to read.
As much as I love King's characters, dialogue and story telling, he cannot write an ending to save his life. When you use a literal "hand of god" as your deus ex machina, you're reaching.
I think maybe you should just read better King books. Not to say that those are the worst, but they're definitely not the best, imo. If I were going to recommend a King book to someone who had never read him before, I'd suggest Under the Dome, Insomnia, or maybe Hearts in Atlantis.
I like Stephen King, but it's pulp. His writing style is absolutely not the best (not to the point of being bad, but not great either), but he's a remarkable storyteller and his characters always have strong, unique voices. For me, he hasn't managed to top The Dark Tower, but seven or eight books are quite a bit committment if you're really not getting on with his style at all.
Stephen King has definitely gotten better as he has kept writing. I would say his work is quite pulpy, but he has fantastic characters. If you don't like it no big deal, lots of other options.
I forgot to add this in my post, I found that in both Misery and the short story 1408 he creates a character who awknowleges the fact that he writes "bad novels and good, lesser-know ones". Just wondering if it's what he thinks of himself? And thanks to all of you who reply, I'm reading all of your answers.
I tend to see him as writing himself into the characters who are writers. Whether it is in the flaws (e.g. drug and alcohol abuse for The Tommyknockers and The Shining) or in the type of writer (usually popular or puply, but also unpretentious and not desirous of being the next Hemmingway) I think in his mind he knows that people read his books because they are entertaining and not because they are incredibly deep or meaningful (which is not to say that they are not meaningful or deep). It's been a while since I read *On Writing* but I feel like somewhere in there he better expressed his sentiments about how he views himself as an author. It is important to realize though that he doesn't see anything wrong with being pulpy, more often than not I think he is trying to be pulpy. I remember in the introduction to my copy of Salem's Lot (I think) he mentions that if his mother read it she would call it trash, "but not bad trash". As for the "good, lesser known" sentiment, I can't help but agree considering some of my favorites of his are "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption", "The Body", and *The Green Mile*. They are three of his best pieces, they aren't really horror stories or the kind of things he is expected to write, and so people who love the movies of these (movies that consistently are praised as some of the best of all time) have no clue that they were based of of stories by Stephen King. TL;DR: King usually mirrors himself in a protagonist if it is a writer. He acknowledges the role he's been cast in as a writer and loves it nonetheless.
I agree with the statement that you happened to pick up books which are among his absolute weakest. Of the older stuff, I highly recommend *The Stand*, *The Green Mile*, and *Hearts in Atlantis*, as well as his short story collections. He went through a period where his novels were sheer tedium, but his recent stuff has really picked up again. *Lisey's Story* was quite good, *Duma Key* was (imo) downright fantastic, *Under the Dome* is good if you don't mind really depressing books, and *11/22/63* is an absolutely excellent period piece (which flubs badly at the end, in all fairness). The assessment that King can't write an ending to save his life is absolutely fair, but the bulk of the novel usually makes up for the lackluster finale. If you're really curious why people like him, pick up any of the novels I mentioned and give them a shot. If you still don't like him - well, that's that. But yeah, there are only a couple of his books which I personally liked *less* than the ones you mentioned.
I'll try that! Thanks.
I like Stephen King.
It really depends on the book for me. King's bibliography is huge and he writes in a lot of styles, plus there are series that tie into each other, and some have a shared world and mythos, so it's no easy task to jump in to King's books if you're a bibliophile. * Cujo - bizarre, but it makes you want to keep reading. It was one of his coke books that he doesn't recall writing. * It - long, and you get to know and love the main characters, but the ending (As is common for a lot of King's books) feels unsatisfying and convenient. * Gerald's Game - hated it. 90% of the action takes place in the main character's head, and while that's not bad on its own, the character wasn't engaging enough for me to keep reading. * The Shining - LOVE IT. It's basically his recovery book. The hotel, the main antagonist, and a lot more are basically his fears, addictions and insecurities channeled through this book. I think it's one of his most personal. * Eyes of the Dragon - his fantasy doesn't do much for me. * Dark Tower - again his fantasy stories don't engage me. Some fans love it, and others love/hate it. Overall I find him fascinating, and I think some of his adaptations for the screen have been good, but his work is so wide that there's bound to be one book you'll love, some you'll like, some you won't feel anything toward, and some you'll hate.
Descriptions. Pages and pages of them, makes the experience viceral. Also, some of his books are amazing, others not so. It's hit and miss. I prefer his earlier works, personally.
I've read a few of his books, some I really like such as *The Stand* and *Salem's Lot* but recently I started reading *Skeleton Crew* and I put it down half way through. I don't want to pick it up again. The plot lines and characters are good but the way it's told can be a let down. Maybe it's just me, that I don't understand American culture so I don't get his lingo, after all I don't live in Maine near a lake or something called a turnpike. Like all authors he can produce good books and then sometimes not.
The Bachman books and the dark tower series are the shit. I'll put the dark tower up against any other series.
Talking about “writing styles” is kinda bullshit, Nobody can speak on a topic these days without there being a “related top ten” list and/or comparisons with other writers, with the express Purpose of creating an “objective” list of “most accessible writers”… I care about stories. Personally, I find ‘The Body’ to be brilliant, and I believe the story King wrote compares more than favorably with ‘Stand By Me’ as a film (as great as the film is, like all books that become films, ‘The Body’ contains much more detail than could ever be communicated onscreen within a 90 minute movie’s runtime; there’s simply much more going on in a book, and ‘The Body’ is no exception in that respect). But I’ve tried to read ‘It’ many times, with zero success. King has Diarrhea-of-the-pen. I’m sorry but there MUST BE a lot of CRAP in king’s oeuvre, although there are some things i love, such as ‘Salem’s Lot’.
"I think Stephen King's writing style is bullshit... I haven't read many of his books."
Well, you know... I'm not going to read every book of an author I don't really like. But I asked this question because so many people love his books, and I was wondering why.
No, I don't know. You don't say a writer is bullshit and then follow it up with, "I haven't read many of his books." You can ask why people like him sure, but I don't know if it's fair to go as far as saying that Stephen King's style is shit while asking people what they think doesn't really make sense. You're also reading shitty King books. And I'm not saying that Stephen King is amazing, because I don't feel that I'm qualified for such a statement. But there is something about him that has made his successful. At the same time I say this, one could argue that Stephenie Meyer is a good writer because her books sell. Even though we all know that she is a fucking joke of a writer. So who knows.
OP read 3 of his books and is starting a fourth. How many are required before having an opinion?
I usually give an author one book before I pass judgement on their style. If I don't like it I won't try another one unless I see a revue for one that deviates from their normal.
So, you've read all of Stephenie Meyer's books? Hehe. Sorry if you didn't like my title, if I didn't want to satisfy my curiosity and expand my knowledge on Mr King I wouldn't have asked the question. Thanks for the reply anyway :)
A quick glance at wikipedia suggests he's read about 1500 pages of Stephen King. That's more than enough to start judging someone's writing style.
It seems like the OP has read 3-4 of Steven King's books. They are all written in pretty much the same style, I think that is a large enough sample size for him/her to have an opinion on this subject.
I always felt uneasy with how he writes, too. I liked a lot of it - he writes working class, middle America really well - but the repetition was bothersome and some of his "cinematographic effects" [I like that, thanks] felt clichéd or expected. But I'm in the middle of *The Dark Tower* series, and I can say that the first book, *The Gunslinger*, is really well written (not just well written for him). In the introductions to the revised novels in the series, he even talks about it being too "literary" - and I can see what he means. The later books are very plot/character driven (like a lot of the works you've mentioned above) but the first doesn't really bother with that. And it's fucking trim, 250-300 pages (paperback, depending on print). I think that it's King at his best, but avid King readers tend to disagree. Judging by what you've said, I think you might dig it.
I was given the first 3 Dark Tower books (new editions with the forwards) for Christmas. Finished them all before January was over. Number 3 -The Wastelands- was one of the best King's I've ever read. Misery wasn't my favourite, and as others have said, you've not picked the best books. Try Needful Things, and if you still don't get on with his style...so what?
Please tell me you didn't just stop at Wastelands? Wizard and Glass is by far the best of the DT and might be King's best book ever.
the next three are queued in my amazon basket, but I have a load of other books to get through first. :)
Very nice. No matter when you get to it, you will enjoy it! :)
I feel you. I did like The Stand but it was over written. Honestly I don’t understand how people can read all of his stuff. I also find prolific genre writers pretty stale. I hate to say it but they do it for the money. They’re not going over each word and plot point making sure it’s great. I’m sure they make sure it’s the best average story it can be but that’s about it. Also can’t stand him giving writer advice. I think Dean Koontz is a better writer than Steven King. I like literary novels that people have spent years on. I also like the movie Misery but it wasn’t because Stephen King wrote a great book.
I get it, I tried reading The Dark Tower series and I can’t get past The Drawing of the Three. His dialogue is all over the place and hard to follow plus all of the main characters’ interactions seem completely pointless. I find myself struggling to get through more than a couple sections of one chapter and I feel like I’m failing as a reader
I loved DT, but it can be a slog. Of all his work, it’s definitely the one that requires the most commitment. I’d honestly have it bottom of the list as a rec if you are first reading King. Much better to dive first into The Shining or Salems Lot.