Stephen King

Why do you guys hate Stephen King? He's not a great author, I know, but he tells an interesting story, and at the end of the day, isn't that an author's job?

What academy?

The short answer is that not everyone on Veeky Forums hates Stephen King. Yes, that is an author's job to some degree. I cannot speak for everyone here, but the reason you get the impression that many people here hate King likely has to do with his mainstream popularity. His books are easily consumed, widely read by the public, and not terribly respected by the academy. All three of these factors have caused a large and vocal portion of Veeky Forums (which tends to value arcane, avant garde, or otherwise "difficult" books) to harbor a distaste for King. This is just a pet theory of mine, but I suspect some of the contempt for King also stems from how prolific of a writer he is. He has published so much work that each novel seems somehow "cheap," exacerbating the general sense of "availability" of his books. Compare this to the cults of adoration around writers like Salinger, who wrote much less, or around DFW, who dramatically killed himself before finishing his last work. King, on the other hand, is still a very active writer, publishing a new book every couple years. In this sense, I think some amount of artistic scarcity is important to court Veeky Forums's respect.

Sorry, I found a typo in my post and made a mess of deleting it. I mean the academy in the general sense, as in the academic community.

I actually like him. My friends and I talked about him yesterday, I love the idea of his "mythology".

That a story holds your attention is a low bar in regular fiction much less literature.

sirs if you like king then please do the needful

I know this isn't a valid argument, but considering I don't like any of the movies based on his books (with the exception of The Shining), then I can't find a reason to read any of his work when instead I could be reading something better.

Veeky Forums is just Veeky Forums, a small community on the internet with a mostly elitist taste in books. A lot of people love Stephen King.

Don't worry though, soon enough the Pewdiepie fans will be here and Stephen King will be right up their alley.

I red the Tommyknockers at tender age of 14 and it is one of great factors for my trust issues. Never picking up over 400 page book by King again.

Nobody hates Stephen King here. He's the most Veeky Forums author ever.

I don't hate Stephen King, but I'd much rather spend my time reading authors that seem, to me, less banal and that have more to say.

I don't like his gross-out-the-reader style. His dialogue is also artificial.

The toy soldiers one was awesome, mini-nuke goes off in an apartment

>His dialogue is also artificial.
This. It's even more awkward when you get to hear it in movies.

I do sort of like him though. He's got interesting ideas and is good at putting them on paper most of the time, but I don't feel like there's much that stays with you after you finish reading.

There are parts of his books where you can tell he stopped giving a shit about the plot and decided to write whatever was on his mind. There's a part in "Cell" where they talk about how great gun control is for about a chapter and then proceed to use weapons they looted to protect themselves and genocide the infected. It's less noticeable in some of his other books but it's one of the biggest problems that I have with his work. The other is that some of the antagonists are cartoon villains without very much reasoning other than "this is the way it has to be" or being demons.

I don't hate him and have read a couple of his books in the past. The main gripe is that he is too banal. It's pulp literature for old time news stands.

A book that I really liked was Pet Sematary.
This book deals with good themes like death, god, ressurection. It made think for about 1 week. Wich is good, I mean, for a best-sellers.
But Jerusalem's Lot sucks. He tried to emulate Dracula, but it didnt' work.

made me*

There are demonically prolific writers Veeky Forums respects and adores. Balzac?

Is it the aura of cheapness, a reputation, or real cheapness that leads Veeky Forums to disavow King? If we look at some of the other most prolific writers, we find names like Nora Roberts, L. Ron Hubbard and R. L. Stine. I don't think anyone would be faulted for calling their work cheap.

That said, The Jaunt really made me think.

>Great begining
>Fill
>Fill
>Fill
>Shitty ending

It's time to float.

>but he tells an interesting story

No he doesn't. He spends hundred of pages bloating his novels with irrelevant episodes and then ends with something embarrassingly anti-climactic.

I like him just fine. Nothing wrong with breezy beach reads. Not everyone can be William Gass. So what?

He wrote some GOAT short stories but now he's a bit of a has-been.

I'm with this guy.

King's early stuff and his short stuff is the best.

For me, he cleared the shark when he wrote himself into The Dark Tower, but I'll still read his stuff if it catches my eye.

Veeky Forums doesn't like pulp or genre fiction writers in general

BEING TRAINED TO READ STEPHEN KING

>reading is not about being captivated
ooooh look at this guy, he's so high brow!

I read lots of diverse authors and overall enjoy Stephen King. I have the same complaints that everyone else has, mainly his need for a ruthless editor, but his work is enjoyable. His short story collections and novellas are generally quite good and entertaining.

I just like that he tackles interesting concepts. Like, Under the Dome. What would happen if a giant glass dome fell over a small town.

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to mention his shitty endings.

His short stories and Bachman books are fucking legit though. Whenever he gives himself a limited canvas and can't just bail out with a fucking deus ex machina he's great. Misery is King at his most limited in terms of a novel (two characters in one house), but that's what he needs. Fucking focus.

He's great to read in between hard stuff to give your brain a rest. His stories are mostly highly interesting, thrilling and easy to read. He won't really expand your horizons, but he's superb for simple entertainment

The truth has been spoken

I'll just leave this here...

He's good only when you haven't been exposed to other things.

Once you've found someone who can really focus on a plot and not write some trash like The Dome or Wizard and Glass you don't want to go back.

Additionally, his personal politics are rubbish.

>Once you've found someone who can really focus on a plot
King will be the first to say he doesn't believe in plotting a story out. His meandering, exploratory approach results in bloated books and obvious feeling around, but it can also be interesting in itself. I enjoy reading this style of writing and also tend to write in a similar elliptical, tangential style. 11/22/63, From A Buick 8, Duma Key, and It are comfy reads for me because of the digressive writing. But many of the Dark Tower books, The Dome, and The Stand (which I still enjoy) are not so successful because King is astray much of the time and you are slogging through with him.

He really needs an editor with a spine. Somehow who can crop hundreds of pages and not be afraid of killing the golden goose.

As mentioned by others, he is at his best when constrained to a short story, novella, or limited characters.

His best books are the stand, 11/22/63, the shining, Salem's lot and hearts in Atlantis. His worst is Tommyknockers, hands down. Under the dome sucks too and so does Desperation. I have a soft spot for lisey's story!

King is way too mainstream for lit.

I can't hate a guy I never met but Cujo was the first "adult" book I ever read, and eve though it's been years I bet I'd get some small enjoyment out of The Regulators if I read it now

>The Regulators
Desperation was 100x better.

>He's not a great author, I know,
>I need validation from Veeky Forums anons

You're really a groveling idiot, you know that?

i didn't know stephen king had muskkels

>I know this isn't a valid argument, but considering I don't like any of the movies based on his books (with the exception of The Shining), then I can't find a reason to read any of his work when instead I could be reading something better.

Wtf? The movie adaptations blow ass in comparison to his books.

King is the perfect example of a writer ruined by success. He hasn't written much of anything good since the mid-80s mainly because:

1. He was such a best seller no editor would reign him in when he needed it.
2. He wasn't hungry anymore. It seems a lot of his creative energy was fueled by the impoverished and marginal lifestyle he had as a kid up until his early 30s. Yeah, he still evokes it quite often, but it's not *in* him anymore.
3. He got self-important as fuck both in his writing and ego. Yeah, self-importance is good fuel for some writers, but for him it just makes him banal and pompous as hell.
4. He sticks with a certain set of formulas now, mostly revolving around meandering ham-fisted novels on dwelling on clear cut good and evil. You read his early short stories and you can tell he had quite a bit of range and subtlety that he is no longer willing and or able to explore anymore.

He's never been much of an aesthetic or complex writer, but back in the day he could certainly write a damn good evocative little yarn of a story