Why do people say he is a hack?

What books are examples for disturbing psychopath prose? Except the scenes in Cujo that are basically stream of a dog's consciousness

>He matches many classic writer criteria
Is that you /mu/? Leave me alone.

I enjoyed Misery.

>I enjoyed Misery.
Yes, Misery was fun

he really packs a lot in. overindulgence is basically his forte in his long novels. its fine when its in "IT", but its terrible in something like "Insomnia" or "needful things". he and robert jordan are akin in saying several pages where only two or three lines mattered. the exposition is good, but it becomes annoying if your impatient

There's one specific quirk I really like about his writing:

He knows how to use weirdly tiny details to capture an atmosphere. I can't cite examples because it's been a couple years since I read any Stephen King, but I remember the way he'll highlight a weirdly specific thing or two about a scene, like a brand name or type of object, and you'll just understand what he's talking about perfectly. Especially in moments of crisis or trauma, he makes them feel more human by bringing out details like that. It resonates with me because I'm the same way, when I'm under stress I'll latch on to weird little details that I wouldn't notice otherwise.

A lot of things about his writing are shit, he tries way too hard to make the Dark Tower feel epic and dramatic and it can feel a little cringey as a result, and when I reread some of his works containing guns after becoming a /k/omrade I almost cried in shame and disappointment. But that one technique he does superbly well. I don't think I explained it very well, anyone else know what I'm talking about?

Wasn't he ungodly fucked up on coke when he wrote Cujo?

>Hating King is for charlatans.

Attached: 1483026670695.jpg (1183x1200, 835K)

Makes me wonder how the world will king when he’s referred to as a classic writer

Exactly

He's a hack because he crashed and got brain damage.

He's a bad screenwriter who thinks he's a great novelist.

Everybody thinks he's great because more artistically talented people took his work and turned them into good films.

The Green Mile was a better as a film by Frank Darabont than it was a book by Stephen king

Because he's not good enough/his work isn't old enough to be considered legendary and he's not so shit that he can be easily discarded. He's in a weird middle area that some of these faggots think they will ascend once the finally write their book.

King is not a bad writer. That is, he could be good. He publishes too much, and would have been better off if he held himself to a higher standard. He should've let his stuff sit on the work desk a lot longer. Further, his novels are bloated, and he is terrible at writing endings.

A few reasons:

- he is not a very good prose stylist
- he isn't very thematically interesting
- his novels tend to be very self indulgent with a great deal of superfluous material
-structurally he is very messy
- he is prone to naked sentimentality
- his characters and skill in characterizing them is only average

that said I think he's a competent author and worth reading for very young people and those who just want to relax. his short fiction is far superior to his novels.

I loved On Writing, although I still haven't read any of his novels.

Is IT a good one to start with?

I have read everything he's published besides some of his non-fiction. He's my favorite author. I cannot fucking wait for The Outsider.
>U don't like it? Fite me fgt.

Attached: 1520557736438.jpg (500x347, 43K)