Holy fuck nobody ever told me how long this book is

Just wait until you reach the child orgy.

>people who don't like my shitty favorites are tryhards and pretentious
When the fuck did reddit take over? Holy fuck

I like King as a storyteller. But god damn, when he inserts his own authorial voice into the narrative instead of telling from the perspective of the characters, it gets fucking annoying as shit, and he literally does this all the time in every fucking book. Too bad he is so rich and powerful that he can just tell his editors to fuck off. His books would be much better if he was put on a tighter leash

>people who like what i don't like are like 12 year olds and should grow up
That's what makes you pretentious and tryhard you tryhard, pretentious faggot. Now go read some kafka and pretend like you're smart.

>can't come up with any creative insults or anything intelligent to say
>implies he's not 12
Get the fuck off this board pussy, you have shit taste. Do you really go around in life believing that anyone who's intelligent or enjoys quality literature is a tryhard and pretentious? Have you ever thought that maybe you're just a brainlet? How pathetic.

His prose is also incredibly cringe at times. There's more better word to describe by body's reaction to his clunky wording and his childish """voice""". He's good for one thing: coming up with somewhat novel ideas for talented people to make into movies.

No, is right. I was the same way too when I was like 14 and I would insist that all of his non-horror books were quality literature. But I grew out of it when I got older and stopped reading trashy schlock

I also tried to read it to get hype for a movie but fuck that.
>first chapter is GAY GAY FAGGOT GAY HOMO FRUITY BOY FAG FAGET GAY BUTT BOY FAG
>second chapter is KIKE JEW SCHLOMO JEW KIKE SCHNOZ KIKE JEW
>third chapter is RAPE ABUSE DUMB MEN WOMYN STRONG DRUNK MEN WIFEBEATING
>and now, time for obligatory King's self-insert writer character

His literary attempts are pathetically bad, but his older novels are pretty good pulp. He's not a great writer, but he's definitely among the best of the pulpy, release-as-many-books-as-possible group of writers you can find in the Walmart book section.

The beginning is definitely the weakest part.

I think the book really only gets started with it's actual plot and characters about 200 pages in.

The opening goes into way too much detail for something they could have spent like 10 pages on about the main characters reading newspaper articles or something and realizing it is coming back.

I still love the novel, but any competent editor could easily have cut 3 or 400 pages out of it and not changed the story at all.

>i'm intelligent because i enjoy what someone told me is "quality" literature
No, you're dumb as fuck because you treat opinions like facts. People like what they like.

>trashy schlock
Some people like schlock. People a lot smarter and more successful than you are.

>He's not a great writer

You know....

I admit he's no Joyce or anything, but i guarantee he's a 10x better writer than anyone in the thread.

Check your inadequacy

C H I L D
G A N G B A N G

>people like what they liked, but you only like what people told you to like
What a dumb fucking argument. I guarantee I've read more King than you, he was my favorite when I was a child, but I've read many authors since then that are (in my opinion, since everyone likes to get triggered in here like reddit) much better. There's nothing wrong with pulpy trash, but stop trying to pretend he's better than he is because it hurts your feelings when people point out that he's shit. I mean shit, I read one of his novels last year and it was fun and all that (ending, of course, was shittier than I could have imagined), but it's not literature. It's a movie you can read.

This.
This is exactly what happens with King's books. He spends a lot of time in certain things that some people would agree are not necessary at all. The Stand, for example, was cut inicially by editors. Years later they released the "full version", and that was because King stopped actually caring about the editors themselves and got one that didn't care about the way he wrote about everything, even when it was absolutely innecessary. I honestly don't mind, I think it gives a personal touch to his books, but it's true that it's kind of hard to get into some of his books because of this, specially if you're not a fan of his work from the start.

shut the fuck up fag. no one cares what you do or do not like. and it doesn't make you smart to trash popular books.

What is it with King fans and posts like this? Fans of other pop-lit authors can admit that what they like might not be great literature but they're understanding and, when hearing their author get criticized, don't get as upset and defensive as King fans. They never try to argue for King's merits with genuine evidence and instead resort to name calling. If you bring up genuine faults and criticisms with his work, then you're just a pretentious pseud who wants every book to be Ulysses.

It must have something to do with King's incredibly shallow moralizing. You get the sense in his books that everyone who isn't a bland good guy like his protagonists is a horrible person. His main villains are cartoonishly evil, and the minor ones tend to be just plain unpleasant with no redeeming features. In The Stand, the human race is literally divided into good and evil, and any ambiguity that may have arisen from the characters is rendered pointless when King straight up kills all the evil people for the betterment of humanity.

There's a part in IT when one of the protagonists is taking a writing course, and his "genre crap" is scolded by the teacher who instead praises the incomprehensible pretentious work of other students. I don't know if King is genuinely upset at a former writing teacher (if so, you'd think he'd not worry about an incident like that in the past when he's now made tons of money and awards), but to the reader who enjoys attacks like that, this just seems like another reinforcement of their incredibly simplistic views on literature.

It's not bad that King writes entertainment for plebs. Plenty of great writers wrote accessible stories for the masses, such as Dickens or Tolstoy. But it is bad when your work is thematically and morally oversimplified. I don't think you're automatically a horrible person if you're a fan of King's work, but if you write off actual literature as "pretentious shit for snobs," then you're genuinely missing out not just on aesthetic pleasure, but more complex and insightful views on the world and life.

>he's better than someone who literally doesn't write
Wow, congrats Mr. King, you're officially above all criticism now!!! XD

>literally doesn't write

nigger what?

>getting this butthurt
This is how I know reddit is here. It's so typical to call someone criticizing a trashy pulp writer pretentious, or to claim he's trying to act smart. Such a sad argument that has only recently started becoming popular on here. I wish you'd go back.

When the basis of your opinion is "i read only sophisticated books for sophisticated individuals like myself" then your opinion is the absolute height of pretentiousness. You get extra pretentious points when you claim your subjective opinion is objective truth that should be practiced by everyone.

I don't write novels, but I read enough of them to know when something is low-quality, edgelord, empty pulp written to be adapted.

I've stated multiple times that I've read, and enjoyed, plenty of King's novels. It's not my fault you're reading comprehension is subpar. Unlike you, I can read and enjoy pulp and still understand what I'm reading has little to no literary merit. Watching Bones is fine, and it can even be fun sometimes, in an empty sort of way, but claiming it is quality television is obnoxiously autistic.

Not to say he's above criticism, there's plenty of things wrong with IT and king in general, but I just get irritated when I constantly see him getting bashed as a bad writer. I've seen the shit Veeky Forums posts in critiques, nobody here gots cause to call anyone else a bad writer. Seriously, take a step back and analyze the situation before you start throwing that term around.

Personally I feel inspired by king, as no he's not the greatest writer out there, but through dedication, hard work, persistence, narcotics, and creativity he was still able to become highly successful.

yeah all those 1000+ page pulp novels written just to be adapted. what a genius you are for figuring out King's grand plan mission objective. Bravo!

>literary merit
Which is subjective. Which is why you have a shit opinion. If you enjoyed it that should be all the merit that's needed.

Yes, successful the same way Patterson, Cussler, Green, and Brown are successful. I've clarified many times now that I can read and enjoy him at times, but also admit he's not very good. The fact that people get so triggered (to the point of willfully misinterpreting what other people say to try and create an argument, since they don't actually have one) is fascinating to me.

you're probably fascinated by black dicks too. Just my guess

Do you really rank him highly? Even just counting American authors, do you honestly think he's that good?

Why would you reveal yourself as a brainlet, instead of coming up with a real reason he's good? Sales isn't a good enough reason, Twilight sold well, as did Harry Potter. Marketing matters more than quality, and you know it.

>honestly think he's that good

What does "Good" have to do with anything? Too subjective in the first place, and there's plenty of people who hate the most renown authors out there like faulkner, or joyce, or hemingway. So I don't really even know what you mean by good.

I like some of his books, and he's a huge success. Thats about all you can say.

I also highly enjoy black dicks.

I rank him highly in the pantheon of American horror writers, yes.

I don't like you.

There's renowned authors that I recognize as incredibly talented who just don't do it for me, and I can understand that. That's what I mean by good. Talented. You should be able to tell when something is of high quality, even if it doesn't connect with you. This "quality is all Subjective" meme is just a way for people to defend their pulpy favorites without having to come up with an intelligent way to defend them.

>Sales isn't a good enough reason

Sure it is. You don't get sales without enough people out there buying the books and thinking he's good, at least.

>Marketing matters more than quality, and you know it.

Yeah, aside from quality being subjective, but even if all his success is from marketing, that still counts. That's the world we live in. Getting lucky still counts. Cheating still counts. etc.

Not that i think that's really all there is to his success, but even if it was, so what?

well well aren't you so fucking enlightened. fucking faggot critic, you will NEVER in your life produce anything of value even close to Twilight. your only talent is to vomit out your useless fucking opinions and you seem proud of this fact. just a gutless pretentious hack at its finest. your edgelord beliefs about all the "literature" you deem to be worthy of your below average IQ is all you got going for you kid, and don't think for a second that your skull is filled with anything but shit

>pointing out that opinions are subjective is a meme
And you call other people brainlets?

>you will NEVER in your life produce anything of value even close to Twilight

That's kind of my irritation with it. Yeah, twilight sucks, but it's still about 100x more sophisticated than 99% of it's critics are capable of producing.

Same thing with king. I love to hear people argue about his quality or talent, when the best they've ever produced is a 1.5 page rape fantasy about a cartoon.

I thought this was a literature board. When did all the discussion become about who gets more triggered? You're an embarrassment.

Proving my point that people here are so retarded they misinterpret arguments just to find a way to be right. So fucking pathetic. Is anyone here an adult an able to explain to me why, besides sales, Stephen King isn't a hack?

motherfucking worm. I bet you have a smug smirk on your face every time you post. don't you? you'll never be more than a coward critic. dunning-kruger pseudo-intellectual shit-eater

Is it really that ridiculous to not trust or agree with the popular opinion? I mean, look at the Amazon best selling list right now and tell me you'd read any of those novels. Look at Film and Television. I guess I'm just not the type of person who swoons at sales numbers. Especially when they're inflated, considering he's such a big name, has a ton of move adaptation, and is one of the only authors sold at every grocery store in the country.

He's good at setting up atmosphere (and then turning that atmosphere on it's head when needed, the parts of Salem's Lot where he's describing the townfolk come to mind.) and he can develop characters and write character dialogue better than anyone writing in the genre.

>i'm a contrarian
Oh, okay.
What happened to thinking for yourself? Why do you let the public opinion dictate what you can like?

Pathetic. Cry harder or come up with a real argument faggot

It has nothing to do with that. I'd rather read widely, as much as possible, and decide on my own - from my own experience - which authors are good. I'm saying King is one I don't think is very good. There are authors I respect and think have a lot of talent, but don't like. How are the people here so terrible at arguments? It's like arguing with a dumb woman, instead of making any real points you create some strawman to throw copy-paste Veeky Forums insults and talking points at.

>copy-paste Veeky Forums insults and talking points at.
Call us all brainlets and tell us all how we're 12 and don't know what real literature is again.

so do you think your worthless opinions on authors count as arguments now? You seem to think that ou not liking Stephen King makes you some philosophical master mind. ahaha this sub 80 IQ fuckboy nobody is hilarious

I've never said or implied anything like that. I'm practically begging someone to come back at me with some good discussion, but I've only seen posts like yours.

>Is it really that ridiculous to not trust or agree with the popular opinion?

I dunno, trust or don't agree with it all you want, doesn't really change what we're talking about.

>I mean, look at the Amazon best selling list right now and tell me you'd read any of those novels

what does it matter if i've read it? If enough other people have, and they genuinly enjoy it, then whatever. I'm happy for the author and the people reading it.

I never said you didn't know what real literature is, but you certainly act 12. I'd love to be wrong about that, though. Do you have anything intelligent to say or are you just going to join in with the butthurt autists sperging out with insults and not being able to create even one intelligent argument?

If you aren't reading a French novel about a florist that's a metaphor for capitalist living written by an author that you'd never identify or relate to in real life you're a pleb.

I'm happy for them, too, and never said anyone should stop reading what they enjoy. I don't enjoy it, though, and you're telling me that's not okay. It's just interesting to me that having any kind of opinion that's different is immediately interpreted as someone trying to sound smart. It says a lot about the state of this board, honestly.

So you come over from reddit to a board about literature, and your opinion is that people who enjoy literature are pretentious. That's... actually keep going this is good copypasta bait for the future.

>never said anyone should stop reading what they enjoy.
>but I've grown up now and so should you.

You didn't even start with the "enjoy what you want lol" shit until people started telling you that your opinions weren't facts.

>i take the name of the board literally
If your definition of literature extends beyond anything more than a "written body of work" then you are pretentious.
No better than the "flick, movie, film" faggots of /tv/.

>reading the gangbang scene as a 12 year old

another reddit insult? how thought provoking. you really seem like the kind of cunt who doesn't even actually enjoy literature. no, you only enjoy telling everyone how much you enjoy real literature. fucking moron.

Except I've said over and over that I've read and enjoyed his work, as well as other pulpy shit, in the past. Even recently, in fact. What I meant by grow up (if this isn't obvious you're dumber than I thought) is that at some point you have to admit he's not as good as reddit (and apparently lit now) makes him out to be. And yes, I do think it's mature to be able to read low-quality novels, understand what they are, and still be able to enjoy them, because I'm not so triggered by others opinions that I take it personally when someone points out that what I like isn't exactly a masterpiece. Grow up.

>state multiple times I enjoy King and also think he's a hack
>repeatedly misinterpreted by brainlets
Keep coming with the standard insults, I'm starting to think you're trolling, to be honest. What have you read this year? I'm genuinely interested.

Never read any King, which of his earlier works should I try out? I know his current stuff is generic schlock, and I'm familiar with the adapted versions of his weird 90's period of producing pure garbage that's unintentionally hilarious, but I'd like to believe there was something motivating his career at some point.

christine is enjoyable

Salem's Lot and the Running Man are two of my faves.

And you keep projecting. Nobody said he was "the greatest ever", and yet you keep implying it over and over again. Everybody knows what they're gonna get with a King book. Your parroted opinions aren't original and aren't surprising anybody.

When did I say anyone thought he was the greatest ever? You're masterful when it comes to misinterpreting things so you can twist the discussion in a way that makes it easy for you to argue. Like a woman, kind of. My points are clear, whether or not you understand them, and yet nobody responds to what I actually say, just to the strawman they've set up to knock down with debatable logic. The point is that you're triggered. How and why is hard to say, but every response I've gotten was addressed before they posted it, but then changed around to fit some shitty narrative you guys have created in order to keep the circlejerk going. Bravo.

>doesn't know what exaggeration is
The only people talking about where King stands in the halls of literary greatness are you pretentious faggots. Everybody else is just saying they like the guy's work. Hell most of us have even criticized him as well. But keep arguing in circles though. You might end up actually winning the argument nobody else is participating in.

>he's so much of a pleb that even Kafka seems hard to him

From my limited experience in talking to King fans, it seems like they actually just get insanely triggered at any criticism of him and sperg out without giving any real reason. So don't play high horse as if being a butthurt brainlet is honorable or some shit. I clearly stated my side in as many dumbed down ways as I could think of, and was still misinterpreted. I still haven't received one well thought out response.

>hurr durr he insulted it so he doesn't understand it
It's just boring shit written and read by boring faggots. Nothing hard about it.

And you're assblasted that nobody is taking your pretentious ass seriously. Go find another thread to blend into with your hivemind opinions about smart literature.

And keep complaining about people using Veeky Forums insults and talking points while you call people butthurt brainlets like the hypocritical, pretentious, and tryhard faggot you are.

When you understand something dense, it's not boring anymore. One of the best ways to catch a brainlet red-handed is to look out for these types of comments. When someone calls it boring, and that's their only criticism, they're obviously idiotic or 12.

>he's legitimately unable to say anything intelligent even when given the chance over and over
Fuckin lol

Call me a brainlet and a redditor after you complain about Veeky Forums insults again. I enjoy reading intelligent posts like that.

>still nothing of value stated
The difference is that it's an empty insult when you don't understand what pretentious means. You're verifiably unintelligent, so...

I use the book definition.
Like when you attach a greater importance to yourself for liking something and shtting on something else. That's pretentious.
Now here's where you go
>lol what are you 12 you brainlet

So, if I'm understanding correctly, someone saying that a writer is pulpy genre fiction, but that he can enjoy it while understanding that, is somehow pretentious? That seems like an easy way to ignore any opinion that differs from yours. I'm curious what you'll say next, now.

That's not what you said at first. You literally said
"he was my favorite when I was 12, but I grew out if it and so should you". Nothing about enjoying pulpy anything. Just a pretentious "what're you doing liking this shit" comment from a pretentious faggot pretending to be smart. You didn't start with the "i like him though" shit until I pointed out that your parroted opinions weren't facts. But to be fair, pointing out the opinions thing is a surefire way to get most of you hipsters to start backpeddling.

I stand by the fact that he was once my favorite author, but I grew up and realized he's not very good. I don't understand how the point of that isn't evident. Those are not contradictions, but I can see why you'd want them to be, considering it seems to be your only point.

>not liking an author and wanting a real discussion from someone who does us being a part of the hivemind
Okay then. Good work, friend.

>fucking tryhard
Stephen King has an incredibly affected prose style, as much as you're trying to market all the haters as "pretentious", there is more pretense, in the actual sense of the word, in a Stephen King novel than what you would consider traditionally "literary". I'll grant you this: DFW is one of the only other writers discussed on here regularly that is even close to King's level of affected, pretentious, and smug style of writing.

He is only popular because he was on advertisement back then.

He was only popular because he wore jncos

Also, this post reads like it's on r/books, and I don't mean that in the usual "You need to go back." memeing. If you want to discuss Orson Scott Card, Stephen King and Douglas Adams, you could go there and not get any of the pushback of Veeky Forums. You know Veeky Forums loves to attack these kinds of authors, why do you come here and then complain when your taste is lower than the mean and instead of reasoning you just throw around pretentious? I just don't even understand why you would waste your own time and ours.

Wow this thread is absolutely autistic.

>quality being subjective
Yep. No wonder practically everything is shit these days.

I was under the impression that affective, pretensive prose is the height of literary achievement and that a more direct and unaffected prose was the hallmark of genre fiction (like what King makes)?

So which is it?

That would be your perspective, yes. Very good.

Ok, I'm done with Veeky Forums for the day.

>taste is lower
Totally not pretentious. Also you're not the arbiter of Veeky Forums. I know you faggots like to treat this website as a "i'm better than you" pissing contest, but not everybody is an elitist hipster.

Not gonna explain just gonna backpeddle out.
Very smart of you.