Stephen King !!

[Unaboner3000]

I have all of King's books. I think he will be regarded as one of the greatest 20th century authors. The Stand, IT, and his Dark Tower books are classics and I wouldn't be surprised to see them in a college Literature class as required readings.

The problem with making movies based on his works is they just don't translate to film at all. The genius of his writing is how indepth he gets into the thoughts and into the past of the characters. You can only do SO much character developement in a 2 hour film. And King's books deal with alot of wierd, fantastical scenes that can't be captured on film (Clive Barker is similar in this repect).

Of his 50 or 60 novels, I can only think of two that made good movies, Misery and The Green Mile. That was because they were relatively short books in terms of King (400 pages or so), and dealt with very few characters, and in the case of The Green Mile you really didn't have to develope the Coffey character. (We never know his past or anything about him). Misery the movie only works with an amazing performance by Kathy Bates, and The Green Mile only works because the director took over 3 hours (which is needed) to tell the story right.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by Unaboner3000
I have all of King's books. I think he will be regarded as one of the greatest 20th century authors. The Stand, IT, and his Dark Tower books are classics and I wouldn't be surprised to see them in a college Literature class as required readings.

The problem with making movies based on his works is they just don't translate to film at all. The genius of his writing is how indepth he gets into the thoughts and into the past of the characters. You can only do SO much character developement in a 2 hour film. And King's books deal with alot of wierd, fantastical scenes that can't be captured on film (Clive Barker is similar in this repect).

Of his 50 or 60 novels, I can only think of two that made good movies, Misery and The Green Mile. That was because they were relatively short books in terms of King (400 pages or so), and dealt with very few characters, and in the case of The Green Mile you really didn't have to develope the Coffey character. (We never know his past or anything about him). Misery the movie only works with an amazing performance by Kathy Bates, and The Green Mile only works because the director took over 3 hours (which is needed) to tell the story right.

he will be seen as the greatest seller .... not one of the greatest writers.
he's not that great of a writer.

[Unaboner3000]

he will be seen as the greatest seller .... not one of the greatest writers.

Well, certainly something can be said for selling more books than anyone. But I agree, that doesn't qualify him to be considered as one the greatest writers. I think he qualifies based on his writing. He seems to be one of those authors you either love or hate. Some just hate his writing style. He's longwinded, very detailed, and sometimes tries to be over-literary. To some people (myself) this is great. To others (girlfriend) he is not the quick and easy read that they are after.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by Unaboner3000
Well, certainly something can be said for selling more books than anyone. But I agree, that doesn't qualify him to be considered as one the greatest writers. I think he qualifies based on his writing. He seems to be one of those authors you either love or hate. Some just hate his writing style. He's longwinded, very detailed, and sometimes tries to be over-literary. To some people (myself) this is great. To others (girlfriend) he is not the quick and easy read that they are after.

if you ever end up taking a university level english course ... trust me - he isnt mentioned as a 'Great' writer ..

just a very successful one. He writes for the masses - he is easy to read- accessable - nothing too difficult or challenging ...


he is a 'best seller' not a master.

i'm not being a snob - just relaying some facts ..

I'm a fan of modern classics ..

Graham Greene, Summerset Maughan, D.H Laurence, Daphne Du Maurier, Charles Dickens, etc ...

those arent even the masters and no one would dare mention Kings name in the same sentance as them ..

[Unaboner3000]

He writes for the masses

To some degree, but not to the degree Danielle Steele, Tom Clancy, or Dean Koontz do. At least he doesn't recycle the same story over and over and over again. As far as selling millions of books, he shouldn't be viewed as a poor writer because of this. And he does write what he wants to write and not necessarily what readers want him to write.

Recent examples would be The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and Hearts in Atlantis, which certainly were out of the norm from his usual stuff. He wrote a non-fction book about writing called On Writing (obviously knowing it wouldn't be a bestseller). And King took 30 years to write all seven Dark Tower books, despite the bitching and moaning of fans.

King kind of retired after Dark Tower 7 but continues to write for fun, what he wants to write, when he wants to write, no deadlines, and he will only submit works for publishing if he feels they are of good quality. He just published a book about the Red Sox season last year, non-fiction (Maybe some New Englanders will buy it, but I won't). He recently announced he has written a new fiction novel (a crime novel) that he will give to publishers this year, likely in stores next year.

In this respect he quite unusual for a popular writer.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by Unaboner3000
At least he doesn't recycle the same story over and over and over again.

you sure about that?



anyway I think he overdoes it, I don't need to know every single detail about a character.

[The_Return]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
you sure about that?
.

I was thinking the same thing

Congrats on 4k posts Austin, by the way:)

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by The_Return
I was thinking the same thing

Congrats on 4k posts Austin, by the way:)

thanks I didn't even notice it

[bloodrayne]

Originally posted by Unaboner3000
The problem with making movies based on his works is they just don't translate to film at all. The genius of his writing is how indepth he gets into the thoughts and into the past of the characters. You can only do SO much character developement in a 2 hour film. And King's books deal with alot of wierd, fantastical scenes that can't be captured on film (Clive Barker is similar in this repect).

That's why the creatures at the end of IT and Graveyard Shift ended up sucking so bad...Some things are best left up to the imagination...Our minds can produce much more horrifying creatures than an FX crew can...Putting some of these things on screen, kills a lot of what they are supposed to be, and causes them to be a huge letdown when given real, physical form...

You know why kids are so afraid of the 'Boogeyman'?...Because they have never SEEN it...So, their imaginations run wild with the most hideous things they can perceive of (and of course, some things frighten people more than other things do...So, it's a 'personal fright'...Customized for maximum effect for each individual person)...Man's strongest fear is fear of the unknown...

King relies heavily on the imagination of the reader to make his stories good...That's why he feeds so much into the reader's mind...And...That's why his books (and really, ALL books) are SO much better than the movies...

[urgeok]

Originally posted by bloodrayne
You know why kids are so afraid of the 'Boogeyman'?...Because they have never SEEN it

i've seen the boogyman, and he terrifies me !