Stephen King at his worst

[virus five]

My least faves were "Gerald's Game" and "Langoliers".

One thing to remember about King is that he creates great characters, and has a great ability to make them realistic. At times, his horror is more about putting his characters to the test. "Delores Claiborne", "The Body" (Stand By Me) and "Misery" are less about horror monsters, but more about putting realistic characters in tense situations.

When King started doing this more, I think he lost a lot of "hardcore horror" fans. But honestly, how many books about vampires and werewolves can a person write before being accused of writing the same book over and over?

Strangely enough, some of his best films have been made from these works. It seems that this style lends itself better to the screen than his "monster faire". Even after taking all of the supernatural elements out of "Hearts in Atlantis", at the core is a compelling story. The novel "Delores Claiborne" lost me, but I was able to see what King was getting at when I saw it on the screen.

Films like "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile" have received top critical acclaim. Deservedly, if you ask me. He's created characters that we can care about, so we want to know what happens to them. We care what happens to them. And that is the basis of keeping and reader/viewer interested in a story.

I am by no means King's biggest fan, but let's face it: King is on top of the book market. There is no writer more prolific and widely read, so it's easy to knock him.

[I,ZOMBIE]

it's all his worse.

[sweet4dnb]

His books are way too boring errr slow.

I tried to start reading Tommy Knockers once.. and the damn lady was digging for ten pages and her stupid dog was barking... I couldnt take it.
Haven't touched one of his books since then. As much as I'd be open to giving him a second chance.. there is no way.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by virus five
I am by no means King's biggest fan, but let's face it: King is on top of the book market. There is no writer more prolific and widely read, so it's easy to knock him.

its easy to knock him if you prefer better writing.
He is a mass producer ... appealing to the lowest common denominator .. thats why he's so widely read.
The same reason why Survivors was so popular ...
Thats why Titanic was so popular.

not everyone appreciates this kind of formulatic writing ... and those are the ones that knock him ...

For me his early books are classics...The Shining and Salem Lot and The Stand, but he just kept writing on and on and there is a real steady decline...to the point where he's writing huge books that could and should be half the size. This is a shame as it detracts from his great early work. Anyone else ever noticed how, in alot of his books, he kills the main character's (usually a writer) wife off early on and then replaces her with some young bimbo. Firestarter was the creepiest of all, where he killed off the wife and then had the guy run off with the daughter...!!!

[jenna26]

Originally posted by virus five


One thing to remember about King is that he creates great characters, and has a great ability to make them realistic. At times, his horror is more about putting his characters to the test. "Delores Claiborne", "The Body" (Stand By Me) and "Misery" are less about horror monsters, but more about putting realistic characters in tense situations.

That is why I like King so much I think. His characters are, in general, much more interesting, complex and realistic then most other popular writer's. No, I don't believe he is a great writer. He does have great ideas though and his characters almost jump off the page. I read Koontz, for instance, but his characters do not have the same depth. They are all romanticized to the point of absurdity. And King has never fallen into that trap.

But, as much as I appreciate King, he is responsible for some complete messes. The worst of the worst, in my opinion:

1. Dreamcatcher (started out good, then it just went downhill fast.)
2. Christine
3. From A Buick 8
4. The Tommyknockers
5. Gerald's Game

[urgeok]

Originally posted by jenna26
That is why I like King so much I think. His characters are, in general, much more interesting, complex and realistic then most other popular writer's. No, I don't believe he is a great writer. He does have great ideas though and his characters almost jump off the page. I read Koontz, for instance, but his characters do not have the same depth. They are all romanticized to the point of absurdity. And King has never fallen into that trap.

i think he falls into a different trap though ... he gives too much detail on his characters in my opinion .. he might as well include their pictures ..

there is a type of writing i find so much skillful - dickens is the best example i can think of - where the writer gives you key clues to a character ... pure characterizations .. that allow you to piece the rest of the character together in your imagination ...
They build an efficient framework in 1/100 of the words king would take to do it, but so deftly that you can still see the characters .. as you visualize them.

Maybe i should be more appreciative of the way king does it ...with pages and pages of information - but for some reason I'm not.

I thought Desperation was aptly named as well ...

[jenna26]

Originally posted by urgeok
i think he falls into a different trap though ... he gives too much detail on his characters in my opinion .. he might as well include their pictures ..

I'm not saying King doesn't have his problem areas; he does. Yes, he does tend to go on and on. But I believe that his short stories and novellas are usually as effective character wise as his novels are, without a lot of his sometimes unnecessary and cluttered exposition . Apt Pupil is a good example. That story was disturbing on so many levels, because King seemed to have a frightening understanding of the workings of this kind of twisted, symbiotic relationship that the two central characters shared.

And even when the novels get tedious, I am still impressed by that basic understanding of human nature at its best and worst. But I actually do see why some people don't care for King or even outright dislike his work.

[Elvis_Christ]

I haven't really got into any of King's later books. The Dark Half is probably my favorite....

[urgeok]

Originally posted by jenna26
I'm not saying King doesn't have his problem areas; he does. Yes, he does tend to go on and on. But I believe that his short stories and novellas are usually as effective character wise as his novels are, without a lot of his sometimes unnecessary and cluttered exposition . Apt Pupil is a good example. That story was disturbing on so many levels, because King seemed to have a frightening understanding of the workings of this kind of twisted, symbiotic relationship that the two central characters shared.

And even when the novels get tedious, I am still impressed by that basic understanding of human nature at its best and worst. But I actually do see why some people don't care for King or even outright dislike his work.

style/prose aside ... i got even sicker of this 'tortured writer' as a main character thing.
it's like he has to pull his pants down in front of the world every time he explores one of his inner demons.

sort of like an actor who is just 'playing themselves' you start to be less impressed when you realize it really isnt acting at all.

anyway i grew up reading King from the 1st book on .. read several of them and it eventually all started to run together.
Even Danse Macabre started to sound like an excuse for his lack of origionality.

or ... maybe i spend a lot of time understanding people - so i'm not all that impressed by someone who is also able to understand human nature ... and includes it in his writing..

i think he is very 'hooky' ..he knows how to make you keep reading to see what's next - unfortunately there never seems to be a payoff ..

Clive Barker is like that too ... although his short stories are very good .. his novels always end with a whimper ..