What are your thoughts on writer Stephen King?

As a fan of writer Stephen King, I was curious to hear others opinions on him. Comment anything you have to say about him (negative or positive)!!

This chat is a safe environment (any thoughts welcomed)

Reminds me of Stephen Spielberg: I wonder whether this time he'll go over the top before he gets boring, or vice versa. 95% of the time it's the latter--even Christine, which had such an idiotic premise that you wouldn't think it could fail to be fun was too boring to bother with--so I wouldn't bother with either these days.

No wait I did read, then skim, then skip through a novella by King not long ago. Ordinary Joe soon to turn heroic and lecherous (takes him about 5 minutes to find a new squeeze after his much-loved wife dies), cute little kiddy who speaks like a full-grown adult though he weirdly uses 1950s slang, unscary monster, a flag that King makes much of without noticing that it's unbattered despite flying for several decades through hurricanes & weather of all sorts, New England New England New England Fizzies Pillsbury dough boy troll dolls My Mother the Car--apparently New England is special, just like pop culture ephemera from King's childhood.

Er not a fan.

At least he gives fair warning that most of his output is horror. That way I know not to read his books.

Stephen King

We have a couple groups of dedicated Stephen King Readers. You might find a lot of like minded people here:
https://www.librarything.com/groups/kingsdearconstantrea

or here:
https://www.librarything.com/groups/stephenkingfans

I also don't read horror novels, so I have read only one book by Stephen King, 11/22/63. It was a while ago, but I really loved it. The protagonist goes back in time to try to save President Kennedy. His actions have multiple effects on the future.

Here are the last words in my review:
"Life turns on a dime. In the present, in the past, wherever you are. Beautiful prose, excellent research, incredible characters and a story that will haunt you and keep you reading late into the night."

Based on my 4.5 star rating, I wish he wrote more books that are not horror novels.

I don't like his stuff much, but, he doesn't seem like a bad human being either on the whole, and I know that quite a few people love the stories he weaves, and I have recommended him to some patrons I thought might like him, so....

Result: Ambilivent

Not normally a fan of this genre but I read "The Stand" and have to say he tells a good story and it was quite a page-turner.

Like most writers that I've read more than one book by, I've liked some of his books and disliked others.

He's wasted on the horror genre. Tells a good adventure story.

I enjoyed the opening premise of Gunslinger and create world he started with, but ended up slogging through the last couple of books just to have finished it (especially didn't like the ending). Haven't read any of his horror. I don't find his balance between imagination vs plot vs character to my liking.

So even the book I read has a horror tag which I think is wrong. So has anyone read any of his books that are not horror stories?

ETA: OK, I asked the same question in the SK group. I hope I will get a positive answer.

11/22/63 is as far away from horror as one can get. For example. Or The Green Mile. Or the novella on which is based the Shawshank Redemption movie.

While a big chunk of his output is horror, he had moved around the genres. And he can tell a story. Some of them may not be to everyone’s taste because of the genre but if you do like the genre the story is in, the story usually works.

Thank you! I will look at that one.

There was a time when I couldn't wait to read one of his books. That was a long time ago, though. I can't remember the last one I read, but I do remember thinking it wasn't horror so much as it was just gross and disgusting -- I do think there's a difference. The nastiness didn't seem to belong, and went on for a long time. I don't think I've read one of his books since.

Misery and Dolores Claiborne aren't horror either. I am a big King fan ... and NOT a fan, in general, of horror.

I'd debate Misery, you don't think that has a lot of horror elements? I'm not gonna watch the movie, just saying.

But also not Different Seasons (mostly) or The Eyes of the Dragon.

>15 BookConcierge: How is Misery not horror? There's some pretty horrific things that happen in that book. Isn't that the definition of horror? Wikipedia calls it "psychological thriller" -- which it is; but it's also horror.

I generally don't read thrillers either.

The novels named here as not horror all seem to be tagged horror.

>18 MarthaJeanne:, I see that, but it's a fairly natural knee-jerk tag to apply to anything with King's name on it.

>18 MarthaJeanne: Cecrow's right. And I'm full sure you know how useless tags can be for anyone but the user. I can't be bothered to look but I wouldn't be surprised to find that Tale of Two Cities is tagged with 'knitting'.

>20 bluepiano: Well, I didn't see "knitting" but I did see the tag, "Hungarian literature". …??

>21 krazy4katz: Obviously someone tagged their Hungarian translation.

I was a huge fan of King in the 80's, but fell off the wagon after Insomnia, which bored me to sleep :)

His early books were such a game-changer for me in those days; I had encountered few other authors who could set a scene with such drama and creativity and little dashes of humour. We all learned some hard lessons in those days about movie versions of his books; some aren't bad, like the Shining or Firestarter, and Silver Bullet is actually pretty good, but I gave up after suffering through Maximum Overdrive.

I really like his short story compilations, especially Skeleton Crew and Night Shift, although I think the Dark Tower series is amazing. It certainly takes a roundabout approach to making it's point, but what a grand adventure.

I even enjoyed his book about the Red Sox: Faithful: Two Diehard Red Sox Fans.

I've read loads of King; let's see if I can help.

On one hand, I suppose you'd have to call me a King fan (he's written more things that I enjoy than anyone else), but on the other hand, he's given me plenty to complain about.

He says he works without outlines, which is fine for those who have no problem creating as they go, but this is probably a factor in his trouble with endings. Not every ending is bad, certainly, but in some cases (Under The Dome) he just had no idea where to go, and so went nowhere. In other cases, things just got odd and stupid (The Talisman and Black House, both of whom were co-written by Peter Straub, who doesn't seem to have these problems in his own fiction, or the bit of it I've read anyway - and if you try King, don't like him, and decide to write off horror, please try Straub's Shadowland and Ghost Story before giving up altogether).

And another problem is the need to telegraph upcoming events (spoilers). Duma Key was absolutely rife with this; it ruined what otherwise was an interesting novel (I call it "Answer Key"). When a character death we didn't see coming happened, it hit me like a gut punch - and the other deaths should have as well, but he prevented that.

The Dark Tower, well...where do I start? Written intermittently over a period of decades, he really had no idea where he was going with any of this, and the ending, well...it strikes some as brilliant, but strikes others (me among them) as lazy, or possibly the result of a belated and panicked "what do I do now?" realization. Overall, I'd describe TDT as a combination of the best and the worst I've ever read (it does have its moments).

As for non-horror, many viewers are unaware that certain hit movies were adaptations of his work, including Stand By Me and The Shawshank Redemption (they tend not to push his name if it's not horror, or at least horrible in some way).

The collection Different Seasons is some of his very best (2 of its 4 novellas are the basis for SBM and Shawshank), and it's really not horror, although you could make the case that there's a bit of supernatural here and there.

The Eyes Of The Dragon is fantasy and feels like a fairy tale (pretty different from all else he's done).

I've missed out on much of his post-2000 writing (not due to any failing on King's part, but because my own life was changing in a way that left me short on reading time), but I can say that Revival was pretty good (but not great) and Lisey's Story (despite being hated by many King readers) may just be great. Doctor Sleep (a sequel to The Shining that is nothing like The Shining - you need to know this going in if you are to have any chance of enjoying it) was quite good indeed.

For anyone thinking of trying King:

If you are open to horror akin to what the movies suggest a King novel is all about (blood, death, danger etc.):

I recommend starting with Salem's Lot and The Shining (good stories lacking some of the problems mentioned above, and not prohibitively long). The Stand is less "horrible" than those, and is truly an epic story, but I don't recommend 1,000-page reads to newbies (but if you're feeling adventurous, be my guest). And I would say It is better than all of those, but likewise, it's over 1,000 pages.

If you aren't looking for horror, but are open to other King stuff, I recommend:

Different Seasons (I would recommend this to everyone, really): a collection of 4 novellas with small connections

The Bachman Books: a collection of 4 short novels previously released under his Richard Bachman pseudonym. It includes Rage, which prefigures modern American school shootings; The Long Walk, a simple, stripped-down version of teen dystopia material; Roadwork, about one man's frustration with change (although I'd say it is about marriage); and The Running Man (the basis for the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie). If you think that movie was bad, you're right - and you should read the original story, which had very little in common with it. I hate to describe things with such painful cliches, but King's The Running Man was probably the most pulse-pounding page turner I've ever read, to the point and satisfying.

The Green Mile
I guess you could stretch and call this horror, but it's more of a human story (King is good at those, which is the main reason his horror works - he's great at creating characters).

TGM was originally released as a series of 6 very short books (around 100 pages each), on the last Monday of 6 consecutive months (those were exciting times for King fans...). You can devour them all at once, or you can pause a bit to recreate the experience (he's good with cliffhangers, which he uses in TGM 1 - 5).

Hearts In Atlantis
Another collection of stories that are only tangentially connected, but there is a definite cumulative effect. Technically a small bit of at least one story is some form of horror, but this is no horror collection. Not quite as great as Different Seasons, but a fine read.

Otherwise...

As for Insomnia, I read it when it first came out, but not since, and much of the story has faded from my mind. I do remember thinking "wow, it's taking him a loooong time to get going in this one" (which is saying something, since King enjoys the slow build), but by the end I felt like it had changed my life (which makes my forgetfulness all the more frustrating).

Avoid Dreamcatcher at all costs (but do check out Morgan Freeman's eyebrows in the movie adaptation; they are a must).

Thinner (originally under the Bachman name) and From A Buick 8 are kind of dumb, yet entertaining.

Christine is also kind of dumb, but not as entertaining. Many fans like this, however, and I suppose it can at least be viewed as a handbook on how to be an especially sh!tty friend.

Cujo is well-liked by many King readers, and while I think it makes a great basis for a PhD on disintegration, it just didn't work for me at all.

The Dead Zone is somehow both effective in the "popcorn" sense of entertainment yet full of meaning. Every bit the downer that Cujo is, except in a great novel.

Carrie is short and sweet, definitely worth the time of those who enjoy the likes of Salem's Lot and The Shining.

...and of course it should go without saying that all of this is merely the opinion of a single King fan.

So if I understand rightly, The Eye of the Dragon is King's attempt to write non-horror. But several descriptions start 'Once Upon a Time, There Was Terror... ' I think I'll pass.

You and me, we are not easily fooled, are we? This Stephen King, this paperback writer, he is not going to take us in, is he? You and me, we're too smart for that.
We start to read the first few pages, no problem. Something in the story is slightly out of focus but we'll let that go because we want to know what happens next. What happens next is it gets very, very slightly strange but not strange enough for us not to believe it. Page by page, little by little, millimetre by millimetre King leads us on. Each increment takes us a little further into his believable/unbelievable story.
You and me, we are not going to accept the outlandish plots he expects us to swallow.. .. ..are we? Yet, in small, very small, doses he has us following his every word, turning the pages as he knew we would. This master-craftsman has us spellbound, hooked. He will now lead us, step by careful step, into his domain. Once inside, you and me will follow him and believe anything he tells us, almost.
That is the skill this paperback writer has perfected.

>26 Novak: I read The Stand, in those long ago days, and it was upsetting enough that I debated just tossing it, unfinished, but decided wondering how things turned out would be even more upsetting, and (to my regret) finished it. I could not tell you how it ended (and don't care), but I've never bothered with another horror novel by him.

After seeing the film "Stand By Me" I bought a copy of Different Seasons, and read the novella ("The Body") it was based on. I believe I preferred the film. I saw Carrie on television, long after it was made into a film, and found it sad, and not all that believable, but then, I was a bit older, and already knew how the story would go.

I've read other things by King; he's good at what he does, and may have preferred, at one time, to just write things similar to what was in Different Seasons, but he's made a lot of money doing what he does, and I don't begrudge him a penny of it.

BTW, I saw the film, Ghost Story, made from the Straub book, and it was very good, and terrified me. I've never read the book. I'm pretty sure I don't want to.

My point here is that we all have different tastes, and even different standards as to what is or isn't good writing. Stephen King isn't writing books for me. Harlan Ellison did, and now he'll never write another. To each his own.

>25 MarthaJeanne: "So if I understand rightly, The Eye of the Dragon is King's attempt to write non-horror."

Actually, no; he's written non-horror on several occasions, many before this. The Eyes Of The Dragon was his "attempt" to write something suitable for his then-young children to read.

>27 Lyndatrue:: "...I saw the film, Ghost Story, made from the Straub book, and it was very good, and terrified me. I've never read the book..."

FYI, although the film had a decent story, it basically gutted the book's premise. I vastly prefer the book and recommend that people read it - but then, readers always say that, don't we?

Some quick thoughts for those who, re: horror fiction, find themselves on the outside looking in, considering jumping in:

King's adaptations have created their own impression amongst the general public, but the reality is that he's not totally horror, nor is he limited to creating souped-up penny dreadfuls. He is, however, at times, more informal than many writers (lots of "eat at Joe's"-type references, Big Macs, etc.), which appeals to some and repels others. As with any successful writer, there are those among you who will find that, in your opinion, he just can't write.

Of course, there's more to horror than King; I've mentioned Straub (a bit more literary than King in styling, and if you're going to criticize his prose, don't do it around me!), and there is also Clive Barker, who is at once more horrible and more imaginative than perhaps all of them. Many enjoy Dean Koontz, but I find him to be awful (although I'll be honest and admit that I somewhat enjoyed Oddkins and Odd Thomas (parts of which were awful, though)). There are many others, but I'm not familiar with many beyond these names (unless we go way back, to Lovecraft, M.R. James, Poe).

>30 St._Troy:, I come up dry with names from the horror field too ... was a time in the 80s? 90s? the local bookstore would have a dedicated section, but that's long gone. From those days I remember James Herbert's covers stood out (The Rats), John Saul's, and Robert McCammon's (Swan Song). Another I sometimes remember is V.C. Andrews (Flowers in the Attic).

>29 St._Troy: Make no mistake. I didn't read it because I was pretty sure that if the *film* frightened me, the book would be intolerable. I don't think I enjoy horror, and even when the writing is masterful, it's still not worthwhile for me to read it. Life is short. I'd rather spend it on things that require thought, not things that will give me nightmares.

I do have to say that I don't think King does well with female characters. His male characters seem more fleshed out; his female characters seem to be mostly spear carriers (so to speak). Straub does much better in that area (I say this from distant memory, though).

Odd to realize that both these men are my contemporaries (Straub's a bit older; King and I are nearly the same age).

I went through a stint in high school where I read a lot of Stephen King/Richard Bachman stories. Most of those I enjoyed, like The Shining and his Bachman short stories (the one with The Mist and The Long Walk). With The Shining, I really have to say I much preferred the book over the movie as it explained a lot more about the whys and I didn't find the book as scary as the movie.

I haven't read much of his work since then, although I did try The Dark Tower and unfortunately really didn't like it at all.

I remember Flowers in the Attic from high school as well. I think I read the first three of the series (I'm pretty sure she went on to write many more) and really liked them. The movie, however, was pretty bad from what I recollect.

How does King manage to swerve from one side of the street to the other so quickly? I enjoyed reading "11.22.63" very much. Then I finished "From a Buick 8", threw it at the wall and wrote to King to ask for my money back. He didn't reply, I guess he's not too keen on writing.

>34 Novak: that sounds about right. It seems we all mostly agree that King is the epitome of opposites. When I read through this thread there are a lot of comments mentioning something we really enjoyed and something else we didn't like at all. Or exceptions to something we usually like or don't.

I guess he covers a lot of bases :)