How good is Stephen King as a writer?

J Riff: "He writes for a huge demographically-analyzed target audience ...read: Dummies."

Presumably that's deliberately provocative; after all a reading of the forums and general commentary on Stephen King would reveal a great number of fans who are clearly not dummies, not least a great swathe of this message board.

Nevertheless you've chosen to deposit an unpleasant sweeping generalization in a place designed to create most consternation. Consequently it's either a deliberate attempt to alienate people or you haven't really put much thought into it.
 
by Urien
Consequently it's either a deliberate attempt to alienate people or you haven't really put much thought into it.
Click to expand...


I imagine it's the latter... I am proudly part of the masses, but I am washed (daily) and I am one of those who are encompassed by 'everybody'. And in fitting the demographic (well, as meatloaf said: 2 out of 3 ain't bad...) I'm pleased to say that I find Stephen King's writing to be awesome in its scope and breathtaking in its ability to sweep you into his worlds. Of course I don't think this of every book he's written - not sure even Shakespeare was that good - but the level he's maintained throughout his career is enviable by any standards (even J. Riff's). And the ending of The Dark Tower series was unparalleled in its brilliance - I challenge any reader to say they saw it coming. And be telling the truth...
 
I re-read his novellas every few years and enjoy them just as much every time. Rage, Apt Pupil, The Long Walk, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption - just to mention a few.

I'll admit to being somewhat biased in King's favour. He's endeared himself to me by being so open about his shortcomings and by his refusal to apologise for the popularity of his work. I respect that.

So I read his books with a more generous mindset than I might favour other writers. But that still doesn't detract from his talent. His ability to conjure up vivid mental images using the simplest of language, is what sets him apart from many other writers.
 
I find SK inconsistent, as others have mentioned, not just from book to book but from chapter to chapter. I have read some of his books where at times I have been unable to put it down, then he takes off on some different path entirely [any scene set in Maine in the dark tower books is a perfect example] and I have to skim pages[me-all right how long is this going to go on?]
Also he seems some times to get paid be the word. He can't just have one nightmare about Sara Laughs[bag of bones] he has a dozen, all described. Please I get idea.
That said, I find many of his books riveting[I remember staying up all night reading the Talisman,far and away my favorite SK book].

A Minor complaint- Is Maine the center of the universe? My God man you're rich. Get out and scout some new locations. There must be life out side castle rock.
One thing for sure he is no J.R.R. Tolkien despite what I belive he thinks.
 
On the subject of his use of Maine: This is one of the few areas where I will come to King's defense. While I do think it helps to spread out with one's locations, and to capture one's impressions of such places in an imaginative format, King's "haunted regionalism" (which is really what we have here) is really no different at base than, say, that of Hawthorne's Salem or surrounding country; Ramsey Campbell's Severn Valley; Lovecraft's Arkham, Dunwich, Innsmouth, and Kingsport; Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County; or Dickens' London. He is writing about a region he knows intimately and loves, and a writer is often best in dealing with such a place in his general work.

My only complaint with it is that King brings too much of the mundane and flat (by which I mean pedestrian in approach... almost nothing need necessarily be dull if written about well and given importance through symbolic association, from a new star in the heavens to -- and I've seen it done -- tampons) to his writing about the region, which rather tarnishes the whole thing and makes it, in my view, at times quite boring. But when he does really let his love of the place come through (and this includes his acceptance of and fascination with its less pleasant aspects as well), then he does some very good work, and there can be real magic in what he does.

I just wish there were more of that last, and less of the former....
 
I understand what what you saying, and I have no objection to Maine being the setting when any location would work, but at times his insistence on Maine just seems inappropriate.
A European vampire decides of all the places in the world to move to Maine? come on.
 
cort said:
I understand what what you saying, and I have no objection to Maine being the setting when any location would work, but at times his insistence on Maine just seems inappropriate.
A European vampire decides of all the places in the world to move to Maine? come on.
Click to expand...

LOL. Point taken....:D
 
cort said:
I understand what what you saying, and I have no objection to Maine being the setting when any location would work, but at times his insistence on Maine just seems inappropriate.
A European vampire decides of all the places in the world to move to Maine? come on.
Click to expand...
Would you rather they moved to Washington?
 
I think SK was trying to establish the area for his other books because at least half of them are written there, and lets face it, a european vampire or an evil shop trader, little doctors with rusty scalpels, an evil clown all sound way out there.
 
Karn Maeshalanadae said:
Oh believe me, Michael, Misery was a piece of tripe so bad it's not worthy to be fire tinder.

The Stand was one of my favorites, though-but personally, my very favorite work by him was Skeleton Crew.


Back to topic though, how is he as a writer? Well, as was said, he does have good, engaging characters, but, he can be rather confusing as well at some spots as he puts in paranthesied bits that really have nothing to do with the story at all. Other than that, I really have no complaints.
Click to expand...

If you find that confusing in King don't read any Irvine Welsh lol
 
Stephen King is not the BEST author you can find but a very good one. Some of his books are awesome, others are not quite that catchy and interesting. For example - I've read the Shining and I can say that it is one of the best books I've ever read. It keeps you interested and makes you want to read more and more. But, The Stand was a total mess. I never even got to finishing the book because I simply could not read further. He can be a very good/bad author according to some of you, but I think we all must agree that he has a very different way of thinking and an amazing mind with lots of crazy ideas. Some of them are simply not so good or, are not so well described and written down. Still, Stephen King remains my favourite author :)
 
I also read in one of his forewords to a book that he is not the best in the world and that some critics try and compare him to Charles Dickens but he admits out front that God gave Mr Dickens considerably more talent than him.
 
I think where he is comparable to Dickens is both having their finger on the pulse of their contemporary societies, and writing it warts and all.
 
Some of his books are boring, and others were well written I think. He's hard to define.
 
IMO, King ranks right below Lovecraft(who is my #1) on my list of greatest writers of all time
 
Okay, so I just joined, like a few minutes ago, and the first place I went was the Robert Heinlein board (but that was only because I first learned about this place when looking up Mr. Heinlein) but the second place I go to: The Stephen King spot. King is the king (with little k because Jack Kirby is the King with capital K). I think he is the best writer of the 20th century. I really do. To put my money where my mouth is: I started reading A Catcher in the Rye and Rage at the same time. A few pages into both I threw Catcher across the room because I thought King was handling the angst of youth so much better. I think he doesn't get the credit he deserves because he writes so well and it comes to him so easily.
 
I think he's a masterful writer. Every writer has their inconsistencies at times.

The way he is able to bring his characters to life, his ability to describe scenes so vividly, and in my opinion his stories, for me, just flow like water out of a tap.

Honestly I believe he doesn't get the real credit he deserves because of the stuff he actually writes about. I love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
AE35Unit Blockade Billy by Stephen King Reviews & Interviews 0
Dave REVIVAL by Stephen King Reviews & Interviews 5
Pyan Stephen King's books, ranked. Book Discussion 26
Mon0Zer0 From - Stephen King influenced horror series General TV Discussion 1
M Stephen King, the man - the writer Stephen King 11

Similar threads


Back
Top