Stephen King

>>9145604

Because a lot of users here are pretentious posturing showoffs.

Also because most of his books are not that good.

But he's a good guy that knows a lot about the craft, knows how to make lots of money, and isn't a technically terrible writer.

>>9145641
You ever read any of his books?

>>9145651

Yeah. Some of them were fun. Some of them were lame.

What's the big deal? You can't go into every book with the same literary mindset. You can't go into a fucking Ray Harryhausen movie with the expectations and a mindset of a Tarkovsky movie.

You know books can be for fun and entertainment too right?

However I have to say I never read any of his large books like The Stand. I don't want a 4 hour ray harryhausen movie.

>>9145674
Specific literature suits specific audience. When you are used to reading really great writers it's hard to go back to this guy. I used to like this guy when I was 16, found him quite 'fun and entertaining', as you say. Now his style and prose just seems plain aweful, I'm not able to grasp the 'fun and entertainment' anymore.

Maybe it's just me.

>>9145604
He's a commercial writer and not the best in any aspects of his work.
As a visceral horror writer I much prefer Graham Masterton (though Gerald's Game left me a persistent impression).
For ghost stories M. R.James.
His novels are too long for pop fiction.
The Green Mile is beautiful though.
I have to try some of his short stories collections.

>>9145604
He is ok imo. I have read some of his books and all of them were at least decent and one was pretty fucking good which is Misery. His books are light and can suck person in and thats all what I expect from him.

File: ivans childhood.webm (3MB, 497x385px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 497x385px

>>9145699


you have to weigh merits.

Stephen King is not going to be deep or have killer prose, he's aiming for entertainment through situational horror stories. He wants the reader to have as much fun creating the images of places and characters in their head as they do turning the page to find out what happens next.

Yes, it's corny, yes it's not always smart. But at least he's being honest about what he likes and where he stands as a writer. He's just a normal person like most of us, he's not claiming to be a genius.

If you just weigh the merits on that basis perhaps you could reach a newfound appreciation for some of his good, earlier books.

The same comes with falling back from Tarkovsky to 50's monster movies. Of course Tarkovsky is a true artist and of course you gain a whole lot from learning to appreciate his aesthetically approach, however as human beings we sometimes crave just simple entertainment. Yet, if we can find the artistic merits in Tarkovsky, we definitely look at a monster movie with some alternative perspective and learn to appreciate that whoever was behind this definitely put their heart and love into it, even if it's not as "artistic".

This requires some form of empathy and love for a medium probably. I am not defending King's body of work, he has a lot of dogshit, just like John Carpenter made a lot of dogshit in the 90s and 2000s, but if you go back and look at John Carpenter's GOOD stuff you can definitely see a spark of passion and creativity.

>>9145604

Because when Trump was elected he literally started crying and left Twitter for a while

I’m a salami writer. I try to write good salami, but salami is salami. ~ Stephen King

>>9145604
he isn't scary
also, I got tired of magic black men and horror writers

>>9145701
Let me save you the trouble. Nearly all his short stories are bad, a few are average. I did like one called "N.", which was his take on Lovecraft.


I kept reading different things by him since everyone touts him as being such a greater horror writer, it's all bad or sub-par.

>>9145604
James Patterson is better

I like some of his stuff, but most of it is weak.

My favorites are the shining, pet sematary and the dead zone.

The dark tower was going pretty good untill it turned into a borefest with more fillers than a slayer album.

>>9145604
I like some of his work. The Shining is worthy of being called literature in my unqualified opinion (because of the way he approaches alcoholism).

>>9147552
The movie is better than the book though.

>>9147620
I'm undecided. What's better about the film in your opinion?

Sometimes you just want a cheeseburger

I like his short stories, nothing else really. Genre fiction works best as a short.

Generally enjoyed his work while I was in high school (though I never read any of his biggest titles like Shining, Stand, Dark Tower, etc.) and he seems to be under no false pretenses regarding his output.

Sometimes I tell myself I'm going to read Salem's Lot or reread The Mist but idk if I ever will.

>>9145674
>>9145743

Even when it comes to pulpy entertainment, King isn't very good. The primary sin being that novels tend to be bloated as hell. His short stories are nearly always more entertaining than the novels because of this. It doesn't take him forever to get to the spooky shit there. I've heard it said that he has to give time to build characters and stuff, but his characters are all shallow cliches and cartoons.

>He's just a normal person like most of us, he's not claiming to be a genius.

Yeah but then he gets butthurt when academia doesn't take him seriously for some reason.

>>9147702
Example of good pulpy entertainment?

I dunno man he was the first real author I read after graduating from Harry Potter and frankly still one of the best I ever read

>>9147728

I like Philip K. Dick and Raymond Chandler. The former is a very messy writer, but he has a wonderful imagination. The latter probably indulges too much in the detective story cliches he may or may not have invented (not an expert in the genre desu) but he's got a nice forceful prose style and shows a lot of wit.

>>9147759
I haven't read Dick but I really do like Chandler.