>What is it about King’s writing that appeals to so man

>>9335604
>dull

Comfy

>>9335618
True. Still no merit.

>>9335604
I read this in Harold Bloom's voice.

>>9335618
>After reading the first sixty-five pages of Christine, I thought that if King had intended to write a literary novel, he was failing. The two main characters, Arnie and his good-hearted pal the narrator, were blandly predictable; the minor characters all seemed to be cut from the same generic cloth (one side labeled “Nice Person,” the other labeled “Creep/Meanie”); each high-pitched melodramatic scene resembled the previous high-pitched melodramatic scene in tone and structure; the observations about life in a western Pennsylvania town in the late seventies were unremarkable (as compared to, say, the meticulously observed, lovingly detailed eastern Pennsylvania suburban landscape in Updike’s Rabbit novels); and the prose was consistently dull (the narrator’s attempts at snappy cleverness or humor rarely succeeding). Most surprisingly, the book moved at a slug’s pace. At the very least, I thought, a genre writer as good as King would keep the scenery flying by the window. But he lingered over scenes, drew them out way past where there was anything further to reveal, as if (perhaps: I couldn’t be entirely sure) King believed he was writing something classier than a pulp novel.

>>9335643
>In his long New Yorker article about genre fiction, Arthur Krystal devotes a paragraph to King’s entry into the lit world (after “having mastered the horror genre”) and manages to make Harold Bloom’s denunciation of the National Book Foundation’s 2003 award to King look ill-tempered, cranky, and elitist. “In short, Bloom was annoyed that King had become a dude of literature.” Krystal seems to regard King as a good enough “guilty pleasure,” though he cites nothing specific about King’s writing (other than the fact that a literary magazine and The New Yorker have given him space) that might persuade a reader that the praise of his work by the literary establishment is in any way justified.

King isn't dull. He has pretty vivid prose. Sometimes too vivid, when he's describing something gross.

>>9335604

>and I was, from an even earlier age, more interested in dog stories
>refuses to watch Alfred Hitchcock

real cultured person writing this article

I have no doubt some of King is garbage. I've avoided his linger stories for me most part. I would with any author in truth.

His stories are superbly interesting. He clearly has a very creative mind. Every story distinctly different to the last. On top of that he writes immediately likeable characters in locations that feel as though they easily can be home.

Why read if it isn't enjoyable? I don't know why its hard to see why King is liked. I've not read Christine as a specific example. I likely never will as the subject doesn't interest me, but you should get no more or less than you expect from any given story.

>>9336047
You always know there's a full blown retard in the room when they use the word 'story' about novels. King does this himself; it's like he's fully aware every single aspect of his writing is such pap he cleaves to this infantile notion of a 'good story, well told'.

>why do people like fun?

>>9335604
>Ever Reading Salon

That's where you messed up.

his writing isn't particularly appealing, it's just incredibly quick and easy to read. much like watching shitty old sci-fi flicks from the 80s, it's just fun.

>>9335604

>My sense is that King appeals to the aggrieved adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adult, who believes that people can be divided into bad and good (the latter would, of course, include the aggrieved adolescent or adult), a reader who would rather not consider the proposition that we are all, each of us, nice good people awash in problems and entirely capable of evil.

Some of King's stuff is like this, but not all. For example, Pet Semetary has no real "good" characters.

>>9335604
>iterature, which, at its best, is, sentence by sentence, a revelation about life.

I don't think I could write such a pretentious load of shit if my life depended on it.

he speaks directly to the reader, in plan language, and tells a story they want to hear. he's tellling ghost stories around the campfire. thats all. its what he does. all we have are our stories. people criticize him, but any author would love to be loved as much as he is, and read as much as he is. i only hope he appreciates it.

>>9335604
I've got news for this pretentious turd, his son only *pretends* to read DFW and Pynchon.

>>9338161
We're trying to cut down on projection here.

>>9338171
As far as I know: Pynchon and DFW didn't write a word in their lives

As far as Lit knows: I am on my 5th rereading of Gravity Rainbows and Infinitely Jest