Thread replies: 220
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
Holy fuck nobody ever told me how long this book is.
>>
couldn't you tell when you picked it up and it was thicc?
>>
Wait til you get to the end and realize you've wasted your time. King is a hack
>>
>>9553757
>nobody ever told me how long this book is
for you
>>
>>9553757
>Reading Stephen King
Because...?
>>
>>9553760
>it was thicc
>>
>>9553763
>has only read post-addict 90s King
>literally keeps this meme alive
>>
>>9555338
>he truly believes he used to be better
I've probably read more King than you. I've got news bud, he's not good. He was my favorite author, when I was 12, but I've grown up now and so should you.
>>
>>9555789
King is great. I'll admit that he has trouble writing endings though.
I'll also admit that you're a fucking tryhard. Go read something more sophisticated and try to feel smart about it you pretentious faggot.
>>
>1168 pages
how?
>>
Just wait until you reach the child orgy.
>>
>>9555833
>people who don't like my shitty favorites are tryhards and pretentious
When the fuck did reddit take over? Holy fuck
>>
I like King as a storyteller. But god damn, when he inserts his own authorial voice into the narrative instead of telling from the perspective of the characters, it gets fucking annoying as shit, and he literally does this all the time in every fucking book. Too bad he is so rich and powerful that he can just tell his editors to fuck off. His books would be much better if he was put on a tighter leash
>>
>>9556014
>people who like what i don't like are like 12 year olds and should grow up
That's what makes you pretentious and tryhard you tryhard, pretentious faggot. Now go read some kafka and pretend like you're smart.
>>
>>9556056
>can't come up with any creative insults or anything intelligent to say
>implies he's not 12
Get the fuck off this board pussy, you have shit taste. Do you really go around in life believing that anyone who's intelligent or enjoys quality literature is a tryhard and pretentious? Have you ever thought that maybe you're just a brainlet? How pathetic.
>>
>>9556040
His prose is also incredibly cringe at times. There's more better word to describe by body's reaction to his clunky wording and his childish """voice""". He's good for one thing: coming up with somewhat novel ideas for talented people to make into movies.
>>
>>
I also tried to read it to get hype for a movie but fuck that.
>first chapter is GAY GAY FAGGOT GAY HOMO FRUITY BOY FAG FAGET GAY BUTT BOY FAG
>second chapter is KIKE JEW SCHLOMO JEW KIKE SCHNOZ KIKE JEW
>third chapter is RAPE ABUSE DUMB MEN WOMYN STRONG DRUNK MEN WIFEBEATING
>and now, time for obligatory King's self-insert writer character
>>
>>9556151
His literary attempts are pathetically bad, but his older novels are pretty good pulp. He's not a great writer, but he's definitely among the best of the pulpy, release-as-many-books-as-possible group of writers you can find in the Walmart book section.
>>
>>9556157
The beginning is definitely the weakest part.
I think the book really only gets started with it's actual plot and characters about 200 pages in.
The opening goes into way too much detail for something they could have spent like 10 pages on about the main characters reading newspaper articles or something and realizing it is coming back.
I still love the novel, but any competent editor could easily have cut 3 or 400 pages out of it and not changed the story at all.
>>
>>
>>9556173
>He's not a great writer
You know....
I admit he's no Joyce or anything, but i guarantee he's a 10x better writer than anyone in the thread.
Check your inadequacy
>>
>>9553757
C H I L D
G A N G B A N G
>>
>>9556177
>people like what they liked, but you only like what people told you to like
What a dumb fucking argument. I guarantee I've read more King than you, he was my favorite when I was a child, but I've read many authors since then that are (in my opinion, since everyone likes to get triggered in here like reddit) much better. There's nothing wrong with pulpy trash, but stop trying to pretend he's better than he is because it hurts your feelings when people point out that he's shit. I mean shit, I read one of his novels last year and it was fun and all that (ending, of course, was shittier than I could have imagined), but it's not literature. It's a movie you can read.
>>
>>9556174
This.
This is exactly what happens with King's books. He spends a lot of time in certain things that some people would agree are not necessary at all. The Stand, for example, was cut inicially by editors. Years later they released the "full version", and that was because King stopped actually caring about the editors themselves and got one that didn't care about the way he wrote about everything, even when it was absolutely innecessary. I honestly don't mind, I think it gives a personal touch to his books, but it's true that it's kind of hard to get into some of his books because of this, specially if you're not a fan of his work from the start.
>>
>>9556193
shut the fuck up fag. no one cares what you do or do not like. and it doesn't make you smart to trash popular books.
>>
>>9555833
>>9556056
What is it with King fans and posts like this? Fans of other pop-lit authors can admit that what they like might not be great literature but they're understanding and, when hearing their author get criticized, don't get as upset and defensive as King fans. They never try to argue for King's merits with genuine evidence and instead resort to name calling. If you bring up genuine faults and criticisms with his work, then you're just a pretentious pseud who wants every book to be Ulysses.
It must have something to do with King's incredibly shallow moralizing. You get the sense in his books that everyone who isn't a bland good guy like his protagonists is a horrible person. His main villains are cartoonishly evil, and the minor ones tend to be just plain unpleasant with no redeeming features. In The Stand, the human race is literally divided into good and evil, and any ambiguity that may have arisen from the characters is rendered pointless when King straight up kills all the evil people for the betterment of humanity.
There's a part in IT when one of the protagonists is taking a writing course, and his "genre crap" is scolded by the teacher who instead praises the incomprehensible pretentious work of other students. I don't know if King is genuinely upset at a former writing teacher (if so, you'd think he'd not worry about an incident like that in the past when he's now made tons of money and awards), but to the reader who enjoys attacks like that, this just seems like another reinforcement of their incredibly simplistic views on literature.
It's not bad that King writes entertainment for plebs. Plenty of great writers wrote accessible stories for the masses, such as Dickens or Tolstoy. But it is bad when your work is thematically and morally oversimplified. I don't think you're automatically a horrible person if you're a fan of King's work, but if you write off actual literature as "pretentious shit for snobs," then you're genuinely missing out not just on aesthetic pleasure, but more complex and insightful views on the world and life.
>>
>>9556185
>he's better than someone who literally doesn't write
Wow, congrats Mr. King, you're officially above all criticism now!!! XD
>>
>>9556212
>literally doesn't write
nigger what?
>>
>>9556207
>getting this butthurt
This is how I know reddit is here. It's so typical to call someone criticizing a trashy pulp writer pretentious, or to claim he's trying to act smart. Such a sad argument that has only recently started becoming popular on here. I wish you'd go back.
>>
>>9556224
When the basis of your opinion is "i read only sophisticated books for sophisticated individuals like myself" then your opinion is the absolute height of pretentiousness. You get extra pretentious points when you claim your subjective opinion is objective truth that should be practiced by everyone.
>>
>>9556221
I don't write novels, but I read enough of them to know when something is low-quality, edgelord, empty pulp written to be adapted.
>>
>>9556238
I've stated multiple times that I've read, and enjoyed, plenty of King's novels. It's not my fault you're reading comprehension is subpar. Unlike you, I can read and enjoy pulp and still understand what I'm reading has little to no literary merit. Watching Bones is fine, and it can even be fun sometimes, in an empty sort of way, but claiming it is quality television is obnoxiously autistic.
>>
>>9556212
Not to say he's above criticism, there's plenty of things wrong with IT and king in general, but I just get irritated when I constantly see him getting bashed as a bad writer. I've seen the shit /lit/ posts in critiques, nobody here gots cause to call anyone else a bad writer. Seriously, take a step back and analyze the situation before you start throwing that term around.
Personally I feel inspired by king, as no he's not the greatest writer out there, but through dedication, hard work, persistence, narcotics, and creativity he was still able to become highly successful.
>>
>>9556240
yeah all those 1000+ page pulp novels written just to be adapted. what a genius you are for figuring out King's grand plan mission objective. Bravo!
>>
>>9556248
>literary merit
Which is subjective. Which is why you have a shit opinion. If you enjoyed it that should be all the merit that's needed.
>>
>>9556252
Yes, successful the same way Patterson, Cussler, Green, and Brown are successful. I've clarified many times now that I can read and enjoy him at times, but also admit he's not very good. The fact that people get so triggered (to the point of willfully misinterpreting what other people say to try and create an argument, since they don't actually have one) is fascinating to me.
>>
>>9556262
you're probably fascinated by black dicks too. Just my guess
>>
>>9556261
Do you really rank him highly? Even just counting American authors, do you honestly think he's that good?
>>
>>9556269
Why would you reveal yourself as a brainlet, instead of coming up with a real reason he's good? Sales isn't a good enough reason, Twilight sold well, as did Harry Potter. Marketing matters more than quality, and you know it.
>>
>>9556271
>honestly think he's that good
What does "Good" have to do with anything? Too subjective in the first place, and there's plenty of people who hate the most renown authors out there like faulkner, or joyce, or hemingway. So I don't really even know what you mean by good.
I like some of his books, and he's a huge success. Thats about all you can say.
I also highly enjoy black dicks.
>>
>>9556271
I rank him highly in the pantheon of American horror writers, yes.
>>
File: 1491078083160.png (592KB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
592KB, 1280x720px
>>9556185
I don't like you.
>>
>>9556278
There's renowned authors that I recognize as incredibly talented who just don't do it for me, and I can understand that. That's what I mean by good. Talented. You should be able to tell when something is of high quality, even if it doesn't connect with you. This "quality is all Subjective" meme is just a way for people to defend their pulpy favorites without having to come up with an intelligent way to defend them.
>>
>>9556276
>Sales isn't a good enough reason
Sure it is. You don't get sales without enough people out there buying the books and thinking he's good, at least.
>Marketing matters more than quality, and you know it.
Yeah, aside from quality being subjective, but even if all his success is from marketing, that still counts. That's the world we live in. Getting lucky still counts. Cheating still counts. etc.
Not that i think that's really all there is to his success, but even if it was, so what?
>>
>>9556276
>>9556262
well well aren't you so fucking enlightened. fucking faggot critic, you will NEVER in your life produce anything of value even close to Twilight. your only talent is to vomit out your useless fucking opinions and you seem proud of this fact. just a gutless pretentious hack at its finest. your edgelord beliefs about all the "literature" you deem to be worthy of your below average IQ is all you got going for you kid, and don't think for a second that your skull is filled with anything but shit
>>
>>9556295
>pointing out that opinions are subjective is a meme
And you call other people brainlets?
>>
>>9556303
>you will NEVER in your life produce anything of value even close to Twilight
That's kind of my irritation with it. Yeah, twilight sucks, but it's still about 100x more sophisticated than 99% of it's critics are capable of producing.
Same thing with king. I love to hear people argue about his quality or talent, when the best they've ever produced is a 1.5 page rape fantasy about a cartoon.
>>
>>9556303
I thought this was a literature board. When did all the discussion become about who gets more triggered? You're an embarrassment.
>>
>>9556304
Proving my point that people here are so retarded they misinterpret arguments just to find a way to be right. So fucking pathetic. Is anyone here an adult an able to explain to me why, besides sales, Stephen King isn't a hack?
>>
>>
>>9556299
Is it really that ridiculous to not trust or agree with the popular opinion? I mean, look at the Amazon best selling list right now and tell me you'd read any of those novels. Look at Film and Television. I guess I'm just not the type of person who swoons at sales numbers. Especially when they're inflated, considering he's such a big name, has a ton of move adaptation, and is one of the only authors sold at every grocery store in the country.
>>
>>9556322
He's good at setting up atmosphere (and then turning that atmosphere on it's head when needed, the parts of Salem's Lot where he's describing the townfolk come to mind.) and he can develop characters and write character dialogue better than anyone writing in the genre.
>>
>>9556334
>i'm a contrarian
Oh, okay.
What happened to thinking for yourself? Why do you let the public opinion dictate what you can like?
>>
>>9556330
Pathetic. Cry harder or come up with a real argument faggot
>>
>>9556343
It has nothing to do with that. I'd rather read widely, as much as possible, and decide on my own - from my own experience - which authors are good. I'm saying King is one I don't think is very good. There are authors I respect and think have a lot of talent, but don't like. How are the people here so terrible at arguments? It's like arguing with a dumb woman, instead of making any real points you create some strawman to throw copy-paste 4chan insults and talking points at.
>>
>>9556358
>copy-paste 4chan insults and talking points at.
Call us all brainlets and tell us all how we're 12 and don't know what real literature is again.
>>
>>9556345
so do you think your worthless opinions on authors count as arguments now? You seem to think that ou not liking Stephen King makes you some philosophical master mind. ahaha this sub 80 IQ fuckboy nobody is hilarious
>>
>>9556361
I've never said or implied anything like that. I'm practically begging someone to come back at me with some good discussion, but I've only seen posts like yours.
>>
>>9556334
>Is it really that ridiculous to not trust or agree with the popular opinion?
I dunno, trust or don't agree with it all you want, doesn't really change what we're talking about.
>I mean, look at the Amazon best selling list right now and tell me you'd read any of those novels
what does it matter if i've read it? If enough other people have, and they genuinly enjoy it, then whatever. I'm happy for the author and the people reading it.
>>
>>9556360
I never said you didn't know what real literature is, but you certainly act 12. I'd love to be wrong about that, though. Do you have anything intelligent to say or are you just going to join in with the butthurt autists sperging out with insults and not being able to create even one intelligent argument?
>>
>>9556372
If you aren't reading a French novel about a florist that's a metaphor for capitalist living written by an author that you'd never identify or relate to in real life you're a pleb.
>>
>>9556372
I'm happy for them, too, and never said anyone should stop reading what they enjoy. I don't enjoy it, though, and you're telling me that's not okay. It's just interesting to me that having any kind of opinion that's different is immediately interpreted as someone trying to sound smart. It says a lot about the state of this board, honestly.
>>
>>9556383
So you come over from reddit to a board about literature, and your opinion is that people who enjoy literature are pretentious. That's... actually keep going this is good copypasta bait for the future.
>>
>>
>>9556397
>i take the name of the board literally
If your definition of literature extends beyond anything more than a "written body of work" then you are pretentious.
No better than the "flick, movie, film" faggots of /tv/.
>>
File: 1493568707767.png (6KB, 472x508px) Image search:
[Google]
6KB, 472x508px
>>9553757
>reading the gangbang scene as a 12 year old
>>
>>9556397
another reddit insult? how thought provoking. you really seem like the kind of cunt who doesn't even actually enjoy literature. no, you only enjoy telling everyone how much you enjoy real literature. fucking moron.
>>
>>9556402
Except I've said over and over that I've read and enjoyed his work, as well as other pulpy shit, in the past. Even recently, in fact. What I meant by grow up (if this isn't obvious you're dumber than I thought) is that at some point you have to admit he's not as good as reddit (and apparently lit now) makes him out to be. And yes, I do think it's mature to be able to read low-quality novels, understand what they are, and still be able to enjoy them, because I'm not so triggered by others opinions that I take it personally when someone points out that what I like isn't exactly a masterpiece. Grow up.
>>
>>9556419
>state multiple times I enjoy King and also think he's a hack
>repeatedly misinterpreted by brainlets
Keep coming with the standard insults, I'm starting to think you're trolling, to be honest. What have you read this year? I'm genuinely interested.
>>
Never read any King, which of his earlier works should I try out? I know his current stuff is generic schlock, and I'm familiar with the adapted versions of his weird 90's period of producing pure garbage that's unintentionally hilarious, but I'd like to believe there was something motivating his career at some point.
>>
>>9556445
christine is enjoyable
>>
>>9556445
Salem's Lot and the Running Man are two of my faves.
>>
>>9556422
And you keep projecting. Nobody said he was "the greatest ever", and yet you keep implying it over and over again. Everybody knows what they're gonna get with a King book. Your parroted opinions aren't original and aren't surprising anybody.
>>
>>9556466
When did I say anyone thought he was the greatest ever? You're masterful when it comes to misinterpreting things so you can twist the discussion in a way that makes it easy for you to argue. Like a woman, kind of. My points are clear, whether or not you understand them, and yet nobody responds to what I actually say, just to the strawman they've set up to knock down with debatable logic. The point is that you're triggered. How and why is hard to say, but every response I've gotten was addressed before they posted it, but then changed around to fit some shitty narrative you guys have created in order to keep the circlejerk going. Bravo.
>>
>>9556477
>doesn't know what exaggeration is
The only people talking about where King stands in the halls of literary greatness are you pretentious faggots. Everybody else is just saying they like the guy's work. Hell most of us have even criticized him as well. But keep arguing in circles though. You might end up actually winning the argument nobody else is participating in.
>>
>>9556056
>he's so much of a pleb that even Kafka seems hard to him
>>
>>9556501
From my limited experience in talking to King fans, it seems like they actually just get insanely triggered at any criticism of him and sperg out without giving any real reason. So don't play high horse as if being a butthurt brainlet is honorable or some shit. I clearly stated my side in as many dumbed down ways as I could think of, and was still misinterpreted. I still haven't received one well thought out response.
>>
>>9556506
>hurr durr he insulted it so he doesn't understand it
It's just boring shit written and read by boring faggots. Nothing hard about it.
>>
>>9556511
And you're assblasted that nobody is taking your pretentious ass seriously. Go find another thread to blend into with your hivemind opinions about smart literature.
And keep complaining about people using 4chan insults and talking points while you call people butthurt brainlets like the hypocritical, pretentious, and tryhard faggot you are.
>>
>>9556512
When you understand something dense, it's not boring anymore. One of the best ways to catch a brainlet red-handed is to look out for these types of comments. When someone calls it boring, and that's their only criticism, they're obviously idiotic or 12.
>>
>>9556522
>he's legitimately unable to say anything intelligent even when given the chance over and over
Fuckin lol
>>
>>9556529
Call me a brainlet and a redditor after you complain about 4chan insults again. I enjoy reading intelligent posts like that.
>>
>>9556536
>still nothing of value stated
The difference is that it's an empty insult when you don't understand what pretentious means. You're verifiably unintelligent, so...
>>
>>9556550
I use the book definition.
Like when you attach a greater importance to yourself for liking something and shtting on something else. That's pretentious.
Now here's where you go
>lol what are you 12 you brainlet
>>
>>9556559
So, if I'm understanding correctly, someone saying that a writer is pulpy genre fiction, but that he can enjoy it while understanding that, is somehow pretentious? That seems like an easy way to ignore any opinion that differs from yours. I'm curious what you'll say next, now.
>>
>>9556580
That's not what you said at first. You literally said
"he was my favorite when I was 12, but I grew out if it and so should you". Nothing about enjoying pulpy anything. Just a pretentious "what're you doing liking this shit" comment from a pretentious faggot pretending to be smart. You didn't start with the "i like him though" shit until I pointed out that your parroted opinions weren't facts. But to be fair, pointing out the opinions thing is a surefire way to get most of you hipsters to start backpeddling.
>>
>>9556590
I stand by the fact that he was once my favorite author, but I grew up and realized he's not very good. I don't understand how the point of that isn't evident. Those are not contradictions, but I can see why you'd want them to be, considering it seems to be your only point.
>>
>>9556594
>not liking an author and wanting a real discussion from someone who does us being a part of the hivemind
Okay then. Good work, friend.
>>
>>9555833
>fucking tryhard
Stephen King has an incredibly affected prose style, as much as you're trying to market all the haters as "pretentious", there is more pretense, in the actual sense of the word, in a Stephen King novel than what you would consider traditionally "literary". I'll grant you this: DFW is one of the only other writers discussed on here regularly that is even close to King's level of affected, pretentious, and smug style of writing.
>>
He is only popular because he was on advertisement back then.
>>
He was only popular because he wore jncos
>>
>>9556590
Also, this post reads like it's on r/books, and I don't mean that in the usual "You need to go back." memeing. If you want to discuss Orson Scott Card, Stephen King and Douglas Adams, you could go there and not get any of the pushback of /lit/. You know /lit/ loves to attack these kinds of authors, why do you come here and then complain when your taste is lower than the mean and instead of reasoning you just throw around pretentious? I just don't even understand why you would waste your own time and ours.
>>
Wow this thread is absolutely autistic.
>>
>>9556299
>quality being subjective
Yep. No wonder practically everything is shit these days.
>>
>>9556616
I was under the impression that affective, pretensive prose is the height of literary achievement and that a more direct and unaffected prose was the hallmark of genre fiction (like what King makes)?
So which is it?
>>
>>9556668
That would be your perspective, yes. Very good.
>>
>>9556674
Ok, I'm done with /lit/ for the day.
>>
>>9556651
>taste is lower
Totally not pretentious. Also you're not the arbiter of 4chan. I know you faggots like to treat this website as a "i'm better than you" pissing contest, but not everybody is an elitist hipster.
>>
>>9556691
Not gonna explain just gonna backpeddle out.
Very smart of you.
>>
>>9556704
You have to be the dumbest poster in here. Of course you like King, his prose reads like a 14 year old kid talking down to a 10 year old. He has no respect or faith in his audience. It's dumbed down genre fiction written for bored mom's on road trips.
>>
>>9556715
>no answer just insults
Oh, so you're full of shit. Just like I though.
>>
>>9556691
Yeah, man. Can we make a new /lit/? Why did people tell reddit about this place?
>>
>>9556715
Every two weeks we have this thread, one of them comes from r/books and tries a one-man insurrection to get /lit/ reading Ender's Shadow and The Gunslinger series.
>>
>>9556731
Nobody is trying to get anyone to read anything.
A Stephen King thread was started about how long one of his books were and you tryhards come out of the woodwork.
>>
>>9556704
You actually expect people to respond to that comment? It's honestly the most obnoxiously dumb thing I've seen on this board, and I've been here for a long fucking time. You can't just make retarded statements and expect someone to play along.
>>
>>9556760
It's the fucking opinion that most literary scholars hold.
Since your much smarter than me please explain how I was wrong? Or maybe you /lit/ faggots are just smarter than the literary critics themselves?
>>
>>9556771
>I was under the impression that affective, pretensive prose is the height of literary achievement
>It's the fucking opinion that most literary scholars hold.
I literally laughed out loud at this. Is this what they actual teach at Workingmans Online State University™?
>>
>>9556771
You're misunderstanding the point so badly it's hard to even address. The point is that you're calling others pretentious for not liking perhaps the most pretentious author in American literary history.
>>
>>9556788
Because of affective prose?
>>
>>9556783
Oh, so you're a college kid still going through the "man i'm so smart because i can parrot opinions that my college professor told me about" stage of life. Explains everything really.
>>
>>9556814
Alright, you're definitely a troll.
>>
>>9556834
So he's pretentious because he uses affective prose. Okay.
So is affective prose considered to be more literary or less literary than unaffective prose?
>>
>>9556843
>affected
>affective
You're going to have to learn to read at some point bud
>>
>>9556857
Okay I'm a retard. Now tell me which is more literary.
>here's where you rely on a subjective opinion thus relegating your argument to the trashcan
>>
>>9556872
Is the prose is affective, it's clearly more literary. That's not the point anyway, but you chose to focus in on that one word (incorrectly, somehow) he used, rather than addressing the statement itself. It's ridiculous to be getting triggered by someone calling you dumb, and then acting even more retarded.
>>
this is basically like listening to two virgins talk about the best method to stroke a pussy.
>>
>>9555338
>has read King
I'm embarrassed for you.
>>
>>9556898
Okay. So using the most literary form of prose makes your work not literary. Good point, hipsters.
>>
>>9557067
What's the most literary form of prose?
>>
>>9557077
Let me rephrase:
So because he uses a more literary prose than unaffected prose that makes his work not literature.
>>
>>9557067
Yeah, sure, whatever you say. I'm sure you have decades of literary experience to back up whatever nonsensical point you're making.
>>
>>9557088
>I'm sure you have decades of literary experience
Not at all. I'm not one of you hipster faggots. I don't pretend like I'm something I'm not.
>nonsensical point
The point is that there are faggots itt that state that King's work isn't literature and the affected prose faggot gave me something viable that points to his work actually being literature and I'm gonna rub your stupid pretentious snouts in it.
>>
>>9556361
Not that anon, but you are a gigantic faggot. Quality is partially objective and denying that is retarded. Choke on a cock and die.
>>
>>9557139
>The point is that there are faggots itt that state that King's work isn't literature and the affected prose faggot gave me something viable that points to his work actually being literature and I'm gonna rub your stupid pretentious snouts in it.
You're changing the world with your work man.
>>
>>9557143
Yes. Like a novel with correct punctuation and spelling is a better novel than one with incorrect spelling and punctuation. But just about everything else is subjective to the readers tastes.
>>
I've got some friends in the film industry. they told me that the child gang-bang is in the new adaptation and it's fucking brutal. almost forty minutes long. at one point the fat kid and the black kid spitroast her.
they brought in Bryan Singer specifically for that scene.
>>
>>9557143
>Quality is partially objective
haha really? So give some objective testable criteria for judging literature or any art at all. guess what, you won't
>>
>>9557184
simple, fucko. If I like it, then it's good. Suck on that for about ten minutes, cupcake.
>>
>>9557193
Oh, so you don't know what objective means. Not surprising really. Now run along to your community college creative writing class, so you can continue to be the overseer of literature quality.
>>
>>9557205
oh, so you don't know not to speak with your mouthful. I think i'll run along to your sisters room and get my ass eaten while i wait for your mom to show up for the real show. Apologies for the noise sweetums.
>>
>>9557213
no point, just insults. Fucking cretin. Are you a nigger or just enjoy acting like one? We're done here. Don't respond again monkey. You're lowering everyone's IQ
>>
>>9556210
saved
>>
>>9557227
sry, too busy enjoying my victory over ice cream and a tongue up my ass to respond.
>>
>>9557232
Nobody read that wall of text when it was originally posted and nobody is gonna read it when you repost it.
>>
>>9556210
Well put, anon. It's an immediate sign that someone struggles with dense literature when they right away resort to calling its fans pretentious. It's a dead giveaway. I don't understand their reasoning, and assume they don't either, because any request for explanation is met with more shallow insults. Which is ironic in a real obnoxious way, considering those comments tend to be the most pretentious in the thread. King writes for young adults, or at least people with the intellect of one, and I've yet to be shown any evidence to the contrary, considering the responses in this thread, pathetically attempting to defend King by calling his critics names and getting butthurt. It's sad that this board has fallen this far, where any criticism is met with a brick wall of ignorance. Everyone likes some pulp trash, it's fun and easy and a nice escape, but elevating it higher than that to make yourself feel better is not only childish, but profoundly sad.
>>
>>9556752
OP here. I'm very pleased with the direction this thread took.
>>
>>9557240
You defend Stephen King rambling on with amateurish prose, shallow metaphors, and edgelord language for 1,000 pages, but won't read a few short paragraphs that destroy your entire argument. Typical.
>>
>>9557287
Name the times that anyone defending King in this thread have elevated anything he wrote and didn't just state that they liked him and I'll point out how full of shit you are.
Keep trying to justify your weak parroted opinions that everyone is supposed to have about fine literature, though.
>>
>>9557287
you forgot to call everyone a 12 year old brainlet and tell us all to go back to /reddit/. you're slipping son
>>
>>
>>9557309
The outright refusal to admit he writes pulp trash is the same thing, dumbass. I don't think you realize how many different people you're arguing with right now.
>>
>>9557287
>Everyone likes some pulp trash, it's fun and easy and a nice escape
Even for pulpy trash I can't enjoy Stephen King. Many of his scenes are useless or overlong, and the plot just completely stops at times. The early Richard Bachman novels are nice and fast paced, but I rarely hear admiration for them.
>>
>>9557327
It doesn't need to be said anymore, you're saying it with every post
>>
>>9557329
You're such a pathetic faggot. It has nothing to do with it being offensive, it's incredibly clunky and reads like a child wrote it. Many authors have inserted curse words into their prose in ways that make it better, I cringe every time King does it. On Writing was such a joke of a book, and it's insulting that he thinks he's qualified to give any advice, not to mention you could get better, and more creative, advice on fucking /r/reddit.
>>
>>9557332
Nobody refused to admit that. You just assume that because we call you pretentious faggots out for being pretentious faggots that that's what we're doing.
>also implying that pulpy trash isn't literature
It isn't fine literature that your commie college professor will gush about, but it is literature.
>>
>>9557352
It's funny how you keep talking about what good and bad prose is yet can't define either. I'm guessing you think that books with a bunch of commas and semi-colons that use words you need to stop and look up in a dictionary makes it a literary masterwork. You have no clue what you're talking about you fucking clown. It's obvious you're parroting what your creative writing teacher told you makes something "good".
>>
Hey, anyone ever notice that people trash king for being not so good a writer? I just noticed that. What's up with that?
>>
>>9557368
You make a lot of assumptions for someone who likes Stephen King. Also, I've never been to college, but I've clearly read more than you. Please, explain what's pretentious about what people here are saying about King. Which comments are incorrect? His prose is clunky (in my opinion, you triggered child), his word choice makes me physically cringe (if you can't defend him any other way than "hurr I like it so it's good" then this is good enough) at times, and his attempts at symbolism and metaphors are so intensely obvious that if you don't catch it your IQ is below 65. At no point do I set the book down and think about anything, it never gives me chills or inspire me to write. It's like reading a movie. I don't see any difference between King and Rowling, as far as prose goes. It works, sure, it tells the story, but I don't think he's a talented writer and you still haven't explained why that's pretentious.
>>
>>9557414
link to one of your novels pls
>>
>>9557433
Oh, I forgot, you can't criticize any writers until you have finished a novel yourself that's better than all 600 of his YA Walmart trash books.
>>
>>9557451
you're in no position to criticize anything because you're a fucking retard
>>
>>9557464
You still haven't explained why. Still. I'd say you're the retarded one, and I would say it with confidence and conviction.
>>
>>9557474
Because you talk shit about quality of prose but can never explain what you mean by this. I know you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about so whatever ape.
>>
>>9557513
Alright, since we're clearly talking to a child here, let me try a different tactic. What do you, friend, see on his prose that makes you say it's "quality"?
I expect more insults and no explanation.
>>
>>9557327
Good job ignoring the point and changing your angle every time your point has been BTFO. You've done it throughout this entire thread, and it's entertaining af. Keep going pls
>>
>>9557518
The burden of proof is on you.
Define what "clunky" prose is? Or at least try to without resorting to an opinion you've heard.
>>
>>9557541
That wasn't me. That's another guy calling you out for your hypocritical bullshit.
>>
>>9557518
HAHAHA, I fucking knew you wouldn't back up your criticism with anything. You and all the other fucktarded wannabe intellectual hipster fags in this thread are the useless fucking cunts making claims about King's prose and acting like you can judge what is good or bad "literature" when it's clear you're an absolute moron. So please explain how you objectively judge literature or fuck off. I won't hold my breath waiting for a real reply that actually backs up your criticism though.
>>
>>9557541
And please tell me how my point has btfo'd by anyone in this thread? I just see pretentious hipsters throwing around insults and assuming things.
>>
>>9557542
Everything I've said is the way I personally feel about him, so when you repeatedly imply that I've somehow ripped these criticisms off of someone else it's a little embarrassing for you. Unless you can find whatever it is I'm stealing these points from, because I'd sure like to read it or talk to that person.
I mean that there isn't any rhythm to the way he writes. When I read Pynchon or Faulkner, there's a recognizable pattern to the way they structure their sentences. So much so, that no matter which book it is - or how vastly different the language itself is - their voice is immediately recognizable. I don't see that in King. It sounds bland in my head, and reads like a reddit post or something. It seems obvious that he's just writing as fast as he can, whatever comes to his mind, no matter how little it fits into the novel or how clunky it sounds. When I commit to reading a novel, I want to know the author sat there for days, making sure every word is placed perfectly, and I don't think King does that. He doesn't listen to his editor, it's obvious, and he tries to go on these long, winding tangents, but his prose isn't pretty enough to carry me through it. It's too flat, bland, boring. He uses the same words repeatedly, and his sentence structure is predictable (pay attention, you'll notice this). I'm not saying he needs to be a prose stylist, he can do what he wants, but I would rather read a novel by someone who seems to care enough, trust and respect his readers enough, to work on his prose until it fucking sings, nigger.
>>
>>9557549
The only ones insulting anyone are the King dicksucking faggot little kids who haven't made a single point besides "le so pretentious"
>>
>>9557577
>until it fucking sings
Oh, so it's just something intangible and subjective that you can't really define.
It'd be easier to just state "i don't like it" and be cool with that instead of having to shit on others opinions so your smug, elitist ass can feel superior.
>>
>>9557588
I pointed out that you were homosexual
>>
>>9557577
So your objective evidence of what makes real literature is really nothing but a bunch of ambiguous subjective feelings and opinions. Good to know. Thanks for playing.
>>
>>9557588
It's not an insult when it's the truth you pretentious hipster faggot.
>>
>>9557604
Okay, explain why you like it, then, because I did my best to put into words what I dislike about it, but nobody in this dumpster-fire of a thread has even attempted to do it for the other side.
>>
>>9557606
Which is irrelevant even if true, friend.
>>
>>9557626
>I did my best to put into words what I dislike about it
yeah, and you were wrong.
>>
>>9557634
we proved it, and it's highly relevant. Speaks a lot of your morals, and general low standards as well as self worth.
>>
>>9557638
Explain why. Are you too retarded to back up even one opinion you have. I'd rather you state Subjective shit than resort to this idiocy.
>>
>>9557626
I just like it because I enjoy his stories. I like horror, and I feel he does it well.
That's all the literary merit I need, faggot.
Fuck you and the whole "lol i'm better than you because i read stuff" hivemind you follow.
>>
>>9557620
Expand on what you mean by pretentious, please.
>>
>>9557652
Well I think he's a hack and that his readers are mostly children. Thanks for backing up that opinion with plenty of examples.
>>
>>9557655
On what way has anyone in this thread, other than the King fans, dome any of that? Fuckin lol this is sad to watch
>>
>>9557660
True. I read and adored King when I was 13-16, moved on from there. Easy casual style, his books are fun modern folk tales.
>>
>>9557660
>mostly children
Sure thing. I know I'm older than you.
Tell us all about reddit and objective opinions again, junior.
>>
>>9557626
>did my best to put into words what I dislike about it
Say it ain't so...but I thought you were the arbiter of prose and literature in general. Surely you can craft something that is concise and concrete that allows all us 12 year old redditors to bask in your sage wisdom. It should be simple for you to make all your well thought out and completely valid criticisms easy to understand for mere brainlets.
I mean you do have objective facts backing you up right? How hard can it be?
>>
>>9553757
Stop defending this hack.
>>
>>9557671
If you're actually older than me, you should rethink your life man... Damn. You can't even back up a single point of yours, or say anything of value on who knows how many comments, and you have more life experience than me. How does that feel bud? You okay?
>>
>>9557667
Your total denial is pretty hilarious
>>
>>9557678
>Stephen King copied the fucking Simpsons movie
Wew
>>
>>9557686
And what point do I have to back up again? That I like King and that you're a pretentious faggot?
Okay, kiddo.
>>
>>9557678
pfft
>>
>>9557701
you /sffg/ faggots should stay in your containment thread
>>
>>9557701
Sure, start with those you pathetic old neckbeard
>>
>>9557678
http://stephenking.com/library/unpublished/cannibals_the.html
>>
>>9557725
damage control he made up on the spot
>>
>>9557721
And that's what I thought.
>b-but you didn't even back up one point
Sure I didn't kiddo. Now get your ass back to your creative writing class so your liberal professor can mold and shape your weak opinions for you.
>>
>>9557733
Whatever helps you keep that pretentious head up your ass.
>>
>>9557736
Aaaand he changes his point again, to avoid having to explain himself. Goddammit man, you must still live with mom because no way you're doing well in the real world.
>>
>>9557744
Aaaaaaand you're obviously trolling now.
Thanks for playing, champ.
>>
>>9557756
Not even trolling. If you back down every time someone asks you to explain yourself, without even trying, you're pathetic and I know for a fact your life is in shambles, if it ever took off enough for it to be. I've never seen anyone on here argue with such vehement autism, such an utter disregard for the fact that nobody else can understand what the fuck your talking about if you don't understand it enough yourself to even explain it. I thought you were 12 this whole time, because you were crying so hard, but Wew lad you just made my day
>>
>>9557713
Your the one posting in a thread about an author that you don't like.
There's plenty of threads out there about foreign born literary geniuses that describe the beauty of every day life with flower sounding prose. Go find them.
>>
>>9557744
>>9557686
>>9557518
>>9557626
Look children. I know you just learned how to write compound-complex sentences in your creative writing course. But can you all just cool it. I can't hold all these commas you're shitting out all over the place. You mouthbreathers claiming to be able to judge good prose from bad is a fucking joke. You all type so much but say nothing.
>>
>>9557775
Explain what, junior? Nothing I've said needs explaining and if it does please point it out.
>>
>>9557713
This desu
>>
>>9557775
>Not even trolling. If you back down every time someone asks you to explain yourself, without even trying, you're pathetic and I know for a fact your life is in shambles, if it ever took off enough for it to be. I've never seen anyone on here argue with such vehement autism, such an utter disregard for the fact that nobody else can understand what the fuck your talking about if you don't understand it enough yourself to even explain it. I thought you were 12 this whole time, because you were crying so hard, but Wew lad you just made my day
terrible, shit prose
>>
>>9557780
>his only insult
You'd benefit from a writing class yourself, grandpa.
>>
>>9557794
effected you mean
>>
>>9557827
lol, you're arguing with like 5 people, junior.
I did copy the creative writing thing from anon though. Seems like it hurts your butt pretty good so I ran with it.
I'll leave you alone now though. I know how embarrassing it is to not know the difference between the words subjective and objective. It's probably something you should have paid attention to. Spend more time with word definitions and meanings and less time parroting opinions that make seem/feel smart.
>>
>>9557859
Which opinions were taken from someone else, anon? Also, I don't think you realize that not all of those posts were me bud
>>
>>9557859
I never once claimed my opinion was objective, and I repeatedly stated it was an opinion. Over and over. You ignored it because that's your only tactic, to ignore the person's point, turn it into something completely different, and beat up on a strawman. You're basically arguing with yourself because nothing you've said has actually been in response to anyone, it's just been you repeating the same thing, something that was never said by anyone in this thread. It's sad, especially if you're an adult as you claim.
>>
>>9557868
>Which opinions
Only the ones that read like they were lifted from a snobby new york times writer's review article. Which is all of them.
>I don't think you realize
I didn't make that post. And the guy who did didn't even imply it was one person. He typed "children" not "child".
>>
>>9557873
>I never once claimed my opinion was objective, and I repeatedly stated it was an opinion. Over and over. You ignored it because that's your only tactic, to ignore the person's point, turn it into something completely different, and beat up on a strawman. You're basically arguing with yourself because nothing you've said has actually been in response to anyone, it's just been you repeating the same thing, something that was never said by anyone in this thread. It's sad, especially if you're an adult as you claim.
1/10. bad prose
>>
>>9557886
effected and pretentious. Not even a popular writer, I hear. pure garbage.
>>
LEARN TO WRITE BEFORE YOU JUDGE WRITING YOU GAY FAGGOT HOMOS
>>
>>9557892
he doesn't even write 2,000,000+ word novels about religious life in medieval europe that's an allegory for repressed homosexuality in the 20th century
wutta fuckin pleb
>>
>>9557873
>he still thinks i'm arguing with him
You're old news, pal. I'm arguing with junior now.
>>
>>9556174
This is the problem I had with Salems Lot and It. The plot moved to slow and the writing was too dull to carry me foward. The Stand was the only decent book I found interesting enough to carry me through.
>>
>>9557910
Another pathetic dodge to avoid having to argue intelligently. You're a pro.
>>
Does King break the 4th wall or insert himself into every novel?
>>
>>9557930
methinks you're attempted to cover up your own dodging by accusing me of dodging. Nice try golden buns, but you haven't answered me. You're going to have to man up and take this dick one day.
>>
>>9557930
What am I dodging exactly?
I implore you to point it out to me like the educated literary genius you are.
>>
>>9557940
No.
>>
>>9557900
Awful prose
>>
>>9555833
>guaranteed replies
>>
>>9557950
>>9557954
>>9557964
>>9557970
>>9557946
>>9557940
>>9557930
>>9557923
>>9557910
>>9557903
>>9557900
>>9557892
>>9557886
>>9557885
>>9557873
>>9557868
>>9557859
>>9557846
>>9557833
>>9557827
>>9557794
>>9557790
>>9557785
>>9557780
>>9557776
>>9557775
>>9557756
>>9557744
>>9557741
>>9557736
>>9557733
>>9557725
>>9557713
>>9557721
>>9557705
>>9557701
>>9557688
>>9557686
>>9557676
>>9557671
>>9557667
>>9557660
>>9557652
>>9557626
>>9557620
>>9557604
>>9557588
>>9557577
>>9557549
>>9557548
>>9557546
>>9557542
lrn 2 prose
Thread posts: 220
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5