Inspired by this thread. Stepehen King is obviously prolific, successful and popular, and that tends to make people thing you’re just a lucky hack.
I think King is amazing, and when he gets it right, he is better than damn near any other writer.
I’ve read only a little bit of King, but from what I’ve seen, I think he probably will be listed as one of the 20th century’s major literary authors, possibly ranked with Poe.
No joke. As for his literary credentials, he’s already published in The New Yorker. Twice. Hacks don’t do that.
I said he’s OK. I think he certainly has some hack-like qualities. I like his books a lot, but I generally, affectionately refer to them as “my trash”. Other girls read Harlequin romance, I read horror. His major problem is he can’t end a novel worth a damn. I hate most of the endings of my favorite novels, whether it be deus ex machina, everything starting all over again, or a unscary bug.
I didn’t see a good option in the poll, but I wanted to respond to say that King is the king (heh) of storylines that bring you in, wrap you up in promises, and then put out a totally limp-dick ending.
It was a clear indicator of what was going to happen on LOST when I discovered that King was a fan and was consulting with the producers of the show.
Was great, now sucks.
I fell in love with him as a kid and thought he was the best writer ever. He creeped me out so good that a fear of him burned into my psyche, and I don’t read him as an adult now, because I’m still scared. For real. And some of his style and language has worked it’s way into some of my catchphrases. Instead of saying red, I like to say ‘crimson’ since he used that alot when talking about blood. I also like to use the phrase ‘carrion flesh’ which he used often, along with ‘gaping wound’.
When I became an adult, I learned that a lot of people didn’t think he is a good writer. Imagine my surprise. I thought he was a genius.
He has his share of duds, but the good stuff is awesome.
I answered that he’s okay. His books are certainly readable and entertaining, but I’ve never really been blown away by his prose. I haven’t read anything he’s written in years, but my impression - having read a lot of his earlier stuff when I was younger - is that he got worse as time passed.
Agreed that his endings tend to suck. WTF was up with the end of It? Up until the last hundred pages or so, that was the scariest thing I’d ever read. Then it all falls apart in a completely creepy (and not in the good way) manner.
Also, he needs better editing.
Publishing in the New Yorker hardly means you’re destined for literary immortality. He’s a genre writer. An extremely successful one (even if his best days are behind him), but not someone that is going into the literary canon. Not even close. He’s great (or was great) at what he does, but people tend to get hyperbolic when it comes to their own likes and dislikes. He’s about as destined for literary greatness as Agatha Christie.
The quality of his books varies wildly. The Stand = great, Insomnia = terrible (for instance).
What he does, he does pretty well. He is a master at “ordinary people have weird-ass shit thrown at them” stories, although sometimes he spends to much time on the “weird-ass” part and not enough on the “story” part.
So was Poe.
Shakespeare was his era’s equivalent.
Dickens was a paid-by-the-word purveyor of schmaltz. (And a crap writer, to boot.)
I’m not sure how any of these mean that King is a good writer. If you want to believe he’s the new Shakespeare, be my guest.
Ditto.
I enjoy King, and own about 20 of his books (including collections of short stories), and I couldn’t agree more with this statement. The man really, REALLY needs to work on his endings.
I said “better than most”, but that’s following Sturgeon’s Law that states that 90% of everything is crud. Since King isn’t crud, he automatically is “better than most” :).
King is inconsistent and has gotten weaker over time, but when he is on nobody is better at his preferred genres than him.
I’ve made the analogy to Dickens many times. King himself kept comparing himself to Poe, and citing Poe’s reputation as “the Great American Hack”.
Literature professors hate King, thinking him the literary equivalent of McDonald’s. He’s instantly accessible and plays for emotions and writes splashy genre fiction. But he has an exceptional ear for dialogue and a keen feel for the soul of 20th (now 21st) century Middle- and lower-class American life. Not all of his stuff is genre. I think it’ll come to be appreciated properly, but not until he’s been long dead.
That said, I;'ve read some of his short fiction that’s been absolutely atrocious. But his other stuff – not all of it older – more than makes up for it.
Hack. Got lucky early, then coasted for a few decades. A better guitarist than author.
He’s similar to the Rolling Stones…a long career with tremendous output that has produced brilliant gems that will live forever, but most of the rest of his work ranges from mediocre filler to crap.
I think he truly shines in the short story format, he’s a true master. He struggles when he takes a tight idea that would be best expressed in a short story and tries to pad it out into a novel–it just comes out reading like padding.
He is a good writer, but that’s rather beside the point of the post.
The post was rebutting your claim that he won’t be remembered as a great writer because he’s a genre writer.