I don’t remember who, but someone once described Poe as “three-fifths sheer genius and two-fifths sheer fudge.” I think that could be fairly applied to King as well.
*Salem’s Lot *and *The Shining *stand out as his best novels IMHO, and *It *by far was the biggest disappointment - I thought *It *was great until that ending. Ruined the book for me.
I’ve only read about five or six of his books. I’m not a Horror fan, so they aren’t my cup of cold sick, but I did read his non-Horror stuff and a few of his classics, and my overall opinion is he is very good at realistic squirm-inducing imagery, but his stories are often a slog and meanderingly structured.
I voted “He’s okay”.
Meh… He’s okay I guess. If you like that kind of stuff.
When he’s great, he’s really, really, really great.
Few authors have fired my imagination like he has.
But he doesn’t always deliver the goods.
Even so, I’ll continue to read his fiction, as he always provides a few real nuggets of genuine literary gold somewhere in the story (except maybe not in Dreamcatcher).
Oh, wait, was that the one with the stones and the number 8 (or 7)? God, that one did get to me.
I’m surprised that people didn’t like It. It’s the prime example of how he can’t write an ending, but before you got to the ending… there are just so many memorable pieces for me, like the speakeasy, and the factory, and the library…
I’ve read all his fiction (I think) and I own a copy of most of it.
I started when I was in high school and he was my favorite ever since. I did not sleep the summer I started reading him. Really, it took me like a decade and a half before I could sleep in total darkness and I still don’t like it much.
While I haven’t loved his recent stuff as much for the most part, I think that has more to do with immunity from editing, rather than losing his talent. Seriously, did no one say to him “You CANNOT put yourself in the Dark Tower. And that ending? Your fans have been reading this for decades. Don’t stop it like that!”
And it made me crazy that he kept calling the Golden Snitches something like Sneetches. I don’t begrudge him making an honest mistake or a typo, but come on editors! Change it!
As I’ve gotten older and wiser and more well read, I see how derivative he can be and that disappointed me. But he takes so much and makes it his own and that does take a different kind of talent. So while I lost a little respect for him, I still can appreciate the end result.
I think he will be remembered and considered a great entertainer. Sure, he might not be “literary”, but so what? Sometimes I just want to be entertained and there are layers in a lot of his works. I think he’s better than a lot of his detractors give him credit for and not as awesome as some of the fans think.
And he can write it so many different media, while so many writer have trouble with just one. He can do first, second, and third person well. Except for Gerald’s Game (which I LOATHE and is the only story older than a few years that I have not re-read at least once. Most have been re-read a bunch. Do you know how long it takes to read the uncut The Stand 10 times?), even if I don’t much like a story, I can’t put it down.
I hadn’t thought about the “end-itis.” That is a good way to classify the problem of some of his most recent work, especially Under The Dome.
One book I really loved that hasn’t been mentioned upthread was Bag of Bones. I was giving my kid a bath and thinking of when the woman called the narrator and the kid got on the phone and talked about her bath. His books, even if I don’t think they’re always quality writing, stick with me and pop into my head most days in some way. Not many other authors or entertainers in other media come up in my day-to-day life often.
I think he’s a great writer overall. Personally I don’t have a lot of time for him. Many of his longer books simply get into agonizing detail I don’t much care for. I love his short stories, to me they are his best work. I’d rather spend a night re-reading his short stories then a week finishing one of his novels.
That’s one of the things I love about him - many, many times I’ve been trying to remember what movie I saw something in…and I figure out it’s from one of his books. It takes a great writer to make such a story that it seems like a movie in your head 
I think the guy can be brilliant though some times he misses. Most of the stuff when his drinking got really bad (King said that he doesn’t remember writing Tommyknockers).
I think he is really going to be known in the future for his short stories. He is by far my favorite short story writer.
I think his biggest problem isn’t so much editing as not knowing when a story just isn’t there. I think that he continues writing stuff when it would be better if he just said ‘That’s a damned good idea but I am blowing it’ and move on to something else. See Dreamcatcher.
Slee
Jesus… if Stephen King is the McDonald’s of literature, what the hell are Dean Koontz and Clive Cussler?
Seriously, nothing Stephen King has ever written comes close to being as bad as Clive Cussler. Or most of Tom Clancy’s bullshit. Or “Hannibal,” God help me.
I’m still the lone hold out who actually liked Hannibal. 
I’ve been thinking it’s time to read The Stand again soon (it will only be the fifth time for me, I think).
That’s a really good description of reading his books. When I first watched The Stand miniseries, most of the casting was dead on, and the characters have those actors’ faces now (but some of it was awful, and my mind picture has reverted to the original).
I forgot to say, I adored Duma Key. I thought it was just wonderfully written, and I relished reading it for the first time (well, I’ve only read it once now, but I will re-read it some day).
By the way, Binkley and Doinkle scared the shit out of me when I was a little kid. Maybe Stephen King could do something with them.
I didn’t like any of the choices, so I didn’t vote, but I will share my thoughts.
King once described his work as ‘the literary equivilant of junk food.’ I would tend to agree, with the stipulation that some of it is finger lickin’ good.
I stopped reading King somewhere around Bag of Bones because he just goes on and on. Ok, enough character development, I had a good bead on 'em 100 pages ago. Not that his character development is bad, it’s just getting in the way of the story, too much loses the flow. King and Peter Jackson need to go to editors anonymous.
I think his nonfiction (what little I’ve read of it) is basically fine. I think his fiction is craptastic. (And bear in mind, this is coming from somebody who will happily read stories written by L. Ron fucking Hubbard.)
My tastes in horror run toward the old Weird Tales/Algernon Blackwood/William Hope Hodgson/John Collier style. I’d be curious to learn how much classic horror King’s fans have ever bothered with.
I think he can be a fantastic storyteller and there are few authors that have ever really gotten any reaction from me (the bit in Gerald’s Game where she sees the man in the corner scared the hell out of me). Is he perfect? No. Some of his books and stories are dreadful, but he’s one of the few that I ever want to read more than once or twice. He’s generally very good at what he does. Lucky for me, what he does is right up my alley.
Hallijah! I HATED Tommyknockers too! Never got into that one.
I love Stephen King. I still remember back in 93 picking up the Dead Zone and falling in love with him.
There are some slow boring books, and then there’s books that are effing AMAZING.
He IS an amazing short story writer.
Does anyone else think that Pet Sematary is about the relapse part of the addiction cycle? I have a friend who relapsed last year, and I reread it…HOLY COW. the whole killing and burying the pet and it coming back as a horrible creature…the line in the movie (forget if its in the book… " I can bury her and she’ll come back to life. I didnt do it correctly with Gage! I can do it this time!"…it’s what the addict thinks when he relaspes …
I love how he mixes real life horror (abused battered women, death of a child, the Maine redneck existence and all that sort of stuff) with the supernautral…
I loved early to mid- Stephen King but the last few have been a bit hard to get through except for Duma Key.
Although I see the complaints about It, I didn’t care so much about the insect-inspired ending. The characters of the children and their lives outside of the horror they were living were very well-done, especially Ben and Beverly. I loved Ben and still want to find him and give him a big hug. I’m not really about the endings, I guess. The fact that I still have a crush on Stu Redman over 25 years after I read about him is enough proof that if he does lack good endings, he makes up for it by great characters that you care about. So when semi-lame things happen to them, you are still pretty invested in their welfare ;)!
I wish I could relive reading Misery and The Stand again- just amazing experiences.
I didn’t vote; none of the options apply to me.
I devoured his early work when it was current. Loved his short story compilations, in particular. I gave up on him in the late 80’s (circa Pet Sematary, It) because it seemed he had lost his focus and perhaps ran out of ideas.
As others have pointed out, he needs a stronger editor. And he should publish just a fraction of what he has.
Ironically, one of my favorite King books is non-fiction: “On Writing”.
mmm