I think Dickens was a satirist more than a reformer, which doesn’t make him less of a great author.
King went through a mastubatory period, when it was too obvious that he overly identified with his central characters, all of whom seemed to be writers. But I don’t think he celebrates horror or low impulses. Have you read Danse Macabre? He goes quite deeply into the motivations for horror in general at a societal level, and comes to the conclusion that he suspects it’s the restoration to normalcy as much as the thrill ride that makes people enjoy it. Sort of like the old joke about the guy who wears his shoes too tight because it feels so good when he gets home and takes them off.
I’ll agree that King’s best work is the non horrific stuff - the work in which there is either no horror or where the horror is off-stage, but that’s because I have no personal taste for horror in books or movies; it just doesn’t interest me. It’s King’s style that has always roped me in, from the first time I picked up a book of his because it happened to be there and have a shiny cover. (It was, not surprisingly, The Shining :D) I loved that book for two reasons - one, because it took me into the mind of a child without showing me utter contempt for adults (which at that time in my life I assumed was the default state of mind of all children), and more importantly, because it wasn’t clear where the outer influences coming from the hotel ended and the inner fluences from Jack’s past began - it seemed as if the madness sprang from both.
But there is at least one paragraph in that book which in entirely unnecessary. It is when the black cook who also “shines,” living in Florida, gets the kid’s psychic shout for help and almost has an accident because the shout is so powerful. The person whose car he almost hits with the limo he’s driving yells some insults, and, well:
Yeah, it’s a cheap laugh. But I loved it then, and I love it now. If you had your way, things like that would be editted out, and I at least would be the poorer for it.
I’m getting a completely different vibe from his latest books; like I said upthread, I just read “Duma Key,” and I think it is one of his strongest ever. I thought it was an absolute treat to read; it seemed much more mature and tighter than he’s been in a long time (and with no extraneous spiders!).
King is most effective at the short story length – some of his shorts pack an incredible wallop. He himself observed that it is easier to maintain the horrific atmosphere in a short than in a longer work.
In the earlier part of his novel-writing career, his editors would correctly insist on cuts, which forced him to focus a bit. Later on, he got to be popular enough that he could ignore this advice. Clancy, Gresham, and Rowling all went through the same process. (Clancy’s last novel is about half the length of his previous efforts. I won’t say it’s a great novel – it isn’t – but it does move much more quickly than his more typical doorstops.)
Interesting. My daughter tried to read it this weekend, but had to stop because she was getting too scared.
BTW, as another King fan, I’m very pleased to meet you!
Ah, yes, the monkey. I’m in the middle of a “Supernatural” marathon (have to get it back to my sister soon), and in one episode, a kid has a cymbal-banging monkey toy (which starts up on its own, of course) - seriously, who still buys cymbal-banging monkey toys? Don’t they know those damned things are all evil?
Assuming King becomes regarded as a major writer, which I think is entirely possible, I am quite puzzled as to why “The Stand” would be the novel of choice; it’s got a long, dreary, meandering story *that by King’s own admission * was going nowhere until he just threw in an explosion to shake things up. And it didn’t really go anywhere after that.
I could see “The Shining” being studied in school. Very possibly “The Dead Zone” and many of his short stories.
Also in Skeleton Crew - Gramma. Eek. My ex used to tease me by sidling up to me in bed and whispering ‘Gramma’ in my ear to freak me out (also ‘Triffids’ sometimes). I forced him to read ‘Gramma’. He apologised profusely.
Re the OP, I think it’s because King is just such a good writer and so good at the small things. If you strip his stories down to bare plot, as you need to more for a film, you get haunted car, vampires, haunted hotel, which just seem basic and simple without the excellent writing accompanying it…the details he puts in just wouldn’t work in film, so the films seem poor. One example from many - Larry Underwood from The Stand and his feat that he isn’t a ‘nice guy’. It’s such a dense book that it just couldn’t be included in the miniseries, but it does show a lot about Larry’s character.
Ooh I’m going to start a Stephen King thread now. And reread The Stand on this rainy summer’s day…
I second this notion wholeheartedly. His characters are thoroughly real even when they are vampires or monsters. I’m the type of person who just loses herself completely in a book, and King never disappoints me. No matter what reaction his protagonists have, I can identify.
Dammit, I was about to start a new series I just borrowed from someone; now I’m gonna have to reread me some King and get all skeered.
I don’t know. To me, The Stand has that “epic” quality that a lot of school reading has. It is also one of the most “American” books in recent memory.
Really, it’s the same reasons my 10th grade teacher gave for why Amy Tan’s Joy Luck Club was added to the school reading list.
The Long Walk was a great book, but would make a terrible terrible movie. There’s just no way I can see it being good without adding in some unneeded “backstory” or commentary on today’s spate of reality game shows.
