I’m with sleestak. I heard it was Tommyknockers that he wrote while on cocaine and barely remembered writing. Maybe the Onion article was a take-off on that?
I’ve always liked Stephen King for the way he mostly does characters. He breathes life into them and lets them run. He’s had a few misfires and I’ll admit I haven’t read a lot of his most recent works, but I think he’s a great creator of characters on the whole. The fact that in general he’s twisted and tosses those characters into bizarre situations is a sidenote, for me.
Stephen King is a hack: his prose is juvenile and uninteresting, his themes are banal, and his characters are made of cardboard. Consequently, he’s very rich.
rmbnxs.
Thanks for your thoughts. At the same time can you provide a link to a book that you wrote that is better than Kings books?
I ask because I want serious commentary. I understand if you do not like King but you need to provide your thoughts on why King is “juvenile and uninteresting”. What King books or stories do you find to be just the work of a hack?
Why is King a hack? What exactly does King do wrong?
Slee
Yeah, but IIRC all hsi characters ever make are the self destructive ones.
**
And doomed the world. It’s been a decade or better since I read The Stand, but in the original version (and maybe in the bloated version 2.0), didn’t Stu have a flash of precog/intuition that he shouldn’t turn off the gas? (To be honest though, now that I type it, that is kind of a feeble objection: I wouldn’t have listened to a flash of intuition telling me not to save my life, and it’s not like Stu was whatshisname from The Dead Zone who regularly gets flashes of the future…)
Fenris
I have to agree with Fenris about Stephen King. I find that his early works had a power and simplicity to them that his more recent stuff just can’t match. I also find that his non-horror works resonate more strongly with me. His true voice comes through in short stories like ‘The Body’, which eventually became the movie Stand By Me. But in his horror, he often seems to take himself too seriously. Lately it seems like he’s been trying to write some sort of epic; his Dark Tower series is a good example. I read the first two in the series, and then completely lost interest. His ideas start off well, and then unravel into long-windedness and confusion. It is another good example- it starts off well, very creepy, scary in its familiar settings and almost banal in its depiction of tragic circumstances. Halfway through the book, King starts introducing largely pointless characters, rambles on about his own ideologies, and the ending was, IMHO, a massive trainwreck. He completely lost the plot. It feels like he suffers from a lack of good editing- he gets carried away with his own ideas about his story, instead of just telling the story itself. (Maybe he just needs to start adding appendices to his books.)
Another problem I have with King is the very obvious way he inserts himself into all his stories. There is always a character who is plainly him- the author or teacher with liberal leanings and a solid educational background. Almost every one of his horror novels (with a few exceptions) has this sort of protagonist. It seems like he knows a few characters very well, and keeps re-using them. Even his villains are pretty predictable.
Overall, my own personal opinions are King are that he definitely has a lot of talent. He just doesn’t seem to know when to stop that talent and get back to the story. He’s given up on ‘less is more’. I agree that people will be pointing to a few of King’s novels in 50 or 100 years and marvelling at his themes and his ability to capture the spirit of his times. But I seriously doubt his work could ever be called universal- it’s very obviously a product of its time, although this is not always a bad thing. But I’m pretty sure that in hindsight, future generations of literary critics will lament his eventual tumble into mediocrity.
Have you read anything by King? Is this a kneejerk reaction?
King can be quite good. I think his biggest problem is lack of editing. This might be related to his success.
Is he a profound thinker? Probably not.
Can he tell a story? Yes, when he’s on. I know of no writer more capable of keeping a reader turning and turning pages in order to find out what’s going to happen next.
Does he claim to do more than tell a story? Not that I know of.
What are his themes? Good vs. Evil. The human condition. Sex, death, grief. Age-old themes, it seems. Explain to me how these are banal.
Cardboard characters? There have been some I suppose; these might relate to lack of editing. Others have been more fully realized. Start with Carrie – King did. Again, his main objective seems to be to tell a story – he will subordinate all other considerations to this, somtimes to his detriment.
By the way, a couple of people have used the phrase “chewing on tinfoil” to describe some of work. It is apt description the books mentioned. And I’d like to point out that that as far as I know King coined this phrase, IIRC, in The Stand as he described one of his characters (Larry Underwood).
What was up with the movie Hearts In Atlantis? I saw that recently and kept waiting for some kind of big payoff or great plot twist, but it left me so utterly unsatisifed. There were no redeemable aspects to that film; it fails as melodrama, it fails as suspense, and it fails as a period piece documenting childhood in the 50s (60s?).
Is the written version any good? I fail to see how such an empty plot could have been produced into a movie.
Most of the book Hearts In Atlantis isn’t shown in the move.
They are quite different.
Generally speaking, I think Stephen King is very goo, although there are some notable exceptions. I absolutely hated Hearts In Atlantis . . . the first story was okay, if rather slow, but I disliked how it seemed the reader must be familiar with some of his other stuff to completely “get it.” The other stories in that book . . . nothing. Maybe I was too ill and too stoned on my meds to find whatever it was that supposedly made those stories print-worthy, but I really couldn’t find anything in them to make me not regret spending my money on that book. I was disappointed in a few other King novels from recent years, as well–I put down both Gerald’s Game and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon in boredom.
I also think The Stand is over-rated. It’s a neat idea, there were some cool images, and I suppose it was well written, but there was just too much there. Several times while reading this book I thought on behalf of various characters, “Are we there yet?” Of course, I’m reading the really long version, so perhaps some of what I perceive as excess was cut out in the leaner version. It’s a good book, but it’s certainly not King’s best, as some people seem to think (hell, I’ve ever heard people say The Stand is the best book ever). I’ve been thinking about starting a thread just to find out why so many people think The Stand is so damn great . . . perhaps I will if nobody comments in this thread.
Most of King’s books, however, kick ass. I think Carrie, which actually disturbed me and made me feel kind of sad, is still my favorite. Pet Semetary (did I spell that right?) is definitely among the creepier novels out there. The characters in most Stephen King novels seem real to me and I often find myself sympathizing with their various plights. Getting to know and like the characters in King’s books is for me usually more of a hook than the nature of what’s threatening them and how they defeat (or don’t defeat) it.
Now then, I have a question for norinew, who said:
It must be strange to hear King read a rough section of manuscript and then read an edited and polished section of the same manuscript a couple minutes later. How does he handle all the crossed out lines and editors’ marks and things?
Mephisto, it is weird to hear him read all this stuff. What he will do to convey this is: read the rough draft, read the finished, then actually explain what he did, and why. I’d be surprised if it was handled much differently in the written book. He just explains, then gives examples. But I really love the idea that it is read by the author.
As for your comments about The Stand, while I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s the best book ever written, I will say it’s one of my favorites of his. I think the length of time taken explaining things, and basically, reaching a destination, does a good job of conveying how the characters would feel under the circumstances. I can only imagine that in such a situation, time itself would stretch out unimaginably, as it always does whenever your life gets suddenly weird. I’ve read the abridged and the unabridged, and like the unabridged a little better. I would not, however, presume to tell anyone they’re wrong for disliking something that I like; all of this is just MHO.
Stephen King is fabulous, and I get really sick of all the people who constantly complain that he is a hack and doesn’t deserve his fortune.
If he is a hack, why does he have that fortune in the first place? Jealous, much?
When someone finds themselves in a position of great success, others begin to nitpick and find reasons why said person is so undeserving of it. Despite the fact that, ya know, he writes for more hours a day than I actually put in at the office. Despite the fact that he published his first novel at something like 23 or 24. Despite the fact that he’s the most popular novelist of our time, there simply must be something wrong with him, so let’s just say that he really can’t write and all those hundreds of millions of people who gladly give him their money are just brainwashed or something. That obviously makes more sense than the fact that he’s talented enough to have built up a respectable fan base. :rolleyes:
Sure 100% of everything he writes isn’t pure gold…it shouldn’t have to be. He writes what he writes, and if you’ve heard not very good things about the book, well then maybe you shouldn’t buy it! Ever hear of a library?
And of course, after all these decades of being told what a talentless hack he is, now he’s under fire for daring to announce that he’s actually retiring from writing. The nerve! I mean, after all we’ve done for him!
When you’ve sold millions of copies of your first novel, then come back and tell us how crappy Stephen King really is. Until then, if you hate it so much then just don’t fucking read it and stop complaining.
Sleestack: Here is my serious answer. Of his first five novels, I thought The Shining is one of the best ghost stories I’ve read, worthy of comparison to M.R. James or le Fanu. The Dead Zone and Salem’s Lot were magnificent horror novels, and I would unreservedly recommend these three to anybody. The first 75 percent of The Stand was quite good, but I agree with those who say the ending was total bullshit. Carrie had some flaws, but I thought it was good for a first novel.
King’s novel’s began to decline after that, IMO. Firestarter is all right, especially the ending. I agree that Pet Sematary is well-written, but damnit, W.W. Jacobs did the idea much better in a short story, “The Monkey’s Paw.” Christine was no better and no worse than any hundred generic horror novels published for the grocery store crowd. Cujo, Eye of the Dragon, and that short novel about werewolves were dreadful coprolites, and I suspect that no first-time novelist could sell them.
Except for Rage, which was slightly above mediocre, all the Bachman books were pieces of shit. The Running Man is a steal (an unintentional one if Harlan Ellison is to be believed) of a Robert Sheckley short story (don’t remember the title, but it’s in The Many Worlds of Robert Sheckley) and Sheckley was much better at a shorter length.
After “The Dark Half,” a mediocre book I found vaguley reminiscent of an M.P. Shiel short story (once again, the short story was better), I quit reading King.
When it comes to his shorter work, I think Night Shift is a very good collection, despite a few clunkers. “The Last Ladder on the Rung” is one of the best short stories written in the past 40 years, IMO. The stories in The Four Seasons, especially “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption” and “The Body” are excellent. Skeleton Crew had several good stories, although about one-third of them were piss-poor.
IMO, Stephen King would be a first-rate novelist if he would learn to disclipine himself. However, when it comes to horror fiction, I rate him way below Clive Barker, Ramsey Campbell, M.R. James, Michael Slade, J. Sheridan le Fanu, H.P. Lovecraft, and Edgar Allen Poe.
Sampiro: A minor nitpick :D. The Winter’s Tale in Four Seasons (was the title “A Breathing Lesson”?) does hint that the club has access to other dimensions.
I suggest, NailBunny, that you search a library or the Web for information about Robert W. Chambers. He, too, was very popular in his day. Today, he is forgotten except for The King in Yellow andd other works known only to fantasy and science fiction aficiandos like myself.
Popular ain’t necessarily good. I cite Michael Jackson and cry QED. 
True, but King is both. Poe was both popular and good, although like King the critics of his time belittled him.
I agree that there are better horror novelists, especially Ramsey Campbell, but none of them have the universal appeal that King has- specifically I know people who find Campbell’s novels too cold-blooded.
I think King is one of a handfull of novelists of our era who will be remembered.
I, too, expect King to be remembered. I’ve never found a King book to be formulaic, unlike the other opoular horror writer, Koontz. Gah.
Or popular, even. Wow, that was a hell of a typo.
Hey, in his day Michael Jackson was pretty damn spiffy as well. It was his earlier talent and success that got him where he is today; his current freakiness just keeps him in the public eye. No one really gives a crap what he’s doing musically anymore.
I enjoy all the authors you mentioned as well; just because I love Stephen King doesn’t mean that I am unfamiliar with other great writers in the genre. I have a reading collection that stretches from King to Jackson to Brite to Devereaux to Poe to Lovecraft and back to King again, not to mention non-horror. I just get sick of constantly having to justify my love for Stephen King when it’s obvious some other people in the universe have to feel the same way I do about his books, you know what I mean?
While I found most of your post to be a pretty fair assessment of King’s work, I had to wonder at this. If you stopped reading after The Dark Half (which, I agree, was one of King’s weaker works), then you’ve missed out on an awfully large body of his work. And frankly, you’ve missed out on some of his best work.
The period that The Dark Half came out in seemed a slow one in general for King… he wrote a lot of mediocre things around that time. Perhaps his worst book, The Tommyknockers, was written in the period, published either just before or just after TDH, I believe. I can see why you might have stopped there… but I’m glad I didn’t.
Some of my favorite King books are his early ones… Carrie and The Dead Zone, for example. But some of my other favorites are his most recent work. From a Buick 8 was surprisingly good, Everything’s Eventual is perhaps the best of any of his short story collections, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon was a neat little surprise, Hearts in Atlantis had some great stuff in it (most of it missed in the film), Gerald’s Game is positively chilling, and Rose Madder is almost perfect, except for a missed beat on the ending.
Of course, Dreamcatcher should be avoided at all costs (yuch), but it’s the exception that proves the rule regarding King’s recent effort… overall, he’s gotten to flex his wings quite a bit and has really shown his talent in recent years.
Like I said, I can understand why you might have stopped readin around King’s “middle years.” But if you’re judging is whole career based only on that reading, than your assessment is incomplete. Basically, you’re missing out on some of his best work.
I’m in agreement with erislover and others that King will be remembered after he’s done. While I agree that there are better writers out there, in the horror genre and elsewhere, King’s talents of character and story construction are hard to match.
Oh, and to nitpick a nitpick…
The title of the story was indeed “The Breathing Lesson,” but collection is not called Four Seasons. This is a mistake I see all the time, and it sort of annoys me. Four Seasons is a restaurant, Different Seasons is a Stephen King book (and an excellent one).
I just wanted to say that the ending to “The Breathing Lesson” gives me chills up my spine to this day. Yikes!
Oh, and as for why “The Stand” is considered by many to be such a great book (myself included, at four readings and counting now) is a good question. I am a fan of Apocalyptic fiction, so I would have read it just for that, but as for the book’s attraction, I think it is mostly the characters and their reactions to their horrible, potentially devastating situations that make the book so spellbinding for me. I was with Stu in the “hospital”, I was with Larry in the tunnel, I was with Franny when she buried her parents.
DF was great. But can somebody clear up the ending? I was confused about if it was a giant metaphor of some sort or literal…