EEEK! I agree with your point about King being seen only as a popular, entertaining writer, but I really recommend you reread Poe and read something more about him. Poe is remembered least of all as an entertaining author. He is most remembered as a revolutionary critic,as a philosopher (see Eureka), and most importantly as the primary inspiration for the French symbolist movement. Poe stands alone among 19th century American authors in his influence on world literature.
As for the OP, I think that Rice began with a talent that she squandered, while King has developed his talent to become a fine craftsman. I have great respect for seriousness with which he has pursued his art. His early work was terrible writing, but good storytelling. Now that he has improved his writing, his books make for very enjoyable reading. He has always had a talent for pacing and characterization.
Rice on the other hand, started out with a talent for description and voice, but has fallen in love with her characters, and, it seems, herself. Her early stand alone novels are diverting and skilled, the first two vampire novels are excellent. From Queen of the Damned on she has become increasingly self-indugent. I find her completely unreadable now.
I really think King has the peoples wants in mind, but will never be truly taken seriously by the “literary minds”. I know he still gets raked over the coals by critics but I know he really does not care.
I myself believe he is not a writer per say, but a storyteller. If you ever get a chance, listen to him narrate his own books on tape. You can truly hear him place himself in his characters and feel them talking through him.
I once got to see him read Dolan’s Cadillac at a guest lecture once. He is mischievious, and warm. He reminds me very much of a kid reading a comic book and entering in the story. And he does have a wonderful sense about him.
I highly recommend any reader to go watch him in action.
Anne…well Anne is almost to the point of going full out gothiness. When I say that, I mean she is in person a sad individual and seems to not take much pleasure in things. She is a bit eccentric and I think she will grow more as she ages. Writing, she gets a bit too detailed for me and tends to lose me in the wordiness when I really wanted to find out what happened to the protaginist.
Plus in terms of Vampires, I prefer the more scary conversion of King’s Salem’s Lot (more traditional vampires) to the fruity “I am a Artist but also a Bloodsucker” of her Lestat books.
Anne Rice gives me a headache. She’s too inconsistent. I have loved some of her books, especially the first Mayfair one, but I’ve been disappointed enough times that I don’t bother trying anymore. I figure that if she ever does put out something worth reading again I’ll hear about it via word of mouth.
I’ve slowed on my consumption of King recently too, but I think he is an infinitely more consistent entertainer. The only real god-awful dud I can think of is The Tommyknockers. When I want a good easy read to get me through a couple of sick days I almost always go for Christine, The Eyes of the Dragon, Salem’s Lot, or The Talisman.
Did he write Survivor Type? I believe that was in one of his short story collections, and it has to be the most completely gruesome short story I can recall, but also twistedly funny. I don’t think I’ll ever want to read that again, but I’ll remember it fondly forever.
I guess my key difference is that Stephen King ISN’T one of the worst popular authors in modern history, whereas Anne Rice IS one of the worst popular authors in modern history. YMMV.
Heh, heh, heh. Yep. The story’s in one of his first collections, like “Night Shift.” Gruesome fun. You could hear the Cryptkeeper cackling over it all at the story’s end.
Oh, Survivor Type was so WICKEDLY, disgustingly wonderful! Hehehe…so gross, but so engrossing!
Stephen just has that…I don’t know-spark, I guess. I think he has a sense of humor, and it carries over to his books, and it’s really more about human nature.
Like he always says-he just wants to tell a story. Nothing more. (Well, I’m sure he LIKES making money and crap).
And even when he strays from Horror-Different Seasons? He rocks. The Body was one of my favorites that he ever wrote-the story that Stand By Me is based on-great movie, GREAT story. Same with Apt Pupil-it’s horror, but of a different sort.
Stephen King just, well, kicks ass. I don’t know how else to put it. He can write a book that’s what-1000+ pages, and it still keeps you from getting bored-I’ve read It about ten times-and I’ll probably read it hundreds more before I die.
To borrow a quote from either a foreword or afterword (I can’t remember which) of King’s, Rice has fallen into the “Oh gosh, Ma, look how nice I’m writing” trap.
I loved “Interview With the Vampire”, and the first Mayfair Witches book. I read up to “Queen of the Damned” with slowly diminishing interest, and now I just don’t bother; I’ve reached the point of wanting to write to her and telling her that first, she should get a story happening. Then she can do the pretty words and the thirty-seven different ways of describing the shadows.
King on the other hand may not be the most literary writer to walk the earth, but he’s hardly the hack people make him out to be either. He’s definitely got more hits than misses on the board, by a long margin, and previous posters are right about one thing; King knows how to spin a damned good story. He’s the modern equivalent of the old yarn-spinner sitting by the fire.
Anne Rice is also seriously humour-impaired; King’s not afraid to laugh at things - including himself - once in a while.