Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

While I disagree that Stephen King is an intellectual, there's no denying his skill and expertise as a writer.
I just finished his seven-book series "The Dark Tower", and except for the final installment (book #7 - The Dark Tower), the first six books are truly works of art! In fact, I expect a large "cult" following on this series alone!
I even began searching for Dark Tower art work and other media that had nothing to do with the actual reading or "writing" of the books.
As I said, I found book seven (the final book in the series) to be a great disappointment, but all-in-all, it's some of the best reading I've done in a long while!

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'd like to re-open the case on the basis of a few comments I saw in another thread.

Three major criticisms were made of Stephen King as regards his literary status:

His books are "pulp fiction".

He was influenced by other authors.

His prose is not of the required standard.

Dealing with outside influences first, I don't know of any author from the 20th century who had no literary influences. If anyone would care to name some authors which fit this bill, it may be worth discussing, but without that, it becomes a meaningless criterion and can be dismissed as criticism.

"Pulp fiction", is open to interpretation, but I would class it as a term befitting many of the books displayed in any bookshop - particularly those which sell new books. As any second-hand book retailer will tell you, the market for "pulp fiction" is small - Stephen King's second-hand market is not, despite being one of the most-published authors on the planet.

As regards King's standard and style of prose - attempting to dismiss him on that basis is ignorant, condescending claptrap. When stream-of-consciousness blathering can count as literature, King's prose certainly can. He uses a vastly larger vocabulary than most of his peers, be they literary geniuses or Jackie Collins

King is derided for many reasons, most of which boil down to one form or another of professional jealousy. I'm certain that King himself realises this as he has indicated in several of his characters' lives and experiences.

Bring on the opposition!

The only King I've read is "On Writing" and thought it to be a masterpiece. I really enjoyed it, though I don't plan to read much King because I don't like horror.

There's nothing wrong with King's prose, it's just nothing remarkable. Size of vocabulary is not a reliable measure of quality. I think Hemmingway knew about 500 words, to pick a name at random. The stream-of-conciousness blatherering comment, I must say, counts as a similar form of ignorant, condescending claptrap.

I not willing to get too worked up over King one way or another as long as he doesn't try to have anything to do with film, aside from writing the novels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

There's nothing wrong with King's prose, it's just nothing remarkable.

---

I wouldn't class it as "remarkable" either - that's a level of praise I'd reserve for few. Very, very good is good enough for most great writers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Size of vocabulary is not a reliable measure of quality.

---

Correct. It's just one area of many where I feel King actually stands out from the crowd. Hemingway stood out for different reasons, but I rate King no less an author than Hemingway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The stream-of-conciousness blatherering comment, I must say, counts as a similar form of ignorant, condescending claptrap.

---

Correct, it's personal opinion and therefore irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I not willing to get too worked up over King one way or another as long as he doesn't try to have anything to do with film, aside from writing the novels.

---

Some of them turned out ok, notably The Shining, but that's the advantage of having Stanley Kubrick writing the screenplay and directing the film. The Green Mile is a masterpiece of both literature and film. (albeit a TV mini-series)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atheist

Some of them turned out ok, notably The Shining, but that's the advantage of having Stanley Kubrick writing the screenplay and directing the film. The Green Mile is a masterpiece of both literature and film.

---

And, aside from writing the novels, Stephen King had nothing to do with either The Shining or The Green Mile. When Stephen King writes screenplays, the results are some of the worst films ever made.

I find Stephen King underwhelms me. I find far more absorbing reads. Take Michael McDowell for instance, one of THE scariest writers of the 20th century, he wrote The Amulet (love the tagline on this one "Whoever possesses it must kill and be killed"), Cold Moon Over Babylon, Gilded Needles, Katie, the Kafkaesque Toplin, and arguably the most frightening ghost story ever written The Elementals.

He also wrote a rather very original series on the Blackwater saga involving a Lousianian family and something monsterous in the waters.

King's inspirations are far more compelling IMO, Richard Matheson, there is a three volume set containing 80+ of this author's short stories that you will absolutely not be able to put down any of them even if your life depended upon it. One will take notice of the heavy influence INSTANTLY.

The Stand is one of King's most recognized works but admittedly it was influenced by another, true-er masterpiece of horror M. P. Shiel's The Purple Cloud.

Personally I find King too excessive to be scary. And what about those weak contrived finishes, Salem's Lot had me scratching my head and The Shining was laughable (personally, I am one of the rare people that felt Kubrick added more punch, made improvement with the pessimistic ending).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stieg

I find Stephen King underwhelms me. ...

Personally I find King too excessive to be scary. And what about those weak contrived finishes, Salem's Lot had me scratching my head and The Shining was laughable (personally, I am one of the rare people that felt Kubrick added more punch, made improvement with the pessimistic ending).

---

Fair comments. I [hope] think King himself would admit that a couple of his books have been pretty flat compared to his own standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave_ya

The only King I've read is "On Writing" and thought it to be a masterpiece. I really enjoyed it, though I don't plan to read much King because I don't like horror.

---

I actually bought that book "On Writing", and want to say that this was one very good book on the craft of writing. :)

If popularity and readership is the earmarks of a literary giant than yes King is certainly a literary giant otherwise there are too many other writers in the horror and not that preceed him with great margin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stieg

If popularity and readership is the earmarks of a literary giant than yes King is certainly a literary giant otherwise there are too many other writers in the horror and not that preceed him with great margin.

---

Nope, I don't think popularity has anything to do with it. I just don't think being successful at it precludes authors, either.

Again, every writer you can name has precedents which moulded the shape of the finished author. I once asked C K Stead what made a great author.

His answer was telling: "A great reader".

I'm pretty sure I have read most of those whose style and content could be said to precede Stephen King, but I can't put many of them in the same league as him.

Stephen King is undeniably one of the most important authors of the 20th century. His influence is enormous and his readership is gigantic and unlike most of his contemporaries/rivals, he is actually readable and a excellent storyteller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAP

Stephen King is undeniably one of the most important authors of the 20th century. His influence is enormous and his readership is gigantic and unlike most of his contemporaries/rivals, he is actually readable and a excellent storyteller.

---

Do you realise how many 20th century horror writers fit these same parameters even deservedly more so? Really Stephen King hasn't contributed anything original and he can't hold a candle to most of them. Horror is a bigger ballfield. Saying King is the most influential is equivalent to saying J.K. Rowling is the most influential fantasy writer in the 20th Century. A matter of the level of personal pleasure one gets out of his novels.

Check out "Richard Matheson: Collected Stories" Volumes One, Two, Three at amazon.com published by Gauntlet Press. He beat King to it by 20-30 years. Great reviews there too likewise these other authors and books I mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stieg

Really Stephen King hasn't contributed anything original...

---

I'm sorry, but that's just a trite comment. I could correctly, but pedantically, argue that there hasn't been a wholly original novel for well over 100 years. If you can find another horror story which bears more than a passing relationship to It, I'd be keen to know about it. On the other hand, you could try to tell me that 1984, The Old Man and the Sea, Lord of the Flies or Brave New World were wholly original concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stieg

...and he can't hold a candle to most of them.

---

That's personal opinion and yours is welcome. Personally, as one who has read much of the same literature which influenced King, I beg to differ. Lovecraft, in my opinion, is but a candle to King's Kleig.

I'm sure he'd take a couple of books back if he had the chance, but I think most authors would.

I'd suggest that if any literary society made a "Literary Giants" list, there would be unanimity on very few authors.

I don't know if literary giant is a good description but you can't deny his popularity. I have to give credit to Stephen King in that he kept me reading during my high school and college years. During that time i had too many other things to do and reading was not on the top of the list but I always would go back to a King book.

I liken Stephen King to Marijuana; He's a gateway drug (Even though I don't buy Marijuana being a gateway drug it fits the analogy). He's the guy that drew me in and kept me around until I was ready for the harder stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

As regards King's standard and style of prose - attempting to dismiss him on that basis is ignorant, condescending claptrap. When stream-of-consciousness blathering can count as literature, King's prose certainly can. He uses a vastly larger vocabulary than most of his peers, be they literary geniuses or Jackie Collins

---

Being a budding academic, I can't possibly see how you would justify writing that. One of the tenets of the practice of literary criticism (and, for that matter, the basic judgment of whether a piece of writing is, for the want of a better word, good) is engagement with the stylistic qualities of a piece of literature. It isn't condescending in the slightest. If anything, it is the continuation of a practice, in academic circles, of over a hundred years of study.

For my part, I would dismiss his writing (and I do dismiss it) for the same reasons I would dismiss any other literature that I would deem to be insufficient in regards to the stylistic properties of a piece. That is to say, in layman's terms, he can't write for toffee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

Being a budding academic, I can't possibly see how you would justify writing that. One of the tenets of the practice of literary criticism (and, for that matter, the basic judgment of whether a piece of writing is, for the want of a better word, good) is engagement with the stylistic qualities of a piece of literature.

---

No. Unless the style is some incomprehensible gibberish, the style is far less important than the work - unless you're a believer in style over substance, which I think has been shown to be a fairly shallow view.

The point I was getting at is that King is no Orwell, but hardly anyone else is, either. I don't see his style as being so lacking that it detracts from his other qualities. To me, his style is far better than almost all of his contemporaries in popular fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

For my part, I would dismiss his writing (and I do dismiss it) for the same reasons I would dismiss any other literature that I would deem to be insufficient in regards to the stylistic properties of a piece. That is to say, in layman's terms, he can't write for toffee.

---

Now that's more like it! Honest opinion - I can deal with that, even if you are wrong. ;)

The problem with King really isn't his prose, or his originality (though I personally detest his plots, and find his prose BORING) it's his editing and his endings. His work needs a decent chop, and his endings need a little more thought. Basically from my experience with him, it seems to me that he just takes an idea, writes it down, and sees what comes out of it. He doesn't stop to think about where the story is going, and therefore creates junk endings.

I would not say he is anymore influential on the literature world than lets say someone like Grisham. Though not the worst author I have read, I do not deem him worth reading in the future.

As for you EAP, it appears that on every thread there are about three authors who you like, specifically Stephen King, George R. R. Martin, and Ursula K. LeGuin, whereas you dismiss the majority of literature as inferior. You should really get out more and think who really has influences on literature, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or Stephen King or George Martin. Though by preference you may prefer King's work, you must agree that he is far from the most influential writer of the 20th century. (note, the use of the examples of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were used simply because of the fact, having read a previous post by EAP minutes before, these names were at hand for authors who he loathes).

Quote:

---

As for you EAP, it appears that on every thread there are about three authors who you like, specifically Stephen King, George R. R. Martin, and Ursula K. LeGuin, whereas you dismiss the majority of literature as inferior.

---

I like more than three authors, but yeah, the majority of the literature I have read is definitely inferior to that written by the above three. [or in King's case, his better works]

Quote:

---

You should really get out more and think who really has influences on literature, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or Stephen King or George Martin.

---

Tolstoy's and Dostoevsky's influence on literature definitely eclipse's Martin's - Stephen King, on the other hand, is a totally different story.

Quote:

---

Though by preference you may prefer King's work, you must agree that he is far from the most influential writer of the 20th century.

---

I disagree, and I believe I have outlined the reasons behind that in earlier threads. Besides, you haven't read much in the fantasy and horror genre if you think Stephen King's work isn't influential.

Quote:

---

(note, the use of the examples of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were used simply because of the fact, having read a previous post by EAP minutes before, these names were at hand for authors who he loathes).

---

Please don't go about putting words in my mouth. I said I find Tolstoy and Dostoevsky to be 'over-rated', which is a far cry from saying I hate them - Dostoevsky is one of the best writers of the 19th century, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No. Unless the style is some incomprehensible gibberish, the style is far less important than the work - unless you're a believer in style over substance, which I think has been shown to be a fairly shallow view.

The point I was getting at is that King is no Orwell, but hardly anyone else is, either. I don't see his style as being so lacking that it detracts from his other qualities. To me, his style is far better than almost all of his contemporaries in popular fiction.

---

I disagree. I believe that the style intrinisically and implicitally marks all possible arguments in relation to a text. Moreover, I believe that an individual's enjoyment of a text relates to how they relate to the style. Take modernist poetry for example: a recurring word in regards to the style of modernist poetry is disjointed. Now that disjointed style, for me, is a difficult one to enjoy and a difficult one to critically appreciate.

Anyhow, I would rate, in terms of style, Alasdair Gray as the finest living novelist. Lanark is a sublime piece of writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAP

I like more than three authors, but yeah, the majority of the literature I have read is definitely inferior to that written by the above three. [or in King's case, his better works]



Tolstoy's and Dostoevsky's influence on literature definitely eclipse's Martin's - Stephen King, on the other hand, is a totally different story.



I disagree, and I believe I have outlined the reasons behind that in earlier threads. Besides, you haven't read much in the fantasy and horror genre if you think Stephen King's work isn't influential.



Please don't go about putting words in my mouth. I said I find Tolstoy and Dostoevsky to be 'over-rated', which is a far cry from saying I hate them - Dostoevsky is one of the best writers of the 19th century, IMO.

---

To start I will address your last few words, assuming that you truly believe Dostoevsky to be one of the best writers of the 19th century (which I personally will agree with), it would appear that you dismiss all nineteenth century literature as overrated in itself (him being deemed by you one of the best, yet being called overrated can mean nothing but this, assuming you don't wish to contradict yourself)

If you want to look at the influences on the horror genre, you are better off looking to authors like H.P. Lovecraft, or Edgar Allan Poe who had a far greater influence on horror than King ever will (besides which, Kings' influences must be taken into account as well, seeing as he didn't exactly invent horror, nor perfect it (in my opinion)) In terms of fantasy, hands down we can easily say, without question, that Tolkien is by far the most influential fantasy author of the 20th century. Following that, there are authors like Robert E. Howard, C. S. Lewis, and other giants of fantastical literature who greatly influenced fantasy far more than King ever could and will.

Perhaps you haven't read much horror or fantasy to assume that King is so influential, considering the fact that his first book came out in 1974, well after many, many fantasy and horror authors began doing their work. He is no more influential than lets say Stephen R. Donaldson, to put it into terms you can understand.

Besides which, despite your common beliefs, fantasy and horror make up but a fraction of literature. There are many other genres, who have many influential authors that appeared in the 20th century. To even suggest that King is one of the (I assume you at least mean top 50) or even top 100 most influential writers of the 20th century is actually quite humorous. I can respect that you like King's work, as do many others on these boards. But don't try to pretend he is any Lovecraft, or any Poe.

A reminder:

Please keep in mind that we are all entitled to our opinions on authors / books as well as our likes and dislikes

and

do not personalise your arguments.

Quote:

---

it would appear that you dismiss all nineteenth century literature as overrated in itself (him being deemed by you one of the best, yet being called overrated can mean nothing but this, assuming you don't wish to contradict yourself)

---

What you are insinuating is nonsense. I can believe someone to be an excellent author and still find them over-rated; it is more a judgement of the general preception of an author's worth then a comment on the actual writing itself. Dostoevsky is generally overrated by most people on this forum, just as Martin is often overrated by people around different fantasy fora. Your entire reasoning is based around faulty inductive logic.

Quote:

---

If you want to look at the influences on the horror genre, you are better off looking to authors like H.P. Lovecraft, or Edgar Allan Poe who had a far greater influence on horror than King ever will (besides which, Kings' influences must be taken into account as well, seeing as he didn't exactly invent horror, nor perfect it (in my opinion))

---

The whole paragraph is irrelevent as far as this thread is concerned.

I posted the following in this thread,

Quote:

---

Stephen King is undeniably one of the most important authors of the 20th century. His influence is enormous and his readership is gigantic and unlike most of his contemporaries/rivals, he is actually readable and a excellent storyteller.

---

I didn't even bring the word 'influence' into the discussion - the importance of an author's corpus extends beyond their literary influence.

Regarding Poe and Lovecraft, of course their 'influence' is undeniable, Poe basically invented the english horror/detective genres and Lovecraft helped pave the way for authors like Lord Dunsnay, Clark Ashton Smith and several others - you wont hear any arguements from me about their influence. But this thread is not about literary influences, its scope is much broader.

Quote:

---

Perhaps you haven't read much horror or fantasy to assume that King is so influential, considering the fact that his first book came out in 1974, well after many, many fantasy and horror authors began doing their work.

---

Stephen King's influence lies in the fact that he made horror a profitable genre to invest in, the unprecdented success of his early novels allowed horror to bloom as a seperate genre, get its own shelf space in bookstores instead of merely being lumped in with either fantasy/sci-fi or forgotten among the multiludes of mainstream books. In Salem's Lot, he re-created the modern vampire, facets of which have been copied by a lot of writers currently invested in writing paranormal fiction. Books like Pet Cemetery, Misery, The Long Walk and Rage helped the horror genre to expand beyond the long established cliches of vampires, monsters and werewolves and proved that modern psychological mind****s focusing on ordinary humans and without the traditional elements could be as scary, tense and chilling as the giant rats, bloody thirsty vampires, exotic magic and other conventional tools of the trade. This influence extended beyond the horror genre into thrillers and to some extent into mainstream crime fiction.

Stephen King wasn't the first author to do a lot of these things, he was however the most important one in bringing them into widespread attention - he was to horror what Tolkien was to high/epic fantasy.

Quote:

---

He is no more influential than lets say Stephen R. Donaldson, to put it into terms you can understand.

---

I didn't laugh.

Quote:

---

Besides which, despite your common beliefs, fantasy and horror make up but a fraction of literature. There are many other genres, who have many influential authors that appeared in the 20th century. To even suggest that King is one of the (I assume you at least mean top 50) or even top 100 most influential writers of the 20th century is actually quite humorous. I can respect that you like King's work, as do many others on these boards. But don't try to pretend he is any Lovecraft, or any Poe.

---

Stephen King is among the top three best-selling authors of the modern times - that alone is enough to cement his place in the 'most influential/most important' list. Consider this funny or a huge joke but it is money that fuels the publishing industry, money that encourages the publishers to take chances with newer authors and Stephen King has been one of the greatest funnelers of money into the publishing industry for over twenty five years; the facts speak for themselves and no amount of literary pretentiousness can blind them.

He is neither Lovecraft nor Poe, he is Stephen King and more popular than both. ;)

Good discussion going here - I thought there might be a little polarity on the issue!

Just to cover off on the "influence" of King, I submit that we won't really know how much influence he has had for another generation yet - to give time for those who have grown up with him. I'm more in the camp at the moment that his influence has extended to create a living genre of horror rather the little side-show it had been.

(And why, oh why, has nobody mentioned one of King's biggest influences, Shirley Jackson?)

As regards inconsistency, I see those complaints as a little spurious. I can't imagine any serious author who hasn't written at least one complete bomb - critically speaking. Lots of Orwell's early efforts are considered to be lightweight rubbish, but do we devalue Orwell on those, or praise him for others? I repeat - I'm sure King would take a few of his books back, and yes some of them do have an ill-planned, contrived feel to them. Hanging a man's literary reputation on the basis of a couple of misses doesn't work.

Nice to see that a couple of people would join me in rating On Writing as an excellent work as well.

Using your twisted logic, you rank Dan Brown, and Grisham amongst the most important/influential writers of the 20th century. What is importance? Importance means he has had influence/brought about some sort of change, whereas I pointed out already, there are so many other authors who are so much more influential.

And by the way, saying on one hand someone is one of the best 19th century authors, then on the other hand calling him overrated is saying either a) 19th century literature is completely over rated, or b) I don't know what I'm thinking, I just contradict myself and try to act smart. . Take your pick.

Just on a note, I will read your reply, but don't expect one from me since, despite my longing to continue this argument, there are forum rules and I don't crave a banning.

Judge not an author by how many books he has sold, but how good the books he sells are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Using your twisted logic, you rank Dan Brown, and Grisham amongst the most important/influential writers of the 20th century. What is importance? Importance means he has had influence/brought about some sort of change, whereas I pointed out already, there are so many other authors who are so much more influential.

Judge not an author by how many books he has sold, but how good the books he sells are.

---

Ditto.

Scholar S.T. Joshi put it aptly on speaking of Stephen King's horror novels, "bloated, illogical, maudlin, and prone to deus ex machina endings".

Academically speaking, 20-40 years down the line, Stephen King is going to offer way too much fodder for literary criticism.

King recreated the Modern Vampire. NOT. that is one of the most absurd comments I have ever heard. Haven't you heard of I am Legend by Richard Matheson by matter of fact.

READ MORE LITERARY HORROR AUTHORS!

I can't believe how much King owes to the likes of Richard Matheson (King self admittedly claims Matheson is his largest influence) but there are many others that have contributed to his literary voice:

(Nice reviews too, saves my breathe.)

Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 1

Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 2

Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 3

The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson

Dark Ladies by Fritz Leiber

The Other by Thomas Tryon

Harvest Home by Thomas Tryon

The Auctioneer by Joan Samson

The defense of King is a prime example of mistaking imagination for invention.

My experience with Stephen King is limited to his Dark Tower series, but based on that alone I think he is an excellent storyteller. For those who are only familiar with King as a horror writer, I think it would be worthwhile checking out the series (King himself describes it as his magnum opus). The whole thing feels very original and extremely imaginative, and meshes together so many genres so cohesively. It's like Lord of the Rings meets the wild west, with a little Arthurian legend thrown in for good measure.

As I was saying, I think he is an accomplished storyteller and that in my mind marks him out as great. I doubt there are many authors who can sustain an interesting plot and momentum across a seven-book series. I suppose it boils down to what you want out of your literature. Stephen King writers clever, entertaining novels. His style may be relatively simple but it's his style, it's unique, and I like it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chigurh

The defense of King is a prime example of mistaking imagination for invention.

---

Good to see sensible criticism rearing its head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenoir

My experience with Stephen King is limited to his Dark Tower series, but based on that alone I think he is an excellent storyteller.

---

You've given me an idea to try and some headway here.

A lot of the criticsim appears to be directed at some of King's books and I would agree wholeheartedly with some of it - a couple of his books have been outright rubbish and a couple of others only fair.

I'm going to arbitrarily (since I started the thread) pick several of King's books and ignore the rest, for the time being.

The Dark Tower
The Green Mile
On Writing
The Stand
It
Insomnia
Desperation
Carrie
Thinner

Can I get some specific criticism on this range of books; these being his novels which will, in the fullness of time, prove both his longevity and his greatness.

I reiterate that if we were to review Orwell based on A Clergyman's Daughter, Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming up for Air, I suspect he wouldn't be viewed the way he is.

I think the deus ex machina criticism is valid, in some of those, but it's also essential in a couple of them, given the subject.

So how many "mystical black" characters inhabit the above list? lol. I can think of two off the top of my head...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'm going to arbitrarily (since I started the thread) pick several of King's books and ignore the rest, for the time being.

The Dark Tower
The Green Mile
On Writing
The Stand
It
Insomnia
Desperation
Carrie
Thinner

Can I get some specific criticism on this range of books; these being his novels which will, in the fullness of time, prove both his longevity and his greatness.

I reiterate that if we were to review Orwell based on A Clergyman's Daughter, Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming up for Air, I suspect he wouldn't be viewed the way he is.

---

Right, out of those works listed, I have read: It, The Green Mile, The Stand, Desperation, and a bit of Carrie. Speaking with these works specifically in mind, I reiterate my previous problem with King: I just don't think he can write well. I just find his writing, specifically in these works, to be extraordinarily unrealistic (even with the context of the novels in mind) - a horror story like It doesn't need to be based on realistic events but it has to be believable (and I simply find it completely unrealistically written).

Most novelists write a couple of shockingly awful novels, though not all. James Joyce, anyone?

My opinion of Stephen King was completely reversed after reading 'The Dark Tower' which completely blew my mind. It is fascinating that many of your criticisms were actually highlighted by him in the 'Dark Tower' which has made me reluctant to read any more of his novels. Based on this limited experience though, if an author is capable of creating the brilliance that is 'Dark Tower' then he surely will rank as one of the greatest authors of all-time - in my opinion, anyway :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seb

if an author is capable of creating the brilliance that is 'Dark Tower' then he surely will rank as one of the greatest authors of all-time - in my opinion, anyway :)

---

Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Proust....King. Hey, he wrote the Dark Tower....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chigurh

Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Proust....King. Hey, he wrote the Dark Tower....

---

Yes, The Dark Tower was quite impressive feat of imagination but I am not glowing with praises or gushing over it either. There were alot about it that annoyed me particularly one schizophrenic black lady with no legs. Bad characters.

And another thing everyone is forgetting, Stephen King has written over 70 novellas and books. Consistant enough to be named with these other literary legends... NO!

I repeat over 70 (not counting individual short stories)!

I used to get angry when somebody held King to be a literary great. Then, for a while, I laughed. Now I'm almost indifferent. There's no point in arguing *edit*. The culture is going to continue to decay whether we waste our breath or not.

OT:

Btw, I find the UK site, Fantastic Fiction indispensable when searching fantasy, sci-fi, and horror author bibliographies. I have discovered missing authors yet it covers plenty of ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chigurh

So how many "mystical black" characters inhabit the above list? lol. I can think of two off the top of my head...

---

That would be the two.

Is there some point to that comment?

There are several women in them as well.

As King says, The Dark Tower series really is his 'magnum opus'. I've only read short stories and one of his novels (The Dark Half), and they really weren't that great at all. Actrually, they were quite bad. I thought 'Ride the Bullet' was okay.

The Dark Tower however, is quite impressive. His style actually works well here, and it just forces you to keep reading. I know King might be a bit painful to literary types, but the Dark Tower is really worth it, especially as a feat of imagination. I will however agree on some of the ridiculous characters being almost too much (yes, the legless black schitzophrenic pissed me off too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patbox

As King says, The Dark Tower series really is his 'magnum opus'. I've only read short stories and one of his novels (The Dark Half), and they really weren't that great at all. I thought 'Ride the Bullet' was okay. The Dark Tower however, is quite impressive. His style actually works well here, and it just forces you to keep reading. I know King might be a bit painful to literary types, but the Dark Tower is really worth it, especially as a feat of imagination. I will however agree on some of the ridiculous characters being almost too much (yes, the legless black schitzophrenic pissed me off too).

---

The Dark Half is definitely one of his only good for recycling.

If you liked The Dark Tower, kick off with The Talisman, a combined effort with his buddy, Peter Straub.

And Stephen King's second child, Joe Hill aka Joe Hillstrom King, has written published short stories many collected in 20th Century Ghosts and just released his first full length novel Heart-Shaped Box that is being adapted into a film.

Joe Hill Fiction