-
I think Francis Bacon said it well, "some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention."
I would place Stephen King's works into the swallowed category because that's kind of what you do when you read them. They are big, but fast reads that don't require too much critical thought, nor do they present challenging concepts to understand. Sort of like a Big Mac. Ya eat the whole thing and it is tasty, but the nutritional content isn't so great for you.
-
Haven't read a lot of King, but what I've come across I can't say I'm a fan, haha. I don't like the sometimes cartoonish divide of good and evil people. Characters should be able to sit on more diverse or even contradictory traits.
I'm also not a fan of the language or the style, or the story concepts. Or nothing, really. But I guess he's an effective story teller to some people, and that's fine.
-
He is but a petty scrivener. His work, his produced, fabricated books have no artistic sensibility about them whatsoever. Let us not be naive: if King had written literature, we could've compared him to Joyce, Beckett, Woolf, Nabokov, Faulkner and the other writer (true writers) of the last century. But for the nonce, we cannot, because it'd make for a flagrant lapse in taste. His only worth consists in that he produces books that permit lazy nonintelligent readers to imagine that they are ''reading'' when they run through his inane vulgar cogitations.
