Why does no one take Stephen King seriously?

BECAUSE HE'S WHITE there i said it

i dont get it

For every quality book he releases he releases a piece of shit.

in short, mr.mercedes sucks cock.

was it that bad?

What the fuck happened in between the first Gunslinger book and the second? That first book was genuinely well written and it seems like someone came along and hit King on the head with a brick and ever since he's been writing nothing but cringe fanfiction of his own work. Or perhaps a much less talented offspring trying to reconnect with that work based on nothing but a few notes and bastardizing the work, similarly to the Herbert/Dune situation...

Who doesn't take him seriously? He's won plenty of critical praise (praise from esteemed publications) and awards.

I liked the show

Half of King's shit is ghostwritten. "It" was ghostwritten. King himself wasn't aware of its existence until a month or so before publication.

I'm writing a 500 page bildungsroman called Pet Seminary about a clique of blind seminarians with guide dogs. The main character, Pavel, has his sight miraculously restored, but he has to pretend to remain blind to keep his grant money. One of his friends (who has been very ill since childhood) becomes a Calvinist, and uses guide dogs as an analogy for the bound will in a late night weed induced discussion. This upsets Pavel so much that after some elaborate planning, he kills his friend's guide dog (a proxy for the idea of predestination) in a way that only a sighted person could have.
He knocks up a girl and there's a hasty marriage.

Months after an inconclusive investigation, his friend is on his deathbed and asks Pavel why he did it, which is a big shock. Pavel is at an ideological crossroads, and he doubles down. Believing that a just God would never send a stillborn child to hell, Pavel visits the maternity ward and kills an infant. After all, it hasn't sinned yet, so why allow it to grow up and sin and go to hell? But he wonders if he's dooming his own self to hell instead.

For two more months he worries about his not-yet-born son. He decides to abort it. But he doesn't whis wife to sin by agreeing to an abortion. So he kills his wife, hoping to send her to heaven.

Don't have the ending figured out yet.

da fuq

>1:1 ratio of quality to shit
Lmao user, since he got back on the wagon and ceased abusing the shit out of coke, Valium, Xanax, and booze, the ratio of quality to shit of his output has been more like 1:4 or 5.
Also, no one takes him seriously because 1. he mostly writes accessible genre (horror) fiction and 2. many of his ideas do not lend themselves to easy cinematic adaptation, thus perpetuating the widespread impression that his novels and short stories are all poorly written, mindless, campy schlock. The truth is, even at his campiest and schlockiest (small town vampires, rabid dogs, child sewer orgies), old King's work was never poorly written or mindless.

Attached: 110788.jpg (700x700, 111K)

Pavel sounds like a big guy.

simple and based

Well he has sold 350 million copies, so somebody takes him seriously.

But seriously, if you are asking why the academia doesn’t treat King as high literary art is because he isn’t. And he doesn’t have any pretence to be either, he’s a genre fiction author and fully embraces that.

I’ve enjoyed a bunch of his books, but he’s never gonna be Joyce

Tbh pet semetary is an old favorite of mine. Its one of the few books I read around middle school age that I revisit from time to time.

I think he really does his best work when he's confined to short stories, a lot of his full length novels a good quarter of the story could be admitted with no loss. He has a huge problem with tying everything up in the end as well

It's just like death metal albums, one only does really care about the first 3 or 4 albums. So in King's case only his first works are real jewels. The rest is shit.

The running man?

That's bullshit but I believe it.

dark tower

>And he doesn’t have any pretence to be either, he’s a genre fiction author and fully embraces that.

No, there are plenty of times he tries to be "literary" and he usually fails.

that's a little bit racist don't you think?

source

his ghostwriter is his coked up alter-ego?

I had to check

Attached: 20190408_020518.jpg (988x1531, 699K)

He is unironically a good character writer and is decent at building up tension. His books are accessible but go into odd subjects. He's really a genre writer, but occasionally has lightning in a bottle moments like It. It's a messy, ambitious, confused clusterfuck that I would have trouble calling "good" but somehow still comes off as powerful and left a big impression on me.

It seems odd to say he his work doesn’t lend itself to cinematic adaptation, considering a couple of the best movies of all time are adaptations of his books, and many more good movies as well.

Carrie
The Shining
The Green Mile
Shawshank Redemption

Just to name a couple.

This 100%

Anyone who thinks King can't write hasn't read Surviour Type

it is. don't worry i will self-flagellate for my crime

Also:
Dead Zone
Misery
Creepshow
Silver Bullet
Stand By Me
Thinner
The original Pet Sematary
Tobe Hooper's version of Salem's Lot
Maybe user meant all of the shitty Mick Garris miniseries adaptations

hes a fucking pervert thats why
ive read 4 books from them and theres always the much too long "freaky sexual bit"
spanning 6 pages

>implying not every writer is a pervert
>implying perversion is not a necessary trait for a writer

>I'm writing a 500 page bildungsroman called Pet Seminary about a clique of blind seminarians with guide dogs.
8/10 if pasta, 10/10 if sincere. I would buy and read this book.

user is too late; it's already been done, sadly.

Attached: 51HYuxISxJL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 26K)

Jewish gas addiction