Is he actually that bad or are we just being smug pieces of shit?

Is he actually that bad or are we just being smug pieces of shit?

Attached: Stephen King.jpg (1080x1440, 248K)

He looks like a skeleton. DFW liked him so I guess he's okay.

Never had the pleasure. I only read Survivor Type once and it was kino. I think I'm too old for his things

Stick to his short stories and you'll enjoy him.

He was alright when he was doing coke.

Getting sober and being ran over kind of ruined him.

King has a very specific way of writing horror stories. To a degree, they are almost formulaic, and he talks about his formula in On Writing. While he doesn't spend his time talking about the most profound and worldly topics, it's important to understand he's not trying to. He's trying to write good fiction, and his success kind of speaks to that. He creates stories that approach horror in new ways and have interesting plots.

I enjoy King's books (though I've only read a few and some of his short stories) because I respect his ability to write concise and practical prose. Most Yea Forums folks don't because they are looking for philosophical literature that is different from the mainstream or very profound in its subject matter. Read him for yourself and take from it what you can. Every writer has something to offer.

He was a good bloke when he was doing coke

Going sober and being run over really turned him into a boring loather

I might pick up The Gunslinger and The Stand because the stories sound interesting. I'm not going to expect to be blown away by his prose or psychological acumen, however.

I mean, he got pretty far considering the impairment of having some fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

both

He's ok, something to read when you're taking a shit

he good

Stephen King is the J.K. Rowling of authors.

I would actually like to read The Shining at some point just so I understand the source text relative to the film.

>slyly implying that Rowling does not even deserve to be classified as an author

This guy with the sharp darts over here

omg his NOSE lmao

Someone always says this whenever this question is asked.

Some of his books are actually really good. But he wrote a lot of bad ones, too.

>Every writer has something to offer.
This. Snob fags can be so annoying sometimes. Even if something is "bad" there can still be something gleaned from it. Just look at writers who have gone on to hate some of their works, yet the work still sells and speaks for itself.
Also, can any King fags tell me if reading his works chonologically, starting with Carrie is a good or bad idea? If good, do I stop at the car accident like says? Some of his post '99 books seem pretty dece to me.

Attached: 5934567.jpg (1000x1000, 103K)

I do love the Green Mile though. I read it when I was very young, still have my six paperbacks.

He's fundamentally a pulp writer, and he admits it, but he's one of the better pulp writers, and some of his books actually cross over into what the literature snobs would consider good. But this double focus annoys the average lit snob, because they misunderstand him as some kind of threat to the craft. Overall, his stuff is pretty consistently fun.

The general consensus that his early work is good, later work bad is spot on as far as I’m concerned. Everything before Cujo is fine for kids to read. I think only The Stand and maybe IT are worth a read after 17. He did that one story for the New Yorker that everyone pretends to deeply respect/they put on “this proves he is a REAL writer” bullshit act but that just feels like an exercise in publishing or some weird shit like that.

I'd say skip around as you find yourself interested in different works of his. There's something to be said for going chronologically through an author's work because you get to see how they develop, but most often you'll run into titles that don't interest you. King's written so many books that I'd encourage you to just pick up the ones with the most interesting premises.

He's a mediocre writer. I actually wish I could recommend him because I'm not a snob and I like to believe in the wisdom of the common man. But the fact is that The Shining is one of the worst books I've ever read. 100% poorly written and corny. Of course, it depends on what you're trying to get out of books. Not everybody has to value what "literature" provides, but if you are inclined in that direction, as I am, you're not going to find a lot to like in King.

Thanks for the suggestion user. I'll take it into account when I'm about to start reading him. Still going to start with Carrie either way though, I think. I'm rather curious why he would think it was worth throwing away, despite the fact it proved to be publishable.

What do you think about the movie? Is it better than the book? I know King usually hates the generally good adaptations of his and likes the trash ones. Also, is there anybody similar you would recommend over King?

Yeah, the movie is a lot better than the book. Kubrick disdained cliché and sentimentality, and he changed or got rid of everything he thought was stupid.

may as well end thread here, good post

>he changed or got rid of everything he thought was stupid.
Then why did he make a Stephen King movie?

I appreciate the thanks but I really don't need any validation and it isn't your place to "End the thread".

girl user spotted

You don't even know how bad he is.

Attached: stephen king murdered john lennon.jpg (1434x1434, 308K)

>Reveals government codes in major magazines, Including the killers face, and true identity. Mark Chapman’s name attached to a letter to the editor printed weeks before the murder and more that proves a Nixon, Reagan, and yes, Stephen King conspiracy.
>As John would say; “DON’T LET ME DOWN.” Please support me. I can’t do it alone. Let’s confront the media or they won’t tell.
Gold!

He seems fine, it's just that he's an extreme case of quantity over quality. I haven't read much of his work but I remember enjoying Carrie and some of his short stories when I was kid.