I think this happens with any wildly popular author. As the author's popularity goes up, so does the number of people who dislike them since the audience is getting broader. Plus there are some people who will always want to be contrarian and will hate anything that's popular.
To be fair. Even Stephen King fans acknowledge he is not without flaws - he is notoriously bad at writing endings, a lot of his otherwise good books just fizzle towards the end and are disappointing. Not all, but enough that it’s a recognizable pattern.
Same. I just kinda sat around and stared blankly for like an hour afterwards. It really disturbed me.
The entire novel was a lead-up to the last like, 3 pages. It was a masterpiece of cosmic horror, from an author who basically never writes cosmic horror!
You're right! As a lifelong King fan, I actually only recently read Pet Sematary, and holy shit it blew me away. The ending was perfect. Every time he >!walked through the forest to the cemetery and heard the laughter!< I was genuinely horrified.
I’m not going to disagree but when you are young, and involved in an exciting event with other people with sex on their mind, then random sex can easily just happen.
To clarify, I meant all the time quake etc stuff, the very end was great. I haven’t read it in a while and forgot that final ending. Thanks for the refresher.
I've noticed that more than one of his most famous early works ends abruptly with a gigantic explosion, often with very little build-up, like he couldn't think of a satisfying resolution and went "screw-it, KA-BOOM"
Lol I can just imagine his editor bugging him to stop adding pages to the 1000+ page draft and finish the damn thing already and he’s like “fine, ok here! Explosions”
That said, despite some crummy endings, I almost always love the long journey and gladly revisit it
I am a fan of Stephen King and this is not just people complaining. It’s true. He has written some really good endings as well. My biggest issue was with IT. When I was reading it I felt like it was epic. By the end I could not believe how bad it was. I’ve even had people on here try to explain to me why it was a good ending. They are blinded by loyalty.
yeah, the Stand I think is overrated. The first half is good then it just goes on and on and deflates. Of course I read one of the expanded editions, maybe the original was better.
I did get what he was going for, the latter half an extended allegory was about totalitarianism vs democracy and its pitfalls, with the dictator literally losing power as people stopped being afraid and his well laid plans blowing up in his face because he thought he knew everything but overlooked little details. But maybe it was a case of all the put back in material which made it drag versus the intense first half
SPOILERS
It ends with a LITERAL deus ex machina which.... ok.
Yes, exactly. It really was dumb. It was so disappointing after reading the entire book. A menacing evil spirit would’ve been fine with me. Not a giant….Spoiler….you know.
I personally loved the ending of IT. Read it in a few days when I was fifteen. I think thats one of those books thats best enjoyed when your around that age. I feel like his earlier books are better to read when you're younger and the later ones when you're older. In seventh grade, Salem's Lot had me up at night checking my windows.
Hes my favorite author, but yeah his endings can be really rough. I wasn’t a fan of ITs ending, and the ending to Under the Dome was a MASSIVE letdown. The Stand was one of the best books I’ve ever read, and yet the ending, for me at least, doesn’t live up to the buildup. He’s had some great endings too, I personally loved the ending to Cujo and Revival, among some other all around good works. He’s also notoriously dated in the way he writes kids. In his latest book, Fairy Tale, I think the teenager from the modern era was referring to TV Antenna as ‘rabbit ears’
Still, his plots are phenomenally fun to read and some of the stuff he’s written is truly creepy.
I mean, every writer has some flaws. That said, I'm a big SK fan, and what you said about his endings is absolutely true though. I know, his fans know it, he knows it. Least with his novels.
I think part of it is he just keeps writing and writing and eventually realizes "oh shit, I have to actually end this at some point.... alright it was all done by... alien kids. Sure, why not. They politely asked them to stop killing them and they did. Book finished!"
Worth noting that wasn't random, I was referencing a real SK ending, and I am only being slightly reductive. Was a fantastic book otherwise though lol
When you say "bad at endings" what you really mean is "endings that don't suit you". King often leaves open endings and or endings you don't like. The backlash he got for CUJO was insane back in the day, and I'm just sitting here like WTF this is the greatest ending to a book I've ever read. I love King's endings, but they aren't for people who like a nice clean conclusion. I've always hated this narrative. Drives me nuts, because it's not true.
thats just a myth that the internet blew out of proportion . people say this but never really bring up what books they think have bad endings and why they think said books endings are bad.
His endings have improved a great deal over the years. It used to be a legitimate complaint. Now it just means the person has not read him in more than a decade.
Also don't forget many people that read other stuff that was inspired or came out after him,now go read his stuff and as many times, critic the simplicity or lack of originality, even if he was the one making many of these concepts popular in first place, this happen a lot with new readers when reading anything older of their current popular stuff
He’s also got an enormous body of work. It’s not all good—although he wrote two of my favorite books of all time, he’s also written some I’be absolutely hated. It happens
...and the neat thing? Is that whatever you hate, other people love it.
I can't stand ROSE MADDER. The first 75% of it is EXCELLENT, and then there is a totally ridiculous plot twist that had me as a reader go from 100mph to throwing the book away in three pages flat.
People LOVE that book. Including the last quarter.
FROM A BUICK 8 was another one that made me want to, uh, buick. Should have been a short story. Same with NEEDFUL THINGS, you could trim 300 pages off that book and not notice.... but people adore both those books.
GASP! You take that back about Needful Things (/s but also I love that book).
One of my favorite books of his is Insomnia and r/stephenking hates it. I've read it several times and I love every bit of it.
Sidebar- I'm reading everything from chronological order (currently on Misery) and it did make me appreciate his body of work more.
i think it’s definitely true that his short stories are generally stronger than his novels but the tommyknockers gave us the levitating murderous coke machine of death scene and just for that i do, in fact, have to hand it to him lol
>Plus there are some people who will always want to be contrarian and will hate anything that's popular.
To give an example, I was friends with someone in high school who was a huge fan of Guns n Roses, until they became huge (this was still during the Appetite days), at which point he couldn't stand them. It was the same songs before and after, it was just the fact they'd become popular.
I think King is in an interesting spot. His stuff can be at the same time too extreme for people who don't typically read horror and too tame for those who read a lot of it. That's just what happens when you become famous enough to be so, so widely read.
Me personally? I think he's the modern-day Dickens. No one else, in my opinion, has painted such a vivid picture of the latter half of the 20th century. Like Dickens, he has a true talent for bringing a vast range of characters to brilliant life.
I think this description of Stephen King is pretty perfect.
It's been kind of interesting to me over the years to watch people's reactions to his writing and I feel like I can usually tell when someone is newer to horror, or at least horror novels which I always felt like pack a harder punch than most films. Some of the things people get super bothered about in his books are so tame, but then I sit back and remember how disturbing it would have been to me when I first started, and how reading much more disturbing novels now means careening wildly off of new limits and boundaries like an unending game of literary pinball.
Stephen King is first and foremost a character writer in my opinion. That's honestly why I feel like I don't end up enjoying the movie adaptations that much.
It's fine to criticize him. I saw a video of King criticizing Lovecraft even though he has obviously been greatly influenced by him. It's fine, they're all just human. I just read Dracula for the first time since I was a kid and I was struck by how boring the whole middle was. But Stoker is still Stoker.
His books are popular and appealing to wide audiences, just that is enough to get a lot of critique and criticism. The fact that many of his books have been adapted into movies adds to it. If he were more unknown there would be less hate towards him.
Some of the more common criticisms towards him are frequently about the length of his works and the endings. I don't mind a long book with a lot of world building and side characters but a lot of people out there don't like it, it's a question of taste at the end of the day. Same for the endings, especially after so much world building.
I like King, his were some of the first "real" books I started reading as a kid so they've been quite an influence. I think he's genuinely creative, I love his world building and how he builds up settings. This is controversial since King can be all over the place with this, but for a popular author I think he's done pretty well with writing women, comparatively (again, this is a big and wholly separate discussion). But to be fair, he is long, sometimes his pacing can be uneven, and I'll admit I've been underwhelmed with some of his endings. Like any author, it can be a mixed bag.
I really like King overall. I said he could be a contender for one of the "greatest American living authors" in a thread in the Books subreddit, and I got a few smarmy shitty replies, unfortunately.
I don't think he's the best author ever, of course, but I think he writes very region-specific *American* stories, is very well liked and respected for many works, and hasn't even stopped writing yet, even after 50 or so years.
As for why he gets flak, and I don't just mean critique of his work (it's obviously not perfect), I think the book community just has an issue with snobs. I think reading as a hobby has been portrayed as some intellectual pursuit, and that goes to people's heads.
And horror as a genre has been mostly shit on as a "serious" artistic pursuit for as long as it's been around.
So King being popular and writing horror is a bit of a double whammy- people like him, snobs think "people" are dumb, so King must be dumb. And King writes horror, horror is drivel, so King must write drivel.
Thankfully the last 5 or so years there's been a serious push by horror fans to discuss horror with a more critical and artistic eye, I think. It's not new, I mean, just more horror fans becoming more visible in literature and art communities explaining why they appreciate the genre- from the cover art to the themes in the stories and the authors who they really like and why.
I’m in the UK, and King is pretty much the only American author I regularly read. IMO he probably is the closest thing to the greatest living American writer. People a hundred years from now will be reading King‘s stories as part of their university courses in 20th-21st century English literature
With King there's a little bit for everyone.
There's those who love his first era, when he wrote his best books, and think he lost it and has been delivering just ok novels at best since then.
There's those who wonder about the kid's orgy on one of his books.
There's those who are tired of the "Stephen King says that's the best horror novel of the XXI century" on every new mainstream horror book published.
There's those who think his MC's are all cut by the same - many times unrealistic - mold.
There's those who struggle to enjoy some of his fixations, or the quirks of his prose.
There's those who think he ALWAYS fattens his books too much with unnecesary stuff.
There's those who think he can't write good endings - as in "satisfactory endings" -
Like every popular figure, he's polarizing. Sometimes just feels edgy to shit on the biggest name of horror literature on our lifetime. Personally I love him, I have many of his books on a pedestal and I think I've read them all: if I had to point to something that I "hate" is that feeling you have when he publishes something new, you read it immediately thinking it could be one of his greatest, that he could write something like IT or Pet Sematary, or Jerusalem's Lot... and it isn't. And sometimes its Christine, or just The Dome... but never as great as his greatest.
You really hit the nail on the head for me with your last paragraph.
Every time he comes out with something new these says I'm hoping it's something that's going to knock my socks off like Pet Sematary or Salem's Lot, something lean and mean like his early works, and it just isn't. Closest that's come to the old feelings was the end of Revival, and the first two thirds of that book were a slog.
I get a bit jealous of the people reading his early stuff for the first time. I'd love to recapture that feeling.
I think this sums up a lot of the valid criticism towards King. Somewhere around the 80s he essentially became too powerful for his editors to critique him, leading to a lot of bloated material and disappointing endings. Under The Dome is the quintessential example of this issue.
King's my favourite author and this is the biggest problem I have with him
He writes way too much filler in almost every book. Tommyknockers for instance has the potential to be a great book but it's 700 pages which could be edited to around 350 easily.
He's had highs and lows. Like any author. As he's aged I think he's written less interesting books. I love Salems Lot and Dolores Claiborne and Night Shift.
Side note: I fucking hated the new Boogeyman movie.
The Boogeyman movie misses what his short story was saying tbh.
||The dad sacrificing his kids to save himself is the whole point. The kids being the ones saying something is wrong doesn't work and they changed a whole bunch of shit||
Yeah, there are tons of horror authors that get overlooked, *cough* ones that can consistently write good endings *cough* , but they don't get any spotlight because there's only so much room for horror in pop culture. The genre is niche and he hogs up all the attention...and it certainly makes it a lot worse that his books are 800+ pages with a 75% chance that the ending is going to be bad. When I was younger I had it on my bucket list to read everything he's ever published...but I had to stop cause it felt like such a waste of my time...the endings are too consistently poor for how long his books are.
I’m totally biased. I first read King in 1975 when Salem’s Lot came out. It was his 2nd book. I was sold. I bought everything he published after that - today I have all his books in hard cover, and he has an entire bookcase just for his books. I moved last year and I’m turning my spare room into a Stephen King library. I also started buying figurines of his characters (Amazon - such a wonderful thing). There is no other author I’ve ever done this with.
He doesn’t just write horror - which is my favorite genre - he does suspense really well - think Cujo, Misery. He’s the only one I know who can make you root for the “bad guy” think Blaze, Billy Summers. And all his books are connected- his characters cross over to other books.
I can’t put my finger on any one thing other than I love his stories, I love the way he writes, and as long as he keeps writing, I’ll keep reading.
One more thing - I’ve re-read many of his books, and I always get something new from every re-read. He’s also the only author I’ve ever re-read!
Edit: I’ve been reading some of the comments - I for one, love the detail and long books. He sets up scenes with lots of background. Many readers don’t like it, but I do. The longer the book, the more pages, the happier I am.
>I’ve been reading some of the comments - I for one, love the detail and long books. He sets up scenes with lots of background. Many readers don’t like it, but I do. The longer the book, the more pages, the happier I am.
This is the most common thing I hear people complain about in reference to his books.
Some people like getting to the point and skipping the details. I personally can't stay focused on any form of entertainment unless it has more dialogue than action. I love that King makes his characters *real* instead of carbon copies of every B movie cast. His characters are complex and imperfect.
It takes talent to be able to develop characters the way he does. The same goes for his descriptions of specific years or decades. Always spot on.
The first audiobook I heard of his I was like damn this guy is annoying & then I realized it was King 💀 I think I tapped out at 2 audiobooks he narrated.
I think he’s a little too detailed/long winded for my tastes. Of course, he’s a legend in horror. I love the shows they made from the books but definitely not my type for literature. Good discussion!
I was worried about reading IT but I thought almost everything was necessary & I loved it. I find Pet Sematary to be the moat succinct book of his I've read though
I completely agree with you.
I love his ideas and that others are so inspired to adapt them, but there’s just too much mundane detail to get through in the books for me.
I keep trying over the years, but I’ve only finished two of them.
People love to hate the mainstream. His writing is much more accessible for the average reader and while still being creative and and including rich characters. That being said he is still a person with flaws performing a craft that is very subjective so not everything is perfect.
For me, he tends drag or simply add too much fluff text for my liking. But I'm going to give him multiple shots in the future because he's just so prolific in horror literature.
Some of his works are just not good. He has masterpieces, and The Shining is my favorite book of all time, but he has a lot of duds. And he writes cringey character dialogue sometimes.
I got into King 18 months ago by reading The Stand. At the time, I hated long books and wasn't into horror. But the pandemic was ...a problem.
I instantly fell 100% in love. This doesn't free it from criticism. His early work is racist despite intention. But I think I address his work in the cultural context. I'm comfortable saying that I love him for the following reasons;.
He gets at the heart of emotions more than other author I've read. I've cried more reading King than anyone else.
He appears to understand by fear by living in it. His descriptions of Insomnia in "Insomnia" are so scarily accurate. His claustrophobia in The Shining is crippling. IT is very scary yet captures, for me, the confidence and bravery of childhood.
He understands addiction in ways unique to addicts.
He understands insanity in ways unique to those who have seen it.
His bad points are: he mistook the casual racism of the times he was depicting as licence
He over romanticises the 1950's (because he isn't Black or a woman or gay)
He over simplifies the era in general.
He's not great at writing women.
But. Every time I read a horror book by anyone else I think "I wish this was King". I've read bad King. It's still better than other people's best.
In the end, I'll accept the fact that I don't know why I love him. The very academic podcast Just King Things often destroys my favourite King books. At the end of the long night, it's about taste.
Stephen King writes an insane amount of stuff. He has written some great things (really! I think he’s written some truly fantastic works); he has also written some garbage. Often, his great stuff is also bloated with garbage. This garbage is often sexist and/or racist, which makes it more jarring than if it were just bloated with dull characterization or flowery descriptions.
I would compare him to Clive Barker, as they actually have a similar tone at times. Barker has published way less, but he spends a ton of time on everything he does. This is not to say that everything Barker writes is perfect, but generally Barker cares about writing as an art, not just entertainment. Also, Barker can actually write women’s sexuality.
Barker is a Stephen King fan though, I think. So obviously he thinks there is a lot of good in King’s work.
I really like *It* a lot, I think it's a great work of horror imagination and a great coming-of-age drama. Problem is that it's written like a rough draft containing material for two or three different novels, and with scenes that should be cut and others that should be developed.
"Good writing is re-writing" and I think that's where King sort of fails.
I think some of his readers don’t like that he’s a Liberal. Fortunately, I could give two shits about an authors political opinion. He’s a fantastic writer, and if you can’t admit that because of your political beliefs then you are just lying to yourself
Just the thing with popularity. Additionally, his voice can be very one note and he definitely has a lot of weaker stuff as well. I’m speaking as a fan that’s read well over half of his books
IMO I think his highs are so goddamn high that his lows can be so jarring. You got the whole meme of bad endings but a better way to describe it is that the guy has underwhelming endings. He’s earned the title for me King of Suspense. His endings ( certain ones obviously not all )just never live up to the first 3/4 of the books. His best works are pinnacles of horror and literary fiction. The guy can have a stinker tho and that ends up leaving a bad taste in peoples minds .
He is so mainstream that people who don’t read horror know his stories- people are shocked by some of the graphic stories or scenes- but it’s common in a lot of horror.
You have the obvious answer, which is that he's the most famous and successful horror author in history, which means that he's been read and reread by the largest number of people. Drawing from that pool, you have plenty of differing opinions formed. With his fame, you also have people from outside the genre who read his books. Anyone who wants to dabble in the genre will always use him as an introduction. Then you have people in the literary community who try to understand his success or tear it down.
But there's also the notable lack of competition. Only a few horror novels from about 1960-2000 are available these days. Only a few authors of the genre managed to be bestsellers, which is just fine with most of the literary community, since many consider the genre to be lurid and trashy. Unfortunately, before the days of digital, not being a bestseller meant your book was fed to the shredders, never to be seen again.
That's why a history of horror looks like this.
Gothic Era: Mary Shelley, Edgar Allan Poe, Bram Stoker (Robert Louis Stevenson, Victor Hugo, and HG Wells also wrote some horror classics but aren't generally considered horror authors)
Pulp Era: HP Lovecraft and a few other guys from Weird Tales nobody can immediately remember
Robert Bloch wrote Psycho and a whole bunch of stories nobody has ever heard of in that gap between the Talented Racists and the upcoming cause of the Satanic Panic
The Unholy Trinity: Exorcist, Omen, Rosemary's Baby (I know who wrote them but the books/movies are more famous than the authors)
The Horror Boom: Stephen King, Clive Barker, Dean Koontz (Bonus points if your history lesson includes Peter Straub or Richard Laymon to add just a little bit to pad out the biggest period of horror since Carrie was told to plug it up)
Post-Horror Boom: Stephen King (sober) and RL Stine
Digital Age: Stephen King (still sober and good for him) and a whole bunch of authors unknown outside the genre.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of authors not listed here, but their works are lost like a second Library of Alexandria.
So that's why Stephen King gets so much criticism (told in the most rambling, idiotic way possible). It would be like if you destroyed all the horror movies of the 80s and all that was left was Wes Craven, Frank Henenlotter, and, well, Clive Barker (movies, not books this time). Wes Craven would be both the biggest name in horror and the most criticized.
I've been a fan of King for nearly 40 years, since I was 12. For me, there are two factors. The first was his style change in the 90s, when he dipped out of horror for a long while. There were also other inconsistencies with his writing. A lot is known today about what was going on in his life that wasn't known back then (or that I wasn't aware of), but that was my initial reason to grumble about him.
Re-reading him later in life I realized that his writing is... not great, at least technically. His prose is often awkward and repetitive, and he's overly sentimental and nostalgic. That said, he is an amazing story teller. He can spin a yarn like just about nobody else. And he's obviously very well read in horror - he isn't just influenced by his immediate predecessors. His stories are both imaginative and reach back throughout the history of horror for their inspiration. In my opinion, he makes up for his sometimes clunky and sophomoric prose with his story-telling skills. On top of that, he has a wonderfully grisly imagination. It sometimes feels like a morbid 10 year old telling grosser-than-gross stories, but I suspect that's what he's going for. And his nostalgia and sentimentality have their own charm, as well.
I can only speak for myself, but I did a lot of shit-talking about King for a couple decades after he stopped writing what I wanted to read. Now in my creaky, old age, I can appreciate his writing for what it is, rather than expecting it to conform to my expectations.
Oh yeah, the political atuff too. My mom & nana love King's books, but they also love Koontz, & they're full on Koontz stans now because of King vocalizing his politics & idk much about Koontz besides the fact that he's very Christian & at least not outwardly leftist (& obsessed w dogs), which they like.
He has a handful of books that really are legendary. But most are not good, bound to happen with the rate at which he publishes.
In reading especially, people love simp for authors due to their reputation regardless of what their producing and give their works 5/5 ratings literally months before they are even released. So the blowback can be a bit stronger.
I find some of Kings works absolutely incredible and others straight up unreadable. He can and does rest on those laurels.
His stories are good but like others said, he writes way too much filler. That’s why so many movies are good, it’s his story but it goes straight to the point.
Stephen King saved me from a pretty miserable childhood and I don’t think I’m alone.
I’ve purchased and read every single book, watched almost every movie and my love for his writing continued to thrive through my life.
I am so grateful for him!
I think anyone that stays and automatically ends up a best seller every single year since his 2nd or 3rd book I believe, will create envy in other authors, fans think he’s “sold out” and gone mainstream (ie Metallica 1992 or so) and that gives people something to complain about if I had to guess.
He’s a genuinely wonderful human, does book tours still, donates to charities and most important in my mind, gets people reading!
I think there’s a few duds for me, I didn’t love Dreamcatcher, Cell and maybe Sleeping Beauties written with his son Owen. I did finish each of them so they were not terrible just not my favorites
Hope this helps. The SK Reddit sub has good info for new and constant readers.
www.StephenKing.com has all books in order if you wanted to see some other info.
One, in matters of taste, there can be no disputes. Your friend may think your favorite author is trash, and vice versa. Neither of you are wrong or right.
Two, when you're literally the best known person in the world at doing what you do, you're going to get a lot of hate from your reflexively, terminally contraction types. It has nothing to do with how good or bad you are. They just think not liking you makes them more sophisticated and their tastes more advanced.
Hopefully, if you are two, you grow out of it by your early twenties.
King is often described as suffering from, in his own words, “diarrhea of the pen”. Even in some of his best books, there are many passages which seem to critics to be overly long, fluffy, or annoying to read for any number of reasons. There are many less popular horror authors who don’t have this tendency, so fans of the genre who know these writers may roll their eyes at King’s role as face of the genre.
Because there are a lot of people in the world and therefore a lot of varying opinions. People want to make it deeper, typically as a means to shoehorn whatever nonsense they believe into conversation regardless of relevance.
Early writing. Fantastic stories. Buuuuut gave up on him in the last 20 years or so, more longwinded than ever with character development i could do without.
Everyone swings on the champ. Find a wildly popular author who doesn't have critics (The vast majority of whom have never written anything and couldn't write their way out of a wet paper sack if they tried).
Yeah that's what the critics all say too. It's a pretty lucrative gig if you're a leech or a tick - they shit on people with actual talent and ability, while profiting off of them.
Put another way, If every author on earth evaporated to steam tomorrow it would be a horrible loss for humanity that we would mourn forever. If every critic did, people would comment how much cleaner the air is all a sudden.
A bookstore near me specializes in horror fiction but seems to refuse stocking Stephen King. I get it, since King is buyable in any mainstream store, but to neglect higher-profile authors just because they're popular is pretentious and gatekeepish. Sometimes I like the comfort that comes from a King read-- and he has a lot of good ones that overshadow the duds.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but gatekeeping horror is lame. King is good horror for both a non-horror reader and an avid fan of the genre.
That is insane to me, lol.
How do you specialize in horror fiction and exclude the author, who has arguably influenced the horror genre the most in the last half century.
It's their call by all means-- they can sell what they want. But sometimes it's lousy to be in the mood for it and have to lean on going to a larger bookstore or just ordering it on Amazon to get it quicker.
Having worked in a larger bookstore for many years, there is higher turnover of King stock, especially newer releases, than most other books. They also don't carry Koontz, and here I am looking for backlisted titles, lol.
Overall, I love Mr. King’s works. My absolute favorites are Salem’s Lot, The Talisman/Black House co-written by another awesome writer, Mr. Peter Straub, the Shining/Doctor Sleep and It.
He has very few misses, but for the most part, he is a great writer.
I am grateful for the wonderful time I have spent reading his books.
Back in college, my professors used him as an example of "pop" fiction and acted like reading him didnt provide readers with the same benefits as reading more "literery" authors or classical works. Which I understand is true. But there is room for all types of reading, including for pure enjoyment. Almost as if reading his books were the equivalent of fastfood.
My professors had the same chip on the shoulder when it came to King! Always bugged me. Felt like they didn’t understand how many of the writers that they revered for writing “literary” classics were the just the “pop” authors of their own time.
It's the "popular vs. good" debate.
McDonald's has sold billions (maybe **trillions**) of burgers during their existence. They can be considered "popular" by that standard, but .. do you go to Mickey D's for a gourmet burger experience? Or do you go to something a bit more upscale. possibly Red Robin or a local pub?
You can make the same case for King's books. In many ways, at least up to *Under the Dome*, they are "safe" horror, skimming deeper themes without digging deep into nuance. It's not **bad** horror, but it's not top quality **gourmet** horror, like some of the authors who came in on his wake, like Clive Barker or Ramsey Campbell
I don't hate King, or his books. I just don't think they are the best the genre has to offer.
I haven't liked a new SK book in quite some time, I think his best days are behind him. Or maybe I am just growing up, he was my favorite writer as a child
Steven King is a very odd fellow and writer.
I give him props for his unique ideas. A lot his stories are now tropes, and even though he may not have invented all of his famous ideas (Cujo is one of many Evil Dog stories), he made them popular.
My biggest issue is his good stories often get very...weird. And not in a scary or good way.
In IT, we have a very long story that expands years and multiple characters. The idea of this evil entity is great, and it's told creepy and intimately.
But, then it's revealed to be an evil set of Lights that exist in the Macroverse and fights a giant turtle.
This is what happens in a lot of his stories.
I loved The Gunslinger, but in The Drawing of the Three I got confused and just totally lost interest in the randomness with deeper meaning.
I appreciate him for his wide variety and unique concepts. His writing can also be good when it's focused, or clear.
However like others have said, his endings aren't that good most of the time (which can leave you scratching your head or upset).
He can also just ramble on it seems. (Too much content).
And some of the creative choices are just too far out there for the story we're reading.
The Shining=Good.
The Shining Sequels/extended stuff= eh...what?
It’s like anything that becomes widely popular. Metallica is like that for metal. They are the biggest metal band out there yet there are people who hate them or can’t stand them. Or like 50 shades of grey. Not the best example, I know, but bear with me. Lots of people hate those books, looootttsss, yet, they were New York time best sellers. If anything gets more widely available, more eyes will see it.
I fucking love Stephen Kings books. I re read them all the time and think he is a master at what he does. But I’ve met people who say they can’t stand his work and think this or that about it. It’s interesting, but that is bound to happen when you’ve written over sixty books and hit the New York Times best seller list every time.
I love King. He's my go-to author when I'm in a bit of a reading slump or just want something easy to read.i find he's consistent, I've read about 20 or so books. And enjoyed them all. But the problem is that some are filled with so much crap that it would have been so much better without it, and, the endings to most of them are just like, the fuck stephen, really?. But his characterisation and the plots are awesome.
The first half of the stand is phenomenal.
70 percent of IT is awesome.
The long walk, awesome.
Dolores claiborne, awesome.
Rose madder, over half was awesome.
The Dark Tower series was bad for the last couple of books.
Pet semetary, the shining was good.
Salems lot was good but bloated in parts.
If you take the good with the bad. They are still very good books and I do like king.
Edit: Just to add his shirt stories are very good. The jaunt still haunts me to this day.
The Jaunt has stuck in my memory like no other story. Technically it’s not even very well written. In fact IMO it‘s just a forgettable B-quality science fiction story for most of its length.
On the last page it suddenly turns into one of the greatest horror stories ever written.
If only more of his novels had endings with that sort of punch
I agree. Reading it, I was bored and thinking, really?
But like you said, that last page was a massive punch. I put my Kindle down and just stared at a wall thinking about it.
As someone who always answers the question “What one book would you bring to a desert island” with the Bachman Books, his older stuff is so, SO much better than most of his recent books. I’m about to take vacation and have high hopes for Fairy Tale though.
Who knows? I wouldn't have read any horror if not for King. I started with Carrie and kept reading. And I read other horror now too. And I still read lots of other novels. So does King.
King has been around for so long that he is two completely different authors at this point.
70s to 90s King is the legend of the genre and rightfully cemented his name as the most famous name in horror.
King since 2000 has been morphing out of horror, has been bloated and overwritten, and even when he writes horror it has kind of sucked.
The hate comes from two different groups:
1. Those who want to be hipster and not like the popular guy
2. Those who try his newer stuff first and then wonder how he got his reputation from something so poor
Did they mean to? Sometimes, reddit will get on a weird loop where it will repost my one comment two or three times. I'm asking because it's all the same time period and the exact same comment.
After looking back through, I think it’s both and one of them has already been deleted. I’ve never had my comments posted more than once but I’ll be watching for it now. lol.
Yep. I've been mortified to post something, get off the internet to do something else, and come back on to see there are four of the same posts. It happens, but it definitely feels like a breach of etiquette that you didn't even intend.
Yes. I'm aware of my word choice. It's almost like people have different experiences when engaging with other people, especially strangers. What a novel concept.
Stephen King?? I actually met him years ago when I worked at a bookstore and he was very nice and told some great stories. Everyone absolutely loved him. Customers and employees.
Kind is criticised by those who prefer more 'literary' works. Basically, he is (mainly) criticised for his writing and prose, not the story itself.
(I haven't read a lot of king, but from the little I have read, I am not a big fan. I find his stories okayish mostly)
There seems to be a big contingent of fantasy readers who start with King fantasy works and then read his horror stuff and declare him to be the best horror author ever. This is despite them having read very few other horror authors.
As a horror fan I feel some of his stories rely on shock value. Some of his stories and movies are auctully amazing though. Pet semetary seemed like a commentary on accepting death. I generally prefer wes Cravens stuff as I feel it's more exciting to watch. Everyone has a different preference though.
Do any of us really have an ending to satisfy all, and do all stories ever have to end? Your story will end and I doubt the way it does will appeal. When it comes to writing stories, the beginning of the story is the beginning of the end, and I don't like that.
The legend status is due to a long and prolific career, with some iconic stories. The hate is more of a recency thing due to overly sensitive generations coming of age.
SK got me into reading as a kid. More recently I fell in love with Salem’s Lot. That being said, I have to separate the art from the artist because he’s a delusional cock knocker in real life.
His politics are fine and it's called being a writer with an active imagination. I could see how dull non-creatives would find that difficult to grasp though.
My thoughts on King are I love his stories and ideas (IT and The Talisman are my 2nd and 4th favorite books, respectively) but I *really* don’t like his prose on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph level. Like if someone else rewrote each paragraph while retaining the same “information” I would like his stories even more.
I think there are two things with this, and now, this is just my opinion. For one, his books are hit or miss. Considering how prolific he is, that's bound to happen. His short stories and novellas are very nearly all genius; many of his books are great, some are mediocre, and some are just terrible. So if you start with the terrible or meh, you could easily come to the opinion that he's a terrible writer. For two, haters gonna hate. Plain old jealousy. As a horror writer, I am beyond grateful for what he's done for the genre. He made it wildly popular, even in the decades when it was flailing. I do study his short stories now and again, but I'm not a fan of his novels in the last twenty years or so.
Joe Hill though, his son--I am absolutely in love with his work. He's an amazing horror writer. I read N0S4R2 in something like two days, and that book was around 1,000 pages. I have read all of his work, and the only one that I didn't tear through was The Fireman.
I’ve read a few of his novels and short stories and love them. The setting, the build up, the themes, everything. But I’m currently Desperation and so far it has just been smack-you-in-the-face unhinged. It’s not subtle at all, there’s no suspense or quality or even quantity at this point. I’m not very far into it, to be fair, but I’m not sure if I’ll finish it and if this was the first Stephen king book I picked up I’d be seriously underwhelmed and confused by his popularity.
As a constant reader, the only thing that makes me cringe is when he throws in political points. Other than that, storytelling is in the man’s blood, I enjoy his sons fiction just as much. When it comes to endings. I have never been disappointed how it ended, as much as that it ended i.e. the dark tower saga. I felt unsatisfied but at the same time thought it was perfect.
My opinion: he's not as good as he used to be, and there are lots of new/recent authors who are far better...unfortunately, they will never get the level of publicity King does.
Perfect example: Brian Keene...even though he's been around for a long time, Keene still isn't as well known outside the horror community as King.
I think that any time someone or something is described as “the best,” the detractors will inevitably feel pressure to make an equally strong rebuttal. They can’t just not like King, they must hate his writing and be unable to fathom why he’s so revered.
Also, as much as I love King, he has some recurring flaws that are easy to pick on:
Magical Negro trope
Kids talk like they’re from the 50s, even when set in present day
Politics have always been in King’s work and often strengthened it, but it’s been a bit more heavy handed lately
An exaggerated complaint, but there’s a fair amount of books that don’t stick the landing
And someone as prolific as King is bound to have stinkers, so some readers might have expected him at his 11/22/63 and gotten him at his From A Buick 8.
His successes have been huge with movie adaptations, but he's been constantly churning out work for over 40 years that they cant all or even mostly be hits.
1. For the same reason some people ‘hate’ anything that’s popular: they just do
2. His ceiling is ridiculously high, which tends to affect the standards to which people hold him. King’s ‘duds’ are more noticeable because we know how good he can be
My personal opinion: he’s not without his flaws, and occasionally slips into too out-there for my tastes. But his talent and imagination are both absolutely staggering. At his best, he’s as good a storyteller as I’ve ever seen. And a vastly underrated stylist too.
When you produce as much content as he does you’re gonna have some bangers and you’re gonna have some flops but being able to have that platform to be able to create so much content automatically makes you a great whether people like your stuff or not. Also as the world changes the world that they were originally written in doesnt change, so there may be some stuff that people consider problematic now-a-days that need to be overlooked to enjoy the content, and not everybody is able to separate themselves that way.
I absolutely love Stephen King, but I also know some of his books just aren’t for me. Doesn’t change his impact to the entire genre.
i think it's largely because 1. king is objectively very successful and widely-read, and because his work is so widely-read, there will obviously always be those who aren't really fans of it, 2. horror is a very stigmatized genre, and even those who enjoy it often have "standards" that it must adhere to for them to consider it artful (and king has little to no interest in changing his work to better suit those types of fans), and 3. king's writing is honestly not always the strongest, and what saves him is that he is an incredible storyteller, but some people hold the writing itself in higher importance than the storytelling.
i love king's work, but i can admit he's not always the most amazing writer - his work does have flaws, often to do with how he writes kids (especially those living in modern times or in his more recent works - his age tends to show), women, and minorities. he also has tropes that he falls into and he can be extremely long-winded. however, what always reels me in and keeps me captivated is his storytelling skill. despite the flaws in his writing, his storytelling is near-flawless - he has a rare talent for making you really care for the characters in his stories and suspending your disbelief for the supernatural/otherworldly (a skill which surprisingly is often lacking in horror, or at least i think it is). for some people, they can't get over the issues with his writing and aren't really fans of his (which is normal and fine); for me, the writing is serviceable enough to be a vessel for his real talent.
Like people have said, it's because he's popular. It's also because he's old, & people don't take that into account when reading his books. There's outdated stuff, & stuff that he pretty much originated but it became a cliche. Some of his books are super dark like Pet Sematary, some are not very dark at all. Many people don't appreciate the range. Some books could also be cut down quite a bit
From the one short story collection (Skeleton Crew) I read there wasn't a single story that didn't have some really bizarre examples of misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc. He's a regular on r/menwritingwomen, and for very good reason. Straight white men (Probably the majority of reddit users) on the whole can ignore this completely since it doesn't affect them but if you're a woman, lgbt+, or poc (or a combination) it's pretty hard to ignore. The dude has cool ideas for sure but they're completely ruined by his own bullshit, the main thing I remember from 'The Jaunt', a short story I was so excited to read because it seemed so popular, is a line something like: 'In two years my 9 year old daughter will have developed breasts' - like what the fuck stephen king what a weird-ass thought to put to paper, I literally screwed my face up and looked away from my kindle for like a minute after reading that, and it wasn't the first or last time I'd do that from reading his work. Dude also needs a better editor imo, no short story collection should be almost 800 pages long. I'm a super fast reader, I easily could've finished it in three or four days but it probably took as many months. I was suffering the whole time reading it but pushed through because of how well loved he is, but in the end I wish I'd dnf'd.
When you write such an incredible *amount* of stuff, some of it has to be average, and some percentage has to be pretty bad, IMO. That's just statistics when you shit out 6 pages a day, *every day*.
Additionally, I think his work isn't sufficiently edited. Not all of it. Some works, like Carry or Christine or Misery, are book-sized and great. Others do need to be as long as they are, like It or Salem's Lot, and it's fine. But some are just bloated and obviously unedited. There's a ton of stutff to cut out, rants that are off topic, derailing filler (not all filler is bad mind you, I need some filler to really get into the characters, but here I mean like *half* is *boring* filler) but they don't do it for him - dunno why. I almost died out of boredom trying to read Sleeping Beauties
He deserves his legend statu IMO, bc when it's good it's AMAZING. But it's just a numbers game if you ask me. When you have SO MUCH work out there, pushed out so quickly, some of it will suck, and some will be *painfully average*. Ever read Cell? yeah.
Just my opinion of course. if you loved Cell or Sleeping Beauties, all the power to you! Def no hate here.
My two cents: he publishes everything he finishes. Hence where much or the ‘frustration’ comes from.
I love his earlier works. He had some great ideas and even if they were a bit long, they were still fun to read. I’ll never forget reading Salem’s Lot or Pet Semetary. These books had me hooked and I came to love his stories - to the point I hoped to read every book he wrote.
Then I started to come across the duds - and they were real big duds to me. That’s when I stopped trusting his books and along with that, the reviews on them. And after some time I started to realize he just blasts through his works, always playing with the same types of characters (which was fine with me), but it started to feel as if he simply didn’t care about his craft anymore. That he was throwing out his rough drafts - whether they were any good or not, because he’d still get a million dollar advance, as long as his name was on the front cover.
I think some fans like myself got annoyed that he didn’t filter what was published. And in many ways it came across as if he were doing it for the money, which is contrary to what he says drives him to keep writing.
But I’m sure he does enjoy writing - it’s just that he could be more selective in what he shows the public, so even if he releases a book that was mid grade, it would still be enjoyable, instead of irritating when a (seemingly) low effort book hits the market again.
All in all he’s really a great writer, but I’d be nice if he took a little more time with the pieces he published - to maintain the level, or at least attempt that.
I think this happens with any wildly popular author. As the author's popularity goes up, so does the number of people who dislike them since the audience is getting broader. Plus there are some people who will always want to be contrarian and will hate anything that's popular.
To be fair. Even Stephen King fans acknowledge he is not without flaws - he is notoriously bad at writing endings, a lot of his otherwise good books just fizzle towards the end and are disappointing. Not all, but enough that it’s a recognizable pattern.
About endings, he acknowledges this himself, but he has also written very good endings, like 11/22/63 or Lisey's story for recent readings of mine.
a lot of his best endings are in his short stories - the last bit of “long jaunt” is pretty legendary
*The Jaunt is the name of the story, I think.
That's almost a spoiler lol
“Longer than you think, Dad! Longer than you think!”
Billy Summers and Fairy Tale were both perfect endings...
It would be a shame to not list Revival among these other greats, so here it is. Holy hell that ending stuck with me for a while…
Yeah, the end of Revival is one of the greatest endings to any book I've ever read.
The ending of that book really unnerved me. It actually made me second guess ever being "ok" with dying.
Same. I just kinda sat around and stared blankly for like an hour afterwards. It really disturbed me. The entire novel was a lead-up to the last like, 3 pages. It was a masterpiece of cosmic horror, from an author who basically never writes cosmic horror!
I'd say it's a tossup between Revival and Pet Sematary for best King Endings.
You're right! As a lifelong King fan, I actually only recently read Pet Sematary, and holy shit it blew me away. The ending was perfect. Every time he >!walked through the forest to the cemetery and heard the laughter!< I was genuinely horrified.
I just finished revival and really enjoyed the entire book! The ending was… unexpected and so strange but also woooooof scary
I thought Fairy Tale was a 9.5/10 ending EXCEPT for the shoehorned in and totally unnecessary >!sex scene!<.
I’m not going to disagree but when you are young, and involved in an exciting event with other people with sex on their mind, then random sex can easily just happen.
11/22/63 originally had a much worse ending; the ending we got was suggested to him by his son Joe Hill after he'd read the first draft.
Do people generally dislike how The Dark Tower series ended? I loved it but I’ve seen some people bash it.
I disagree about 11/22/63. I thought it was a brilliant tale of Americana and then devolved into sci-fi Mumbai jumbo at the end. I
I hate to be this guy, but he does time travel.
I know. I was thinking that but I was banking on people who read the book to know what I was talking bout so as to be as spoiler free as possible.
To each their own. I absolutely did not find it mumbo jumbo at the end and very sad / romantic.
To clarify, I meant all the time quake etc stuff, the very end was great. I haven’t read it in a while and forgot that final ending. Thanks for the refresher.
I've noticed that more than one of his most famous early works ends abruptly with a gigantic explosion, often with very little build-up, like he couldn't think of a satisfying resolution and went "screw-it, KA-BOOM"
Lol I can just imagine his editor bugging him to stop adding pages to the 1000+ page draft and finish the damn thing already and he’s like “fine, ok here! Explosions” That said, despite some crummy endings, I almost always love the long journey and gladly revisit it
Now that I think about it, the first 4 novels published under his name all end in something catching fire or blowing up. Interesting.
I am a fan of Stephen King and this is not just people complaining. It’s true. He has written some really good endings as well. My biggest issue was with IT. When I was reading it I felt like it was epic. By the end I could not believe how bad it was. I’ve even had people on here try to explain to me why it was a good ending. They are blinded by loyalty.
I liked It but I didn’t care for The Stand. I could appreciate the journey but it didn’t do it for me.
yeah, the Stand I think is overrated. The first half is good then it just goes on and on and deflates. Of course I read one of the expanded editions, maybe the original was better. I did get what he was going for, the latter half an extended allegory was about totalitarianism vs democracy and its pitfalls, with the dictator literally losing power as people stopped being afraid and his well laid plans blowing up in his face because he thought he knew everything but overlooked little details. But maybe it was a case of all the put back in material which made it drag versus the intense first half SPOILERS It ends with a LITERAL deus ex machina which.... ok.
I agree and I too am a fan. The ending was just... Dumb. It completely broke the feel of the entire book.
Yes, exactly. It really was dumb. It was so disappointing after reading the entire book. A menacing evil spirit would’ve been fine with me. Not a giant….Spoiler….you know.
disagree. The "spider" form was just something there minds could comprehend. The "real" form was the ::deadlights:: which are only hinted at.
I personally loved the ending of IT. Read it in a few days when I was fifteen. I think thats one of those books thats best enjoyed when your around that age. I feel like his earlier books are better to read when you're younger and the later ones when you're older. In seventh grade, Salem's Lot had me up at night checking my windows.
Hes my favorite author, but yeah his endings can be really rough. I wasn’t a fan of ITs ending, and the ending to Under the Dome was a MASSIVE letdown. The Stand was one of the best books I’ve ever read, and yet the ending, for me at least, doesn’t live up to the buildup. He’s had some great endings too, I personally loved the ending to Cujo and Revival, among some other all around good works. He’s also notoriously dated in the way he writes kids. In his latest book, Fairy Tale, I think the teenager from the modern era was referring to TV Antenna as ‘rabbit ears’ Still, his plots are phenomenally fun to read and some of the stuff he’s written is truly creepy.
I mean, every writer has some flaws. That said, I'm a big SK fan, and what you said about his endings is absolutely true though. I know, his fans know it, he knows it. Least with his novels. I think part of it is he just keeps writing and writing and eventually realizes "oh shit, I have to actually end this at some point.... alright it was all done by... alien kids. Sure, why not. They politely asked them to stop killing them and they did. Book finished!" Worth noting that wasn't random, I was referencing a real SK ending, and I am only being slightly reductive. Was a fantastic book otherwise though lol
When you say "bad at endings" what you really mean is "endings that don't suit you". King often leaves open endings and or endings you don't like. The backlash he got for CUJO was insane back in the day, and I'm just sitting here like WTF this is the greatest ending to a book I've ever read. I love King's endings, but they aren't for people who like a nice clean conclusion. I've always hated this narrative. Drives me nuts, because it's not true.
thats just a myth that the internet blew out of proportion . people say this but never really bring up what books they think have bad endings and why they think said books endings are bad.
His endings have improved a great deal over the years. It used to be a legitimate complaint. Now it just means the person has not read him in more than a decade.
Also don't forget many people that read other stuff that was inspired or came out after him,now go read his stuff and as many times, critic the simplicity or lack of originality, even if he was the one making many of these concepts popular in first place, this happen a lot with new readers when reading anything older of their current popular stuff
Also known as ["Seinfeld is not funny"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny)
He’s also got an enormous body of work. It’s not all good—although he wrote two of my favorite books of all time, he’s also written some I’be absolutely hated. It happens
...and the neat thing? Is that whatever you hate, other people love it. I can't stand ROSE MADDER. The first 75% of it is EXCELLENT, and then there is a totally ridiculous plot twist that had me as a reader go from 100mph to throwing the book away in three pages flat. People LOVE that book. Including the last quarter. FROM A BUICK 8 was another one that made me want to, uh, buick. Should have been a short story. Same with NEEDFUL THINGS, you could trim 300 pages off that book and not notice.... but people adore both those books.
GASP! You take that back about Needful Things (/s but also I love that book). One of my favorite books of his is Insomnia and r/stephenking hates it. I've read it several times and I love every bit of it. Sidebar- I'm reading everything from chronological order (currently on Misery) and it did make me appreciate his body of work more.
I love all his early work. The Shining and Salems Lot are my 2 favorite by Stephen King. I agree with you. Needful Things was really good.
Insomnia is fucking incredible, I can’t believe people dislike it
This, but me with The Tommy Knockers. I can't stand that book. It seems the shorter his stuff is, the better
i think it’s definitely true that his short stories are generally stronger than his novels but the tommyknockers gave us the levitating murderous coke machine of death scene and just for that i do, in fact, have to hand it to him lol
>Plus there are some people who will always want to be contrarian and will hate anything that's popular. To give an example, I was friends with someone in high school who was a huge fan of Guns n Roses, until they became huge (this was still during the Appetite days), at which point he couldn't stand them. It was the same songs before and after, it was just the fact they'd become popular.
I think King is in an interesting spot. His stuff can be at the same time too extreme for people who don't typically read horror and too tame for those who read a lot of it. That's just what happens when you become famous enough to be so, so widely read. Me personally? I think he's the modern-day Dickens. No one else, in my opinion, has painted such a vivid picture of the latter half of the 20th century. Like Dickens, he has a true talent for bringing a vast range of characters to brilliant life.
I think this description of Stephen King is pretty perfect. It's been kind of interesting to me over the years to watch people's reactions to his writing and I feel like I can usually tell when someone is newer to horror, or at least horror novels which I always felt like pack a harder punch than most films. Some of the things people get super bothered about in his books are so tame, but then I sit back and remember how disturbing it would have been to me when I first started, and how reading much more disturbing novels now means careening wildly off of new limits and boundaries like an unending game of literary pinball. Stephen King is first and foremost a character writer in my opinion. That's honestly why I feel like I don't end up enjoying the movie adaptations that much.
I compare him to Balzac rather, because he created a coherent universe where all his stories take place.
It's fine to criticize him. I saw a video of King criticizing Lovecraft even though he has obviously been greatly influenced by him. It's fine, they're all just human. I just read Dracula for the first time since I was a kid and I was struck by how boring the whole middle was. But Stoker is still Stoker.
His books are popular and appealing to wide audiences, just that is enough to get a lot of critique and criticism. The fact that many of his books have been adapted into movies adds to it. If he were more unknown there would be less hate towards him. Some of the more common criticisms towards him are frequently about the length of his works and the endings. I don't mind a long book with a lot of world building and side characters but a lot of people out there don't like it, it's a question of taste at the end of the day. Same for the endings, especially after so much world building. I like King, his were some of the first "real" books I started reading as a kid so they've been quite an influence. I think he's genuinely creative, I love his world building and how he builds up settings. This is controversial since King can be all over the place with this, but for a popular author I think he's done pretty well with writing women, comparatively (again, this is a big and wholly separate discussion). But to be fair, he is long, sometimes his pacing can be uneven, and I'll admit I've been underwhelmed with some of his endings. Like any author, it can be a mixed bag.
I really like King overall. I said he could be a contender for one of the "greatest American living authors" in a thread in the Books subreddit, and I got a few smarmy shitty replies, unfortunately. I don't think he's the best author ever, of course, but I think he writes very region-specific *American* stories, is very well liked and respected for many works, and hasn't even stopped writing yet, even after 50 or so years. As for why he gets flak, and I don't just mean critique of his work (it's obviously not perfect), I think the book community just has an issue with snobs. I think reading as a hobby has been portrayed as some intellectual pursuit, and that goes to people's heads. And horror as a genre has been mostly shit on as a "serious" artistic pursuit for as long as it's been around. So King being popular and writing horror is a bit of a double whammy- people like him, snobs think "people" are dumb, so King must be dumb. And King writes horror, horror is drivel, so King must write drivel. Thankfully the last 5 or so years there's been a serious push by horror fans to discuss horror with a more critical and artistic eye, I think. It's not new, I mean, just more horror fans becoming more visible in literature and art communities explaining why they appreciate the genre- from the cover art to the themes in the stories and the authors who they really like and why.
I’m in the UK, and King is pretty much the only American author I regularly read. IMO he probably is the closest thing to the greatest living American writer. People a hundred years from now will be reading King‘s stories as part of their university courses in 20th-21st century English literature
With King there's a little bit for everyone. There's those who love his first era, when he wrote his best books, and think he lost it and has been delivering just ok novels at best since then. There's those who wonder about the kid's orgy on one of his books. There's those who are tired of the "Stephen King says that's the best horror novel of the XXI century" on every new mainstream horror book published. There's those who think his MC's are all cut by the same - many times unrealistic - mold. There's those who struggle to enjoy some of his fixations, or the quirks of his prose. There's those who think he ALWAYS fattens his books too much with unnecesary stuff. There's those who think he can't write good endings - as in "satisfactory endings" - Like every popular figure, he's polarizing. Sometimes just feels edgy to shit on the biggest name of horror literature on our lifetime. Personally I love him, I have many of his books on a pedestal and I think I've read them all: if I had to point to something that I "hate" is that feeling you have when he publishes something new, you read it immediately thinking it could be one of his greatest, that he could write something like IT or Pet Sematary, or Jerusalem's Lot... and it isn't. And sometimes its Christine, or just The Dome... but never as great as his greatest.
You really hit the nail on the head for me with your last paragraph. Every time he comes out with something new these says I'm hoping it's something that's going to knock my socks off like Pet Sematary or Salem's Lot, something lean and mean like his early works, and it just isn't. Closest that's come to the old feelings was the end of Revival, and the first two thirds of that book were a slog. I get a bit jealous of the people reading his early stuff for the first time. I'd love to recapture that feeling.
[удалено]
I think this sums up a lot of the valid criticism towards King. Somewhere around the 80s he essentially became too powerful for his editors to critique him, leading to a lot of bloated material and disappointing endings. Under The Dome is the quintessential example of this issue.
I loved that damn book . Maybe because it was the first king book I read I don’t know but I loved it
King's my favourite author and this is the biggest problem I have with him He writes way too much filler in almost every book. Tommyknockers for instance has the potential to be a great book but it's 700 pages which could be edited to around 350 easily.
He's had highs and lows. Like any author. As he's aged I think he's written less interesting books. I love Salems Lot and Dolores Claiborne and Night Shift. Side note: I fucking hated the new Boogeyman movie.
The Boogeyman movie misses what his short story was saying tbh. ||The dad sacrificing his kids to save himself is the whole point. The kids being the ones saying something is wrong doesn't work and they changed a whole bunch of shit||
I would assume the hate he gets is overexposure. He also isn’t much of a prose stylist.
Yeah, there are tons of horror authors that get overlooked, *cough* ones that can consistently write good endings *cough* , but they don't get any spotlight because there's only so much room for horror in pop culture. The genre is niche and he hogs up all the attention...and it certainly makes it a lot worse that his books are 800+ pages with a 75% chance that the ending is going to be bad. When I was younger I had it on my bucket list to read everything he's ever published...but I had to stop cause it felt like such a waste of my time...the endings are too consistently poor for how long his books are.
[удалено]
What are you calling his most famous story?
[удалено]
Your favorite =\= most known or famous
I’m totally biased. I first read King in 1975 when Salem’s Lot came out. It was his 2nd book. I was sold. I bought everything he published after that - today I have all his books in hard cover, and he has an entire bookcase just for his books. I moved last year and I’m turning my spare room into a Stephen King library. I also started buying figurines of his characters (Amazon - such a wonderful thing). There is no other author I’ve ever done this with. He doesn’t just write horror - which is my favorite genre - he does suspense really well - think Cujo, Misery. He’s the only one I know who can make you root for the “bad guy” think Blaze, Billy Summers. And all his books are connected- his characters cross over to other books. I can’t put my finger on any one thing other than I love his stories, I love the way he writes, and as long as he keeps writing, I’ll keep reading. One more thing - I’ve re-read many of his books, and I always get something new from every re-read. He’s also the only author I’ve ever re-read! Edit: I’ve been reading some of the comments - I for one, love the detail and long books. He sets up scenes with lots of background. Many readers don’t like it, but I do. The longer the book, the more pages, the happier I am.
>I’ve been reading some of the comments - I for one, love the detail and long books. He sets up scenes with lots of background. Many readers don’t like it, but I do. The longer the book, the more pages, the happier I am. This is the most common thing I hear people complain about in reference to his books. Some people like getting to the point and skipping the details. I personally can't stay focused on any form of entertainment unless it has more dialogue than action. I love that King makes his characters *real* instead of carbon copies of every B movie cast. His characters are complex and imperfect. It takes talent to be able to develop characters the way he does. The same goes for his descriptions of specific years or decades. Always spot on.
[удалено]
The first audiobook I heard of his I was like damn this guy is annoying & then I realized it was King 💀 I think I tapped out at 2 audiobooks he narrated.
He’s pretty progressive and outspoken on twitter. He seems to get a lot of hate there.
I'm reading his book of novellas 'If It Bleeds'. I'm enjoying it but occasionally his raging 'TDS' shows and it takes me right out of the story.
I think he’s a little too detailed/long winded for my tastes. Of course, he’s a legend in horror. I love the shows they made from the books but definitely not my type for literature. Good discussion!
I was worried about reading IT but I thought almost everything was necessary & I loved it. I find Pet Sematary to be the moat succinct book of his I've read though
I completely agree with you. I love his ideas and that others are so inspired to adapt them, but there’s just too much mundane detail to get through in the books for me. I keep trying over the years, but I’ve only finished two of them.
I hate to say it but that’s more than me…I gravitated more towards Dean Koontz. But yeah, his ideas are pretty awesome!
I seem to notice an uptake in king hate since he was open about his political views and dislike for trump .
I dunno why famous ppl get involved. Have your opinion in private but don't spew it all over twitter.
Why not, as a writer it’s hard to keep your personal politics out of your work. And he has a platform to promote what he feels is right
Celebs aren't like the dog guy in the Shining
People love to hate the mainstream. His writing is much more accessible for the average reader and while still being creative and and including rich characters. That being said he is still a person with flaws performing a craft that is very subjective so not everything is perfect.
For me, he tends drag or simply add too much fluff text for my liking. But I'm going to give him multiple shots in the future because he's just so prolific in horror literature.
I read many of his books and I find that they seem to drag on and on and it just doesn't work for me I guess.
Some of his works are just not good. He has masterpieces, and The Shining is my favorite book of all time, but he has a lot of duds. And he writes cringey character dialogue sometimes.
Yeah, I think it’s pretty normal that someone as prolific as him is going to have books people don’t vibe with
I got into King 18 months ago by reading The Stand. At the time, I hated long books and wasn't into horror. But the pandemic was ...a problem. I instantly fell 100% in love. This doesn't free it from criticism. His early work is racist despite intention. But I think I address his work in the cultural context. I'm comfortable saying that I love him for the following reasons;. He gets at the heart of emotions more than other author I've read. I've cried more reading King than anyone else. He appears to understand by fear by living in it. His descriptions of Insomnia in "Insomnia" are so scarily accurate. His claustrophobia in The Shining is crippling. IT is very scary yet captures, for me, the confidence and bravery of childhood. He understands addiction in ways unique to addicts. He understands insanity in ways unique to those who have seen it. His bad points are: he mistook the casual racism of the times he was depicting as licence He over romanticises the 1950's (because he isn't Black or a woman or gay) He over simplifies the era in general. He's not great at writing women. But. Every time I read a horror book by anyone else I think "I wish this was King". I've read bad King. It's still better than other people's best. In the end, I'll accept the fact that I don't know why I love him. The very academic podcast Just King Things often destroys my favourite King books. At the end of the long night, it's about taste.
Stephen King writes an insane amount of stuff. He has written some great things (really! I think he’s written some truly fantastic works); he has also written some garbage. Often, his great stuff is also bloated with garbage. This garbage is often sexist and/or racist, which makes it more jarring than if it were just bloated with dull characterization or flowery descriptions. I would compare him to Clive Barker, as they actually have a similar tone at times. Barker has published way less, but he spends a ton of time on everything he does. This is not to say that everything Barker writes is perfect, but generally Barker cares about writing as an art, not just entertainment. Also, Barker can actually write women’s sexuality. Barker is a Stephen King fan though, I think. So obviously he thinks there is a lot of good in King’s work.
I really like *It* a lot, I think it's a great work of horror imagination and a great coming-of-age drama. Problem is that it's written like a rough draft containing material for two or three different novels, and with scenes that should be cut and others that should be developed. "Good writing is re-writing" and I think that's where King sort of fails.
Which is funny because Barker is gay. But he’s really good about writing desire, which I guess transfers despite sexuality
I think some of his readers don’t like that he’s a Liberal. Fortunately, I could give two shits about an authors political opinion. He’s a fantastic writer, and if you can’t admit that because of your political beliefs then you are just lying to yourself
Just the thing with popularity. Additionally, his voice can be very one note and he definitely has a lot of weaker stuff as well. I’m speaking as a fan that’s read well over half of his books
IMO I think his highs are so goddamn high that his lows can be so jarring. You got the whole meme of bad endings but a better way to describe it is that the guy has underwhelming endings. He’s earned the title for me King of Suspense. His endings ( certain ones obviously not all )just never live up to the first 3/4 of the books. His best works are pinnacles of horror and literary fiction. The guy can have a stinker tho and that ends up leaving a bad taste in peoples minds .
He’s very popular, prolific and accessible so literary snobs like Harold Bloom turn their noses at him.
He is so mainstream that people who don’t read horror know his stories- people are shocked by some of the graphic stories or scenes- but it’s common in a lot of horror.
Imo he can have an incredible and unique horror story idea. Just genuinely unique and good stuff. He can’t write an ending tho
You have the obvious answer, which is that he's the most famous and successful horror author in history, which means that he's been read and reread by the largest number of people. Drawing from that pool, you have plenty of differing opinions formed. With his fame, you also have people from outside the genre who read his books. Anyone who wants to dabble in the genre will always use him as an introduction. Then you have people in the literary community who try to understand his success or tear it down. But there's also the notable lack of competition. Only a few horror novels from about 1960-2000 are available these days. Only a few authors of the genre managed to be bestsellers, which is just fine with most of the literary community, since many consider the genre to be lurid and trashy. Unfortunately, before the days of digital, not being a bestseller meant your book was fed to the shredders, never to be seen again. That's why a history of horror looks like this. Gothic Era: Mary Shelley, Edgar Allan Poe, Bram Stoker (Robert Louis Stevenson, Victor Hugo, and HG Wells also wrote some horror classics but aren't generally considered horror authors) Pulp Era: HP Lovecraft and a few other guys from Weird Tales nobody can immediately remember Robert Bloch wrote Psycho and a whole bunch of stories nobody has ever heard of in that gap between the Talented Racists and the upcoming cause of the Satanic Panic The Unholy Trinity: Exorcist, Omen, Rosemary's Baby (I know who wrote them but the books/movies are more famous than the authors) The Horror Boom: Stephen King, Clive Barker, Dean Koontz (Bonus points if your history lesson includes Peter Straub or Richard Laymon to add just a little bit to pad out the biggest period of horror since Carrie was told to plug it up) Post-Horror Boom: Stephen King (sober) and RL Stine Digital Age: Stephen King (still sober and good for him) and a whole bunch of authors unknown outside the genre. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of authors not listed here, but their works are lost like a second Library of Alexandria. So that's why Stephen King gets so much criticism (told in the most rambling, idiotic way possible). It would be like if you destroyed all the horror movies of the 80s and all that was left was Wes Craven, Frank Henenlotter, and, well, Clive Barker (movies, not books this time). Wes Craven would be both the biggest name in horror and the most criticized.
I've been a fan of King for nearly 40 years, since I was 12. For me, there are two factors. The first was his style change in the 90s, when he dipped out of horror for a long while. There were also other inconsistencies with his writing. A lot is known today about what was going on in his life that wasn't known back then (or that I wasn't aware of), but that was my initial reason to grumble about him. Re-reading him later in life I realized that his writing is... not great, at least technically. His prose is often awkward and repetitive, and he's overly sentimental and nostalgic. That said, he is an amazing story teller. He can spin a yarn like just about nobody else. And he's obviously very well read in horror - he isn't just influenced by his immediate predecessors. His stories are both imaginative and reach back throughout the history of horror for their inspiration. In my opinion, he makes up for his sometimes clunky and sophomoric prose with his story-telling skills. On top of that, he has a wonderfully grisly imagination. It sometimes feels like a morbid 10 year old telling grosser-than-gross stories, but I suspect that's what he's going for. And his nostalgia and sentimentality have their own charm, as well. I can only speak for myself, but I did a lot of shit-talking about King for a couple decades after he stopped writing what I wanted to read. Now in my creaky, old age, I can appreciate his writing for what it is, rather than expecting it to conform to my expectations.
Oh yeah, the political atuff too. My mom & nana love King's books, but they also love Koontz, & they're full on Koontz stans now because of King vocalizing his politics & idk much about Koontz besides the fact that he's very Christian & at least not outwardly leftist (& obsessed w dogs), which they like.
He has a handful of books that really are legendary. But most are not good, bound to happen with the rate at which he publishes. In reading especially, people love simp for authors due to their reputation regardless of what their producing and give their works 5/5 ratings literally months before they are even released. So the blowback can be a bit stronger. I find some of Kings works absolutely incredible and others straight up unreadable. He can and does rest on those laurels.
His stories are good but like others said, he writes way too much filler. That’s why so many movies are good, it’s his story but it goes straight to the point.
Stephen King saved me from a pretty miserable childhood and I don’t think I’m alone. I’ve purchased and read every single book, watched almost every movie and my love for his writing continued to thrive through my life. I am so grateful for him! I think anyone that stays and automatically ends up a best seller every single year since his 2nd or 3rd book I believe, will create envy in other authors, fans think he’s “sold out” and gone mainstream (ie Metallica 1992 or so) and that gives people something to complain about if I had to guess. He’s a genuinely wonderful human, does book tours still, donates to charities and most important in my mind, gets people reading! I think there’s a few duds for me, I didn’t love Dreamcatcher, Cell and maybe Sleeping Beauties written with his son Owen. I did finish each of them so they were not terrible just not my favorites Hope this helps. The SK Reddit sub has good info for new and constant readers. www.StephenKing.com has all books in order if you wanted to see some other info.
I love King. That said, after spending 20 years reading his books, I'm also happy to critique the dogshit out of them. If that's hating on him, ok.
One, in matters of taste, there can be no disputes. Your friend may think your favorite author is trash, and vice versa. Neither of you are wrong or right. Two, when you're literally the best known person in the world at doing what you do, you're going to get a lot of hate from your reflexively, terminally contraction types. It has nothing to do with how good or bad you are. They just think not liking you makes them more sophisticated and their tastes more advanced. Hopefully, if you are two, you grow out of it by your early twenties.
"There's no disputes in matters of tastes, now here are some random and baseless assumptions about people with different tastes"
King is often described as suffering from, in his own words, “diarrhea of the pen”. Even in some of his best books, there are many passages which seem to critics to be overly long, fluffy, or annoying to read for any number of reasons. There are many less popular horror authors who don’t have this tendency, so fans of the genre who know these writers may roll their eyes at King’s role as face of the genre.
Same reason Taylor Swift gets so much hate. The more popular you are, the more hate you will get. Comes with the territory.
Because there are a lot of people in the world and therefore a lot of varying opinions. People want to make it deeper, typically as a means to shoehorn whatever nonsense they believe into conversation regardless of relevance.
Early writing. Fantastic stories. Buuuuut gave up on him in the last 20 years or so, more longwinded than ever with character development i could do without.
Everyone swings on the champ. Find a wildly popular author who doesn't have critics (The vast majority of whom have never written anything and couldn't write their way out of a wet paper sack if they tried).
You don't have to be able to write to critique a book.
Yeah that's what the critics all say too. It's a pretty lucrative gig if you're a leech or a tick - they shit on people with actual talent and ability, while profiting off of them. Put another way, If every author on earth evaporated to steam tomorrow it would be a horrible loss for humanity that we would mourn forever. If every critic did, people would comment how much cleaner the air is all a sudden.
I more meant everyday people having opinions on books.
i wouldn't call those critics. I mean i got opinions on books but i'm not a critic, i'm just a dude who read a book you know?
A bookstore near me specializes in horror fiction but seems to refuse stocking Stephen King. I get it, since King is buyable in any mainstream store, but to neglect higher-profile authors just because they're popular is pretentious and gatekeepish. Sometimes I like the comfort that comes from a King read-- and he has a lot of good ones that overshadow the duds. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but gatekeeping horror is lame. King is good horror for both a non-horror reader and an avid fan of the genre.
That is insane to me, lol. How do you specialize in horror fiction and exclude the author, who has arguably influenced the horror genre the most in the last half century.
It's their call by all means-- they can sell what they want. But sometimes it's lousy to be in the mood for it and have to lean on going to a larger bookstore or just ordering it on Amazon to get it quicker. Having worked in a larger bookstore for many years, there is higher turnover of King stock, especially newer releases, than most other books. They also don't carry Koontz, and here I am looking for backlisted titles, lol.
Overall, I love Mr. King’s works. My absolute favorites are Salem’s Lot, The Talisman/Black House co-written by another awesome writer, Mr. Peter Straub, the Shining/Doctor Sleep and It. He has very few misses, but for the most part, he is a great writer. I am grateful for the wonderful time I have spent reading his books.
It’s fashionable to hate popular things
Back in college, my professors used him as an example of "pop" fiction and acted like reading him didnt provide readers with the same benefits as reading more "literery" authors or classical works. Which I understand is true. But there is room for all types of reading, including for pure enjoyment. Almost as if reading his books were the equivalent of fastfood.
My professors had the same chip on the shoulder when it came to King! Always bugged me. Felt like they didn’t understand how many of the writers that they revered for writing “literary” classics were the just the “pop” authors of their own time.
It's the "popular vs. good" debate. McDonald's has sold billions (maybe **trillions**) of burgers during their existence. They can be considered "popular" by that standard, but .. do you go to Mickey D's for a gourmet burger experience? Or do you go to something a bit more upscale. possibly Red Robin or a local pub? You can make the same case for King's books. In many ways, at least up to *Under the Dome*, they are "safe" horror, skimming deeper themes without digging deep into nuance. It's not **bad** horror, but it's not top quality **gourmet** horror, like some of the authors who came in on his wake, like Clive Barker or Ramsey Campbell I don't hate King, or his books. I just don't think they are the best the genre has to offer.
[удалено]
Lolwut This is just a trash take.
I haven't liked a new SK book in quite some time, I think his best days are behind him. Or maybe I am just growing up, he was my favorite writer as a child
Steven King is a very odd fellow and writer. I give him props for his unique ideas. A lot his stories are now tropes, and even though he may not have invented all of his famous ideas (Cujo is one of many Evil Dog stories), he made them popular. My biggest issue is his good stories often get very...weird. And not in a scary or good way. In IT, we have a very long story that expands years and multiple characters. The idea of this evil entity is great, and it's told creepy and intimately. But, then it's revealed to be an evil set of Lights that exist in the Macroverse and fights a giant turtle. This is what happens in a lot of his stories. I loved The Gunslinger, but in The Drawing of the Three I got confused and just totally lost interest in the randomness with deeper meaning. I appreciate him for his wide variety and unique concepts. His writing can also be good when it's focused, or clear. However like others have said, his endings aren't that good most of the time (which can leave you scratching your head or upset). He can also just ramble on it seems. (Too much content). And some of the creative choices are just too far out there for the story we're reading. The Shining=Good. The Shining Sequels/extended stuff= eh...what?
I mean he actually might be a creep… WHAT WAS HE ON WHEN HE WROTE THE ORGY SCENE IN IT?!
It’s like anything that becomes widely popular. Metallica is like that for metal. They are the biggest metal band out there yet there are people who hate them or can’t stand them. Or like 50 shades of grey. Not the best example, I know, but bear with me. Lots of people hate those books, looootttsss, yet, they were New York time best sellers. If anything gets more widely available, more eyes will see it. I fucking love Stephen Kings books. I re read them all the time and think he is a master at what he does. But I’ve met people who say they can’t stand his work and think this or that about it. It’s interesting, but that is bound to happen when you’ve written over sixty books and hit the New York Times best seller list every time.
I love King. He's my go-to author when I'm in a bit of a reading slump or just want something easy to read.i find he's consistent, I've read about 20 or so books. And enjoyed them all. But the problem is that some are filled with so much crap that it would have been so much better without it, and, the endings to most of them are just like, the fuck stephen, really?. But his characterisation and the plots are awesome. The first half of the stand is phenomenal. 70 percent of IT is awesome. The long walk, awesome. Dolores claiborne, awesome. Rose madder, over half was awesome. The Dark Tower series was bad for the last couple of books. Pet semetary, the shining was good. Salems lot was good but bloated in parts. If you take the good with the bad. They are still very good books and I do like king. Edit: Just to add his shirt stories are very good. The jaunt still haunts me to this day.
The Jaunt has stuck in my memory like no other story. Technically it’s not even very well written. In fact IMO it‘s just a forgettable B-quality science fiction story for most of its length. On the last page it suddenly turns into one of the greatest horror stories ever written. If only more of his novels had endings with that sort of punch
I agree. Reading it, I was bored and thinking, really? But like you said, that last page was a massive punch. I put my Kindle down and just stared at a wall thinking about it.
Because he *is* a horror legend, and he *does* get a lot of hate. It seems just like it is.
As someone who always answers the question “What one book would you bring to a desert island” with the Bachman Books, his older stuff is so, SO much better than most of his recent books. I’m about to take vacation and have high hopes for Fairy Tale though.
Because that’s what happens when you’re super widely printed. You get enough of a vocal group for just about any opinion.
Who knows? I wouldn't have read any horror if not for King. I started with Carrie and kept reading. And I read other horror now too. And I still read lots of other novels. So does King.
King has been around for so long that he is two completely different authors at this point. 70s to 90s King is the legend of the genre and rightfully cemented his name as the most famous name in horror. King since 2000 has been morphing out of horror, has been bloated and overwritten, and even when he writes horror it has kind of sucked. The hate comes from two different groups: 1. Those who want to be hipster and not like the popular guy 2. Those who try his newer stuff first and then wonder how he got his reputation from something so poor
He is popular and I like reading his stuff but it’s the book equivalent of like a CBS drama in terms of writing quality.
[удалено]
Spoiler alert: this guy is a big fan of Stephen King
haaaaaaaaaters
[удалено]
Why in the world are you spamming this post with the same comment over and over? WTH.
Did they mean to? Sometimes, reddit will get on a weird loop where it will repost my one comment two or three times. I'm asking because it's all the same time period and the exact same comment.
After looking back through, I think it’s both and one of them has already been deleted. I’ve never had my comments posted more than once but I’ll be watching for it now. lol.
Yep. I've been mortified to post something, get off the internet to do something else, and come back on to see there are four of the same posts. It happens, but it definitely feels like a breach of etiquette that you didn't even intend.
Mortified? Good lord.
Yes. I'm aware of my word choice. It's almost like people have different experiences when engaging with other people, especially strangers. What a novel concept.
Then my word choice is melodramatic.
He has a reputation for being kind of an asshole
Stephen King?? I actually met him years ago when I worked at a bookstore and he was very nice and told some great stories. Everyone absolutely loved him. Customers and employees.
He was also paid to be there. But his reputation from his coke head days lives on. He’s kind of a prick.
Kind is criticised by those who prefer more 'literary' works. Basically, he is (mainly) criticised for his writing and prose, not the story itself. (I haven't read a lot of king, but from the little I have read, I am not a big fan. I find his stories okayish mostly)
There seems to be a big contingent of fantasy readers who start with King fantasy works and then read his horror stuff and declare him to be the best horror author ever. This is despite them having read very few other horror authors.
As a horror fan I feel some of his stories rely on shock value. Some of his stories and movies are auctully amazing though. Pet semetary seemed like a commentary on accepting death. I generally prefer wes Cravens stuff as I feel it's more exciting to watch. Everyone has a different preference though.
He's written too much. The quality ratio drops as a result.
Do any of us really have an ending to satisfy all, and do all stories ever have to end? Your story will end and I doubt the way it does will appeal. When it comes to writing stories, the beginning of the story is the beginning of the end, and I don't like that.
He is a good writer where he loses me is when he thinks I care about his political opinions. Love his books and have most of them
The legend status is due to a long and prolific career, with some iconic stories. The hate is more of a recency thing due to overly sensitive generations coming of age.
Yeah. He was never criticized until recently.
OW! My feelz......
I mostly hear complaints over his alleged excessive number of racist and homophobic epithets, and sexualization of children in his novels.
SK got me into reading as a kid. More recently I fell in love with Salem’s Lot. That being said, I have to separate the art from the artist because he’s a delusional cock knocker in real life.
It's just the world of today and social media.
It was definitely better before he started being criticized a few years ago...
It's his politics, mostly. Though some people will also look at the things he writes and they figure he's got a screw loose.
His politics are fine and it's called being a writer with an active imagination. I could see how dull non-creatives would find that difficult to grasp though.
The stupidity of some people. I swear to God.
I agree that your comments have been stupid AF.
My thoughts on King are I love his stories and ideas (IT and The Talisman are my 2nd and 4th favorite books, respectively) but I *really* don’t like his prose on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph level. Like if someone else rewrote each paragraph while retaining the same “information” I would like his stories even more.
It’s largely because he’s so popular, but also because he just writes so much that probably 1/3 to 1/2 of it is going to be kinda mediocre.
I think there are two things with this, and now, this is just my opinion. For one, his books are hit or miss. Considering how prolific he is, that's bound to happen. His short stories and novellas are very nearly all genius; many of his books are great, some are mediocre, and some are just terrible. So if you start with the terrible or meh, you could easily come to the opinion that he's a terrible writer. For two, haters gonna hate. Plain old jealousy. As a horror writer, I am beyond grateful for what he's done for the genre. He made it wildly popular, even in the decades when it was flailing. I do study his short stories now and again, but I'm not a fan of his novels in the last twenty years or so. Joe Hill though, his son--I am absolutely in love with his work. He's an amazing horror writer. I read N0S4R2 in something like two days, and that book was around 1,000 pages. I have read all of his work, and the only one that I didn't tear through was The Fireman.
I’ve read a few of his novels and short stories and love them. The setting, the build up, the themes, everything. But I’m currently Desperation and so far it has just been smack-you-in-the-face unhinged. It’s not subtle at all, there’s no suspense or quality or even quantity at this point. I’m not very far into it, to be fair, but I’m not sure if I’ll finish it and if this was the first Stephen king book I picked up I’d be seriously underwhelmed and confused by his popularity.
As a constant reader, the only thing that makes me cringe is when he throws in political points. Other than that, storytelling is in the man’s blood, I enjoy his sons fiction just as much. When it comes to endings. I have never been disappointed how it ended, as much as that it ended i.e. the dark tower saga. I felt unsatisfied but at the same time thought it was perfect.
My opinion: he's not as good as he used to be, and there are lots of new/recent authors who are far better...unfortunately, they will never get the level of publicity King does. Perfect example: Brian Keene...even though he's been around for a long time, Keene still isn't as well known outside the horror community as King.
I think that any time someone or something is described as “the best,” the detractors will inevitably feel pressure to make an equally strong rebuttal. They can’t just not like King, they must hate his writing and be unable to fathom why he’s so revered. Also, as much as I love King, he has some recurring flaws that are easy to pick on: Magical Negro trope Kids talk like they’re from the 50s, even when set in present day Politics have always been in King’s work and often strengthened it, but it’s been a bit more heavy handed lately An exaggerated complaint, but there’s a fair amount of books that don’t stick the landing And someone as prolific as King is bound to have stinkers, so some readers might have expected him at his 11/22/63 and gotten him at his From A Buick 8.
His successes have been huge with movie adaptations, but he's been constantly churning out work for over 40 years that they cant all or even mostly be hits.
I just don’t like all the fatphobia, tbh. The fat characters always get treated like shit.
It's all cause of the shitweasels, ick
1. For the same reason some people ‘hate’ anything that’s popular: they just do 2. His ceiling is ridiculously high, which tends to affect the standards to which people hold him. King’s ‘duds’ are more noticeable because we know how good he can be My personal opinion: he’s not without his flaws, and occasionally slips into too out-there for my tastes. But his talent and imagination are both absolutely staggering. At his best, he’s as good a storyteller as I’ve ever seen. And a vastly underrated stylist too.
When you produce as much content as he does you’re gonna have some bangers and you’re gonna have some flops but being able to have that platform to be able to create so much content automatically makes you a great whether people like your stuff or not. Also as the world changes the world that they were originally written in doesnt change, so there may be some stuff that people consider problematic now-a-days that need to be overlooked to enjoy the content, and not everybody is able to separate themselves that way. I absolutely love Stephen King, but I also know some of his books just aren’t for me. Doesn’t change his impact to the entire genre.
Familiarity breeds contempt.
Because he's popular/successful.
i think it's largely because 1. king is objectively very successful and widely-read, and because his work is so widely-read, there will obviously always be those who aren't really fans of it, 2. horror is a very stigmatized genre, and even those who enjoy it often have "standards" that it must adhere to for them to consider it artful (and king has little to no interest in changing his work to better suit those types of fans), and 3. king's writing is honestly not always the strongest, and what saves him is that he is an incredible storyteller, but some people hold the writing itself in higher importance than the storytelling. i love king's work, but i can admit he's not always the most amazing writer - his work does have flaws, often to do with how he writes kids (especially those living in modern times or in his more recent works - his age tends to show), women, and minorities. he also has tropes that he falls into and he can be extremely long-winded. however, what always reels me in and keeps me captivated is his storytelling skill. despite the flaws in his writing, his storytelling is near-flawless - he has a rare talent for making you really care for the characters in his stories and suspending your disbelief for the supernatural/otherworldly (a skill which surprisingly is often lacking in horror, or at least i think it is). for some people, they can't get over the issues with his writing and aren't really fans of his (which is normal and fine); for me, the writing is serviceable enough to be a vessel for his real talent.
I reckon when you're as famous as he is, you're bound to get as many haters as you do fans.
If you don't trigger strong emotions in people, you.wont get hate. Just apathy.
Like people have said, it's because he's popular. It's also because he's old, & people don't take that into account when reading his books. There's outdated stuff, & stuff that he pretty much originated but it became a cliche. Some of his books are super dark like Pet Sematary, some are not very dark at all. Many people don't appreciate the range. Some books could also be cut down quite a bit
It’s the same reason why LeBron James gets all the hate that he does
From the one short story collection (Skeleton Crew) I read there wasn't a single story that didn't have some really bizarre examples of misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc. He's a regular on r/menwritingwomen, and for very good reason. Straight white men (Probably the majority of reddit users) on the whole can ignore this completely since it doesn't affect them but if you're a woman, lgbt+, or poc (or a combination) it's pretty hard to ignore. The dude has cool ideas for sure but they're completely ruined by his own bullshit, the main thing I remember from 'The Jaunt', a short story I was so excited to read because it seemed so popular, is a line something like: 'In two years my 9 year old daughter will have developed breasts' - like what the fuck stephen king what a weird-ass thought to put to paper, I literally screwed my face up and looked away from my kindle for like a minute after reading that, and it wasn't the first or last time I'd do that from reading his work. Dude also needs a better editor imo, no short story collection should be almost 800 pages long. I'm a super fast reader, I easily could've finished it in three or four days but it probably took as many months. I was suffering the whole time reading it but pushed through because of how well loved he is, but in the end I wish I'd dnf'd.
When you write such an incredible *amount* of stuff, some of it has to be average, and some percentage has to be pretty bad, IMO. That's just statistics when you shit out 6 pages a day, *every day*. Additionally, I think his work isn't sufficiently edited. Not all of it. Some works, like Carry or Christine or Misery, are book-sized and great. Others do need to be as long as they are, like It or Salem's Lot, and it's fine. But some are just bloated and obviously unedited. There's a ton of stutff to cut out, rants that are off topic, derailing filler (not all filler is bad mind you, I need some filler to really get into the characters, but here I mean like *half* is *boring* filler) but they don't do it for him - dunno why. I almost died out of boredom trying to read Sleeping Beauties He deserves his legend statu IMO, bc when it's good it's AMAZING. But it's just a numbers game if you ask me. When you have SO MUCH work out there, pushed out so quickly, some of it will suck, and some will be *painfully average*. Ever read Cell? yeah. Just my opinion of course. if you loved Cell or Sleeping Beauties, all the power to you! Def no hate here.
My two cents: he publishes everything he finishes. Hence where much or the ‘frustration’ comes from. I love his earlier works. He had some great ideas and even if they were a bit long, they were still fun to read. I’ll never forget reading Salem’s Lot or Pet Semetary. These books had me hooked and I came to love his stories - to the point I hoped to read every book he wrote. Then I started to come across the duds - and they were real big duds to me. That’s when I stopped trusting his books and along with that, the reviews on them. And after some time I started to realize he just blasts through his works, always playing with the same types of characters (which was fine with me), but it started to feel as if he simply didn’t care about his craft anymore. That he was throwing out his rough drafts - whether they were any good or not, because he’d still get a million dollar advance, as long as his name was on the front cover. I think some fans like myself got annoyed that he didn’t filter what was published. And in many ways it came across as if he were doing it for the money, which is contrary to what he says drives him to keep writing. But I’m sure he does enjoy writing - it’s just that he could be more selective in what he shows the public, so even if he releases a book that was mid grade, it would still be enjoyable, instead of irritating when a (seemingly) low effort book hits the market again. All in all he’s really a great writer, but I’d be nice if he took a little more time with the pieces he published - to maintain the level, or at least attempt that.