Why Stephen King Can't Write (according to some guy)

I too am no fan of King. I can only genuinely speak about his short stories, as I’m not a novel reader, but from those that I’ve read, I find them boring and without any of the power to frighten or disturb that a great short horror story should have. I agree with the article on the conclusion, that he may be a good story-teller, but not necessarily much more than that. His use of language is nothing special.

Why is he so famous? Truth is, fame and sellability do NOT necessarily require true greatness, not in a commercially oriented world. It’s all about being easy to read, easy to understand, easy to adapt into movies and so on. The truly great writers, such as H P Lovecraft (in the horror genre), tend to be neglected for a long time, or just cease to exist. Actually the same is true of any art form.

I would without question recommend Ramsey Campbell over King.

 

I would say being a good storyteller though is a gift, perhaps the most important one of all. Language can be magical, but a writer's natural instinct for good story and how to keep you hooked until the early hours of the morning is probably why I read most of all. What King does well I think is letting his sentences flow seamlessly together. Some of the most skilled writers struggle with it, choosing wordplay and art over consistency and clarity, and sometimes losing direction because of it. But I appreciate King isn't to everyone's tastes. If you were to read another one of his short stories I'd recommend 'Hearts in Atlantis'.

 

Without question King is talented, especially as a well-flowing storyteller, but I don't think he will stand the test of time (i.e. 50 years from now). The problem for me is that he doesn't get under the skin and into the subconscious, like the true masters. I'll try to get hold of Hearts in Atlantis though.

 

That's a fair point and it's always good to hear other people's views on this, because I've been in the same boat with other writers who people loved and I just didn't get it. Sadly, I'm a bit like that with Terry Pratchett, I just find his Discworld to be not that good. Shame, as I like who he is but I just don't love his stuff. For me, Stephen King has written some real crackers, though he's done some pretty disappointing stuff too. That's the problem with being so prolific I guess. For the subconscious stuff, though, I think his series The Dark Tower is incredible and really goes to town with epic fantasy and imaginative storytelling. It's not one of his horrors, it's more like his own 'Lord of the Rings' attempt (but not a copy) which is interesting. Being a seven book series, though, it's quite a commitment for someone who isn't already won over by his style.

Do you like Clive Barker? He's sometimes a favourite for the horror / thriller genre.

 

My interest is strictly horror and usually supernatural. I read Barker's Books of Blood some years ago, which I found impressive at the time. But my favourites of post-war horror are Robert Aickman, Ramsey Campbell, potentially Thomas Ligotti and Fritz Leiber.

 

I couldn't get into Stephen King's books because, as a cultist and zealot of H.P. Lovecraft, I realized within a few books that King was just squeezing all the writhing, abstract, Eldrich, antediluvian madness from the delicious, foetid sponge that is our lord and master's body of work, and rewriting it as simple contemporary horror. The intergalactic, deep-time sense of dread that Lovecraft created, ends up replaced with really dry childhood fears, or basic human pains. There's no madness, just jump scares.

Something like this:

“Then suddenly I saw it. With only a slight churning to mark its rise to the surface, the thing slid into view above the dark waters. Vast, Polyphemus-like, and loathsome, it darted like a stupendous monster of nightmares to the monolith, about which it flung its gigantic scaly arms, the while it bowed its hideous head and gave vent to certain measured sounds. I think I went mad then.”

-Lovecraft

Becomes this:

"A hand closed around Eddie's foot...The soft yet strong grip startled him so much that he almost lost his balance and tumbled into the canal. It's one of the queers the big kids are always talking about, he thought, and then he looked down. His mouth dropped open. Urine spilled hotly down his legs and stained his jeans black in the moonlight. It wasn't a queer. It was Dorsey. It was Dorsey as he had been buried, Dorsey in his blue blazer and gray pants, only now the blazer was in muddy tatters, Dorsey's shirt was yellow rags, Dorsey's pants clung wetly to legs as thin as broomsticks. And Dorsey's head was horribly slumped, as if it had been caved in at the back and consequently pushed up in the front. Dorsey was grinning."

-King

Maybe I'm just biased, but do a quick critique, and tell which of these you think is simply written better?

King's a successful author, and his books are better than mine, and I will never sell 300 million copies of anything, but I still don't think it's good. I compare it to picking the raisins and herbs out of raisin bread, then wadding it up in a ball, and selling it. Millions of times.

 

Honestly, I see the different styles, but I don't see one as being better than the other. They're both pretty purple, to my mind, at least until "I think I went mad then" plops its way onto the scene.

 

I also quite liked the end of the SK passage when it said 'Dorsey was grinning.' Gets across the madness well.

 

Heh, I think Lovecraft invented Purple Prose

I do like this part; the expression is a stark contrast to the bleak state of the body, and the action is uncharacteristic for a dead person, so it's uncanny. Although, it took six too many 'Dorsey was this, Dorsey was that' to get there for me. If I posted something in the workshop here, and I used the same proper noun in six different sentences, one after the other, I bet people would comment on the lack of creativity.

 

I like the repetition - I think it sets up an effective, almost hypnotic rhythm.

 

Not from me

There is a time for anything, and King's use of the name (multiple times) is underscoring the special situation. Though I would have probably stuck to three repetitions
Mind you, I'm not a great fan of King, either.

 

Steve King has never squared up against active camo assassins, and has definitely
faced a good flaying which is one of the most brutal and painful acts that pretty
much robs one of dignity and flesh.

Steve King is basically writing to an audience, and can be considered long winded
and fails to deliver in the end.

(Comfort as a writer breeds stagnation. ) Granted he is lesser to Clive Barker as a
Horror writer.

 

The fact that I find the content of King's books boring, doesn't mean I disrespect him as an Author. His books are watered down, contemporary versions of Algernon Blackwood, or Lovecraft, but the man knows how to finish books, and he's earned his reputation.

My favorite Stephen King book? On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft

“Writing isn't about making money, getting famous, getting dates, getting laid, or making friends. In the end, it's about enriching the lives of those who will read your work, and enriching your own life, as well. It's about getting up, getting well, and getting over. Getting happy, okay? Getting happy.”

“Amateurs sit and wait for inspiration, the rest of us just get up and go to work.”

“Only God gets it right the first time and only a slob says, "Oh well, let it go, that's what copyeditors are for.”

 

Which is lucky really... Because if it was about getting those things then we are the stupidest people who have ever lived.

 

Always keeping in mind, though, that the fact that it wasn't about getting those things doesn't mean we're not the stupidest people who have ever lived.

 

I think Stephen King is quite good. It isn't so much the horror that draws me into an SK novel. I think he's written enough outside of the horror genre to be considered more of a genre fiction writer than anything else. A lot of other authors do horror better, no doubt.

King, though has an eye for wonderful characterization and painting a very vivid picture of small town Americana in good and bad aspects. I know horror is tl he's connected with (and he has written a lot of horror) but a good sizable chunk of his books aren't horror. A lot of the ones that aren't horror certainly have horrific elements and scary scenes, though.

On general princpial, you wouldn't recognize the following as like a to spooky concept on its own.

Carrie? Eh, maybe....

The Body? No, more coming of age.

Shawshank Redemption? Certainly not.

Green Mile? Not really

Dark Tower series? More high fantasy metafiction western

The Stand? Is a mixture I guess.

Dead Zone? It is a thriller

Firestarter? Thriller

The Talisman? Epic fantasy

11/22/63? Science Fiction/Alternate History thriller

I mean, we can keep going...

 

I don't know about he books, but some of the movies have been pretty good.

 

I think of Stephen King as a very talented writer, although I agree that certain times he tends to "ramble" a little bit. But then again so what? There is no such thing as a perfect book. There are only books that readers enjoy reading.

Some like potatoes and some like tomatoes and so on....

H.

 

Funny thing is though, my fave King movie is The Shining, but he himself was very critical. There's a reason why The Shining is sooooo good. And it's not Stephen King. It's Kubrick of course.

 

Never read any stephen king but with the upcoming tv adaptation of Dark Tower, and that I have the audiobooks stashed away somewhere, I started listening to them the other day and....
....nope, cant really continue. I got to chapter 13 and realised that I cant remember what happened from chapter 1 to 12. I have no idea what the story is about. The style of writing just didnt allow the content to sink in. Admittedly I switch off a lot with books, tv shows, movies, who do the jumping around in time stuff. I hate 'flash backs'.

Its a shame, I heard this series was good.

 

I both really like Stephen King and don't like Stephen King. I liked Carrie and The Dark Tower Series, but a lot of it just doesn't pull me in at all. I think that's because he's a good conceptual writer. He has really good ideas, but for the most part, I don't really like the way handles them. His writing style isn't my favourite, but it's definitely not bad and it works for him. The biggest problem I think I have with him is his constant self insertion. Jack Torrance from the Shining was an alcoholic writer down on his luck and having family troubles, Misery was again another writer, but this one wildly popular, and in the later books of The Dark Tower Series, he actually puts his own physical self into the books talking about his car accident and everything. I guess if I hadn't read so many of his books it probably wouldn't have bothered me so much, but once I noticed it I really couldn't stop noticing it. My favourite book of his is On Writing, and yeah, he's put himself in all over that book, but he was kind of supposed to.