/lit/ - Literature

More like everyone has a longing for Big Mac and fries once in awhile, meaning he is not completely irrelevant.

>>4153664
He means that he is generic, but tasty and intended for the masses. Good for him that he knows his place in the world, young adult fiction is nothing more than a big mac, and I have more respect for him now for admitting that.

I now want a big mac

>>4153664
Unless he explained it himself, it's open for interpretations.

>>4153664
both, obviously

He means that hes unhealthy to read.

>>4153712
this seems the most plausible interpretation

>>4153664
He means his books are easy to enjoy but you probably won't get much out of them besides that.

>>4153673
I wouldn't call his work YA fiction, popular garbage sure, but calling it YA isn't even right.

self-deprecation was the peacocking of the 90s

>>4153664
Popularity and broad appeal is it's own merit.

It's actually a pretty good metaphor: his books are easily available, good, satisfying, well designed and made, and fulfil most of the requirements of the person who buys them. They're also relaibly generic, somewhat predictable, not at all fancy or sophisticated, and easy to crank out, and available everywhere.

Now, they're not something you should confine your literary diet to, but they won't hurt you every once in awhile, they're an indulgence, or a time saver, or reward. They're more popular with the young, considered a poor substitute for more varied fare and too much all at once can make you sick.

>>4153664

He's being modest. I think he meant "approachable and unpretentious" but even I frown at the idea of his work being comparable to fast food. He is far better than that, he's just fucking modest. King is a true bro.

>>4153858
>stephen king fanboy in denial
lmao

six billion served

The biggest problem I have with Stephen King is that is mouth is cut too wide, he's got the eyes of a possum and there's too much space between his upper lip and nose. The man is hard to look at.

I feel bad for him. He's a decent writer and his propensity for work is incredible. He's better than some who have been hailed as geniuses, but I still think he's mediocre at best. Mediocrity does not warrant the hate he gets, though.

Also, he owns a summer home in my town in Florida. When I was a teenager I was working at a movie theater when he came in to see a movie. After a particularly expensive series of CG explosions he stood up and started clapping. Right in the middle of the fucking movie. I think he was still doped up on pills from that car accident, though. Maybe that explains it.

>>4153664
You love to hate it, sure, but sometimes you will want it. Also, fame.

>>4153895
>The biggest problem I have with Stephen King is that is mouth is cut too wide, he's got the eyes of a possum and there's too much space between his upper lip and nose. The man is hard to look at.
lol

>>4153895
I think he can be compared to Dumas. A popular author who cranked out a hell of a lot of stuff, who will be remembered for maybe one or two books after his death.

He meant that he's shite.

>>4153895
>Philtrum Press

>>4153919
What?

>>4153919
Oh, shit..

Every movie based on a King novel was better than the actual book. That's where you have failed as an author

>>4153959
even the Langoilers?

>>4153814
>PUA slang

thanks i almost vomited

>>4154020
>TV miniseries
>Ones that mattered

>>4154026

>Peacocking
>PUA slang

u avin a giggle m8?

>/lit/ is so pretentious they can't appreciate King
Tell me your favorite living author, /lit/

Having read a little of his Dark Tower series and some of his short stories, I found his brand of horror a lot weirder than anyone gives it credit for being.

Take 'The Lawnmower Man', for instance, which, as you might have guessed, involves a guy in need of a lawn mowing service. Expectedly, he hires the titular Lawnmower Man and is horrified when he takes his clothes off and begins to eat the grass himself, led by a seemingly sentient lawnmower.

When the protagonist tries to refuse his services, the naked Lawnmower Man forces him to watch the bizarre spectacle and later savagely murders (and allegedly rapes) him.

Good writing, bad writing. Whatever. You're just not going to find that kind of oddness in any other writer's portfolio.

Desperation and the other one that follows it are pretty good.

>>4154083
that's some easy shite
the immortal Shakespeare

>>4154083
Pinecone of course

Big Mac's are delicious. He's more like the equivalent of a microwavable hamburger that never cooks right: the bun is too tough or to soggy, the outside of the burger is burnt, the inside is still cold and the whole thing tastes like glue.

>>4154202
I know a girl whose entire back is covered with Dark Tower themed tattoos.

>>4154083

Tolkien.

>>4154275
>>4154345
Those guys are dead though.

>>4154355

>Christopher Tolkien
>dead

>>4154345
>>4154275
Oh /lit/, you're so certain you're a unique snowflake, and then you both list long dead hacks who were never even half as relevant as King in the first place.

But yeah I don't get the King hate, if he had been dead a few decades you faggots would love him.

King values plot over theme. More literary authors value theme and style over plot. That's not to say King's novels have no underlying meaning, but the majority of them just end up reading like novelizations of sort of interesting movies.

>>4153664
He meant he's the best meal for the best price you can get in the US

The only people who really shit on Stephen King are people who are used to discussing the merits and metaphors within whatever they were assigned to read for their college course. There's no deep meaning and very little is left for the reader to interpret, so you faggots can't write a tumblr post in all lowercase about how a certain scene had a specific impact on you that you had to think really hard to come up with to make sure it was quirky and nobody else would feel that way without deliberating about it for ten minutes beforehand.
Naturally since he's popular and comes up a lot though you have to come up with a reason to shit on him to remain part of the elitist /lit/erati so you can leave a snide comment on any newsposts.

"yawn"

There's nothing "bad" about his writing, and if you think what King writes is generic then I recommend you pick up some Andy McNab or James Patterson garbage, or a "10 chilling stories" collection from a second hand shop.

>>4154315
Are they neat looking or just kinda awkward and out of place?

>>4154357
>But yeah I don't get the King hate, if he had been dead a few decades you faggots would love him.

Nope.

>>4154202
Palahniuk is weird as fuck too.

>>4154587
Because those four letters are going to alter my entire perception of you.

/fit/ here

Does everyone on this board shit on Stephen King?

>>4154618

Because you making a retarded, nonsensical statement is going to somehow make your perception of someone valuable.

Instead of posting absolute garbage because you're angry no one likes your favorite hack pop author, try explaining how exactly Stephen King being dead would make his books not terrible? How does it alter what has been written by him in anyway?

I'll answer that for you, it doesn't. Stop posting.

I've only read The Dark Tower and On Writing, and I found On Writing interesting and I loved The Dark Tower. Not sure why he gets a lot of hate. He doesn't write to be edgy or to force his opinion on the reader, he writes because he loves doing it.

>>4154620
not especially, it's more a general dislike of genre fiction outside of specifically designated threads for enthusiasts
whichever way you cut it, it's hard to deny that Stephen King is (for all his good qualities) hardly an exceptionally skilled author, and as such a lot of people on /lit/ aren't keen on him

>>4153895
He's important to view in context- he's the bridge between 'literature' and pulp entertainment. Before King, nobody wrote that kind of fiction with his eye for the the rhythms of real life, human interaction or characters psychology. He's the classic Baby Boomer figure in his field, coming from a working class background and creating essentially 'pop' works but giving them some of the depth and ambition of 'high art'

>>4154643
>Instead of posting absolute garbage because you're angry no one likes your favorite hack pop author, try explaining how exactly Stephen King being dead would make his books not terrible? How does it alter what has been written by him in anyway?

You're the one calling him shit. Provide proof or any reasoning whatsoever for your beliefs. Until then, he'll be remembered as the best author of our time.

The crack about him being dead was a jab at how none of you could actually provide a living author that you like, because you're all pretentious as fuck. It's why your board is dead and your members are shit.

>>4153664
I got to shake this mother fuckers hands in December of 2011, for the GA booksigning of 11/22/63 and I got to ask him two simple questions.

>What is your best advice on writing?
Read alot. (Sadly I later found out he already said this on an interview on Youtube, but I was a complete newfag who was surprised that King wasn't one of those dead old legends like Ernest Hemingway or Shakespeare)
>What did you think of the Family Guy parody?
It was funny.

Those were my two shit questions I got to ask the man before I had to let the next person get in line.

>>4153673
Let me shatter that newfound respect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygWMy-QQNbw

>>4154674
>1986 film
You weren't even born yet, shut the fuck up.

Y'all dumb the Dark Tower Series is awesome. Keep on hatin peace

>>4154465
>James Patterson
I only know that he wrote Danny X. Are you saying people who hate King b/c they think its shit, should take a bite a bite out of some real shit?

>>4154672
>I was a complete newfag who was surprised that King wasn't one of those dead old legends like Ernest Hemingway or Shakespeare
What in the fuck were you doing at a book signing for a man you thought was dead?

>>4154672
>11/22/63
Is that any good?

>>4154691
There's no way I'm missing a booksigning with a dead guy. (friend told me.)

>>4154711
It was fuckin' tits.

>>4154726
>It was fuckin' tits.

Tits means good, right?

>>4154731
Yup.

>>4154711
Yes, yes it is.

>>4154711
Why are you referring to a book by it's serial number?

>>4154742
It's the name of King's newest book?

>>4154745
>name
Who the fuck names there book shit like 3/423/946?

>>4154747
I just told you, Stephen King does.

>>4154669

>Until then, he'll be remembered as the best author of our time.

By who? A generation of baby boomers who'll die out in the next 30 years? The literary establishment doesn't give a fuck about King and the younger generation doesn't read. He's a washed up pop star whose only valuable contribution to the arts has been writing a book that Stanley Kubrick adapted to film.

>>4154756
>The literary establishment doesn't give a fuck about King and the younger generation doesn't read.
Sauce on either of those statements?

>>4154711
Does he name all his books like this?
If so, where can I find 01/01/01?

>>4154756
You have yet to back up anything you've said so far.

>>4154761
Are you fucking retarded?

It's because that's the date JFK was assassinated. It's almost as if that date plays a huge part in the story.

>>4154770
>Memorizing dates of important events, and not simply the events themselves.

Sorry.

>>4154761
His books don't get real good until 4/23/28. after 8/57/50 though, his books get a bit dull. I'm looking forward to his latest release of 11/22/65.

>>4154774
>never having taken a single American history course
>not bothering to spend five seconds in google to find out why the book title might be a god damn date
Really, you have to be retarded. Typically a book title will have something to do with the book. In this case, it's a date. Instead of asking a series of stupid questions, you could have spent five seconds in google and found the answer.

>>4154782
>11/22/63
>Not 63/11/22
Plebian amerifags, begone.

>>4154788
>63/11/22
>not 69-69-69

>>4154761
10/10/10
Would laugh again.

>>4154711
It had about 50 pages of material worth reading scattered throughout its length.

>>4154820
As a plebien who reads a book every few years, I disagree, but I would like to hear more of your opinion.

>>4154766

What would you like me to "back up"? I'd really love to help you out, especially since you were so informative with the declaration that Stephen King will be remembered as "the best author of our time". Surely that doesn't require any explanation because it's objective fact.

>The literary establishment doesn't give a fuck about King
He's never won any notable literary awards and he's either ignored or derided by prominent critics. Not that any of this really matters, but that's the establishment and they're the ones calling the shots. All of those old, dead authors that we love so much (because they're old and dead) are strung around and kept alive by this establishment. Popularity fades, but these people will be deciding who your children's children will be reading in school.
>the younger generation doesn't read
Does this really require a source? It's apparent enough. I'm sure you can find plenty of statistics on the internet if you're curious about actual numbers. The last I recall it was something like 50% of people in our age group (4chan's age group), that is 18-25 or so, don't read for pleasure.

If anything Stephen King will be remembered as one of the most successful authors of all time.

>>4154822
I just didn't dig the whole '50s rural Texas slice of life plot that took up the entire book. The beginning and end had some pretty interesting material, but pretty much everything in between was not enjoyable to read.

>>4154827
This is pretty much how I feel about Tron 2.

>>4154822
>a book every few years
>a book
>every few years
>years
u wut m8

>>4153664
>Did he mean he is popular and well-known, or that he knows he writes light literature intended for the masses?
I don't know that these are separate thoughts.

Do you actually dislike genre fiction, or do you doublethink yourself into disliking it because it's proper?

>>4153664
I've literally called him that on this website before and I had no idea he said this

Anyone hear about King's sequel to the Shining? I've only seen the movie.

I honestly don't get the hate for him. Yeah, his stories aren't going to be chock-full of metaphors and hidden symbolism. But I don't give a flying fuck. Because they're enjoyable, well-written stories. When I open up a Richard Stark or Donald Westlake novel, do I expect a philosophical trip through the inner subconscious of a past society? Fuck no, I expect an entertaining crime drama.

Stop being such pretentious fucking faggots and accept the fact that some books are just that- books. Some books are meant to be read and remembered as something that you enjoyed. Not every novel has to be spiritual, or what-not.

>>4154869

>>4154869

>Because they're enjoyable, well-written stories.

But they aren't, though. I wouldn't hate King if his books were either of these things. I hate King because I've read books by him that were so trite, so insufferable, that I would literally be frowning while reading. I couldn't even finish Under the Dome, and I NEVER quit books before I've finished them.

>>4154886
Under the Dome was shittastic even if you're going by King's standards.
The guy's definitely got some gems but he's written so fucking terrible books also.

>>4154886
No shit you couldn't finish it, it's boring as hell. Start off with his smaller stuff, like Misery or Desperation. One of my personal favorites is Christine, that's a good one.

>>4154888
>>4154892
>>4154886

I finished Under the Dome pretty quickly and really enjoyed it. Just saying, opinions opinions

I respect King for his worth ethic (dude writes like 10 pages every day), and he occasionally stumbles upon some pretty great ideas.
And to dismiss his best work would be doing the guy great unfairness.
But he's been in a need of a brutal but fair editor for most of his career. Some of his work feels like first drafts and quite a few stories should have never left the brain storming session.
That said, he'll definitely made a big enough name for himself to be remembered as one of the greats, like it or not.

>>4154938
>That said, he'll definitely made a big enough name for himself to be remembered as one of the greats, like it or not.

no i don't think so. not to say i have king or anything, i just don't think that's how the canon functions. people will remember king for 20 years or so after his death and then they will slowly forget him.

>>4154942
>have

hate

>>4154892
>Desperation
>Anything but boring as fuck
Horrible fucking taste faggot.

>>4154944
>>4154942
>>4154942
Guy wrote The Body (which became Stand by Me), The Shanshawk Redemption and the Green Mile. He's going to be remembered, if only for that (which I doubt).

>>4154960

>Shanshawk

This made me laugh harder than it probably should have. But I don't think these movies will be remembered, either.

>>4154960
i don't think those films will really be remembered either, tbh. for a while, sure, but they won't be inducted into film's canon

>>4154963
>>4154962
We'll see.
What I'm thinking are basic English classes. These are easy to digest sentimental fables that our children and their children's children are likely to have to plow trough and watch, if only because we the future parents are familiar with them, and that might cement them into their culture and so on, keeping them alive for at least a little while.

>>4154962
It's not hard to make an idiot laugh. Whatever you think of King, Shawshank is widely regarded as one of the greatest films of all time. For being a board full of pretentious assholes, there's equally as many complete fucking idiots.

>>4154979

>Shawshank is widely regarded as one of the greatest films of all time.

By who, IMDb?

>>4154853
the book and the movie are two completely separate works

>>4154979

hahahahaha

someone already mentioned it earlier, but the shining is the only film adaption of a king novel that will be remembered. king should have thanked kubrick for immortalizing his shitty haunted house story.

>>4154981
Taken from wikipedia after five seconds of googling:

>The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards in 1994: Best Picture, Best Actor for Freeman, Best Adapted Screenplay for Frank Darabont, Best Cinematography for Roger Deakins, Best Editing for Richard Francis-Bruce, Best Original Score for Thomas Newman, and Best Sound Mixing for Robert J. Litt, Elliot Tyson, Michael Herbick and Willie D. Burton.[16] It received two Golden Globe Award nominations for Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture for Freeman, and Best Screenplay for Darabont.[17] Robbins and Freeman were both nominated for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role at the inaugural Screen Actors Guild Awards in 1995.[18] Darabont was nominated for a Directors Guild of America award in 1994 for Best Director for a feature film,[19] while cinematographer Roger Deakins won the American Society of Cinematographers award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography.[20]

>In 1998, Shawshank was not listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, but nine years later (2007), it was #72 on the revised list, outranking both Forrest Gump (#76) and Pulp Fiction (#94), the two most critically acclaimed movies from the year of Shawshank's release. In 1999, film critic Roger Ebert listed Shawshank on his "Great Movies" list.[21] It has been #1 on IMDb's user-generated Top 250 since 2008, when it surpassed The Godfather.[22]

>Readers of Empire magazine voted the film as the best film of the 1990s, and it placed number 4 on Empire's list of "The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time" in 2008.[4][23] In March 2011, the film was voted by BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 1Xtra listeners as their favorite film of all time.[24]

Now, get the fuck out.

>>4154995
But that's all popular culture corporate media garbage.

>>4154999
>popular culture corporate media
lol fedora detected


how embarrasing

>>4154995
i don't think you understand the canon. it's not for movies that are "pretty good" it's for movies that are going to be studied for as long as human's are around. there isn't room for 72 american films per 100 years.

>>4154995

I honestly can't tell if this guy is being serious.

>>4155003
>It's not for movies that are "pretty good"
>Listed as best film of the 90s

>>4154995

You said it yourself, won nothing of substance and occasionally mentioned as an also-ran on industry-critic lists. Face it, THE SHANSHAWNK REDEMPTION is less important than shit like It's A Wonderful Life.

>>4155003
>4154621
>>4155005
/lit/ film experts

>>4154999
>ask for source
>give source
.>"I DISAGREE WITH YOUR SOURCE SO ITS GARBAGE"
That is some spectacular anal devastation.

>>4155008
by readers, not critics. critics determine the canon. im not saying that's a good thing, that's just how it is.

>>4155010
For someone on a literature board you show a remarkable inability to read.

>>4154999
>B-but everything that's acclaimed and popular and I dislike like is culture corporate media garbage.

You might hate it, but it's going to be remembered, at least for the reminder of your life.

>>4155005
He's just listing facts.

>>4155015
actually this isn't true, sorry. artists determine the canon by being influenced by certain works. critics are more important than readers though.

>>4154315

sounds hawt, Dark Tower was fairly epic.

>>4155019
>You might hate it, but it's going to be remembered, at least for the reminder of your life.

sure, but the canon isn't interested in the rest of my life. it's interested in the next 2000 years.

>>4154995
>thinking any of this stuff is relevant

Next time try looking up Sight and Sound and see much a trite film is.

I mean goddamn do you even Seven Samurai, Psycho, or Ugetsu?

>>4155027
Do you even namedrop films you pretentious faggot?

>>4155013
I "disagree" with your "source" because it's garbage, not the other way around.

I'm not even the person who asked anyway, I just saw this thread. I just think it's funny you'd use that stuff to measure quality or meaningful 'critical acclaim' or whatever, it's like measuring a movie's quality by its box office take.

>>4154995

Lol.

It didn't even win the academy award, was listed at 72 (beating out Forrest Gump, wow!) on a list no one cares about, and appeared on the legendary Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" list. We've clearly got one of the great films of all time on our hands.

Go check out the accolades for Titantic, aka the greatest film of all time. You'll be really impressed.

>>4155027
Quick, name ten people you know who have seen Seven Samurai.

Oh wait you can't. But you can name 10 people who have seen Shawshank.

>>4155031
I mean I could've gone far worse and dropped Battleship Potemkin or Citizen Kane

Shawshank is seriously only considered amazing and perfect by the average moviewatcher

>>4155002
Er, right, because the 101 level observation that corporate media sucks is real "edgy", if you're an absolute moron anyway.

>>4155037
I didn't realize I was conversing with a higher level being. Tell me, Overman, why do you post among the dregs here? Surely people are lining up to hear your opinion and bask on your works of critique that give your opinion any kind of weight or value.

>>4155035
Let's put it this way:

>Everyone has heard of Nickelback
>No one and no music worth remembering or that WILL be remembered has been influenced by Nickelback

>not everyone has heard of Pixies
>Many bands that will be remembered including Pixies have been influenced by Pixies

So I suppose the decision of which is "best" is more semantics. The temporary current fame or the long lasting.

>>4155022
This, though you overrate critic opinion slightly and are too quick to dismiss populist opinion, for new critics are often born from those tastes.
The Sight & Sound critics poll for example is more informed than the IMDB's top 250, but I'd say they're about equally important when it comes to determining which films will survive the test of time and which wont, though my personal favorite is the Sight & Sound directors poll which I find bridges the two a bit more fairly. And that said, I have a feeling Shawshank's always going to be more populist than, say, 8½, which few but the cinematic elite care about.

>>4155044
You're getting assblasted for no real reason. It's a fucking internet imageboard friend.

If you're this mad that someone thinks a movie is shit, maybe you need to take some time off from the screen and ponder what you're doing with your life

>4155037
Seriously, are people trolling or do they really find this opinion controversial?

>>4155035

Ben
Josh
Amy
Joel
Henry
Mary
Sam
Melissa
Tyrone
Shaniqua

Oh wait, you just got wrecked. And Tyrone told me to tell you Shawshank is plebeian garbage.

>>4155056
fucking lol

>>4155048
i don't think that sight & sound critics poll is equal to IMDB top 250 at all. the popular opinion barely matters. i get what you're saying about new critics arising, but remember the people who are most likely to become critics are those who are inspired by current critics, so any radical change is unlikely.

for an example of how popular consensus doesn't determine the canon, titus andronicus was probably among shakespeare's most popular plays, and it is his least well regarded. the ODJB were extremely popular, but they are not well regarded at all.

>>4155045
We are not arguing "best" here, only what will be remembered. It's not the same. I'm on the opinion that Shawshank will be remembered and King for that matter, but I'd list neither in any of my list of favorites.

>>4155050
>u mad lolol
Nice to see even /lit/ is populated by shiteaters.

>>4155056
If you have talked to any of these people in the past 24 hours, prove it.

>>4155070
>what is reading comprehension

>>4155071

pic related, it's me and shaniqua

>>4155063
Yes, but you are forgetting scholars and artists that rise from that zeitgeist as well and have almost equal influence on what remains culturally relevant as the critics do and, as stated, influence other artists and scholars and critics.
And to dismiss the AFI as something of less influence than Sight & Sound is preposterous.

>>4155078
>>4155081
>/lit/ hating King boils down to this

>>4155087
i never said afi was less influential. though it's probably slightly less influential due to covering only american films.

scholars and artists that rise from the populace are no longer the populace. by the time scholars and artists reach a mature age they have already accepted the canon, and thus are not in a good position to change it. furthermore, any artist or critic rising with starkly uncanonical views will be rejected by the existing canon as illegitimate or irrelevant, and unless they are a remarkable, one in a century genius will be unlikely to change the canon. if they do change the canon, they will change it by degrees, and they probably still won't change the past canon in a significant way.

the other reason the populace is less important is because they don't work to pass on the canon nearly as much as critics (broadly defined) and artists due. for a few generations, they pass favorites on to their children, but eventually the children stop passing them on. by contrast, the critics have the power structure of schools and universities. the critics can teach whatever art they please to every child. it's just a much more powerful way of manipulating the canon.

the general public still has an important role of course, but it is the least important after the roles of critics and artists.

>>4155097
Oh no I'm just hating on Shawshank and the conception of popularity.

With King, the situation is that he has written some enjoyable novels. His prose/themes/whatever high brow shit you wanna talk about is never really interesting or worth discussing much longer than a minute or two.

His main issue is that he has no sense of quality control. The dude writes constantly and thinks that writers like Joyce who don't publish something every year or few years are ridiculous.

If he sat back and took his fucking time, maybe he'd have some kinda masterpiece.

He's quite content with just pumping and pumping as is though, so I doubt that'll happen

>>4155100
oh and since it looks like im contradicting myself let with that last sentence let me just say that earlier when i said it barely matters i meant in comparison to critics and artists

>>4154886
Under the Dome is absolutely horrible and this is coming from a King fan who's read almost all of his books. Read The Stand, then get a few of his short story books. Stand by Me (book version is called The Body) and Shawshank Redemption are basically exactly like the short stories they were based on and they are excellent movies.

>>4155105
This. King's clearly a good writer, but he believes he's incapable of true quality - or, maybe he is by now - and so he churns out tons of work of middling to high-middling quality. Some of it, mostly of the second, has achieved real cultural prominence - and real longevity in the case of the Shining - through adaptation to film by skilled directors.

>>4155115
And by "high middling" I mean "excellent" as the very best stuff. I'm actually paying King a complement, not damning him with faint praise. I've enjoyed a lot of his short stories, and a few of his novels. (There is actually a case to be made for him under the aim of entertainment, rather than the aesthetic or philosophical ends.)

>>4155078

japanese troll dog ftw!

>>4155128

le nipponjin trolldog face

How's It? I've been meaning to read it, but it looks like a heft undertaking. Add to that the fact that I know every turn of the plot--from the vision quest to the flying leeches and the kiddy gangbang in the sewers--and I'm not sure if there's anything other than the prose to entice me. Is the prose even worth it?

>>4155045
That analogy doesn't even work. Pixies inspired other musicians, yes, but so has King his work has become ingrained in pop culture, who hasn't heard of Carrie and her prom night massacre? Or REDRUM? They've been referenced numerous times, on film, tv, and other books. Fuck man, even Rocko's Modern life did an homage to the Shining.

>>4155139

No. But it is the best kiddie gangbang in the sewers scene you're ever likely to read.

>>4155143
I seriously question the level of their staying power if the films hadn't happened though.

I sure as hell knew what Carrie was and about the Shining when I was young, but I only knew because of the movies and everyone I knew referring to the movies.

>>4155144
I'm sure if he ever gets around to finishing his series, GRRM'll upstage King. I can't imagine he doesn't have a kiddy gangbang planned for ASoIaF.

>>4155157

Yeah, but in ASoIaF's context it would lack a certain zest. Like in It, they're just going into the sewers and they're all like oh shit, the monster's got us, we need the power of friendship, and just when you're rolling your eyes King's coke-addled brain switches to UNDERAGE GANGFUCK MODE. GRRM's brain on the other hand has exactly one setting.

>People don't know that King has said that he completely regrets this line, especially as he became a more diverse writer.

The latter. His short stories are good academic works, though.

>>4155166
You've got a point. I think that's why I'm pretty consistently entertained by King; he always manages to up the weirdness ante even in the context of his weirdest books.

>>4155115
>but he believes he's incapable of true quality - or, maybe he is by now
More like he's not quite sure what's actually "good"
In his eyes, Lisey's Story is the best novel he's ever written.

>>4155185
Lisey's Story is good though.
Not his best, but it's an intensely personal story, very real, if that makes any sense.

I just finished reading Black House.
5/10.
Needed a better editor
Interesting ending.

>>4155185
For real? I would consider The Stand his best.

Also, for anyone who DOES like his work, his son Joe Hill is exactly like him. If someone were to give you one of Hill's books and ask you to guess who wrote it, you'd think it was King himself. The two of them apparently have merged their worlds. Like how the Dark Tower series links a lot of King's work together, Hill's worlds linked to each other AND Kings.

In both their new books NOS4A2 and Doctor Sleep there are references to each other's works/worlds. NOS4A2 mentions Midworld and Pennywise the Clown (as well as references to Heart Shaped Box and Horns), while Doctor Sleep mentions Charlie Manx, the villain in NOS4A2

>>4155208
I think he likes Lisey's Story so much because it's basically a story about him and his wife, and what would happen if the car had killed him.

>>4155139
>Is the prose even worth it?
This is actually a King strongpoint. Despite what people may think of his actual stories, his actually craft is very good.
He's probably the most technically skilled writer of popular fiction currently alive.

>>4155208
>his son Joe Hill is exactly like him
I respect Joe Hill.
I like that he wanted his work to stand on its own, and not be associated with Kings.
Locke and Key is also very good.

>>4155237
I actually think it's really cool how they've made it so all their books exist within the same universe, or rather, each book is its own world but they are all connected and the characters can travel between them all. Basically, everything they write really is connected to the Dark Tower.

Did he actually say that?

>>4155247
>all their books exist within the same universe
Not all.
Books without references are not part of it.
Unless King retroactively makes it part of it in a sequel, like Black House and The Talisman.

>>4155249
Yes, but he's since said that he very much regretted it.

>>4155250
I wouldn't include those two because King didn't write them alone, they were written with Peter Straub. So I'll rephrase myself and say everything King and Hill write on their own is a world connected to the Dark Tower.

>>4155267
>everything King and Hill write on their own is a world connected to the Dark Tower.
I disagree.
King purposefully makes references to connect the books.
Something like Rage isn't part of it.
No reference=no connection.

>>4155267
>I wouldn't include those two because King didn't write them alone.
They literally go to Mid-World in Black House.
One of the characters is an ex-gunslinger.
Roland and his tet are mentioned.
The Crimson King is the secondary villain.
The story revolves around a kidnapped Breaker.
In The Talisman, the Talisman itself is a form of the Tower, like the Rose.

>>4155271
Yeah, but at this point, why wouldn't they be? They might as well be, seeing how the Dark Tower is the center of the universe/multiverse/whatever the fuck. The worlds attached to it are endless.

>>4155278
I guess I've been rused because I didn't actually read them so I assumed the anon stubbornly saying there were no references to the Tower in them was telling the truth.

So, thanks bro, you've helped proved my theory right.

>>4155285
I phrased it wrong.
Originally, the Talisman had nothing to do with The Dark Tower.
When Straub and King started writing the sequel, Straub suggested they tie it into the Tower Mythos.

>>4155290
Ah, I see. Anywho. I find it a more enjoyable reading experience thinking of the stories all being connected somehow. I could get all dopey and say lame shit like even if they aren't referenced or canonically part of the Tower, they are all still connected if one views King's mind as the real Tower that they've all sprung from.

>>4155301
>they are all still connected if one views King's mind as the real Tower that they've all sprung from.
But anon, King is a beam. Not the tower.

>there are people on this board that genuinely like stephen king
loling

>>4154711
It was great.

>>4154886
I enjoyed Under the Dome.

Now the TV Show on the other hand, is a huge steaming pile of shit.

At the very least, this is the best SK picture.