Is Stephen King trash?

[Anonymous No.10163906]

So far I've read The Shining, Salem's Lot and It, and they were all great reads despite the last 150 pages of It. Why is he considered a meme author?

[Anonymous No.10163925]

>>10163906
>Read only 2 decent books of his prime
>Ignores all the other garbage
>Doesn't even go to the archive or google where everyone explains why SK is cancer-tier
>Huur durrr why u guys hatin? I JUST DONT UNDERSTAND THOSE 2 BOOKS ARE GR8!

[Anonymous No.10163931]

>>10163906
His early stuff is better. He has some ok later stuff. He's famously bad at endings.

[Anonymous No.10163939]

>>10163925
All you needed to tell me was there nothing more to look forward to, condescending anon. No need to be rude.

[Anonymous No.10163943]

>>10163939
Read Misery then grow out to a real author, or just pick up Dark Tower and accept your pleb nature

[Anonymous No.10163959]

>>10163943
This is kind of the answer I'm looking for since I have zero interest in the Dark Tower series.

I like horror stories, but aside from Stephen King, Dean Koonz and older stuff like Lovecraft, I don't know what's good. I'm asking for your help. Recommend me something frightening.

[Anonymous No.10164015]

he is the self described literary equivalent of a burger and fries.

[Anonymous No.10164081]

I just read the Stand. Not sure why this is considered his best book. I've read IT and Salem's Lot, I thought they were both better than this. The whole Free Zone Committee and Colorado section took way too freaking long. Too many pages of nothing happening, and very little depth about anything.

I don't know. I'm a pleb, but I guess I just don't understand why everyone loves the Stand.

[Anonymous No.10164133]

Is that a genuine tweet?

[Anonymous No.10164141]

>>10163959
Ligotti
Derleth
Chambers
Barker

[Anonymous No.10164150]

>>10164133
Trump doesn't read.

[Anonymous No.10164235]

>>10163906
i've read the dead zone, carrie, a book of short stories, and tried to read another one i dont remember the name, all of them were pure trash. a hack for sure.

[Anonymous No.10164320]

I've never found his work to be engaging. Dull, boring, yawn. To each his own.

[Anonymous No.10164438]

>>10163906
His writing is drip drop dialogues line by line with very formal grade school punctuation and very bland vocabulary. He overpowers his editors and spends 100s of pages on fluff. He has put out so much content over the years and maybe 5/300 works of writing are "good", except not really as see first criticism.

His ideas, especially when on cocaine and about 5 glasses of whisky in 1979 are quite good, and when you give his screenplays to people like Kubrick they shine. Even the Pet Semetary movie was 1000000x better than the book.

But whenever someone drops IT or 'Salems Lot (300 pages too long) or The Shining (not much bad to say about it), I would point out that there are The Tommy Knockers, Rose Madder, and Dolores Claiborne, which are fucking terrible.

IMO his best works are Gunslinger 1, Misery, and Different Seasons. Cujo is trash, Carrie is a one trick pony, the talisman and the deadzone are whatever. Honestly if you read real books you lose interest in him right quick unless you are into spiritual pedo gangbangs.

t. someone who grew up in a house with only stephen king available.

[Anonymous No.10164557]

>>10164438
I'd argue Kubrick's Shining is garbage, but fine, whatevs. You do seem to know your King tho, how the fuck did you only have his books in your house?

[Anonymous No.10164577]

>>10163906
Because some anons think that if they shit on a popular author, that somehow makes them better than him. I don't follow the logic either.

[Anonymous No.10164580]

>>10164577
To be fair to the anons King is shit. To be fair to King, he's not as shit as them.

[Anonymous No.10164582]

>>10163906

>inb4 someone posts the gay pedo rape scene with the library cop

[Anonymous No.10164593]

>>10163906
Never read any SK but his film adaptations have been mostly entertaining. Instead, I read:

>Lovecraft
>Robert E Howard
>Lord Dunsany
>Clark Ashton Smith
>Arthur Machen
>Ligotti
>MR James
>Algernon Blackwood
>Charles Beaumont

You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.10164603]

>>10164580
King is extremely good at what he does, which is writing good, honest stories. He puts style second to story, but there's nothing wrong with that. A lot of people who say he's bad seem to be the kind who read a handful of how to books and are pissed that he doesn't follow all these author's made up rules. They need to understand that there is more than one way to write, and that there are many kinds of good writing. Stephen King is a great author.

[Anonymous No.10164617]

>>10164593
The only one I haven't read is MR James (?) but of all those the only one that resemble King is Beaumont (and even then), the others aren't a real really a fitting comparison, they have completely different subject matters or style. It's like arguing between steak and apples.

[Anonymous No.10164632]

>>10163931
It's the same with all writers who strike gold and courted by the movie biz. Imagination is directly tied to the lack of stimulation in life. It's why so many great writers grew up poor; they had nothing to do with themselves but imagine fanciful little tales.

Now Steven King has no need to push himself to stand out now that he is a famous author.

[Anonymous No.10164642]

>>10164617
They all write in the horror genre.

[Anonymous No.10164644]

>>10164632
I'm defending him but I'll concede I haven't read anything he has written in like 15 years. It can't have changed that much though unless he has other people writing for him or his brain is growing old. He was once a master at least, I know that for sure.

[Anonymous No.10164648]

>>10164603
To each his own I guess but his books need an editor with a chainsaw. There's fluff and baggage the size of a normal sized novel in a King one.

[Anonymous No.10164652]

>>10164642
And? Did you really read them or pick them out of Wikipedia? They're not remotely similar to King.

[Anonymous No.10164681]

>>10164648
That's a side effect of growing the story organically, but as far as I'm concerned it gives richer results than outliners who stick closely to X point structures and throw away everything that stray even a little from it. It's the whole roman-fleuve thing and it makes it seem like things happen in a real universe (again, in my opinion). It's just a different kind of writing; some people might not personally like it, but that doesn't make it bad.

[Anonymous No.10164687]

>>10164681
It tries one's patience like a mother fucker tho. Brevity is the soul of wit anon.

[Anonymous No.10164720]

>>10164687
I had that phase. I prefer to be concise if my own writing, but that's as far as I remember, King's sentences really don't have that many superfluous words but what do I know, ESL, lol. He writes well. He might not make his stories skeletal, but it would be pretty boring if all authors did that. In his case, it would also make his books much worse (if you want the proof, look at some of the film adaptations who tried to pare his story down, that didn't always go so well). His books need to be seen as complete wholes. Some parts might not directly take you from point A to point B, bit they still contribute to creating and make more real the world the books are set in, which makes the rest of the story, work, etc.

[Anonymous No.10164753]

Just finished IT, I found it excellent but clearly imperfect. Really loved it though, smart in terms of characters and themes in a way that makes it hard to dismiss King as an author.

[Anonymous No.10164777]

I think IT is a great book because you can tell which parts he wrote right after doing a bump of cocaine.

[Anonymous No.10164814]

>>10164777
Kek, yes you do

[Anonymous No.10164991]

>>10164814
That like 10 pages of rambling about his bike really stuck with me.

[Anonymous No.10165000]

Why do women love him though?

[Anonymous No.10165037]

>>10165000
Pretty accessible and the stories tend to be character focused.

[Anonymous No.10165040]

>>10164991
I don't remember thing one about it. His style is so lacking personality.

[Anonymous No.10165146]

>>10164150
But he reads Hitler speeches before bedtime, right?
>t. liberal media

[Anonymous No.10165153]

Gotta say, I enjoyed the 1922 novella a lot. Very different from his work I read before. If you haven't read it, the movie releases on Netflix tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.10165244]

>>10164557
My mother only read his books and romances during my formative period. Looking at Google's list of his books I read all of them up to Dolores Claiborne.

[Anonymous No.10165300]

>>10165146
No, he doesn't read. I don't think he has the attention or, frankly, the capacity to read and understand an NSDAP speech by any of its members.

[Anonymous No.10165305]

>>10165300
read this lol

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

[Anonymous No.10165387]

>>10163931
Yep, can't write an ending to save his life, it's why everyone recommends only reading the first 3 books of the Dark Tower series because it just goes downhill

[Anonymous No.10165491]

>>10164081
Really liked the building tension in the stand, the scenes of the survivors walking through abandoned cities was really cool to me

[Anonymous No.10165612]

>>10164438
>IMO his best works are Gunslinger 1, Misery, and Different Seasons.
No complaints here.

But his short story collections are all worth reading. I have them all as audiobooks and often listen to them repeatedly when doing tedious work.

I like the nostalgic 1950s vibe he paints and other comfy vibes, for example in 11/22/63, Hearts in Atlantis, Insomnia, etc.

He knows his stuff and is not simply a Danielle Steele or whatever hack. His success means editors don't prune his manuscripts (afraid to kill the golden goose I suppose). This results in bloated, meandering novels, but if it's a good novel I am forgiving of verbosity, that doesn't bother me too much.

He's basically one of the most popular and accessible authors out there, so obviously he is going to get a lot of flak. The "controversy" about the ritual of Chud in It and the Library Policeman rape scene is just ridiculous to me - don't read if you don't want to be offended or provoked.

[Anonymous No.10165762]

>>10163906
This question is meaningless. He is Stephen King. You may think his work is trash, that doesn’t make his work trash. It is simply the work of Stephen King.

[Anonymous No.10165826]

I used to like king, but the more I read of him the less I like him.

Yeah, he has written a few really great things, but the vast majority of his stuff is complete garbage. I used to love IT, but i recently re-read it and noticed just how badly written it is, it's a great idea sure, but after the glow of that first reading wore off, I noticed a lot of terrible flaws in it.

I also just read Misery, which is a brilliant idea, but it's a terrible book. Badly written, the character of Annie in the book is basically like some sort of murderous loony tunes character, and half of the book is the mc just drifting into pointless stories about his past that have no relevance to the story.

He has really good ideas, but he rarely executes them well. All the successful movies that came out of his writing just took his idea and cut out all his bullshit, and actually executed the core story well.

[Anonymous No.10166024]

>>10165826
>which is a brilliant idea, but it's a terrible book
/thread

[Anonymous No.10166132]

>>10165826
>mc just drifting into pointless stories about his past that have no relevance to the story.
You must be retarded if you think they are irrelevant to the story.

> I used to love IT, but i recently re-read it and noticed just how badly written it is, it's a great idea sure, but after the glow of that first reading wore off, I noticed a lot of terrible flaws in it.
Provide some examples? I am curious about what flaws you noticed.

[Anonymous No.10166139]

>>10163906

President Donny has the best tweets

[Anonymous No.10166328]

>>10165826
I'm about 600 pages into IT and I'm enjoying it. In invokes feelings of nostalgia, and allows one to reflect on their own transition from child to adult and the feelings around it.

The movie pales in comparison, missing entire themes & points. But I understand, it's hard to capture deep thoughts and portray it on the screen.

Outside of his writing I'm not a big fan of his politics.

[Anonymous No.10166574]

>>10166328
he's pulp trash

[Anonymous No.10166968]

>>10166132
>Provide some examples? I am curious about what flaws you noticed.

Do you really need to be told? It's excessively long, there's long drifts of thought in the story that goes on for pages and pages, that have nothing to do with anything. Like for example, the 6 page description of one of the characters on a plane, along with a description of the stewardesses and other passengers, before the character starts remembering his childhood and actually gets to the plot of the story. This scene has no payoff whatsoever, and is boring and wordy. King does this repeatedly in the book, like when Ben goes into a bar and starts drinking, or a lot of the police scenes in the begining. There's tons of scenes in it that have nothing to do with the plot, and aren't even interesting in their own right. The book seriously needed an editor who could slap his dick across King's lips.

You could seriously cut at least 300 pages out of the book, and not effect the main story at all.

The character of Richie is annoying as fuck. It seems like King sets him up to be the comic relief, but then King realized he's a painfully unfunny person (another overall flaw of his I've noticed in other books). King seems to realize this, and just sort of makes up the excuse that nobody in the book thinks he's funny either, but it doesn't stop him from constantly trying to make the character funny. I noticed this the first time I read the book too, and thought if King could have got this character working, it would be a much stronger book. The movie, by the way, recognized this and made Richie the best character in it, which was one of the few things it did right.

The book also isn't very scary at all. It's scariest, funny enough, when it's being minimalist and vague about It and It's effect on the town. The only scenes that creep me out are the adult Mike interviewing and investigating the history of IT. When IT actually shows up it's kind of cartoonish and silly. Or even when king just vaguely implies that Bev got diddled is way creepier than any mummy or werewolf clown.

Overall it's a cool idea, but it's bogged down by a ton of shit. You're constantly skimming through trash, then finding a good part, then barely paying attention again as you wade through 30 more pages of trash, then a few good parts, etc...

[Anonymous No.10167055]

>>10166968
I'm almost done with the book and can 100% confirm.

[Anonymous No.10167062]

>>10166968
>This scene has no payoff whatsoever,
Stick to abbreviated Cracked.com articles, my millennial friend.

[Anonymous No.10167076]

>>10167062
But he's fucking right. There are so many scenes that have mountains of backstory about characters that never appear again nor have any impact on the plot. It's all fluff.

[Anonymous No.10167088]

>>10167076
And you don't really need fluff in would would be at least a 700 page story without it.

[Anonymous No.10167136]

>>10166968

Something that bothered me was the excessive detail of how Bev escaped her husband and made it to Derry. Wasn't interesting at all, and was really long.

Then there's even more detail about how her husband tracked her down to the town. There's probably like 50 pages in all this right there. You could have seriously just left it to, "oh, well she made the mistake of saying the name of the town in their first fight," and left it at that, but no it's just got to drag on.

Then the husband shows up, kidnaps tits, and immediately dies and has no further impact on the plot. It's like goddamn, that was a long way to go for that payoff, almost like a capable editor could have told him to just get rid of that character altogether.

[Anonymous No.10167166]

>>10166968
>The movie, by the way, recognized this and made Richie the best character in it, which was one of the few things it did right.
I honestly thought the movie was pretty solid. It seemed to understand how to preserve the core of the story and translate it into a movie. Lots got cut, obviously, and there's problems, but overall I thought the most important elements were well represented.

>It's scariest, funny enough, when it's being minimalist and vague about It and It's effect on the town. The only scenes that creep me out are the adult Mike interviewing and investigating the history of IT
I agree. I really liked that, and the whole part where Stan's suicide is built up and then revealed. His death wasn't spoilered to me so that whole chapter actually kept me tense.

[Anonymous No.10167256]

>>10164777
King always seemed to me too square to even look at drugs.

Why did he become a massive chemical abuser again? Death of someone?

[Anonymous No.10167268]

>>10167256
I think he was a druggie his whole life basically. I think both his parents were drunks. He was an alcoholic for most his adult life, and towards the end he discovered the wonders of drugs, and that if you mix stuff like coke with your booze you drink a hell of a lot more.

[Anonymous No.10167285]

>>10163906
I'm one of those people who decided to pick up IT after watching the recent movie adaptation and I've been enjoying it so far. The fluff can be pretty fucking annoying, no doubt, but the seven main characters have been keeping me going.
Are any of his other books actually worth checking out, though?

[Anonymous No.10167287]

>>10167268
I genuinely have no idea if you're talking about soda or cocaine.

[Anonymous No.10167325]

>>10167256
He used to drink mouthwash.

[Anonymous No.10167341]

>>10167325
What lol why

[Anonymous No.10167346]

>>10164753
Honestly I really enjoyed it too. It's flawed but all the filler/fluff parts didn't seem to bother me nearly as much as it does other people. Don't know why.

[Anonymous No.10167362]

>>10167341
For the alcohol. But I don't know why, because at that time he had money and was also drinking beer and doing coke. Maybe an old habit? In his book, "On Writing", he describes this addictive phase of his life and says his wife used to joke, "what are you doing, drinking the stuff?" when they'd have to buy more mouthwash.

>>10167346
I also enjoy the so-called fluff. I like meandering stories that are dense - that's life. Life and the stories that comprise it are not parsimonious, succinct, and perfectly wrapped up. If the story is particularly good, I want it to be as long as possible.

[Anonymous No.10167391]

>>10167287
cocaine idiot.

Once you get a decade or two of heavy boozing under your belt, your tolerance goes so high that you have to ingest insane amounts of booze to get wasted. This also makes you sloppy as hell, and you end up blacking out and passing out all the time.

But, lots of drunks figure out if you do a few lines of coke while you're drinking, you stay alert and don't black or pass out and can drink like you're 18 again.

Hunter S Thompson did the same thing with coke and booze too, except I think he did that his entire life.

[Anonymous No.10167397]

>>10167362
I agree. Some of the fluff I didn't like but most of it I thought fleshed out several things about the story and characters, especially when it came to Derry's history and backgroud on certain events that have taken place in it.

[Anonymous No.10167401]

>>10167397
had*

[Anonymous No.10167404]

>>10167362
But I don't know why

It was because he would run out of booze. It's common for drunks to be so wasted that they just flat out forget to stock up on booze while the stores are open, next thing they know it's 3 am and they're totally empty, so that's when he'd drink mouthwash.

Still a little weird though, yeah. When I was in boot camp I remember kids would drink mouthwash there because it was the only booze you could get your hands on. I never did, but I heard you could get decently fucked up after 2 bottles or so.

[Anonymous No.10167429]

>>10167397
I don't know exactly what people would remove from It. The parts about Derry's history are clearly important.

[Anonymous No.10167439]

>>10167429
>The parts about Derry's history are clearly important.

True, but they're talking about the hundreds of transition scenes that go absolutely nowhere and take pages to get to what they're transitioning to.

[Anonymous No.10167445]

>>10167439
I guess I'm just not an impatient reader and enjoy the unravelling of a story, not jumping from critical scene to critical scene.

[Anonymous No.10167460]

>>10167445
There's tons of side stories and plot throughout the book that I like, lots of backstory of the town, IT affected and killing people who aren't really in the main story, all that I like and have no problem with.

I have a problem with scenes like have already been mentioned, like ben in the bar, or ben on the plane, or Bev's entire goddamn story about how she got to the town and how her husband followed her, etc. They're just not good for one, and they don't even need to be in the book. If you got rid of all this you'd still have a 7-800 page book.

[Anonymous No.10167478]

>>10167460
Ben in the bar was appealing to me: the whole lemon juice thing was a nice touch and we see the loneliness of Ben as well as his humility despite his success, etc. It emphasizes the point that, despite their successes, there was a void in all of their lives and they were tied to a cosmic plan. They were ostensibly successful, but really had no ties to the world (save Bill and his wife). Bev's story was important because we see that she essentially married her father, which many people do, but in her case it added an important piece to the cosmic plan.

The Dark Tower series definitely went overboard with a lot of these back/side stories though.

[Anonymous No.10167501]

>>10167478
You know...I don't really give a which specific ones you liked.

There's tons of scenes like this is the point. Plus any point they made was already implied or said in some other part of the story much more succinctly and effectively. We fucking get bev married her dad, and how he tracked her back to derry without having to go through every boring and excruciating detail.

[Anonymous No.10167531]

I liked the inessential backstories. It helped with the main plot since it established just how long It's been around, and I found the history of Derry interesting. I didn't even mind all the excruciating details of what the inside of a place looked like.

What always took me out of the book was when Richie cracked a stupid joke, and the other characters started rolling around on the floor laughing for ten minutes, vomiting due to how hard they were laughing. I was just like, "Dafuq?"

[Anonymous No.10167670]

>>10167501
>We fucking get bev married her dad, and how he tracked her back to derry without having to go through every boring and excruciating detail.
How was it in excruciating detail? We learned a bit about Tom's mother issues, he visited Bev's friend and beat her to find where Bev was, then he went to Derry.

I agree that Stephen King needs an editor with a spine, but the strong aversion to It's lateral stories is unfounded.

[Anonymous No.10167706]

>>10165762
That's so... deep... damn..

[Anonymous No.10167712]

>>10167062
You literally read and defend Stephen fucking King, you can't act as if you have the intellectual higher ground.

[Anonymous No.10167717]

>>10167712
I can guarantee that, by virtually all metrics, I am intellectually superior to you. Not to mention you are simply shitting on King because he is popular - I grew out of the contrarian phase when I was 17.

[Anonymous No.10168070]

>>10167670
>How was it in excruciating detail? We learned a bit about Tom's mother issues, he visited Bev's friend and beat her to find where Bev was, then he went to Derry.

This is all stuff that's implied in the story, and no explanation is necessary. It's also painfully boring and uninteresting.

[Anonymous No.10168099]

>>10165305
dude I know right.

[Anonymous No.10168134]

>>10163925
If someone writes one really great book and 20 bad ones, should the quality of the one good book suffer?

[Anonymous No.10168176]

>>10167706
Rare for 4chan

[Anonymous No.10168696]

>>10167076
You can distill any great painting to a doodle too, who needs all these brush strokes

[Anonymous No.10168715]

Dreamcatcher remains one of the worst books I've read in my life. It's offensively bad and doesn't have the decency to be short with it. It's a double slap in the face when you get to the author's note and King mentions that he didn't even want to publish it because he thought it was garbage, it was his wife who goaded him into doing it.

Some of his earlier short stories are fine.

>>10164438
>t. someone who grew up in a house with only stephen king available.
I'm sorry for your loss. Spending time at my grandma's house was also like that, except there were also romances and shitty beach reader crime books. I had to load up an entire backpack full of books when I went to stay over otherwise I'd be stuck rotting my brains out with heaving bosoms and hard-boiled bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10168723]

>>10168134
We aren't talking about the one """""""""""""good""""""""""""" book. We're talking about Stephen King, the author, and the quality of his collective works.

[Anonymous No.10168744]

>>10167391
>Hunter S Thompson
>Did just about every drug under the sun, drank heavily for decades
>Admitted that he never expected to make it to his thirties with his lifestyle
>Lived for over three decades past that and ultimately had to put himself out of his misery
Man had the constitution of a freight train, I tell you what.

[Anonymous No.10168747]

>>10164141
I just got a ligotti book from the library because of this post and I read the first story and it was insanely tryhard and lacking in anything that would make it worthwhile. The story itself was okay but mostly just pointless. Is horror supposed to be like that?

[Anonymous No.10168750]

>>10168747
Which book?

[Anonymous No.10169101]

>>10168696
That's not quite a good analogy. Stephen King novels aren't intricate paintings. They are slapdash paintings with half the paint spilled on the floor.

[Anonymous No.10169204]

>>10168744
the last 10 years of his life weren't very pretty, but yeah. His son wrote a good book, Stories I tell myself, that described this in great detail.

[Anonymous No.10169261]

Only contrarians and brainlets hate on King due to being popular. Surely you've written works that equal his then? No, you're not published? Ohh...

[Anonymous No.10169342]

>>10164438
>Even the Pet Semetary movie was 1000000x better than the book.

Wat? The movie was shit. The book is one of maybe half a dozen novels that has a credible claim to being a great horror novel.

It goes much deeper than Salems Lot, The Shining, or any other of the dozen-odd King books I've read (admittedly, I haven't read them all).

[Anonymous No.10169931]

>>10168750
The 2010 revised version of Songs of a Dead Dreamer.

[Anonymous No.10169995]

The Long Walk was pretty good

[Anonymous No.10170005]

>>10169995
Best King book and it's not even a contest.

[Anonymous No.10170015]

>>10163906
Is it possible to petition the american president to review more media? he has a very snappy, funny "new york" style

is Donald jewish?

[Anonymous No.10170030]

>>10170015
>Ywn see a universe where Trump continued his comfy youtube review series into old age and never felt the need to step into politics
He's too good for this world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddvk4aWNS50

[Anonymous No.10170049]

>>10169931
If that's the Penguin print paired with Grimscribe, then that's probably the worst story in the entire collection and I don't know why they started the book off with it. I almost dropped it because of it.

[Anonymous No.10170171]

>>10168747
>The story itself was okay but mostly just pointless. Is horror supposed to be like that?

No that's just 80% of literature. It isnt meant to be deep beyond the stories and it's themes.

Ligotti is a far better writer than King and I find it bizarre he hasn't received as much press as King.

>>10170049
I enjoyed The Frolic and thought it better than some of other stories. Reminded me of an 80s slasher movie.

>>10169342
Its a great film what's wrong with you!

[Anonymous No.10170417]

It's commercial literature. It's good for escapism and not much else. Liked some of his books in the past, they were fine.

[Anonymous No.10170435]

>>10169204
>the last 10 years of his life weren't very pretty
Depression or what? Can you elaborate

[Anonymous No.10170524]

>>10163925
Stephen King is just a Hp lovecraft wannabe.

[Tripped? No.10170585]

>>10163906
The people on /lit/ who act self-righteous about Stephen King are the same ones who count how many pages they read everyday and admit to pedantic pseudo-intellectualism in >tfw type threads.

[Anonymous No.10170591]

>>10170171
>I find it bizarre he hasn't received as much press as King.
King has several decades of prolific publishing and many popular film and TV adaptations of his work propping him up. It's hard to beat that. Even more relatively well-known horror authors like Barker are a "literal who" as far as the general public is concerned; Ligotti has no chance.

[Anonymous No.10170617]

HELP GET ME OUT THERES KIDS HAVING SEX DOWN HERE IM NOT A PEDOPHILE HELP

[Anonymous No.10170668]

>>10170617
Time to float.

[Anonymous No.10170702]

READ LISEY'S STORY

[Anonymous No.10170829]

I assume anyone who likes King is less intelligent than me.

[Anonymous No.10170908]

>>10170030
I would like to see him go full shitposter (not saying his shitposting is great) with twitter since they are more or less powerless to stop him. What is Twitter going to do, ban the President?

[Anonymous No.10170919]

>>10170030
I would like to see him go full shitposter (I'm not saying his shitposting isn't great) with twitter since they are more or less powerless to stop him. What is Twitter going to do, ban the President?

[Anonymous No.10170955]

>>10170591
>adaptations

This is the only reason he is famous.

[Anonymous No.10171697]

>>10167717
>I can guarantee that, by virtually all metrics, I am intellectually superior to you
No, because, first of all, you read Stephen King. That already disqualifies you from being superior to anyone by any metric whatsoever, except maybe the pleb metric.

[Anonymous No.10171714]

>>10169995
>>10170005

Why do people like that book? It sucked.

t. final arbiter of taste

[Anonymous No.10171725]

>>10170015
>Is it possible to petition the american president to review more media?

Have you heard his take on Citizen Kane?

It's a very incisive take, tbqh pham. Certainly far more incisive than 99.9% of what's posted on the blasted heath that is /tv/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeQOJZ-QzBk

[Anonymous No.10171736]

>>10163906
I like him to an extent, but he is famous for being a horror writer and that is what he is weakest at.

He is best when focusing on characters with some supernatural elements thrown in, which is why I like The Stand and 11.22.63 the most. Alongside The Shining, which I don't think is a horror really, more a psychological thriller

[Anonymous No.10171768]

>ctrl + f
>jaunt 0 of 0

What the fuck?

Go and read it. A Legitimately good short story.

[Anonymous No.10171782]

>>10170171
I'd have to browse through the entire collection again to figure out where I'd rank everything, but I still think that The Frolic was a poor story to start the collection on.

>>10170435
Not him, but at that point, his career had been mostly dead for decades and he'd lived a lot longer than he'd ever planned or wanted. The Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas movie gave him a bit of a professional bump and he got a couple books of his collected letters published that were well received, but as far as his career goes, he peaked with F&L in Las Vegas, then burned out. The last few years of his life he was just writing sports columns instead of the hard-hitting stories he got famous for.

Within that 10-15 year period the other anon mentioned, he got in trouble for allegedly grabbing the tit of a porn director (the charges were dropped) and accidentally shot his assistant while trying to scare away a bear. (It wasn't fatal.)

>>10170955
The adaptations and his work being available fucking everywhere. I can guarantee you can find at least one of his books almost anywhere that sells them. His literary empire is self-sustaining at this point.

[Anonymous No.10171793]

>>10163906
i love how the president is the generic twitter troll now

[Anonymous No.10171795]

>>10170955
Forgot to add: the sheer volume of work he puts out means that he's got at least one book coming out damn near every year, which means more people have the chance to be exposed to him by sheer dumb luck. I honestly think he's got some form of hypergraphia.

[Anonymous No.10171797]

>>10164081
Those weren't that bad compared to all of the early Frannie chapters. I dreaded those

[Anonymous No.10171898]

>>10170435

He had severe health problems, aside from being professionally in the dumps for decades. He was a life long alcoholic, the whole drug image of his was mostly invented for his writing image. He did drugs occasionally, but he drank all day, every day, his entire life. He also did cocaine just to keep somewhat alert from all the booze he drank.

He was such a bad drunk that he had to have hip surgery, and he was drinking in the hospital bed, up to the point where they knocked him out. Even still, he went into alcohol withdrawal, and had to be put into a medically induced coma that they didn't think he'd come out of. He did eventually, then a year later he had back surgery, and this time they even gave him intravenous alcohol, but he still went into withdrawal and almost died. He was also shitting his pants regularly, couldn't write, couldn't do basic things around the house, could barely walk, so he kind of realized shit wasn't getting any better and blew his head off.

[Anonymous̩ No.10171939]

>>10164081
he does a good job, or at least an affecting job, of describing desolation and decay, which are things that hit a lot of people pretty hard but not everyone
I would recommend the unabridged version but either you already read that or you wouldn't like it since just about every part is lengthened somewhat, but I like the little asides, like the additional information on the Trashman and the "no great loss" chapter
honestly that chapter is almost a great short story on its own IMHO

[Anonymous No.10171969]

>>10163959
House of Leaves
Anything by Algernon Blackwood or William Hope Hodgeson

[Anonymous̩ No.10171983]

>>10170919
I would love to see them do that actually

[Anonymous No.10171987]

>>10164438
>spiritual pedo gangbangs

problem, anon?

[Anonymous̩ No.10171996]

best SK short story?
my vote would be for Suffer the Little Children or the one with the mobster

[Anonymous No.10173709]

>>10171768
Yeah the science behind it is whack but it's a really good story.

Mrs. Todd's Shortcut is also pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.10173716]

>>10171898
Wow that's bad.

[Anonymous No.10173917]

>>10171782
>I can guarantee you can find at least one of his books almost anywhere that sells them. His literary empire is self-sustaining at this point.
Only because of his adaptations

[Anonymous No.10173950]

>>10165387
the first 4 you mean

[Anonymous No.10173956]

>>10173950
I have to admit that I liked the Dark Tower ending and wouldn't have changed it. But yes, the series got away from King, especially the Wizard of Oz and self-insertion bits.

I remember reading something where King said he'd like to rewrite the series and omit the inclusion of himself among other things, but probably won't because of lack of time or energy.

[Anonymous No.10175003]

>>10167256
Doing coke in the 80s is like smoking cigarettes in the 90s or doing adderall in the 2010s.

[Anonymous No.10175029]

>>10171983
Twitter CAN ban Trump, but not without pissing off a significant portion of their user base, stocks taking a nose dive.