Stephen King

[I, Brian]

What's the general perception of Stephen King here?

I have to admit, I only read a few of his novels - but generally I often felt disappointed at the end - as if there was no clear closure to the story.

And I had the misfortune to read "The Stand" - the unabridged version. It goes down as the most pointless story I have ever read - people die...some travel across america...some of them die...

Am I just being overly critical (as usual!) or does Stephen King have different flaws for different people - or none at all for some?

[dwndrgn]

I've only read Talisman and his book of shorts (why can't I remember the title? I can see the cover vividly...) and I enjoyed both of those but I have never been interested in the longer scary ones...just not my type. For goodness sakes, I'm the kind of gal that gets frightened by a glowing computer screen (admittedly it shouldn't have been glowing at the time as all power had been cut off) in combination with a glow-in-the-dark beer mug in the aftermath of seeing one of the tamest scary flicks of all, Poltergeist. It may be a reaction to the fact that as a small child I was taken to a real horror flick (The Devil's Rain) and can remember the horror today - and still have nightmares. So I can't handle anything too scary and I avoid it like the plague. I was also terrorized by my two older brothers who played on the fact that I was easily scared...the meanies. Funny thing is I've got no problem walking down dark alleys, wandering through graveyards at midnight (I find them beautiful) etcetera. Just the movies themselves unnerve me.

[littlemissattitude]

I actually like Stephen King's work, although I like his earlier stuff a lot better than what I've read of his more recent fiction. I think what I like is the fact that his storytelling is very straightforward - yes, even the really long stuff. I have to say that I really did like "The Stand" - although I didn't read the unabridged version. I also liked "It" very much, of the longer work. I must have - I read all 1000 plus pages in four and a half days. "The Dead Zone" is a shorter novel, and very good (as is the film version, with Christopher Walken; I don't know about the cable series, as I haven't seen it). So is "Misery" (although I really didn't like the film version of that one very much).

Now, to say that I like his work in general is not to say that I like everything he's written. I absolutely hated "Pet Semetary"; I felt like he played too much with the readers' emotions around the death of one of the characters. However, I still finished it, no matter how angry I was at him for using the emotional manipulations that he did. And there are some of his books, for example "Cujo", that I just will not read.

And, I have to say that my favorite of his writing is not his horror fiction. My favorite fiction piece of his is "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption", one of the novellas in "Different Seasons", an extremely mainstream story (of course, this is the piece that was filmed as the excellent "Shawshank Redemption"). I also very much like his non-fiction. "Danse Macabre" and "On Writing" are both wonderful, and insightful, books.

So, on the whole, I am a Stephen King fan but not a blindly rabid one. I don't run out and buy every one of his books as soon as it hits the bookstore, but I will have a look in the library to see what he's up to when something new of his hits the shelves.

[Foxbat]

I have never been a fan of the horror genre as a whole. I've read the odd bit here and there (mostly Poe). But I did make a point of reading one or two of King's books (mainly to see what all the fuss was about). I never read anything that made me suddenly become a horror fiction fanatic but he does come across as a man who knows his craft. He is a very good writer.

I think the problem with the stuff he writes is that Good somehow always triumphs (no matter how horrific things get in between) and I think The Stand is a good example of this. For me, Horror stops being Horror when you can read a book comfortable in the knowledge that the Goodies will always win in the end.

[I, Brian]

Certainly I don't disrespect Stephen King's talents as a writer - his creation of normality has always been very well comminucated, no matter the character being focussed upon. I actually find King's depiction of normal people and daily life much more memorable than his actual "horror" aspects.

For example, with "Salem's Lot", I remember vividly the protagonist riding on a motorbike, flirting, generally trying to get his life together. The early part of the book is great. I simply do not remember any individual scene once everything "breaks loose".

My particular concern that I raised was that his endings don't particularly neatly wrap - in terms of a novel. However, this is by no means an issue that is solely his.

Perhaps it's simply that I've never been a fan of the open-ended ending - no matter to what degree. I guess that's another thread, though.

As for the Stand - I simply never grasped the whole point of it. I never saw any real issue of conflict, or necessity to any of it. Surviving the flu virus was great - but the "Dark Man" (?) aspect never seemed to hit me in terms of plot. Everything just seemed to plod with pointlessness. Maybe it was simply that the unabridged version diluted so many of the necessary elements, and distracted focus from them.

[Marianne]

I have read all of his earlier works...at some point I just lost my appreciation of horror novels. The last one I read was Gerald's Game (I think) a very haunting tale...I have been wanting to read Hearts in Atlantis but never seem to think of it when I am looking for a book to read. Even though I don't read much horror anymore I believe he is a great storyteller.

[knivesout]

My father is a huge Stephen King fan, and when I was in high school I read a whole slew of King's books: It, Misery, Pet Cemetary, Salem's Lot (my favourite of his), Carrie, The Dead Zone, The Shining and a few of his books of short stories. All these were pretty good - well-written with believable (if sometimes standard) characters and excellent story-driven prose, if that makes sense. Then I ran into a few real clunkers, such as The Tommyknockers (this book is just horrid and way too long in the bargain) and some that just didn't appeal to me, like Gerald's Game and Rose Madder. Since then I haven't really stayed abreast - I read and rather enjoyed The Green Mile and another one who's name I forget. I followed his Dark Tower series for a while but diminishing returns seem to have set in, though I must say he deserves credit for inventing the western-fantasy!

My opinion is that he is an excellent story teller but one who looses perspective on his stories at times. His ideas are not consistently good and he seems to have no discrimination at all between his good ideas and his bad ones. I think if he was a bit more judicious about what he should write he would be a more consistently good writer.

Regarding the open-endings, I think that is a common element of the horror genre - some element of the story is usually left hanging perhaps to suggest that the source of the horror may still be at large, making for an appropriately creepy ending?

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by knivesout

Regarding the open-endings, I think that is a common element of the horror genre - some element of the story is usually left hanging perhaps to suggest that the source of the horror may still be at large, making for an appropriately creepy ending?

I mean - for example, with Salem's Lot - didn't you think there was something of the element of consequences missing from the final chapter? After all, what happens to the town and the people in it is going to have some kind of consequence, isn't it? I felt disappointed that I don't remember reading that being alluded to at the end. It made the events seem to occur in a bubble, aside from reality. Am I really just pining for him to write good epilogues?

[knivesout]

Oh, OK, that's what you were talking about! Then I'd have to agree with you - all manner of mayhem transpires in his tales but there is no sense of its effect on the larger surroundings or the consequences of the various things that have happened. It's possible to argue that that those are not what the stories are really about, but I do agree that it somehow makes the stories less believable in a way.
It's something that you see a lot of in action films. I guess you get used to it but it is a bit annoying at times. I certainly don't want detailed epilogues catching us up on everything else that happened in everyone's lives and so on, but some sense of the impact of these events on things would provide a better feeling of closure.

You know, it's been a while since I've even read any King. Maybe I should go dig out some of his stuff, see how it strikes me now.

[Morning Star]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I mean - for example, with Salem's Lot - didn't you think there was something of the element of consequences missing from the final chapter? After all, what happens to the town and the people in it is going to have some kind of consequence, isn't it? I felt disappointed that I don't remember reading that being alluded to at the end. It made the events seem to occur in a bubble, aside from reality. Am I really just pining for him to write good epilogues?

The straight to video sequel would answer those questions, of course, the only horror in the whole thing was its sheer crappiness. It makes Tommyknockers look like Citizen Kane in comparison.

I loved Salems Lot and while I know there were a number of substantial differences between the film and the book, I really enjoyed the film. I used to listen to the radio serial as well when it was on.

[I, Brian]

***** SPOILERS ALERT!!! *****




Well, with regards Salem's Lot - hasn't the protagonist burned down a town and killed lots of people by the end?

In which case, where's the looming consequence of state prosecution and death row? Or whatever ruse is to be used to get him out of that predicament?

I simply don't remember any consequence being inferred - which left the ending as not feeling like an ending.

The vampires are dead, the people are dead, the town is in flames. And?

You simply cannot kill people and have no consequences. To myself a story should reflect that.

My impression of King is that he does that a lot.

[Morning Star]

*******Spoilers for the sequel...for what its bloody worth.***********


In the sequel, they show that the vamps smashed a window in the cellar and escaped, then turned the whole town into vamps and used human familiars to give the impression of a quite little Kingesque town.

Utter bloody rubbish!

[knivesout]

Heh, I'm sure it was rubbish. I'd still agree with Brian's point that there is a certain sense of consequence missing in King's work, but I'd add once again that its endemic to popular fiction and cinema. Think of all those action flicks, like the Lethal Weapon pics, where huge chunks of masonry get blown up with little or no consequence, except a token portrayal of our heroes being chewed out by a superior, only to be reinstated in time for the next installment.


I believe this sort of thing may be called 'arrant fantasy'.
Makes you wonder why people accuse sf/f of implausability when so much of mainstream entertainment is just as implausible if not more so. But now I'm wandering into another topic altogether...

[Vodstok]

The only actual story i have ever read by King is Jerusalem's Lot. It was in a compilation of storis by, and inspired by HP Lovecraft. I liked it, a lot, but i dont believe it is typical of his style of writingt.

[knivesout]

Is this a short story version of what later became the novel 'Salem's Lot?