He's unironically a great writer. IQfy just hates him because he reminds us that even a moronic cokehead boomer can reach more people and have a greater legacy than we ever will with autistic meme books like harassment architecture and mixtape hyperborea or whatever the frick. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's the best; some of his books are airport pulp like firestarter and Christine, but he writes legitimately meaningful novels with direct, clear prose that average people can read and find engaging. His books are a part of American culture. Everyone is familiar with his work even if they've just seen the movies. Because of this, he will be remembered as a master of the English language in 200 years alongside Dickens, Melville, Austen, and Steinbeck. Pynchon and McCarthy certainly will not because they chose to lace their books with unnecessary, gay prose so that pseuds would think that they're any deeper than King.
All of his books are pulp; his greatness is entirely in his unreal volume and work ethic. Now, if King had a few trustworthy, firm-handed editors that could trim the fat and polish the rest...
>his unreal volume
It's always funny to hear this. King really isn't all that prolific, and his writing speed isn't all that impressive. He writes between 2k and 3k per day, which is honestly not a lot. Hardly an unreal amount.
>65 novels
>400ish short stories
>not impressive
kys you homosexual contrarian
>meanwhile Shakeschud’s entire works can be condensed into a single volume
Luckily, with LLMs we’ve entered a new era now and can spit out thousands of novels a day so even a master like King can safely be written off.
>65 novels
>over a 50 years
Yeah, it's really not impressive, at least if you're just talking in terms of volume, and King himself would agree with that. I mean, Nora Roberts for example has almost that many books just under one pen name that's basically her side gig. Granted, some of King's novels are pretty long, but still writing 2000 fairly clean words a day when it's your full time job really isn't a big deal.
And just to be clear, I like King's books. I just disagree with the argument that his success as an author is somehow based on him writing more than anyone else. He's successful because he spends more time than other commercial authors on developing his characters, even minor characters. And he's a master of mind control. He knows how to control the mind of the reader, and he writes in a way that compels someone to finish reading his book once they've started. Other successful commercial authors are good at that, but he's better.
I guess it's not that impressive considering the quality of his books but I think it's still somewhat noteworthy and impressive.
I personally find the level of character development very tedious in King's novels. It undermines the atmosphere and tone of his novels.
>I just disagree with the argument that his success as an author is somehow based on him writing more than anyone else.
I think you are making an honest misinterpretation, assuming this is in response to
King has an immaculate sense of the low vulgarity of the common person and is able to articulate it well across different genres and contexts. Nevertheless, we find that the writing is utterly unspectacular and unmemorable, and not infrequently crass, cringe, lewd, or mildly disgusting without purpose.
It's pulp.
>King has an immaculate sense of the low vulgarity of the common person and is able to articulate it well across different genres and contexts. Nevertheless, ...
A fallen Dumas for the Americas and the times.
The Shining and maybe a couple others will live on as curiosities but the bulk of it is going to be worthless
he knows how to write characters, and he successfully branched out of being just a pure horror guy.
He cant write endings and he cant write black people, and he is a turbo boomer with lots of boomer references
>He cant write endings
That's his biggest fault. Having said that I enjoyed every book by him that I read
>implying that in 100 years King will still be accessible prose, rather than becoming as opaque to future readers as victorian stuff is to us
Carrie might last, the way Uncle Silas or Dracula have, ain't nobody reading his longer stuff
Just here to acknowledge a fellow Uncle Silas enjoyer.
>he writes legitimately meaningful novels with direct, clear prose
>he will be remembered as a master of the English language in 200 years
I genuinely love The Long Walk
He's a great short story writer yes
>Pynchon and McCarthy
lmao
filtered
get the frick out of here
>He's unironically a great writer
if by great you mean churning out popular shlock then yes I agree
I would respect Stephen King, but then he tried to become a public figure/moral authority.
All of his good books were written back when he was an alcoholic addict, after he got sober he just wrote shit, then 2016 happened and he lost what remained of his mind.
I don't know man, his books these past years have been pretty back to form even in themes and plots.
Nassim Taleb looks way different with hair.
He started power lifting and got contact lenses
around the time he started going bald.
That's some AntiFragile action in motion.
Some of his books are decent, the majority of them are forgettable, though.
hey now no need to shit on Mixtape
I prefer sutter cane
I really don't like his work, and I greatly enjoy reading horror.
A major problem with Mr. King's work: he makes a lot of his novels slow-burns when they don't need to be. Let's take Christine as an example. Christine could have been a really fun horror-thriller (a nightmarish and energetic teen roller coaster ride), but King somehow manages to turn it to a tedious slog. It's a novel about a self-driving ghost car that smashes a bullied teenagers enemies to bits. . .and has the pacing of an American realist drama. It's absurd.
if kang wasn't culturally significant he wouldn't have dozens of movies to his name. His books made it into film and television in a way few other writers have
King is a great commercial writer and 'story teller'. He has from very early on caveat'd himself as a middling prose artist and ultimately conceded to Kubrick after attempting his 'faithful' television movie adaptation. He is to literature what Bob Dylan was to music -- it's not necessarily obvious what quality is there if you're listening to the nasal midwest Barton Fink, but is more plausible looking at lyrics and adaptations.