Why does /lit/ hate Stephen King? Or at the very least not think highly of him?
Too accessible. Standard /lit/ elitism.
Granted he has written some really shitty novels, but he's also written a few gems. It comes with the territory of having such a high output. There's also probably an anti-commercialist bent to the hate. I don't think too highly of him and I don't think I'm ever going to read him again.
Noticed a lot of self-insert wank. But then again what part of writing isn't ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
>>8147640
What did you last read of his?
>>8147625
Quoting The Recognitions:
He's written fifty of them. If he had anything to say you'd think he would have said it by now.
>>8147640
This.
There is something about popularity that supposedly and inexplicably cheapens a work's value for the worldly and well read scholar of /lit/.
So I would assume most people on /lit/ only really like his older works, so what are some of your favourites?
>>8147708
Anti-pretensions are just as bad as pretensions because you're making a show of how you're not a snob like the big bad elitists. It's all posturing faggotry.
Is there a single King novel that doesn't have an incredibly unsatisfying and disappointing ending? I can't think of a single one.
>>8147752
Might as well not read anything then in an attempt not to reveal any pretentious motives, one way or the other.
Yet, perhaps you may attain the most absolute form of pretentiousness if you refrain from literature entirely.
There is no escape.
>literally writes books about haunted typewriters and cars that come to life
It's like Goosebumps for adults.
>>8147765
I'm not talking about what you read. I'm talking about how you talk about it.
>>8147760
Ends are only satisfying if you asked for them. That's why they're "ends."
>>8147625
Because he's full on overkill with how much shit he puts out. Oh a book about a wolf in a cupboard, how interesting. Another about a group of people being trapped on a train station when it magically ends up 20km underground. Or a man that can teleport living in a supermarket.
It's unimaginative bollocks, and yet he's hyped as the greatest horror writer of our time.
>>8148057
He has a fetish for writing and doesn't know when to stop.
>>8148067
The best thing is he's also an oversensitive hypocrite. Professional criticism of him is often met with hostility, and yet he thinks he can criticise others without issue. He suggests new writers all need to be putting out a book a month and doing 1k of writing a day, and yet most of his early works were written over the course of several months. And he wanted to destroy the life of that drunk driver that hit him, despite also being an alcoholic/drug-user that lashed out at those around him.
In short, he's a cock.
>>8147760
Carrie
Because he's legitimately a shit writer.
>>8148085
most writers are a bit like that tho
an awful lot of them are special snowflake-type characters
>>8147625
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2007/aug/21/theonlyamazingthingabouts
>>8147760
The Running Man.
>>8147625
I dislike him as a person. As a writer of popcorn fiction he is good for what he is. Just don't expect to read a Great American Novel worthy of mental masturbation (academic discussion) when you read his books. He's said he is the "literary equivalent of a big mac" for Christ's sake you jackasses.
>>8148098
>people like your books
>see your books in a book-store
>sign some of them
>what a vain prick
dat jealousy
mind you i don't like king at all. not a single book of his i've read with pleasure, and i only ever got through one.
>>8147708
>popularity that supposedly and inexplicably cheapens a work's value for the worldly and well read scholar of /lit/
Breh, how new are you? /lit/ loves most of the Western Canon and is one of the least contrarian boards on 4chan.
It's because his work is commercial, not because it's popular.
>>8148503
>Pratchett
>Martin
>BEE
>Gaiman
you forgot palahniuk and douglas adams, reddit
Stephen King is the greatest American writer of the 20th century and will be viewed as a Charles Dickens-like figure by future generations.
As for the endings to his stories - the Coen brothers get their dicks sucked for their unconventional film endings, and King's endings are very much in the same vein. But The Stand, The Shining, The Long Walk, Shawshank Redemption etc. have great endings. Oh, and Pet Sematary. And Tommyknockers.
I think when people bitch and moan about the endings in his books, what they're really doing is expressing their extreme dislike of the child gang bang in IT.
>>8148915
>the Coen brothers get their dicks sucked for their unconventional film endings, and King's endings are very much in the same vein
Explain in more detail, please.
>>8147625
I am not on the /lit/ bandwagon of hate but I avoid him because he is not very deep.
Look, it's like this... he takes some shallow concepts and he attempts, sometimes with great success, to make them frightening. By that I mean look at Cujo or Misery or something. He makes a dog/obsessed fan scary. But... in the objective light its just a dog/crazy person. Salems Lot was just a vampire story.
>>8147770
This makes a good point to be honest.
I am a massive Lovecraftian so when I consider that King is aiming for horror and I compare him with Lovecraft... it is pitiful. Incomparable.
Langoliers was on point though. Even the shitty TV movie is entertaining to me.
>>8150631
>I avoid him because he is not very deep.
>this...
>But...
>massive Lovecraftian
>Lovecraft...
>pitiful
>>8147625
Because he's shit and he writes to make money. His style helped ruin the credibility of horror literature.
>>8150642
What are you trying to say?
Shiterature.
Hack author who thinks his political opinions are worth sharing at all.
>>8148671
He doesn't understand /lit/ had trolls.
The Dark Tower is good.
Some of his early works are fine too.
>>8148057
He's certainly the most prominent and prolific of our time, but it definitely seems quantity is what he favours rather than quality.
>>8148503
Very surprised Neil Gaiman and George RR Martin are on there. I guess I can't complain - those authors aren't my cup of tea but I don't hate their work either - but with the amount of people who dislike them here, I'm surprised they'd make it onto some infographic.
>>8148503
Obviously thats what I meant fag
>>8147625
he does better when his stories are shorter.
>>8148915
I'm currently reading 'IT' what do you mean by child gang bang? I'm confused
>>8147760
The Long Walk
>>8151154
Does he have any good short stories?
>>8150631
Just sounds like you only like existential threats. It's just a dog... Tell yourself that when it's tearing you apart. She's just an obsessed fan... Say that after she chops off your leg.
>>8151184
It's clearly at a point in the book you have yet to reach.
>>8151238
The nightmares and dreamscapes collection has some good ones. It also has some really bad ones too though. It's pretty hit and miss.
From what I can remember
>crouch end
>popsy
>the end of the whole mess
>the night flier
>dolan's cadillac
>suffer the little children
>they've got a hell of a band
Are all pretty good.
>>8147625
>>8152203
Derp face.
>>8152203
at least he is right about something
>>8147625
I remember liking Green Mile, but nothing else of his ever stayed with me
>>8151222
first and only one that came to mind for me as well
>>8147625
>>8147640
No, the reason why Stephen King isn't highly regarded on /lit/ is the fact that here we perish literature. Stephen King doesn't write literature, King writes stories. Some of them are good, some of them are horrible. But what they all have in common is the fact that they're not literature in any way shape or form.
>>8152607
Meaning the definition of literature which describes only books and stories which are extremely good.
Although lits version of literature is whatever they liked reading and everything else is garbage.
>>8147625
>Why does /lit/ hate Stephen King?
Classic contrarian belief you'll see on /lit/, /v/, /tv/, etc.
He's wrote a few good things. Shawshank, Shining and Pet Cemetery all come to mind.
>>8147625
If you've ever read Mr Mercedes, you'd hate him too
>>8148503
Seeing the graphic I wonder if it's due to trolls, or due to something similar to /o/'s Corvette v GTR.
Plenty of people like GTRs AND Corvettes, but the threads that talk about them are so full of shitposting they just give up discussing the cars..
>>8147625
Chricton is superior summer read. At least he's shamelessly pretentious in place of shamefully pretentious.
>>8152618
Look, you have literature, and you have pop authors. King is the later. When his references become outdated in few decades he's out. Time makes a selection and the good thing always come out on top, and the average gets forgotten. No matter how popular a work was at one point.
Do you maybe know the novel She? No? It's just one of the most sold books in English language.
>>8152773
Well, GTR is obviously superior. 4WD beats RWD. It's as simple as that.
>>8152845
>Trying to explain to me why King isnt good as if I'm the one that implied he was good.
King is a well known author with various stories and many movies made out of those stories. He's not going to be forgotten as quickly as "She" was.
That doesn't mean he's great. In fact he's not great. Perhaps these days if he actually tried to write something great he could but hes just trying to write about murdering someone somewhere.
Anyway, what is forgotten is up to the public, and quite frankly, there are a lot of "avid readers" who think Nabokov is a brand of cookies, and basically know about merely Steinbeck and Poe because of thier schooling.
Good literature isnt a test of time, nor popularity, nor fanciness of the book. Good literature is literally profound. Good literature also has nothing to do with how much you like a certain book. Books that are perfect literature can still be boring peices of shit. But they remain undoubtedly the greatest of books because beneath that is still amazing literary talent.
>>8152878
Did Alphonse follow me here?
>>8147760
Shawsank Redemption
>>8151238
Everything's Eventual is a good collection
Also Batman & Robin Have a Confrontation from the Bazaar of Bad Dreams
And
The Gingerbread Girl from Just After Sunset
1408 is really good, I think it was in Everything's Eventual
>>8152203
What an ugly mother fucker
And what a stupid politician mind "bouuuh the evil racist "
>>8148085
1K a day is nothing. He's absolutely correct about that. If you aren't getting roughly there then you're not even trying.
It's a bit like a professional athlete telling you that you need to be training for at least three hours a day if you are serious.
>>8148915
The stand didn't have a satisfying ending and you know it.
>>8154051
Forcing yourself to write a target, no matter how small it is, will only result in shit.
>>8147625
He looks exactly like a cunt lecturer that kicked me out of university for not attending his dull lectures (all of which he put online anyway), so you could say I'm biased.
>>8154051
Practicing writing for a set amount of time is much more useful than setting a word goal. One is focused on the process of improvement, the other is the outcome, a number of words independent of quality.
>>8152894
>Books that are perfect literature can still be boring peices of shit.
Do you think so?
>>8154598
Only if you have no idea what you're doing and there was absolutely no forethought that went into what you're writing. If you have a fairly detailed outline written up, it's possible to write specific amounts and get what you want out of them. Though of course that's not what King does or advocates, so he's retarded.
>>8154636
Practice writing is a tedious and pointless endeavor. Practice by writing what you actually want to write. Then practice some more by revising it if it's shit.
>>8154676
Didn't mean writing just to practice, but you will get better practice by focusing on time spent instead of words written.
>>8154636
Practicing writing for a set amount of time simply swaps one outcome with another: instead of my outcome being "write a number of words" it is "write for a specific amount of time." These are both outcome-directed methods. There's no difference whatsoever. The focus is still on the outcome in both situations.
The difference lies in how you choose to approach the method. If you self-aware and aware of your work or what you're putting on the page -- or trying to put on the page -- then no approach is going to help you.
Mindlessly writing, whether you write for a set amount of time or for a specific number of words in a day, is going to be useless. You have to be self-aware and self-directed.
Saying "I'm going to write for two hours" or "I'm going to write 2,000 words today" aren't means of improvement. They're goal-setting tools designed to help writers do their work. They neither promote or focus on improvement, their entire use is to encourage the writer to write. Improvement has nothing to do with the goals you set, but how you approach the actual act of writing, reading, and editing.
I would say you're putting the cart before the horse, but that's not really apt here. It's more like you're confusing the tires for the engine.
>>8154737
The more you write the better you get at writing, usually.
>>8152253
Go kys
What are his best books?
>>8147640
What are his gems? I've only read It, and "It" was complete horseshit
He writes for entertainment. He doesn't really have a "higher purpose" in literature like people who are trying to change the medium.
This is perfectly ok. Reading for entertainment is not a sin.
>>8147760
I liked Cujo's ending.
RIP AND TEAR
>>8151243
Not that guy, but if it needs that kind of confirmation from outside of the text, it's bad literature. The text itself should be able to make the reader feel why those things are scary, to cnvince them of the danger. You're pretty much going "oh you'll see, you'll see", and it sounds like a bunch of empty promises.
>>8148915
I've never once heard a decent explanation for why he thought the child gang bang was okay.
>>8155776
That's not his detriment, I'm sorry you believe that. Entertainment and literature are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that literature even depends on entertainment value more than "higher purpose". Stephen King's characters are mostly boring, his prose is at times pretentious in the actual sense of the word, numerous nods to the lamest aspects of pop culture (like hard rock and ACDC), to name a few. He's not the worst writer in the world, and he does have good ideas for plots, but they're executed in the most awkward ways.
>>8147728
Shining
'Salem's Lot
It
There's a lot of great moments in The Stand but fucking hell that ending
>>8147760
The Gunslinger.
Fuck the rest of the series.
>>8157960
finished the 4th book recently Wizard and Glass. Can i have all that wasted time back?
>>8157226
If he doesn't think severe injury or death are permanent threats I don't know what to tell him. Cujo is clearly going to start attacking people, if that's not that scary to the reader, fine. The Misery lady isn't dangerous at first but since you're reading a King novel you should know what to expect.
>>8147625
He's just not a real master, he's like the Steven Spielberg of literature.
So I never read anything by him, because he always seemed to be a hack.
Willing to give it a try, whats some essential Stephen King?
>>8158112
Are you incapable of reading or something?
>>8157968
would say 1,4 and 7 are the best.
So, no!
>>8158670
No, are you? Please explain yourself fully if you want to talk.
>>8159212
I'm talking about execution, not content. Excusing something because of it being scary because it would be dangerous in real life, while disregarding hom it is presented, is promoting shock value.
>>8158133
Stephen King is the Stephen King of literature.
Shure he's got a lot of stuff out there and its all well done. but its all the same thing over and over. but I'm not one to mock another artist's curse . hang in there steve you'll have a new idea soon buddy.
>>8150655
Not him but lovecraft is trash.
>>8159242
I'm not understanding. What wasn't scary about these things? It's fine if you personally aren't scared, but there is nothing objectively wrong.
>>8159820
It's not a matter of what you or me find scary, your argument simply isn't valid.
>>8158133
Spielberg is a great director
>>8159259
> and its all well done
It really isn't.
>>8159890
Not really. A horror book that isn't scary to some people isn't a failure, because people have different tastes. 50 shades won't be sexy if the reader hates BDSM, but that doesn't mean it wasn't intended to be erotic.
>>8147625
I hate him because he shitted up his magnum opus which I loved until the fifth book. I liked the fact that his insane version of the world held continuity, the first that I had encountered like that. his new stuff sucks balls.
>>8147728
His older short stories
Carrie
The Shining
>>8148503
Honoré de Balzac and Emile Zola
>>8147625
Because he's popular and it's cool to hate what's popular
>>8152203
>if you like the candidate I dislike you hate an entire section of the population without reason
No wonder his works are low tier quality wise, he is an uninspired non-entity
The Dark Tower series is one of my favourite sets of books I've ever read.
>>8161752
>people have different tastes.
Bullshit. People enjoy what they've been tought to enjoy or their bodies react to. Individuality is not a factor. People don't like random things, and authors like King who appeal to common denominators are the best example.
>>8162470
>People enjoy what they've been tought to enjoy
biology disagrees
>>8162481
At least read the whole goddamn sentence you dumb contrarian.
>>8162491
Sorry, your spelling of "tought [sic]" distracted me, I assumed the rest of it was moronic and lo and behold I was right. "Individuality isn't a factor"? What schlock, plenty of niches exist to disprove this and everyone has their own set of likes and dislikes. Trying to distill them down into easily understandable generalized groups and not recognizing that those groups are distinctions that exist in your head only is madness.
>>8162488
why is dfw on that pic?
>>8162514
>Sorry, your spelling of "tought [sic]" distracted me, I assumed the rest of it was moronic and lo and behold I was right.
That is a cute excuse.
>everyone has their own set of likes and dislikes.
Which are completely conditioned by their environment just like the rest of their identity.
>not recognizing that those groups are distinctions that exist in your head only is madness.
What's madness is thinking distinctions exist outside of perception. But that has little to do with the discussion. The point is that you're only bringing out the tastes card because you don't want further inquiry on your own tastes, because you fail to recognize them for what they are and are afraid of name calling. Rather than arguing back, or expounded on why the content or the technique of the author is effective, you fall back on non-arguments and sarcasm out of a misguided sense of shame, bringing the quality of the place down to your level rather than trying to contributing some of your effort.
I could be wrong about all this though, admittedly, hopefully.
>>8162560
>Which are completely conditioned by their environment just like the rest of their identity.
While I do think that environment plays some factor in the shaping of identity I would be erroneous to assume that it "completely" shapes their identity. I think genetics are a factor, I think experience is also a factor (which could fall under your definition of environment).
> The point is that you're only bringing out the tastes card because you don't want further inquiry on your own tastes, because you fail to recognize them for what they are and are afraid of name calling.
I'm actually not the person you replied to, I think you have me confused for someone else. If it helps I think stephen king is an average author at best. Also, are you implying that your tastes are somehow better than his with "you fail to recognize them for what they are"? His whole point is that people have different tastes, not that one particular taste is better than another
>But that has little to do with the discussion.
Starting sentences with conjunctions is grammatically incorrect. You haven't earned the right to break the rules like the greats yet.
>>8162583
>Also, are you implying that your tastes are somehow better than his with "you fail to recognize them for what they are"?
That depends on how we define "better". It's likely my taste is more refined (in the literal sense of the word) and better thought out than his or yours; but that's not something to be proud or happy about because it's just a result of my life, not the other way around.
I'm not trying to impose my tastes on him or you, it's the way you're arguing back that bothers me. If you wants to enjoy bad stuff, it's not in my power to stop you nor is it my responsibility, but at least you could have the decency to admit there's a difference between one work and other beside the bare fact you like it. I have my fare share of things I enjoy which aren't particularly good, but I'm not about to pretend that they are not what they, and I sure am not going to put in the work to baselessly defend something which gives me no way to make a case for itself.
Listening to /lit/ talk about literature is cringey as fuck. Kys.
>>8162646
Seriously? Why are you even here?
>>8162660
Because fuck you.
>>8162665
Nah. Gimme something better.
>>8162666
Everyone here sounds like fedora tippers who don't know the frst thing about literature.
>>8162675
Those memes are hella stale Anon. I expected better of you.
>>8147625
I read Pet Sematary last week.
It was okay. Better than a lot of shitty stuff that's floating around.
>>8162629
>It's likely my taste is more refined (in the literal sense of the word)
>If you wants to enjoy bad stuff [sic]
you make this too easy anon.
>you could have the decency to admit there's a difference between one work and other beside the bare fact you like it.
how was I saying that me liking a work and disliking another make them same? As if the distinction between two works are negligible if I admit that I like one over the other.
>I sure am not going to put in the work to baselessly defend something which gives me no way to make a case for itself.
Well if you know it's baseless then what is the source of the argument. My argument is that people have different tastes not that the tastes are somehow better than one or another (which I happen to agree with, but can also agree that some amount of bias can skew an absolute rankings of taste)
>>8162732
>how was I saying that me liking a work and disliking another make them same?
Equal treatment to unequal things.
>My argument is that people have different tastes not that the tastes are somehow better than one or another
The problem is that that isn't really an argument. This discussion began with some guy saying he didn't find King scary in comparison to another author, some other dude responded with no reason why that would be Anon's problem and not a fault in King's work, I pointed this out, then you(?) brought the taste argument.
>>8162753
but what scares you and what doesn't is also taste driven. there are common fears in life: height, darkness, public speaking, rejection, spiders. One person can find one of those things terrifying and the others not so bad.
He's overrated.
For a superior author who covers the same material and themes, read Richard Bachman.
>>8162771
You're completely correct, those things are determined by personal conditions; but the function of fiction is to play with conditions, so as to present things we would otherwise not experience in our life. Art is supposed to broaden a persons scope in life. Art which is completely reliant on the commonality of an experience to be effective, is not good art. That is my stance.
>>8162830
alright fair enough, we have different views on what art is and nothing will change that
>>8162923
What are your views? What makes you think nothing will change mine?
