>>7790407
they are shit.
Stephen King sits somewhere in between pulp and real literature. He's not exactly the former, but definately not the latter.
If that's what you like, however, I'd direct you towards Carrie, The Shining, Misery, and It.

>>7790471
>Stephen King sits somewhere in between pulp and real literature.

What about King's writing style brings him closer to pulp? Just asking. I read The Shining, and don't really understand the elements of fine writing.

>>7790407
actually the Dark Tower series is pretty dope. Books 1-4 are great, 5 is kinda meh, 6 is meh in the first half but it picks up again in the 2nd. I've got mixed feelings about the 7th desu senpai. As for the Shining, you're better off watching the movie. The book is alright, but Kubrick blows that shit outta the water

Oh man, it's not that good? I was under the impression this was one of the few King books worth reading. I read King fervently in middle school. My favorites were 'Salem's Lot (it was my first King book as well), The Stand, and I want to say Roadwork.

I've heard this is King's best book though.

>>7790523
>>7790531
I've only read this King book because the theme of assassinating the assassin intrigued me. It turned out to be a fun, medium-light book to read with some boring parts in the middle and a somewhat glued on love story. I'd say based on that book King can write alright. Gave it 3.5/5 stars.

>>7790407
Read Rage

>>7790471
>Stephen King sits somewhere in between pulp and real literature
Wow, I've been saying this for years and nobody has ever agreed with me. In different terms though: I've said that out of all the industrious popular fiction writers (Patterson, Koontz, Connelly, guys like that) King is the only one who is even relatively 'literary' and could probably write a genuine piece of literature if he wanted to.

it was kings most well done book in years, which isnt saying much - but over all yes it was pretty fucking boring.

bazaar of bad dreams was utter shit.