Killing Our Monsters: On Stephen King’s Magic by Sarah Langan

[charlesatan]

http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.p...775&fulltext=1

In defense of Stephen King

[JD Gumby]

Stephen King needs no defense. Except when it comes to the decreasing quality of his work starting in the 90s... (only good in the 90s was Needful Things, Four Past Midnight, Nightmares & Dreamscapes, Dolores Claiborne, Insomnia and The Green Mile. His only good book past Bag of Bones, and the only one I was able to bring myself to finish reading!, was Dreamcatcher :/) 70 & 80s were mostly great, with only a couple of duds, of course.

[xg4bx]

I never cared for King. I've read most of his books due to hype and I think the only good novel of his is The Long Walk.

[steven522]

The article in the OP seems a bit of a "backhanded" compliment and tears down King as much as lifting him up. Some of the things I agree with, but others I do not.

I also followed the article's link back to the original article for which this one was a rebuttal. It was reasons why the contributor of that particular article has resisted reading King over the years. To me, at least, it seemed less derogatory of King's work than the defending article.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Stephen King needs no defense. Except when it comes to the decreasing quality of his work starting in the 90s...

I wouldn't call it a decrease in quality, just a complication of his style to reflect broadening influences. It's probably the reason I can still read King whereas most of the horror/thriller authors I read in high school have lost all appeal. I haven't read everything King's put out in the past ten years or so, but I've read some good ones, including Duma Key, Full Dark No Stars, 11/22/63 and The Wind Through the Keyhole. I enjoyed From a Buick 8 quite a bit, too, though I wouldn't rate it among his best work. Even Cell and Under the Dome, which I would call two of his worse novels, still had B-movie entertainment value.

Dreamcatcher, though, was pretty awful. It was just wandering, muddled schmaltz. I actually liked the movie better than the book, probably for everything they cut out.

[VaporPunk]

Have to agree, Dreamcatcher is one of his worst books EVAH. Just an opinion though. Under the Dome was disappointing too, silly recycled characters, good guys were silly good, bad guys were silly bad, silly ending. Maybe its just me though, I've read a lot of his stuff and have aged considerably since I first read The Stand, which is when I became a fan.

[Quexos]

So what are we doing in this thread, bashing or worshiping Stephen King ?
I just wanna brainlessly go with the flow

[DarkScribe]

I have never been a huge fan of King's. Some of his work is interesting, much of it becomes boring long before I finish it. He is one of the few writers who I often put down and take up again days or weeks later. The primary reason I have read any of his work at all is that I am known by family and friends as a keen reader and I have been getting his "bestselling" books as gifts for decades. I have never bought one myself and would not consider doing so; there are always (in my opinion) better choices.

[covingtoncat73]

When he is "on," he is very readable and can make the pages fly by. I second the mention of 11/22/63 and Full Dark, No Stars as being excellent recent work of his. I have to admit I did give up on Under the Dome.

[miguel1626]

I'm a big-time Stephen King fan, having read all of his books up to Lisey's Story (2006). I'm with JD Gumby in complaining about the decreasing quality of his work from the 90s on... Nevertheless, I did enjoy Dreamcatcher, Black House, Everything's Eventual (he writes killer short stories) (not Buick 8, though - it felt just flat and pointless to me). The last 3 Dark Tower books were rather disappointing, though.

Regarding Dreamcatcher, I thought it was a pretty good book. The movie, on the other hand, was just awful. They managed to completely miss the point of the book, changing fundamental elements of the story, while adding nonsensical stuff. It's not even close to It or Pet Sematary, but I found it very entertaining.

But I'm probably in the minority here, since I actually liked Tommyknockers and Christine

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

But I'm probably in the minority here, since I actually liked Tommyknockers and Christine

I've never heard anyone have anything bad to say about either of those books. I think I read Tommyknockers three times as a teenager. Dreamcatcher seemed like largely a retread of the same premise (alien possession), and I'd throw it together with Cell and Under the Dome as being almost nothing but a premise, with forgettable characters and none of the "resonance" the article linked in the OP talks about.

Personally I think King had his duds in the '70s and '80s, too. The Shining and The Dead Zone were dull, wandering and maudlin, and Firestarter was just okay. I'm not sure if I've read Cycle of the Werewolf, though I thought I'd read all his stuff up through the early 'aughts. Looking at his bibliography, there was a long dull spell after Needful Things broken up by Dark Tower books, but otherwise mostly misses until he hit his stride again around 2008 (though I haven't read Lisey's Story, and some people liked it quite a bit).

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by taosaur

I've never heard anyone have anything bad to say about either of those books. I think I read Tommyknockers three times as a teenager. Dreamcatcher seemed like largely a retread of the same premise (alien possession), and I'd throw it together with Cell and Under the Dome as being almost nothing but a premise, with forgettable characters and none of the "resonance" the article linked in the OP talks about.

Personally I think King had his duds in the '70s and '80s, too. The Shining and The Dead Zone were dull, wandering and maudlin, and Firestarter was just okay. I'm not sure if I've read Cycle of the Werewolf, though I thought I'd read all his stuff up through the early 'aughts. Looking at his bibliography, there was a long dull spell after Needful Things broken up by Dark Tower books, but otherwise mostly misses until he hit his stride again around 2008 (though I haven't read Lisey's Story, and some people liked it quite a bit).

I envy people who can re-read books. They will never run out of things to read. Once I have read something it would be a chore to read it again. There would be no pleasure in it.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

Regarding Dreamcatcher, I thought it was a pretty good book. The movie, on the other hand, was just awful. They managed to completely miss the point of the book, changing fundamental elements of the story, while adding nonsensical stuff.

I dunno. Given previous King adaptations, I figure they did a pretty good job - right up until the ending. An even worse alteration to the ending than The Mist (the army coming to save the day just as the lead suicides, instead of the ending which gave him a shred of hope) or Cujo (where Danny Pintaro lives).

But I'm probably in the minority here, since I actually liked Tommyknockers and Christine

Tommyknockers (the book) was good, the miniseries mostly garbage. Christine is one of his best books (for me, right behind The Dead Zone [also a great movie], Firestarter [not a bad movie], and IT), but the movie is mediocre - not bad for an adaptation, but nothing special.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I envy people who can re-read books. They will never run out of things to read. Once I have read something it would be a chore to read it again. There would be no pleasure in it.

I am a major re-reader. It's like having more servings of a favorite dessert.

Much like people who revisit their favorite restaurant on a date, I enjoy re-reading books that I've enjoyed. I lost count of the number of times, for instance, that I read Anne of Green Gables, and all the subsequent books, by the time I was a teenager.

I'm the same way with my DVDs. The ability to re-watch whenever I want. Our family likes rewatching movies, but not nearly to the extent that I do.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

I am a major re-reader. It's like having more servings of a favorite dessert.

Much like people who revisit their favorite restaurant on a date, I enjoy re-reading books that I've enjoyed. I lost count of the number of times, for instance, that I read Anne of Green Gables, and all the subsequent books, by the time I was a teenager.

Nothing wrong with "comfort re-reading". With me it's mostly fantasy books. Eg, I regularly re-read LOTR and David Eddings' "Belgariad" series because I enjoy them so much.