Stephen King - hate the movies, any good books?

[Apache]

Originally Posted by HoopyFrood

Let me see if I have this straight: you've never read a Stephen King book, but you want to read one that isn't like what you think he writes, which you don't really know because you've never read any of his books. The movies based on his books are poop, pretty much, and you base your dislike of his books on the movies?

Geeze, grab a book, read it and then make your decision about King. Not liking an author, because movies based on his books are lousy, is pretty ignorant.

Stephen King can write some excellent short stories and a couple of his best are in the collection "Four Past Midnight": "The Library Policeman" and "The Sun Dog".

I use the example of the Matt Helm Books by Donald Hamilton. If you do not read them because you equate them to the fluff movies starring Dean Martin, you are missing a very good spy series.
Apache

[burnafterreading]

Originally Posted by taosaur

Also, yes, many mediocre and terrible films have had SK's name on them, but there are a few good ones besides the dramas. The director's cut of 1408 is one of the better horror movies of the past couple decades, and both Maximum Overdrive and The Mist are cult classics, though far from schlock-free.

Maximum Overdrive is too funny of a movie for me to read the book. it's fun 80's stuff, not scary or horror-y at all. never seen (or heard of) 1408, though... might have to see what it's all about!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Apache

I use the example of the Matt Helm Books by Donald Hamilton. If you do not read them because you equate them to the fluff movies starring Dean Martin, you are missing a very good spy series.
Apache

Hey. Don't diss Dino!

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Hey. Don't diss Dino!

+1

A favorite singer and comedian.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by burnafterreading

Maximum Overdrive is too funny of a movie for me to read the book. it's fun 80's stuff, not scary or horror-y at all. never seen (or heard of) 1408, though... might have to see what it's all about!

1408 was butchered for the theatrical release, so even a lot of people who think they've seen the movie have never seen the movie. The theatrical release trimmed something like 40 minutes and re-shot a 'happier' ending, resulting in a forgettable collection of jump-scares and heart-string-pulling. The director's cut, on the other hand, is a brilliant bit of psychological horror with Lovecraftian overtones.

Originally Posted by gmw

taosaur, bear in mind that "schlock" means cheap, trashy, inferior quality. It has rarely been a very good description of King's novels, even the ones I don't like. It is, however, a good description of many of the horror movies made from his books, as it is of many horror movies of that era (it seems to me).

"Schlock" can also be used interchangeably with "camp" or "cheese," which are not always disparaging. It can mean cheap in terms of production values, but mainly people tend to be talking about melodrama and adherence to genre formula. Whether you find all films that are melodramatic and adhere closely to genre formula "trashy," and the extent that production values inform that opinion, is a matter of taste. Personally, I like a little schlock now and then, and judge work of that type on its own merits.

And King has produced plenty of schlock. Salem's Lot, Carrie, and much of his early, straight 'horror' work, was quite schlocky, and only some of it endearingly so. More recently, Under the Dome laid it on rather thick, and not to great effect.

Originally Posted by gmw

It is possibly fair to write off It as merely a fan favourite, but I don't think that really applies to The Stand. Despite its length and other imperfections, it has garnered appreciation from quite a wide audience.

I wasn't "writing off" anything. I like both books and have read them several times. I'm a fan, and they're two of my favorites. They're also unquestionably self-indulgent--King being his Kingiest at great length, no editors allowed. Neither is likely the best introduction to his work. If you find yourself enjoying some of his work from the mid-'80s onward, you'll probably love both these books, but they may not be the best place to start.

[pistoli]

Im reading The Stand atm, whouldnt recommend it for a beginner with SK as allready mentioned!

[gmw]

Originally Posted by taosaur

[...]"Schlock" can also be used interchangeably with "camp" or "cheese," which are not always disparaging. [...]

We appear to be using different dictionaries. I haven't seen it used in anything other than disparaging terms. Even where people say they may have enjoyed something schlocky - as you do - it's with a sense of embarrassment or suggestion that it is in spite of the quality.

Originally Posted by taosaur

[...]And King has produced plenty of schlock. Salem's Lot, Carrie, and much of his early, straight 'horror' work, was quite schlocky, and only some of it endearingly so. More recently, Under the Dome laid it on rather thick, and not to great effect.

I wasn't "writing off" anything. I like both books and have read them several times. I'm a fan, and they're two of my favorites. They're also unquestionably self-indulgent--King being his Kingiest at great length, no editors allowed. Neither is likely the best introduction to his work. If you find yourself enjoying some of his work from the mid-'80s onward, you'll probably love both these books, but they may not be the best place to start.

You seem to be equating "schlock" to length and background story - which is where we disagree. I would go the other way and say that his various collections of short stories are where you find the schlocky material - nothing in them but cheap thrills, if you happen to like those sorts of thrills, which I don't much. There are very few King short stories I get much from. Some of his novellas are very good (as discussed previously), but it's usually his full novels where he captures my attention.

Even if I decided to accept your definition of "camp" or "cheese", I can't say that I see where that fits into the books you've chosen. Yes, some of the horror schemes in his books might be considered on par with some of the schlock movies, but in the longer novels in particular, the horror aspect is a small proportion of the work. I can't see anything cheap, trashy, camp, cheesy or inferior in the background work of his longer novels. They might be other things - such as boring, irrelevant, excessive - depending on your tastes, but not schlock.

[irishmac473]

I have not liked most of the Movies that were made from a SK book. I know what you mean. A lot of times his books are just to hard to make into a good movie. I've enjoyed all of his books that I have read. I would disagree that you should stay away from It. Such an excellent book. He writes this book so well that you can hear it, taste it and smell it if you know what I mean. I also second the Dark Tower series. Pick up the Gunslinger. Its a very quick read and if it grabs you then finish the series.

[Kasper Hviid]

Originally Posted by burnafterreading

so, are there any BOOKS of his that are NOT horror/slasher/macabre garbage?

Stephen King do not write slashers. Slashers are a movie genre, not a book genre. but I have heard that the first slasher movies where inspired from a similar trend in vintage litterature. But anyways ...

THE LANGOLIERS might be what you're looking for. Stephen King strays away from his usual territory here - it's a science fiction mystery about an airplane which suddenly isn't where it was supposed to be at all. Okay, there this one scene with some really graphic violence. But as a whole, the book as rather restrained.

I remember the movie as quite good, especially due to its awesomely ridiculous special effects.

THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON is about a little girl who gets lost in the woods. With a nine year old protagonist, King is a lot more restrained than usual, even though there is an element of body horror.

[Drakaea]

King was rather notoriously displeased with Kubrik's interpretation of The Shining, so I think that it would be worth trying to read The Shining and seeing how you take to it -- I think it's one of his best, personally, but my favourite King book is Pet Sematary.

[Tikker]

"Bag of Bones" was great
"Duma Key" was fantastic
"11/22/63" great as well
"Dreamcatcher" was also pretty good
"Revival" was awesome until about the last 10 pages, then it's like he couldn't think of an ending and asked a 5 year old how it should end

so frustrating


the one thing with Stephen King that you have to be able to deal with is his rather blunt foreshadowing

"....and that was the last time he saw her with her head attached to her body"

or similar