If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Literary snob writes 4,500-word article on how much he hates Stephen King   (salon.com) divider line 177
    More: Obvious, John Updike, David Foster Wallace, Margaret Atwood, literary criticisms, fantasy literature, freakonomics, The New Yorker, morally superior  
•       •       •

4200 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Jul 2012 at 1:01 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-07 08:58:26 AM

phimuskapsi: The best books of his imho are Under the Dome, and The Stand. Under the Dome blew my socks off the first time I read it. I read it in 2 sittings of about 8 hours each, the way the whole story unravels is truly amazing.


Actually, my fav. SK book is "On Writing."
 
2012-07-07 09:03:21 AM
Checked back with this thread and I see the majority of critiques involve TFW being from Salon. This was originally published in the Los Angeles Review of Books and then reprinted on Salon.

/just sayin'
 
2012-07-07 09:17:42 AM
I grew up loving King's work, but I could probably write a 4,500 word essay on how badly I hated the last three books of the Dark Tower series.

The Stand and Salem's lot are my two favorites. Also, his short stories tend to be really good, too.
 
2012-07-07 09:22:11 AM

Uncle Tractor: phimuskapsi: The best books of his imho are Under the Dome, and The Stand. Under the Dome blew my socks off the first time I read it. I read it in 2 sittings of about 8 hours each, the way the whole story unravels is truly amazing.

Actually, my fav. SK book is "On Writing."


Same here. Gonna give the new one a try, though.
 
2012-07-07 09:26:48 AM
I finally bit the bullet and have started the Dark Tower series. I've read a lot of King (The Stand is in my top five favorite books) and there's been some duds for sure. But SO MANY PEOPLE have told me that the Dark Tower series is "life changing" I feel I simply need to read it. About halfway through Gunslinger and getting hooked.

Thanks to my good friend who had the whole series in electronic form...
 
2012-07-07 09:30:40 AM
I just finished '1922' from 'Full Dark No Stars' the other day. To anyone who thinks King has been phoning it in the past few years: You have forgotten the face of your father.
 
2012-07-07 09:31:36 AM
FTA:

>CONTINUE READING

...

No.
 
2012-07-07 09:47:22 AM

timujin: Why does it take 4,500 words to say, "He sucks at writing the end to a story."


His short stories mostly have great endings.
 
2012-07-07 09:51:08 AM

Uncle Tractor: phimuskapsi: The best books of his imho are Under the Dome, and The Stand. Under the Dome blew my socks off the first time I read it. I read it in 2 sittings of about 8 hours each, the way the whole story unravels is truly amazing.

Actually, my fav. SK book is "On Writing."


Danse Macabre went a long way toward informing my opinions about horror/scifi. Including realizing that while I love the Twilight Zone, it was mawkish, maudlin, and sentimental, and that Serling himself wrote many of the bad ones.
 
2012-07-07 09:56:58 AM

OnlyM3: I used to enjoy most of what he did, but he hasn't written anything worth a damn since that van knocked into him.


I used to think the same thing. 11/22/63 changed that for me.

/still not that fond of most of his works post-accident
 
2012-07-07 10:00:49 AM
The article begins with claiming "I'm the snobbiest snob that ever snobbed a review." AND THEN:

"I was mildly addicted to detective novels, though I was not the type to read them compulsively, filling a sitting room wicker basket with them, knocking off two or three Graftons or Parkers in the course of a rainy five-day stay on the coast of Maine. During a rainy five-day stay on the coast of Maine, I might read one Rendell or one P.D. James or one Leonard or one Sjowall & Wahloo. (Strangely enough, I'd developed my taste for crime fiction in college, when I took a course in twentieth century American literature that included two novels by Dashiell Hammett. This was a good two decades before it became hip to include genre writers in the American Lit syllabus."

Well, at least he enjoys books the plebes like. His repeated use of the term "genre novel" appears to be used as an epithet, as though some "literary" works couldn't be placed in genres as well. It is as if pretending Merchant-Ivory films can't be placed in a genre.

"I also read the occasional "international thriller" - John Le Carre, anyway - and I dabbled in science fiction, if Stanislaw Lem and Kurt Vonnegut and Margaret Atwood can be counted as science fiction writers."

Yes, you dolt. They are science fiction writers. Sci-fi stayed in the genre ghetto for years because the moment someone became good enough to be considered by literary critics, they were pulled out like Eddie Murphy in Trading places and groomed to be a NOVELIST.
 
2012-07-07 10:02:36 AM

Confabulat: From a Buick 8?? I considered that a complete waste of time.


The shaggiest shaggy dog story ever written.
 
2012-07-07 10:10:32 AM
Stephen King is the Metallica of writing.
 
2012-07-07 10:14:24 AM

Hetfield: Stephen King is the Metallica of writing.


To my knowledge, King isn't a gigantic douche-nozzle.
 
2012-07-07 10:15:25 AM
Mainstream literature sucks; or if it doesn't, it damn sure has nothing to do with me.
 
2012-07-07 10:19:13 AM
Stephen King is the Metallica of writing.



NAIL


HIT


HEAD




yep. That pretty much the best analogy.

There are SO many better and more original Heavy Metal bands from many years before....but Metallica is THE MOST POPULAR. BIGGEST SELLING.

Both King and Metallica steal cliches from their chosen genres ,water it down for mass consumption,rake in the cash from clueless,tasteless child-fans.

Hate 'em both



/ well,at least Metallica once had Cliff Burton.....
 
2012-07-07 10:20:19 AM
I've read a lot of King's work and he's published a lot of sensational, unpleasant drek and a lot of good stuff on the more literary side. These days he seems to alternate. Loved "Duma Key" but didn't enjoy "Under the Dome". (and was disappointed to find out all the sci fi elements came from a sci-fi writer/researcher he hired).

I would say "The Green Mile" and "Stand By Me" should go down in the American literary canon, but what do I know, I wasn't an English major in college.
 
2012-07-07 10:29:50 AM
I've read a lot of Stephen King. Always at the recommendation of friends. It really doesn't seem to appeal to me. I will say one thing, It really hasn't been translated to film very well at all. All of the film versions of his books that I have seen do no credit to the original story at all. Most are just bad.
 
2012-07-07 10:30:52 AM
forgot to mention, I have read a lot of HP Lovecraft (and HPL spinoff) and I also have read a bunch of classic literature, and made the tour of original Gothic fiction. Typically do not read modern pop stuff, suspense or romance novels.

Made it all the way through Bleak House, War & Peace, and Middlemarch. And the Bible too. Page by page, biatches! No skimming!

I'm on the 4th book of ASOFI (Game of Thrones) and stuck on a Cersei chapter -- I hate how George R. R. Martin writes some of his female-narrated chapters like fanfic. Now there is an area where King beats Martin: in the past 20 years or so, King has written female characters so well, it's almost like he's got a woman living in his head. Martin, I dunno.
 
2012-07-07 10:42:09 AM
The first 4,000 words of the article were good, but it really fell apart in the last 500.
 
2012-07-07 10:50:53 AM
I think that the issue is less about King, than the fact that editors don't really push him much any longer.

King was a master the short story. His stories were tight, terse, and delivered punch for every word. His early shorts were brilliant and efficient.

He has lost that. In part, because he wanted to branch into deeper stories. He wanted to deliver not just stories, but relationships, and that was the brilliance in It was not just the horror of a monster that fed on fear, who held a town in its grip, but the relationships of the kids, and how those relationships developed. You loved those characters by the end. He gripped you with these nested lives, and hooked you not just on the memories of those childhood friends that were your world, but those fears and hopes and petty irritations, and brought you back to those emotions that held you.

That grew with his other novels. He is hooked on the characters. Wanting to flesh them out, make them live. Unfortunately, that has come at a cost, and editors are leery of paring him down.

The Dark Tower is a lynch pin in his larger 'Verse. It is dealing with issues that he's working out, in his writing, in his life, and more. The first was brilliant in the tightness of the prose. He has expanded on that, and in part, that meta-story has branched out, and it has tendrils in piecing together so many of his other works. Editors fear paring back that process, and it has done him no favors.

Wizard and Glass was a great work, and about 150 pages too long. He had a great tale, and then tacked on another novella into it. And King's editor didn't nip that down. King works best under the gun of an editor who is strong enough to force him to be sparse and spare, and that hasn't been the case for a lot of years.

I love his characters. I love how he nests his relationships in. He peels back layers of motivations and how small town life can simultaneously have love, hate, affection and annoyance and loathing all rolled into the same people. How folks affect one another, how those relationships have equal parts consequence, and how we often have no idea what motivates those around us that we call ourselves closest to. King loves to show us what drives folks, to peel that back, and that does take time. But he needs editors to drive him, and that just hasn't been the case for some time.

I wish that he would go back to shorts, because his short pieces pushed him, and now he tends to wallow in the long game, and while some of the work is brilliant in how he nests those relationships, the larger work suffers because he has so much that he wants to reveal, and that expands the work to monumental proportions...
 
2012-07-07 11:07:59 AM

craigdamage: Both King and Metallica steal cliches from their chosen genres ,water it down for mass consumption,rake in the cash from clueless,tasteless child-fans.

Hate 'em both




Do better.
 
2012-07-07 11:16:58 AM

zamboni: Funny. He worked on it all winter and all it says is:

all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.

/x450


I read it as

No TV and No Beer Make Homer...something something
 
2012-07-07 11:35:17 AM

Fano: The article begins with claiming "I'm the snobbiest snob that ever snobbed a review." AND THEN:

"I was mildly addicted to detective novels, though I was not the type to read them compulsively, filling a sitting room wicker basket with them, knocking off two or three Graftons or Parkers in the course of a rainy five-day stay on the coast of Maine. During a rainy five-day stay on the coast of Maine, I might read one Rendell or one P.D. James or one Leonard or one Sjowall & Wahloo. (Strangely enough, I'd developed my taste for crime fiction in college, when I took a course in twentieth century American literature that included two novels by Dashiell Hammett. This was a good two decades before it became hip to include genre writers in the American Lit syllabus."

Well, at least he enjoys books the plebes like. His repeated use of the term "genre novel" appears to be used as an epithet, as though some "literary" works couldn't be placed in genres as well. It is as if pretending Merchant-Ivory films can't be placed in a genre.

"I also read the occasional "international thriller" - John Le Carre, anyway - and I dabbled in science fiction, if Stanislaw Lem and Kurt Vonnegut and Margaret Atwood can be counted as science fiction writers."

Yes, you dolt. They are science fiction writers. Sci-fi stayed in the genre ghetto for years because the moment someone became good enough to be considered by literary critics, they were pulled out like Eddie Murphy in Trading places and groomed to be a NOVELIST.


Well, if you're a critic, and you find a sci-fi or fantasy novel you like, just say it's "magical realism", and you're covered and don't have to admit you like that silly genre stuff. I mean, I was thinking about that reading the Gabriel Garcia Marquez thread from today: his stuff is fantasy. "One Hundered Years of Solitude" is a fantasy novel. But since he's a Nobel laureate, you can't say that it is. It's "magical realism."

That's a reason I respect Doris Lessing. Some critics tried to pull that move on her space opera series "Canopus in Argos", and she quite bluntly corrected them and said that they are most definitely science fiction. P.D. James, on the other hand, got all pissy when "Children of Men", which is a great sci-fi novel (and movie) was referred to as science fiction.
 
2012-07-07 11:36:56 AM

gopher321: Anyone who states they don't like Stephen King, I say Hey! That's cool. Tastes differ. But you want to get your socks scared off, read Night Shift's first story - Jerusalem's Lot.


Scariest shiat I ever read.


That book is why I will never own a home with stairs. I read that shiat during the DAY and it still messed me up.
 
2012-07-07 11:37:33 AM
This guy is upset that a popular author might receive rewards/accolades that an equally or more competent (but relatively unknown) writer may well be more deserving. The whole piece just screams of "butthurt". "Seriously? Stephen King? I'm way better than that douche! C'mon!"

Perhaps he is not the best writer on a technical scale, but I have found most of his work to be extremely compelling. That's pretty much all that matters.
 
2012-07-07 11:49:25 AM

jake_lex: Fano: The article begins with claiming "I'm the snobbiest snob that ever snobbed a review." AND THEN:

"I was mildly addicted to detective novels, though I was not the type to read them compulsively, filling a sitting room wicker basket with them, knocking off two or three Graftons or Parkers in the course of a rainy five-day stay on the coast of Maine. During a rainy five-day stay on the coast of Maine, I might read one Rendell or one P.D. James or one Leonard or one Sjowall & Wahloo. (Strangely enough, I'd developed my taste for crime fiction in college, when I took a course in twentieth century American literature that included two novels by Dashiell Hammett. This was a good two decades before it became hip to include genre writers in the American Lit syllabus."

Well, at least he enjoys books the plebes like. His repeated use of the term "genre novel" appears to be used as an epithet, as though some "literary" works couldn't be placed in genres as well. It is as if pretending Merchant-Ivory films can't be placed in a genre.

"I also read the occasional "international thriller" - John Le Carre, anyway - and I dabbled in science fiction, if Stanislaw Lem and Kurt Vonnegut and Margaret Atwood can be counted as science fiction writers."

Yes, you dolt. They are science fiction writers. Sci-fi stayed in the genre ghetto for years because the moment someone became good enough to be considered by literary critics, they were pulled out like Eddie Murphy in Trading places and groomed to be a NOVELIST.

Well, if you're a critic, and you find a sci-fi or fantasy novel you like, just say it's "magical realism", and you're covered and don't have to admit you like that silly genre stuff. I mean, I was thinking about that reading the Gabriel Garcia Marquez thread from today: his stuff is fantasy. "One Hundered Years of Solitude" is a fantasy novel. But since he's a Nobel laureate, you can't say that it is. It's "magical realism."

That's a reason I respect Doris Lessing. ...


Neal Stephenson does great fiction. He does great science fiction, he does great thrillers too--his political potboilers are fun. John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee series is brilliant in its simplicity, and with delves deep not just in politics and human relations, but they do it with a good yarn as well.

Moby Dick was a popular novel, not because of literary pretensions, but because it was a travelouge. Melville wrote of strange and far off lands, and he was the popular fiction of his day. King writes brilliant shorts. Pat Conroy plays with conventions as well.

If you find yourself liking only "serious" fiction, then you are missing out on a lot. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was fun. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was fun. Reading should be more than just about "expanding your mind." Play is how children learn. It is in play that we find new and interesting ways to apply knowledge. How we create. How we play is important. If you are only reading for "serious" reasons, you are limiting yourself, and it says a lot about you. These "serious" critics are missing out on a lot. Heinlein wrote young adult fiction as well as books about niegh immortal red heads, and those were just as important as Starship Troopers or Stranger in a Strange Land.

It is akin to the "Foodies" who snub street food as too "gauche" and "uncultured" but will tuck into BBQ when it's on a white plate with miso soaked beansprouts. What I get a chuckle at are the folks who are "surprised" that they like something, when they've refused to try it for years...
 
2012-07-07 11:53:35 AM
TFA: One reason that I may have turned away from King's fiction is that the genres (horror and fantasy) he worked in didn't appeal to me.

This is a perfectly valid and sensible reason to not read Stephen King's work.

My sense is that King appeals to the aggrieved adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adult, who believes that people can be divided into bad and good (the latter would, of course, include the aggrieved adolescent or adult), a reader who would rather not consider the proposition that we are all, each of us, nice good people awash in problems and entirely capable of evil.

This, on the other hand, reduces to "I hate him because he challenges my worldview." Worse, it betrays a lack of awareness of his worldview as a worldview: the people who read his works, it implies, have clearly never even considered his own way of thinking, because even the smallest level of consideration must naturally lead to complete agreement.

King may be an adequate enough escape from life, if that's all you require from a book of fiction, but his work (or what I've read of it) is a far cry from literature, which, at its best, is, sentence by sentence, a revelation about life.

That's not literature; that's very long free-verse poetry. One could argue that this is a kind of literature, and it is, but it is not all literature, nor is it inherently superior to other literature.

Not all art is pure self-expression -looking solely within the artist for its meaning and purpose- and no art is lessened by daring to look outward. To claim otherwise is to be nothing more than a genre-fanboy, and while there's nothing wrong with fanboyism, blind fanboyism -that is to say, fanboyism taken to such an extreme that the practitioner no longer even realises that he is a fanboy- is another matter entirely.
 
2012-07-07 11:54:13 AM

Wasilla Hillbilly: This guy is upset that a popular author might receive rewards/accolades that an equally or more competent (but relatively unknown) writer may well be more deserving. The whole piece just screams of "butthurt". "Seriously? Stephen King? I'm way better than that douche! C'mon!"

Perhaps he is not the best writer on a technical scale, but I have found most of his work to be extremely compelling. That's pretty much all that matters.


I was wondering if the author was laying out the trollbait by suggesting that you should spend time reading authors no one has ever heard of, since by nature reviewers exist to tell you what people you've never heard of you should read.


Also:
"One reason that I may have turned away from King's fiction is that the genres (horror and fantasy) he worked in didn't appeal to me. At an early age, I developed a fairly deep fear of scary stories and movies - this was no doubt partly the result of my mother taking me to see Psycho when I was nine; I still don't plan on watching the four-fifths of that movie that I didn't see when my mother and I and my friend Robin (who probably wanted to stay) walked out of the Uptown Theater in Louisville in 1960 - and I was, from an even earlier age, more interested in dog stories and the biographies of sports stars and Civil War generals than I was in the giants and trolls of fantastic fiction. When I read comic books, they were more likely to be the ones about Archie and Veronica than those about the gifted caped-and-body-stockinged figures that boys with bristly imaginations were supposed to gobble up."

This is the point I can safely quit reading, as not only does he sound like he needs to be punched in the snout, he sounds dully pedestrian. This is starting to sound like one long troll, and that if I read another paragraph he'll talk about how he prefers drinking Bartles and James Wine Coolers and going to Red Lobster for quality seafood.
 
2012-07-07 11:54:37 AM
I'm a huge fan of King. Yeah some of that post van stuff was bad but I think he picked it up again. I thought 11/22/63 was really good, and Wind Through the Keyhole was pretty good for what it was (a story, within a story, within a story) just not what I expected.

If you're looking for great literary works popular fiction is the wrong place to be. Stephen King writes compelling stories. That's what I read it for. I like books by David Morell too but I doubt if anyone would call his books great literary works but they're fun to read and that's the point.
 
2012-07-07 12:07:13 PM

jake_lex: I mean, I was thinking about that reading the Gabriel Garcia Marquez thread from today: his stuff is fantasy


What sets Marquez apart from most writers is the quality of his prose: effortless, elegant, beautiful. That's what makes him a writer, not just an author. It's unfair to label him a fantasy author just because some of his works feature supernatural elements from time to time.
 
2012-07-07 12:08:12 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: short


Salem's Lot, It, The Shining, and 11/22 aren't good books?
 
2012-07-07 12:08:33 PM
But what about the one where the recovering alcoholic writer from New England has to team up with a mentally retarded child with magical powers to fight off a usually ambivalent item that has inexplicably become evil?


/Defending Stephen King is like defending McDonald's food, and they both roughly use the same arguments.
 
2012-07-07 12:28:27 PM
King himself should write an article about what he hates about his writing.

images.wikia.com
 
2012-07-07 01:09:09 PM

baufan2005: Forbidden Doughnut: short

Salem's Lot, It, The Shining, and 11/22 aren't good books?



11/22/63 is not at all a short book. I gave up on it because it seemed to take too long to get going and seemed to over-explain itself. I hear it's really good, so I'll probably re-attempt to read it.
 
2012-07-07 01:26:11 PM

Confabulat: red5ish: Third_Uncle_Eno: Stephen King haters should read his book "On Writing".

King lovers should read it too, if they haven't already.

King has been phoning it in for years.

I disagree. His last few books have been a lot of fun. Wind Through the Keyhole is at least the third best Dark Tower novel(las) in my opinion. A lot of people have been regurgitating your line since about 2002, though, when you stopped reading him.


Stop the thread. There's a new Dark Tower book?
 
2012-07-07 01:32:31 PM

Ashtrey: Stop the thread. There's a new Dark Tower book?


eh, you're not missing anything. As I said previously, it's a book about Roland telling a story about how younger Roland told a story ("Yo dawg, i heard..."). The actual story that young Roland tells, which makes up the bulk of the book, is decent, but it's basically a fairy tale that has no bearing on the main story. Don't bother.
 
2012-07-07 01:39:53 PM
I don't read much fiction but King's short stories are my go to bedtime reading material. Sure, some of the plots are dumb as hell but, hey, I'm entertained. Plus it's 10pm. I don't wanna think too hard.
 
2012-07-07 01:51:12 PM

FeedTheCollapse: Ashtrey: Stop the thread. There's a new Dark Tower book?

eh, you're not missing anything. As I said previously, it's a book about Roland telling a story about how younger Roland told a story ("Yo dawg, i heard..."). The actual story that young Roland tells, which makes up the bulk of the book, is decent, but it's basically a fairy tale that has no bearing on the main story. Don't bother.


I'm one of those few people who liked Wizard and Glass, so it might be good to me.
 
2012-07-07 02:22:12 PM

Sgygus: One reason that I may have turned away from King's fiction is that the genres (horror and fantasy) he worked in didn't appeal to me.

Let me guess, this blogger doesn't own a TV either.

/probably insists everyone should call it a television


i172.photobucket.com

/not a King fan
//did like 11/22/63 though
 
2012-07-07 02:30:41 PM
Oh for Pete's sake, he used Christine and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon? They turned the latter into a popup book. And it was another terrible shaggy dog story.
 
2012-07-07 02:50:38 PM

Ashtrey: FeedTheCollapse: Ashtrey: Stop the thread. There's a new Dark Tower book?

eh, you're not missing anything. As I said previously, it's a book about Roland telling a story about how younger Roland told a story ("Yo dawg, i heard..."). The actual story that young Roland tells, which makes up the bulk of the book, is decent, but it's basically a fairy tale that has no bearing on the main story. Don't bother.

I'm one of those few people who liked Wizard and Glass, so it might be good to me.



I liked W&G too, though I thought it went off the rails a bit at the end. Honestly, I would either just download the epub file of the new book or get it at the library. It's not bad, but it adds nothing.
 
2012-07-07 03:04:53 PM

FeedTheCollapse: It's not bad, but it adds nothing.


I still don't understand this "adds nothing" gripe. The Dark Tower story is over; we know how it ends. Wind Through the Keyhole is what it is -- a really enjoyable group of stories from Mid-World. And it was a lot of fun to get part of the story told by Roland in first-person, I don't think King's ever done that before.

Yeah the part with the ka-tet was pretty shallow, but that's ok, Eddie Dean has grown to annoy me over the decades, and I never liked Susannah.

All in all, I thought it was an entertaining book, whether or not it "added anything."
 
2012-07-07 03:21:27 PM

Confabulat: I still don't understand this "adds nothing" gripe. The Dark Tower story is over; we know how it ends. Wind Through the Keyhole is what it is -- a really enjoyable group of stories from Mid-World. And it was a lot of fun to get part of the story told by Roland in first-person, I don't think King's ever done that before.


because I thought there were quite a bit of holes in the last 3 books, especially concerning the importance of the Horn of Jericho; though I understand that was somewhat filled by the revision of the first book and some Marvel comics. If you re-read the series with Wind Through the Keyhole between books 4 and 5, you get no new information/understanding, nor does it really stand well on its own. The main story (within a story within a story...) is pretty good and would make for a good read in one of his anthologies, but the Young Roland story felt thrown together quickly and kind of hand-waves away the importance of Roland killing his mother. The main Main story kind of segues the events of book 4 into book 5, but nothing important really happens.

My biggest complaint is the whole structure of the book. It seems like it was created after the fact as a way to sell the book and feels misleading in how it was advertised as tying into the series.
 
2012-07-07 04:43:29 PM

FeedTheCollapse: I liked W&G too, though I thought it went off the rails a bit at the end. Honestly, I would either just download the epub file of the new book or get it at the library. It's not bad, but it adds nothing.


I liked Wizard and Glass. The last 40 pages pissed me off though.

To be honest, I think I'd rather read 20 books about gunslingers when the world was moving on than read one with that douchebag junkie's horrible dialog.

That said, I think Stephen King is awesome. I haven't loved every book, but I've enjoyed all of them. Except that Tom Gordon one. I left that on a plane after 30 pages.

Also, this literary critic is a self-righteous c*nt that thinks he's better than other writers that he refuses to read but maintains his opinion that they suck. He's a f*cking hack douchebag that probably beats off his dog in the basement after blowing guys at a truckstop, but I'll never read his sh*t writing, so I'll just stick with that theory. He can eat a bag of dicks for all I care.


Favorite Stephen King books:

1) Dark Tower
2) 11/22/63
3) Full Dark, No Stars
4) Salem's Lot
5) Needful Things
6) The Stand
7) IT
8) Different Seasons
9) Half the stories in Everything's Eventual
 
2012-07-07 05:57:14 PM

Third_Uncle_Eno: Stephen King haters should read his book "On Writing".

King lovers should read it too, if they haven't already.


So much "this"!
 
2012-07-07 06:04:15 PM
The Stand has the most infuriating climax of any book I've ever read.


Salem's Lot, on the other hand, is amazing
 
2012-07-07 07:11:24 PM
Brainsick Do better.


do you want me to list examples?


who shall I start with?

King or Metallica?

....besides,NOT my analogy. My post is just a glowing approval of somebody else who posted before me.
 
2012-07-07 07:34:37 PM

craigdamage: Brainsick Do better.


do you want me to list examples?


who shall I start with?

King or Metallica?

....besides,NOT my analogy. My post is just a glowing approval of somebody else who posted before me.


You couldnt do better than either one. You aren't as good a musician as even lars, and you certainly aren't as good a writer as King, so why bother?
 
2012-07-07 07:38:00 PM

Madbassist1: craigdamage: Brainsick Do better.


do you want me to list examples?


who shall I start with?

King or Metallica?

....besides,NOT my analogy. My post is just a glowing approval of somebody else who posted before me.

You couldnt do better than either one. You aren't as good a musician as even lars, and you certainly aren't as good a writer as King, so why bother?


Yet he may well be a better analagist than either.
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report