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.

(Boston Globe)   A handy graph of Stephen King's critical reception over the decades. Apparently they didn't know he was doing his best work thirty years ago   (bostonglobe.com) divider line 6
    More: Silly, JFK Assassination, chain reactions  
•       •       •

3760 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 30 Sep 2013 at 12:43 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-30 12:54:05 AM
2 votes:
He's an author in terrible need of an editor who's not afraid of him.

He's also far more capable at writing short stories and novellas than the novels he's known for. His pulpy style fits short-form prose much better (and the best movies based off his work have come from the short stories he's written).

Some of his novels are good, but mostly because they have memorable scenes and interesting hooks. The Talisman and Eyes of the Dragon are both fairly good novels that deviate from his normal association with horror.

I'll never understand why anyone could defend the last three Dark Tower books. The first three (and many parts of the fourth) are fairly good, even if The Wastelands gets a little weird. But wow, does the quality drop off from there.
2013-09-30 04:33:12 AM
1 votes:
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
Your average literary or film critic.
2013-09-30 03:42:51 AM
1 votes:

secularsage: I'll never understand why anyone could defend the last three Dark Tower books. The first three (and many parts of the fourth) are fairly good, even if The Wastelands gets a little weird. But wow, does the quality drop off from there.


So, the middle of book 4 was a good place to stop, then? Great.

I forgot what interrupted my reading it, but even though I had gone through the first three in about a week and a half, and was into the 4th, I ended up putting it down. A couple weeks turned into a couple library renewals, and I eventually returned it unfinished.

But damn, the first three were great.
2013-09-30 01:19:16 AM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: nothing he does is new or terribly interesting in itself but it's reasonably entertaining


not interesting, yet entertaining?

ok...
2013-09-30 01:13:42 AM
1 votes:

Confabulat: Big_Doofus: A bunch of cliched crap.

Yeah, but Stephen King made up a lot of those cliches.


I want to take the fact that I have a working knowledge of horror literature in the first half of the 19th century and just say "ha, ha, no" outright.  Stephen King is the literary equivalent of a competent pop artist, he's known to be reliable and reasonably craft-ful in his output but none of the individual works are anything particularly brilliant.  He sort of defines "generic" in terms of horror, nothing he does is new or terribly interesting in itself but it's reasonably entertaining.

But I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  What horror standards do you think King originated?
2013-09-30 12:56:01 AM
1 votes:

Big_Doofus: A bunch of cliched crap.


Yeah, but Stephen King made up a lot of those cliches.
 
Displayed 6 of 6 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report