Does Stephen King write any good books any more?

[Cleon]

The old saying goes, a million monkeys with typewriters will eventually reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. I think Stephen King is the inverse of this. The sheer volume of the stuff he's written means that while some of it is gold, a lot of it is complete crap.

Though I will say that I think he's at his strongest when he's writing short stories and novellas. Those tend to be pretty good, IMO.

 

[Alareth]

I can be characterized as a voracious reader. I've also been told the speed I read at, coupled with my retention of what I've read is "terrifying" (This was after reading a 340 page novel in less than 4 hours. It seems natural to me, some people apparently have a problem with it.)

That being said, it takes me forever to read King's books. I can only read a handful of pages at a time before I have to put it down and walk away for a bit.

Tommyknockers took me nearly 8 months to finish. It's not that I didn't like the story, there's just something about his writing that exhausts me. I've never been able to put my finger on the exact reason.

 

[Blackadder]

I like The Stand.

and a few others, but I have only read about 15% of his work so I don;t know much about it. I agree with Alareth about his writing. I have often read one half of a King book, only to discover 5 months later that I never finished it.

 

[Kittyclaws]

I am a Constant Reader. I buy each book as it arrives to the store. I was not thrilled or delighted with the gunslinger series but stuck through to the bitter end. Of his more recent work, I did enjoy the "Sunset" collection of stories and "Lisey's Story" was quite good. I've always loved "The Stand" except for the choice of Molly Ringworm to play the female lead in the made-for-tv version. Clowns still creep me out thanks to "It." I jokingly refer to customers' barking dogs as "Cujo", especially if they are small yappy dogs. The closet door must be firmly shut before I can go to sleep.

King acknowledges that he sometimes misses the mark. I think the comment went something like if he can't make it really scary he'll go for the gross-out or a laugh. He writes characters that are easy to relate to, that remind readers of someone they might know, and puts them in bizarre, scary, sometimes fatal, scenarios and lets us watch and wonder what we might have done. He wrote that most of his ideas come from asking "what if?" and letting the I-guy (usually the protagonist) go his merry way.

I am in awe of most creative people. If 90% of what emerges is a waste, it's often worthwhile to sift through to discover the 10% gold among the dross. IMO, King's stats are significantly better.

 

[tyr_13]

The old saying goes, a million monkeys with typewriters will eventually reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. I think Stephen King is the inverse of this. The sheer volume of the stuff he's written means that while some of it is gold, a lot of it is complete crap.

Though I will say that I think he's at his strongest when he's writing short stories and novellas. Those tend to be pretty good, IMO.

I think you will find that most things writers write is utter crap. That's been my experience with all the professional writers I've spoken too, and learned from. That's also been my personal experience as well.

The difference is that most writers don't get paid to have their crap put into books.

 

[Damien Evans]

I liked Different Seasons, but that's all I've read of his.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Tommyknockers took me nearly 8 months to finish. It's not that I didn't like the story, there's just something about his writing that exhausts me. I've never been able to put my finger on the exact reason.

Five years after starting it I still haven't finished it. It's been sitting in the back of my dresser with two more chapters and a prolouge to go and I just can't bring myself to finish it. I really and truly found it just that god-awful.

 

[calebprime]

I think most King novels are a good read for the first few chapters, then at some point they get boring and pointless. ...

I agree.

I love the feeling I get from the first few chapters of most of his early books.

Then, the battles, then the big explosions at the end. Mechanical.

He spoke of how much the hit-and-run accident took out of him.

In On Writing, he spoke of how writing is like getting the plane to lift off. This is something I've thought of often as I try not to get depressed about composing, and how my little Sopwith Camel seems grounded more often than not.

 

[alfaniner]

It's been sitting in the back of my dresser with two more chapters and a prolouge to go and I just can't bring myself to finish it. I really and truly found it just that god-awful.

Maybe because you're reading it backwards?

 

[Jason Smith]

As someone else noted, King's writes much better short stories than novels. His novels are just too long winded.

I wanted to like Cell -- it was Stephen King's zombie novel, after all. I liked the social commentary -- suddenly everyone listening to their cell phone becomes a mindless zombie. Sure the characters were cardboard, but this is a zombie novel, after all. No, what turned me off was the whole gestalt mind angle.

The Stand is his best work, even though at least 100 pages could have been trimmed, even from the originally-published shorter version. The anti-science / technology undercurrent could have been removed, but aside from these two quibbles, The Stand is still one of the best end-of-the world novels.

Everyone likes It, and I did until the very end.

What was the point of having the 11-year-old heroes celebrate their victory by having sex with the girl. That whole scene left me cold, and completely turned me off the rest of the novel.

You know, I wouldn't mind a novel or more short stories set in the "world" of his novella The Mist.

 

[gnome]

Regarding "It" ... that wasn't a celebration. But the real reason may not be any more satisfying once explained, so I won't dredge into it with you.

I have always found the endings of his novels to be weak, with the exception of "Firestarter", "It", and "The Talisman". Though he has many books that are a blissful read early on.

Lately I've only enjoyed his short stories.

 

[Seanette]

I consider most of his stuff a reasonably entertaining read (about the only one I really found dull was "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon"). The short stories do tend to move more efficiently, but I like his writing style in general.

I'm not a literary critic, just looking to be entertained when I pick up a King book, and he delivers what I'm asking from him.

The ending of "Cell" was frustrating, I agree.

 

[alfaniner]

I wanted to like Cell -- it was Stephen King's zombie novel, after all. I liked the social commentary -- suddenly everyone listening to their cell phone becomes a mindless zombie. Sure the characters were cardboard, but this is a zombie novel, after all. No, what turned me off was the whole gestalt mind angle.

You know, even that wasn't so bad within the context of the novel, but levitation?

 

[Jason Smith]

Regarding "It" ... that wasn't a celebration. But the real reason may not be any more satisfying once explained, so I won't dredge into it with you.QUOTE]

Gnome,

Please go ahead and explain it to me. I haven't read the book in 25 years, so my recollection of the details is fuzzy to say the least. What do you think the significance/rationale of that scene was? Who knows, you might even convince me to reread It.

Thanks,
Jason

 

[gnome]

Gnome,

Please go ahead and explain it to me. I haven't read the book in 25 years, so my recollection of the details is fuzzy to say the least. What do you think the significance/rationale of that scene was? Who knows, you might even convince me to reread It.

Thanks,
Jason

The scene, admittedly bizarre, occurs while on their way out after defeating IT the first time. They run into a problem that most storytellers ignore: the "group magic" that made them able to defeat the Big Bad begins to trickle away before they've escaped the sewers. Eddie begins to lose his power of direction, and they're in danger of being lost in the sewers. Beverly gets the idea that if she has sex with each of them, the emotional intensity of the experience will, in effect, "jump start" their group bond for one last burst to help them survive. I think it also ties into her confrontation with her father, somehow. It works, and they make their way out.

Within the context of the story I can understand the rationale, but in some ways it seems like an excuse to write in a sex scene. I've never quite made up my mind about it. I will say he didn't go for cheap thrills in the scene, indeed highlighting the emotional reactions that the plot device was supposed to be delivering.

Sometimes I think that he may have been as startled and appalled as some readers when he felt the need to include it, but didn't want to water down his inspirations.

 

[tomwaits]

The scene, admittedly bizarre, occurs while on their way out after defeating IT the first time. They run into a problem that most storytellers ignore: the "group magic" that made them able to defeat the Big Bad begins to trickle away before they've escaped the sewers. Eddie begins to lose his power of direction, and they're in danger of being lost in the sewers. Beverly gets the idea that if she has sex with each of them, the emotional intensity of the experience will, in effect, "jump start" their group bond for one last burst to help them survive. I think it also ties into her confrontation with her father, somehow. It works, and they make their way out.

Within the context of the story I can understand the rationale, but in some ways it seems like an excuse to write in a sex scene. I've never quite made up my mind about it. I will say he didn't go for cheap thrills in the scene, indeed highlighting the emotional reactions that the plot device was supposed to be delivering.

Sometimes I think that he may have been as startled and appalled as some readers when he felt the need to include it, but didn't want to water down his inspirations.

You've got it pretty much right. From what I've heard, King was pretty high on alcohol and cocaine at the time of writing, so that might shine some light on the bizarre turn of events near the end of the book.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I loved the ending of the Dark Tower. There I said it.

I was fine with the ending. It made complete sense in the context of the series and how it all started. That being said, the last 3 novels, overall, really were not up to par with the 1st 4 books in the series.

 

[MetalSeagull]

In On Writing, King says he doesn't plot out his stories beforehand, that he feels it is too limiting. And I think that's the root of what's "off" in his endings. Some of his books just seem to meander to an ending, or take a sudden turn into WTF-land, like Insomnia.

The Dark Tower series shows the flaws that come with not pre-plotting. The series contains seven books, not because there's seven book's worth of story to tell, but just because he decided it would be seven books long. The entire thing could have been pared down to 3 or 4 interesting books instead of 7 uneven ones. I'm ok with the ending, though. I actually find it more satisfying than the pre-ending. I just wish he had had the courage of his convictions and not put that "you're probably not going to like it" apology in.

I haven't read Cell, but from what was said about it above, it seems like a return to the type of ending he used in From a Buick 8. In FaB8, King's point seems to be that in the real world you mostly don't find out the answer to the mystery. Maybe in Cell the reader dies before the protagonist is able to save the world. (Please forgive the wild speculation based on one paragraph in this very thread.)


I haven't read anything of his since he finished the Dark Tower. Lisey's Story sounded good, but I just never got around to it.

I thought Bag of Bones was one of his better books but I rarely hear anyone refer to it. It had a good plot and a satisfying ending. Maybe a little longer than it needed to be, but not annoyingly so.

 

[Denver]

...

The Dark Tower series shows the flaws that come with not pre-plotting. The series contains seven books, not because there's seven book's worth of story to tell, but just because he decided it would be seven books long. The entire thing could have been pared down to 3 or 4 interesting books instead of 7 uneven ones. I'm ok with the ending, though. I actually find it more satisfying than the pre-ending. I just wish he had had the courage of his convictions and not put that "you're probably not going to like it" apology in.
...

I agree with how the books seemed to meander there toward the last few. I think the thing that really disappointed me about the ending was...

... the book introduced many details that raised a lot of questions (the beams, the different levels, the tower, etc) . I like that kind of thing, but I also like to get these questions answered as the end comes along. And in that respect, Dark Tower didn't deliver for me. I can only hope that Battelstar Galactica doesn't disappoint!

 

[tomwaits]

I was fine with the ending. It made complete sense in the context of the series and how it all started. That being said, the last 3 novels, overall, really were not up to par with the 1st 4 books in the series.

I agree.

actually find it more satisfying than the pre-ending. I just wish he had had the courage of his convictions and not put that "you're probably not going to like it" apology in.

The "apology" actually fits in the context of the ending. If Roland had only given up on his doomed search for what is in the Tower, he may have led a happy life with the people he loved. But his desire to see What's There forces him to live in limbo. Contrast that with King's warning to the reader that the journey is far more rewarding than the ending, and you have a parallel between Roland's quest and the reader. If the reader had stopped before Roland enters the Tower, he may have been content to know how Eddie, Susannah, and Jake all live happily ever after. But the reader always wants to know what is at the end, and learns the awful truth. That is how I understand it.

The ending does, however, give hope for Roland. He has Cuthbert's horn, which he had lost in the previous life. If he continues, he may someday realize that the friends he loved are more important than his futile quest to the Tower.