Stephen King: Does he really write scary stories?

King knows a great plot, but his writing is AWFUL, and beyond pedestrian. All of his writing is like a first draft.

I read Pet Cemetery about 1976, and decided I would never read another story of his, because they are too scary, and I never have. So there.

The Boogeyman was very scary, but I think you have to read it as a child to get the full effect.

....Though, I am watching Dracula Untold, as I write. It's not too scary. I had the news on earlier, but the prospect of President Trump has made me swear off the news until a year from now November, maybe later.

Not too scary. His psychological horrors are more fascinating than the monster stuff.

His cast of characters doesn't change, so if one dies off you'll see him/her in another novel.

I found IT and The Shining the scariest reads--the original film of Carrie the scariest adaptation.

I thought Gerald game was terrifying

I've read only one of his books, the 558 page tome "TommyKnockers", and never before in my reading history did I land upon a grossly long epic in need of a strong editorial hand. I never bothered to read a second King novel, ever.

Salem's Lot is a good one as well.

[quote]I read Pet Cemetery about 1976, and decided I would never read another story of his, because they are too scary, and I never have. So there.

That's impressive since King didn't publish that book until 1983. Of course his book was titled "Pet Sematary" so maybe you're thinking of some other story.

r8, King was heavily criticized for that as he wrote it in a cocaine-fueled frenzy. I loved it personally, I read it when I had to fly to the Cleveland Clinic to have a back operation. I thought it was enthralling, and combined with being on heavy painkillers, the whole thing was like a dream. A drugged out King is fine with me, it just supercharged his crazy imagination.

His early epics are the best. Not Carrie, the first, so much, although the story was great. I always thought it was crudely written though. His wife had to rescue it from the trash. But everything immediately after that is classic. Salem's Lot, the first one I read, The Shining natch, generally considered his best, and the apocalyptic The Stand, being made into a star-studded tv series followed by a movie. Dead Zone following, also quite good. Then some misteps, can't remember them, and another of his absolute best, "It."

So is he still the one writing his newer books?

[quote]I read Pet Cemetery about 1976, and decided I would never read another story of his, because they are too scary, and I never have. So there.

[quote]That's impressive since King didn't publish that book until 1983. Of course his book was titled "Pet Sematary" so maybe you're thinking of some other story.

That sounds like a Stephen Kimg novel...

He has a good ear for writing dialog. Yes, he wanders off subject and could be edited but if you're the kind of person who really gets into a story and hates for it to end , King is a good read.

He can be really good with things like The Body (Stand By Me) and The Shawshank Redememtion and Needful Things, but turn around and be unreadable like Bag of Bones.

The only King novel I read was joyland. I found it to be long winded and filled with cliches. It was almost unreadable

The book of THE SHINING is so much better than the crappy Kubrick film. Ol' Stan was great up to and including Clockwork Orange of course, but got a bit lost after that. King's a good writer. My favorite of his is IT.

R17 = Stephen King

Salem's Lot still holds up as a good book and one of his early book of short stores "Night Shift" is definitely worth reading. In his early works I think you can see the influence of writers like Lovecraft while his later stuff is just self-indulgent crap. But I agree that his psychological thrillers are the best. One of my favorites "The Body" (later made in to the movie "Stand By Me") is a really interesting story about this kid trying to come to terms with the death of his favorite son older brother.

Re The Tommyknockers mentioned above - that was one of the most enjoyable things of his that I read. I also especially enjoyed Needful Things, The Dead Zone, 'Salem's Lot and Hearts in Atlantis.

Generally, I think he's at his best with the novellas. The four in The Bachman Books collection are especially enjoyable as are the ones in Different Seasons and Full Dark, No Stars. I also really enjoyed The Mist and Eyes of the Dragon, which are comparatively short.

The problem I have with some of the books is that they start out really fine and you get quite interested in them, but then he seems to lose track as to how bring everything to a conclusion. I found this to be the case with Under the Dome, Duma Key and Rose Madder.

Some books are conceptually interesting but just don't work like Cell, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and Insomnia (which is WAY too long and I just gave up on it about 2/3 of the way through).

Some just don't work at all like Lisey's Story, Colorado Kid, Blaze, From a Buick 8, Firestarter, Thinner and the two he co-authored with Peter Straub.

I agree with a poster above who said, "His psychological horrors are more fascinating than the monster stuff." I agree and that's why I read his stuff. For example a short while back, there was a thread about the film version of Cujo, and some of us mentioned how the disintegration of the marriage and the effect it had on the kid was the focus - really the point - of the novel. Some posters thought that was stupid and said that the movie sounded more effective in that it focused on the rabid dog, which made me laugh because the thing is, that's why those of us who read King's books do so. They're not stories about monsters, but they are about what the monsters represent.

Is it possible that his novels suffer from the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" trope?

I found IT so terrifying I couldn’t keep reading. I’ll try again someday because it was a gripping story. My favorite place to read scary books is on an airplane. It helps turn the negative of being crammed into a small space into a positive because I’m surrounded by people not home alone afraid to turn out the light. Obviously this does not include an airplane-related horror books.

Salem's Lot is the only book that scared me silly. I had to read the rest in separate sittings and with every light in my house on...... The Shining didn't scare me quite as much because I lived in Colorado and have been to the Stanley Hotel (the site of the book/movie) and that grounded me.

I still wonder what the characters from IT are doing now. As if they were real people.