So I tried a few times to read his books. I found myself giving up after 100+ pages on most.

I tried a couple of his audio books (It, Salems Lot) and came to a conclusion to why he's not the author for me (well for full novels anyway). But I feel a bit conflicted.

After managing to get through the whole books by listening, I think he does have an absolute talent for character development and character building. He also has a talent for expressing human emotion and thought.

But I have to say that the books are just so overly long and verbose to lose all meaning to plot. Its like a series of character vignettes with a plot going on behind the scenes.

Honestly I think its great the way he fleshes out ancillary characters, with full backstories and emotions, but the story just plods along.

I've enjoyed some of the movies, and some of the mini series, but in the totality of his work (mainly adaptions to be honest) they just don't keep me that interested. And he doesn't seem to know how to end his stories in a satisfying way.

Again, I'm somewhat of a novice, so perhaps I'm missing the gold and striking dirt.

I find his short stories much more interesting, just pacing wise.

So am I just ADHD, or are there books out there that I should read which would change my mind?

Again I am in awe of his world building, but I just can't divorce that from the overall product.

Thoughts?

Sorry, nothing to add but agreement.

At least I'm not alone!

If it helps, generally I've found that people who are King fans see all the things that annoy me as good aspects to his writing. It's probably mostly a taste thing, like how I see no purpose to watching most romantic comedies because I know that I generally don't like them.

Unfortunately King seems to be synonymous with horror and the horror viewing/ reading community from when I was young.

He's so ubiquitous that I keep thinking I've missed something when coming down to my evaluation of his works (again which are limited to what I have read/heard)

I think my main thing is that so many movies have been based on his works (and movies really are my main area of enjoyment) that I can't help but try and try again.

But I'm pretty much done, which is in part quite disappointing. Again I do think he is so popular for a reason....but as you mentioned...maybe just not the reason that I am interested in.

He seems like a nice guy and obviously "one of us" as far as genre...so I like him in almost an abstract way, but his works just bore me to tears sometimes.

Have you tried his short stories?

Yeah and I found them much more interesting.

Its probably just a style thing aspect to be honest.

Are you guys finished blowing each other?

Unfortunately King seems to be synonymous with horror and the horror viewing/ reading community

So does Koontz, but Koontz doesn't do a thing for me. Personal taste. Just to be sure, you did try King's shorter novels? Carrie, Pet Sematary, maybe Firestarter? He's more concise with those, so if they didn't work for you it's definitely a matter of his flavor not complementing with your palate.

>>9
Koontz is a weird one..I really like some of his stuff, others just leave me cold.

Yeah, I like his shorter stuff more.

yes I sorta said the same here about a month ago
I've read about 20 of his books, and it takes him 800 pages to write what he should of written in 300

Would you say he spends too much time on the characters, and their thoughts, or just being overly descriptive?

All of the above. I'm not saying any of this is wrong, but he needs to cut down on a bit of everything.

He spends pages and pages on stuff that ultimately is not important to the story, I remember thinking hell why did he even write that chapter it doesnt add anything to the story, in fact it would of been better to remove it an make a short story in itself. I think he just loves writing so much he just can stop himself

It's been ages since I read one of his books, but I did just read a chapter of The Shining online. Yea, I have to agree with what you and PopperTheFeistyPenguin said about too much unnecessary writing. He spends an awful lot of words on this Ullman character who is not an important part of the story. I would guess that if he was a new author, the editor would be quite busy with the red pen.

Yep I remember he spent pages on the backstory of one of the characters wife who had nothing to do with anything really in IT. Well fleshed out and believable, but meh why bother? Did nothing but stall the story.

I much prefer King's short stories (particularly "Graveyard Shift"). He's a poor screen writer, too. "Golden Years" being such a long, drawn out thing to watch was pretty much due to his plodding style.

Besides Dreamcatcher, which sure enough I abandoned, I've only read his shorter ones which I've enjoyed (though in the case of Carrie and The Shining, the films were better). One of these days I plan to take on The Stand since it's supposed to be his best... but also his longest.

If you can get a hold of an earlier publication of The Stand, you might want to give that a try. It is 800+ as opposed to 1400+ pages. It's the only version I ever read and feel it's his best work and in need of no expansion.

I agree with GSPdude. I'd find a used copy of the original version of The Stand and read that first. It's still long but it's not War and Peace long like the "uncut" version.

I enjoy King's stories, but not the way he tells them. I totally agree with you and zedzeek that he's overly long and verbose.

I too enjoy his short story collections and his shorter novels much more than his long bloated epics. I'm about a third of the way into 'The Stand' now and I'm finding it hard to summon the enthusiasm to continue.

His short stories are great though and I've loved adaptations of his work and I think he has a brilliant imagination, but I wish he'd edit a bit more.

I completely disagree.

I understand why someone wouldn't enjoy King's particular style of writing, but I've always found it a breath of fresh air. Certain books do feel a bit dragged out in places (It and Firestarter come to mind) but for the most part the copious amounts of development and backstory given to the minor characters really just helps flesh out the story.

King's horror is usually about US, and the things we fear. So adding lots of human depth to each character just helps draw you more into the story.

So yeah, I really like it for the most part.

Totally understand...hence why he's such a popular author.

Just not for me it seems!

I think you hit a lot of nails on the head in your assessment of King (for me, anyway), in that he is great at character development and world building. I'm a writer and when I read them, that's what I make sure to take notes of to try and incorporate into my own work--his handling of character progression and backstory. But sometimes (most of the time) his plot just drags and drags--especially in his more recent work, I feel.

I also think he's HORRIBLE at endings. I don't know what it is, exactly, if he writes himself into a corner, if he just gets tired of writing (God knows half the time I'm tired of reading) but for me, most endings to King novels just drop the ball. The Stand is a prime example. I think it's his best work, and I love the uncut version, actually, but I still hate the ending. It's so rushed and not earned at all, which is surprising given how long the damn thing is.

The uncut Stand is the best thing I've read from him. Not much love for the others, though the short stories are sometimes good.

I love IT and The Stand. But I didn't read them myself. I listend to the audio books. I agree, he does spent too much time on characters' backgrounds and other unimportant stuff. Quite often I felt that the actual plot came to a hold because of that. In their entirety IT and The Stand are amazing, but there is definitely filler in it.

Try his short stories.

I'm with >>27, go with his short stories. Everything's Eventual is my favorite collection of his.

I think it could just be a taste situation. I recently finished Joyland which was a good read to me about recollections regarding working at an amusement park, a supposed ghost of the victim of a serial killer at a certain horror ride, a sick boy who might see dead people, and encountering danger after he soon realizes (after investigations into the identity of the serial killer) who the "carny serial killer" is. I like the in depth characters, thoughts, nostalgic returns to the past while in the present, and the reactions to developments as the story unfolds. I'm currently reading Rose Madder about an abuse victim who has fled her cop abuser and his descriptions of what he has done to her and how she has both felt and acted regarding the situation itself has really left aghast and troubled.

You know what you desire in a writer and the development of stories and characters in them. If you are just not compelled all the way through, then the author just may not be to your liking. It doesn't make you a scrooge, because he's synonymous with horror. You like what you like. Simple as that.

Yep agree...just not my thang

Coming from someone who's in the last leg of the marathon call "IT", I completely hear ya buddy! Boy, does this guy bang on about stuff that is over the top in detail that doesn't add anything or intrigue me in any way. I'm going to ride this one out and see if the ending is any better than that piece of crap TV series ending (don't misinterpret me, I think Curry as Pennywise is a horror icon, just talking about the ending). I find it a trial to read his long winded stuff. There's little elements of great character development and horror but they seem so far between!

I was a King reader for about 30 years but I don't disagree with you. He does tend to ramble and either he doesn't do it all the time and I'd been getting lucky, or my tolerance decreased. He also repeats stuff a lot, as if to say "Remember this, readers? It's important. Remember it!" The last one I tried to read was Insomnia and I quit in the middle.

If you're still interested in trying something, I'd recommend The Eyes of the Dragon. It's a shorter fantasy for young readers, but it has some dark parts as I recall.

Read the short stories. I never touch the novels myself. They're way too long and drawn out so they get boring really easily. The short stories are great because they are really well told and well plotted out but also short so they never lose their suspense. He's got several collections of them and all the ones I've read have been really good.

all i have to say is sometimes he scores, sometimes he doesnt.

i just bought under the dome.

i like his older books, but never tried anything that new of him. let's see.

Try Duma Key and 11/22/63. Mr Mercedes is also good, but not horror.

I love King but some of his dialogue is bad (like in Pet Sematary when Louis says "IF you were I salute you for it." But if you want to try him out in a different style of writing that you might like read The Eyes of the Dragon. It was the first of his books I ever read when I was 13. It is different from the rest and very good.

I never read any of his books, because I hate reading. However, I have read a short story of his called "Survivor Type", which was really disturbing.

I still think he's great though, because I tend to enjoy most all movies based off his work.

I understand the criticism that he can get overly wordy and go TOO far in character building / back story etc. But for me the vividness of some of the characters and the horror situations in the novels successfully counteract that. His writing, at least for me, makes it reasonably easy to visualize the action in my mind.

I think Stephen King's better work is his shorter stuff. His early novels, like Salem's Lot, and the short stories he does are better because they're more compact imo.

Stephen King sucks you kingtard!

sounds like a king hate club!