Kevin's Watch

Mostly I can't stand Stephen King, because he turns a line into a paragraph. It's really annoying, he stretches he's books out far to much. Don't get me wrong I think he's very creative, and apart from this one flaw, I like his books.

Something about the way he writes really appeals to me. Even a relatively boring one like The Tommyknockers, will keep me going usually. Although I did have to start that one 3 times before I finally finished it. I think it's just easy to read for me.

He's got that "In your face" style that is very appealing. I love the way he shifts POV, gets in everyone's head, not just the main character.

Eh... I don't like his style, but like birdandbear I just can't stop. And I guess I don't like how he talks about going to the bathroom all the time... I dont think it's gross or anythign to write about... just unnecessary imo. And I don't like how the people say "ahyuh" or whatever it was... I wouldn't have minded if it was only in one book but it bothered me being in most of them for some reason... I dunno why. But other than that his style is pretty good.

In all honesty, King's writing style is my biggest problem with his work. he writes very strangely, and it gives me a headache

Me too. Which is why I have trouble getting through his books.

It grows on you, at least it did me. When I first started reading him, it drove me crazy because he would go forward and backward and sideways...but now that I'm used to his style, it doesn't bother me at all.

I'll suppose I'll just have to get used to it

I'm not really a fan of writers which switch PoVs from one character to another within the same passages, but you get used to it....

But he takes about five pages to describe someone... It does get a bit stupid...

It's not that so much... He just phrases thing in a very peculiar way, and I have to make a conscious effort to try and work out what he was getting at. Also, I find his books tend to meander to their conclusion with no real sense of being driven there. I read in the notes at the beginning of The Bachman Books that King rarely knows how the book is going to end until he gets there - that could explain my latter criticism

I just can't stand it at times... I perfer Donaldson

To me King is a storyteller not a writer.

His style? When reading King he is able to break down the barrier between me and the page. I literally find myself part of the world he creates. I am not reading but observing.

It's like sitting around a campfire listening to someone tell you a ghost story.

I'm not reading, I'm experiencing.

Hmm, interesting. For me, the opposite is true. His strange delivery, his over-reliance on regional dialects and phrases that make absolutely no sense to someone from elsewhere (not just in dialogue - that I could tolerate - but he writes all his prose with what I assume is the midwest dialect) and the sense that he is making it up as he goes along, all combine to distance me from the story itself. It's hard to feel engrossed in something comes across (to this reader at least) as stilted and semi-intelligible at best.

Or maybe I haven't read the right books...

A very valid point Covenant. King is truly a regional writer. The things you say you stumble over are accurate reflections of the language and pop culture references that abound in North America.

In my opinion you folks may undervalue King's abilities. I have always found his descriptive talents to be second to none, and his ability to craft characters not in word but in their deeds to be top-notch. You'll note that he rarely EVER uses adverbs to describe character reactions. By the time he has drawn a picture of a character, you intrinsically KNOW theor reactive qualitites.

A very different style of writing from Donaldson, but not a lesser writer.

Old Darth wrote:To me King is a storyteller not a writer.

His style? When reading King he is able to break down the barrier between me and the page. I literally find myself part of the world he creates. I am not reading but observing.

It's like sitting around a campfire listening to someone tell you a ghost story.

I'm not reading, I'm experiencing.

For me, that happens with everything I read, and really King doesn't seem (to me) any better at it than other authors I have read.

I think King has four strengths:

Characterization - second only to George R. R. Martin, in my experience

Imagination - clever ideas, cleverly executed

Sheer storytelling

And fourth, and I think his greatest strength, is his ability to evoke the second half of the twentieth century in such striking and plausible detail. Time and time again, he'll bring up something from childhood that has me saying, "Yes, yes, exactly. I hadn't thought of that in years, but that is precisely how I felt when such and such happened." I'm just slightly younger than King - perhaps this quality isn't so evident with the next geeration of readers.

King does have a tendency to ramble, but for me, he's so entertaining, especially when he's on one of his humorous kicks, that I'll put up with the rambling. Even the books I consider too long for their plots, The Tommyknockers and Insomnia, were worth reading because of the afore-mentioned strengths in his writing.

here, here Roland. I am also found of his similes and metahors.

Roland has really nailed it. It's his ability to strike a chord of familiarity that makes him the author he is. I can certainly see how his peculiar Maine and New England dialects and nuances may be jarring to someone from another country.

P.S.
Gunslinger, Have you read King's "On Writing"? He describes in great detail his methods and particularly his disdain for adverbs. It's a very interesting book even for those of us who don't aspire to authorship.