Does Stephen King write any good books any more?

[alfaniner]

I just finished Stephen King's book Cell, which I picked up on sort of a whim to kill some time while eating lunch. (spoilers of sorts ahead)

I can't recall the last book of his I read, but I know I have read several of them and enjoyed them for the most part. But this one really pissed me off for all the time I invested in it and then it has an inconclusive ending. It's about some sort of pulse sent over cell phones that make people go crazy. That's the premise, but it has no explanation. He spends most of the book describing in minute detail about the travels the characters go through. People don't talk like they do in real life, and there is a whiz kid who seems to have figured out everything on his own.

The worst thing was the final chapter -- it's at the point where the main character does the thing he's been planning to do for most of the book, and after all this you're dying to find out the results. And it just ends before that information is given -- one more sentence saying so would have been satisfying. Oh, there's more left in the book -- it's a one-chapter preview for another book! I thought the story was actually going to be concluded and got blindsided by the extra but totally unrelated pages.

I have heard that there is a book/series where he actually says to the reader "Stop reading now, as the ending is lousy." Well, Mr. King, with all the time you put into writing a story, and the effort and money I put into reading it, the least you could do is provide me with a decent conclusion. I think I will stop reading now. Your stuff, anyway.

:mad:

[Denver]

...
I have heard that there is a book/series where he actually says to the reader "Stop reading now, as the ending is lousy." Well, Mr. King, with all the time you put into writing a story, and the effort and money I put into reading it, the least you could do is provide me with a decent conclusion. I think I will stop reading now. Your stuff, anyway.

:mad:

Yeah, that's his Dark Tower series. The last book warns of that before you get to the end.

And from what I could tell of your post, I was way more :mad: at the ending of that series than you were of this, if you can imagine that.

[Apathia]

I'm not one of his "Constant Readers."
I'm selective, and Cell didn't motivate me to read in the least.

I was quite satisfied with his recent short story collection, Just After Sunset.

[tomwaits]

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

[Alareth]

I've not read anything by King since Insomnia because he REALLY pissed me off buy turning the end of what had been a good story into an advertisement for the Gunslinger books.

[HarryKeogh]

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

I've come to terms with the ending. :D

I've read close to all of his books over the years. But when he writes a stinker...boy, does he write a stinker (I'm talking to you Dreamcatcher)

[JWideman]

He has been saying for awhile now that he's not the writer he used to be.

[joobz]

I liked the ending of both. I thought Cell was fun and silly.

The dark tower had the perfect ending for it. It's exactly what it should have been.

[Bikewer]

I had pretty much the same impression. The book itself was pretty good, and I liked the transition from straight "apocalyptic doom" to the emerging "intelligence" of the affected.

But the ending....

[joobz]

For those who didn't like the ending of Dark Tower or Cell, for which books of steven king did you like the ending?

[Ixion]

I have also read most of King's novels. I thought the ending of the Dark Tower series was appropriate. I did not like either Cell or Dreamcatcher. To me, Cell seemed like a bad movie script (you have scrappy teen taken in by tough guy, whiz kid who knows it all, and unexplained technological phenomena driving people crazy). Also, King gives a nod to I Am Legend by Richard Matheson, which I think is a great novella (and I didn't like the latest attempt to make that story into a movie).

I generally enjoy King's selections of short stories better than his novels, and I don't think King is nowhere near as awful as Dean Koontz.

I think the most frustrating story I have read by King is The Colorado Kid, where King attempts to write a hard-boiled detective novel. The reason it is frustrating is because there is no solution to the mystery, and King basically tells you to not try to solve the mystery because it cannot be solved. King uses the novel as a tool to enforce his belief that a good mystery should be enjoyable in its own merits, regardless of the presence of a solution. I disagree with this to a point. A good mystery is enjoyable because of the illusion that it can be solved, regardless of whether or not the solution is possible or true. I think this is one reason why people like Agatha Christie novels, conspiracy theories, and paranormal phenomena. People want to come up with a solution, even if the solution does not mesh with reality.

[LibraryLady]

I know I'm going to be slammed for this, but I don't think he's written anything decent since Carrie was published.

[tomwaits]

I know I'm going to be slammed for this, but I don't think he's written anything decent since Carrie was published.

How about It? I love that book.

[Darat]

I'm pretty much with you LL, he's one of those authors I put ion the "editor proof" list, meaning they become so successful that no publisher will put in place a good strong editor and support the editor for fear of losing the author. And it is very rare that a author doesn't need a good editor.

[quixotecoyote]

I've come to terms with the ending. :D

I've read close to all of his books over the years. But when he writes a stinker...boy, does he write a stinker (I'm talking to you Dreamcatcher)

I enjoyed the ****-weasels.

[MG1962]

I know I'm going to be slammed for this, but I don't think he's written anything decent since Carrie was published.

I am a litle more forgiving. Salem's Lot was interesting, as was Christine, and his Backman Novel, Long Walk. I would say by Pet Sematary it was all over :(

[Modified]

I think most King novels are a good read for the first few chapters, then at some point they get boring and pointless. He's written a lot of really good short stories though.

[Denver]

For those who didn't like the ending of Dark Tower or Cell, for which books of steven king did you like the ending?

The Shining I read when I was about 17, and loved everything about it.

[Skeptic Guy]

Salem's Lot was a good one, IMO.

[timhau]

Salem's Lot was a good one, IMO.

While good, Salem's Lot is not his best book. However, it is an amazing example of what a storytelling genius can do with a plot that has zero original elements.

Oh, and the turning point in Stephen King's writing career comes about two thirds into The Dark Half. The beginning is vintage King, but from there on he just runs out of steam and things get weird instead of scary. And a book or two after inventing weird, he invented boring.

[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]

[QUOTE=gnome;4486560]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.

[Jason Smith]

Gnome,

Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense in a way. I don't think I'll be rereading It anytime soon, because I still find the ending distasteful.

Jason

[RobRoy]

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.

None of the other books were on par with the first book, which was impressive in scope, especially given that it is the shortest of all the books, and more of a novella from his short stories. It remains one of my favorite novels, to the point that the over-sized paperback edition I have is about to fall apart from all the re-reading I've subjected it to.

That said, I found the entire series to be a worthwhile waste of my time. I enjoyed the characters, the setting, the conflicts and the resolutions. I have not read anything else by King, but I never felt lost when he interjected other peices of his work, or alluded to them.

There are times that I regret completing the last book, even after his warning. I put the book down after I read that and thought about whether or not I should take him to heart. But as he said, I'd come a long way with him, over years and years of waiting and then devouring each new installment. I didn't need to know, but I certainly wanted to know, and I felt like I'd earned that right.

[LarianLeQuella]

Stewie: How deliciously evil. It's like something out of Stephen King.
[flashback]
Stephen King: Now for my 300th novel, a couple... is attacked... by a giant lamp monster.
Editor: You're not even trying anymore are you?

[dudalb]

Warner's announced they are going to do a theatrical remake of "IT".
Apparently they are going to in some what happens in that book that was really not doable for TV in 1990..and would probably be hard to get by the networks today.
The Miniseries was just OK, but Tim Curry as Pennywhistle will be a hard act to follow.
But I would much rather they got the much superior "Talisman" out of development hell.

[gnome]

Some of the casting was really good in the original miniseries.

They're going Theatrical? The ability to include content that wasn't suitable for 1990 will be offset by having to cut most of the book to accommodate the length of a feature film.

Miniseries, people! Call HBO or showtime.

Now The Talisman, I'd love to see... though I think the 1980 setting made more sense for the hitchhiking trek. I don't know if I could believe a hitchhiking 11-year old in 2009.