Does Stephen's Style Sometimes Frustrate You?

[Dark Reader]

I've been reading Stephen's work mostly in the order they were written starting with Carrie and i'm currently reading Needful Things. There are a lot of things about Stephen's writing style i love but after reading nearly 30 of his books in a row i'm starting to feel frustrated by small things.

For instance, Stephen rarely explains where certain weird things that happen in his novels come from, that didn't used to bother me but now i'm finding it does.

In The Stand i was left curious to know where the pulse came from and how it happened but i wasn't overly fussed about knowing, but after i read The Dark Half i was frustrated by not really knowing just how Stark came to be.

Take Four Past Midnight as another instance, The Langoliers is an epic tale but the ones that follow seem to thin on the explanation front, Secret Window was a tad confusing at the end.

It maybe me just not liking things left to my own interpretation i guess, do any others out there feel the same way?

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

No, there are more questions than answers, and I love that about his writing. Have you read DT7?

And don't you mean Cell about 'the pulse'?

Long days and pleasant nights

[Dark Reader]

Sorry John, yes of course i was thinking of Cell when i mentioned the pulse. But also Captain Trips poses the same ponderings from the Stand.

No i haven't sampled the mighty DT series yet, i'm planning on reading them last and i'm seriously looking forward to it.

Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of the books so far i've thoroughly enjoyed, but the ones that leave me with questions kind of spoils the enjoyment for me. Ones that Spring to mind are:-

The Stand
The Mist
Dark Half
Four Past Midnight (excluding The Langoliers)
Cell (which i read out of sync)

[Agincourt Concierge]

Then again, not everything can be explained away....that's the beauty of his writing...he wants us to feel some things are inexplicable...that's what makes them creepy!!!

[rjt65]

I love this about him.... why--it makes me think of the possibilities... Read the DT series (4 x plus!) the philosophies in there can help explain a lot.

Also reading the liner notes, and seeing his influences help explain alot IMO.

Re-reading lovecraft for instance.

Just like in the real world we do not have all the answers so the books mimic real life imo....

And dont feel sorry for posting some thoughts/ critisim of Sai King :eek2:...We all have opinions and some things that bug us in every thing.:biggrin2:

[Dark Reader]

Hmmm thats not how it comes across to me sometimes Agincourt, in most cases all is explained enough, but in some cases it feels like gaping holes have been left by accident or it feels unfinished.

Leaving something unexplained does not make something creepy for me, a well written and macabre explanation has far more potential for creepiness

[mstay]

I think a lot of people felt that way about "Cell". I know I did.

But in the other stories, I guess to me that part of the fun is using my imagination to figure out where and what.:smile2:

[LadyHitchhiker]

Sometimes SK gets a little longwinded for my adhd brain... But I love him, and just wait until my brain slows down a little bit.

[fulmoontat]

Only really one thing about Kings writing is the ability for most of the characters to know (usually) exactly what needs to be done and when it needs to be done. Sometimes it's explained as Ka, which I readily eat up, because, well, I freakin love it. Sometimes however it's simply explained as "I don't know how I know, but I think it's something I'm supposed to do.."
Which tends to get a little redundant. Is that going to stop me from reading King's work? Definitely not. Sometimes the things which few characters are required to do seem a little odd, ie. the sex in the sewer in IT. I suppose that is a means of transcending from innocence and vulnerability to an extent.. it's been 15+ years since I read IT but that scene seemed out of place. I should probably re-read the book, since I was 11 or 12 the first time around. (and how horrifyingly educational it was as well.)

All in all, it's the unseen drive which directs some characters in their actions. The "i know it, because i do" or "because that's what i think i'm supposed to do"

but then again, it's not like i could do better...

until i do however, i am content to leave my knuckles white and my jaw drooping as i paw through yet another one of his literary nightmares.

[DarkWriter]

For instance, Stephen rarely explains where certain weird things that happen in his novels come from, that didn't used to bother me but now i'm finding it does.


This is one of the things I like about his books. It leaves room for my imagination to take flight.
It also makes it to where you can read the same book twice and enjoy it just as much the second time around. If you read it with a different point of view or in a different frame of mind.

Of course this is just my opinion.




If you see a masked, blood soaked figure and it's not Halloween...RUN

[Ubasti]

I haven't had that problem yet except for Cell. When I finished it, I just felt like it wasn't finished and a lot of questions still needed to be answered.

[LadyHitchhiker]

I agree about the Celll, Ubasti.

[JillB30]

I understand what you mean about the bits that aren't fully explained but I would say that 1) Sometimes leaving blanks for our own minds/imaginations to fill in can be more exciting/intriguing/scary than spelling it out for us and 2)There have been things that I've thought were inconsistent or unexplained in Stephen King's books, but upon re-reading have noticed clues or hints that I missed the first time round - for instance, it took me a good few readings of the Stand before I noticed the connection between all the survivors of the plague. I think one of the things I love about Mr King's writing is that it can be more subtle than you realise at first.

[bopropadop]

[SIZE="2"] This is one of the things I like about his books. It leaves room for my imagination to take flight.
It also makes it to where you can read the same book twice and enjoy it just as much the second time around. If you read it with a different point of view or in a different frame of mind.

Great point, DarkWriter. I couldn't agree more. The books are very rich in their depth and breadth. One reading just doesn't do justice to the storytelling.

Also, as has been stated, many of SK's novels need to be paired with other works. On recent second readings of Hearts in Atlantis and Insomnia after I finished the DT series, I found that almost all of the questions I had during the first readings were answered.

SK's Works = Stories that keep on giving...

[Agincourt Concierge]

Please give me some examples of gaping holes...
The Dark Half....where did Stark come from??? Where did R. Bachman come from? Same can be said for Secret Window Secret Garden....a schizophrenic writer unaware of his alter ego...
I'm sure Sai King wrote these stories based a little on his own alter ego...R. Bachman is definately a darker version of Sai King!
In The Stand...what is it about Captain Tripps that you feel hasn't been explained?
I'm just curious about your questions, maybe someone on the board can shed some light on them :smile2:

[Dark Reader]

Only really one thing about Kings writing is the ability for most of the characters to know (usually) exactly what needs to be done and when it needs to be done. Sometimes it's explained as Ka, which I readily eat up, because, well, I freakin love it. Sometimes however it's simply explained as "I don't know how I know, but I think it's something I'm supposed to do.."
Which tends to get a little redundant. Is that going to stop me from reading King's work? Definitely not. Sometimes the things which few characters are required to do seem a little odd, ie. the sex in the sewer in IT. I suppose that is a means of transcending from innocence and vulnerability to an extent.. it's been 15+ years since I read IT but that scene seemed out of place. I should probably re-read the book, since I was 11 or 12 the first time around. (and how horrifyingly educational it was as well.)

All in all, it's the unseen drive which directs some characters in their actions. The "i know it, because i do" or "because that's what i think i'm supposed to do"

but then again, it's not like i could do better...

until i do however, i am content to leave my knuckles white and my jaw drooping as i paw through yet another one of his literary nightmares.

I know what you mean fullmoontat, in most instances Stephen writes this in beautifully and i just don't question it, but occassionally he seems to go a bot too far with it and i'm left thinking i just don't get it

For me The Dark Half and Four Past Midnight were like this, the very fact of Stark's existence in the Dark Half didn't sit right for me, it could have though if it was explained at all. Although i'm three quarters of the way through Needful Things now and it seems Alan is still struggling with Starks short existence too :smile2:

[rock_queen01]

I just wanna say that:
That's actually the beauty of his writing my dear!
The beauty of possibilities!
The beauty of opening new windows in your imagination!
Please think deeply now!
Reread you "30" or more novels from a more imaginative view!
Thank You!

[JohnDalglish]

I just wanna say that:
That's actually the beauty of his writing my dear!
The beauty of possibilities!
The beauty of opening new windows in your imagination!
Please think deeply now!
Reread you "30" or more novels from a more imaginative view!
Thank You!

Hi,

Aye.

AWrqS (and What rock queen Said).

Long days and pleasant nights

[Dark Reader]

Please give me some examples of gaping holes...
The Dark Half....where did Stark come from??? Where did R. Bachman come from? Same can be said for Secret Window Secret Garden....a schizophrenic writer unaware of his alter ego...
I'm sure Sai King wrote these stories based a little on his own alter ego...R. Bachman is definately a darker version of Sai King!
In The Stand...what is it about Captain Tripps that you feel hasn't been explained?
I'm just curious about your questions, maybe someone on the board can shed some light on them :smile2:

No worries Agincourt

For the Dalk Half, Stark is from Thad's mind as Bachman is from King's mind but that is where Bachman stayed, to me it seemed that Stephen went a little too strange in the perios where he wrote the Dark Half and Four Past Midnight.

In all the other works i've read of his so far a strange manifestation's origin and the way it has come about is explained, some explanations are clearer than others but an explanation is there, in the Dark Half there is no explanation at all to how Stark came to be and i therefore find the story difficult to enjoy with that missing.

In Four Past Midnight i struggled with Secret Window, The Sun Dog and i suppose The Library Policeman to a certain extent. In The Library Policeman and The Sun Dog its the origins of the manifestation and the lack of explanations again but its the end of the Secret Window that screwed me up, all seemed straight forward until Stephen tried to add a twist at the end that just didn't work to me.

The Stand is a great book but it could have been better for me personally if Stephen had expanded it to include what effect Captain Tripps had on the rest of the world. I also think the characters should have questioned and investigated the greater powers that seemed to be influencing them more.

Cell and The Mist from Skeleton Crew to me both appear unfinished. Cell's ending i think is supposed to be clever when in fact to me is not, its a complete let down. The Mist should have been a novel itself, it is brilliant up to when it ended and has so much potential that i don't understand why Stephen didn't carry it on.

Anyways, those are my ponderings on what i've read of King so far and with the exception of Insomnia and Cell has been everything from his first book Carrie to Needful Things (apart from DT which i'm saving 'til last)

[carolina Girl]

Writing is art form . He is trying to be creative with the story and stretch people's
imagination .That's part of the creative process.:oh:

[Agincourt Concierge]

Thanks for all that, I am going to ponder on it, awhile...maybe the Tet-Mates can offer some light on things, too!

[aussiewonder]

I love this about his writing, I am reading DT7 now, and just trying to wrap my mind around the visuals he sets up keeps me busy, trying to come up with my own answers as to "what does that mean" or "where does that fit in" is part of the enjoyment for me.

[mojomofo]

It doesn't frustrate me- I tend to look at it as being about the journey, not about the destination. I think SK's books and characters are a fairly accurate portrayal of human nature and life in general- it is not always pretty, but you can find the beauty if you look. It is not neat and tidy, things get messy and are left unfinished. There are not always answers, sometimes one just never knows. So I am cool with that:cool::biggrin2:

[psj77]

It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I love about Mr. King. I will give you a major heads up though. If you get frustrated easy Stay away from N.

[treasures]

Newbie here,

I don't care about the "holes" in stories, my own imagination fills in the blanks. I just love the way the man writes. BTW, I truly adored the ending of the Tower series. Couldn't have ended any different. IMHO.

[Dark Reader]

It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I love about Mr. King. I will give you a major heads up though. If you get frustrated easy Stay away from N.

Great, you know i'm not going to be able to resist reading it now though don't you? :biggrin2:

I'd just like to add that i am able to fill the blanks in myself but i'd prefer it if Stephen did it for me, besides i generally believe he could fill in the blanks far better than i ever could

[JohnDalglish]

Newbie here,

I don't care about the "holes" in stories, my own imagination fills in the blanks. I just love the way the man writes. BTW, I truly adored the ending of the Tower series. Couldn't have ended any different. IMHO.

Hi,

Absolutely!

Welcome to the MB, and keep posting!

Long days and pleasant nights

[MadamMack]

Then again, not everything can be explained away....that's the beauty of his writing...he wants us to feel some things are inexplicable...that's what makes them creepy!!!

Ditto . . .I enjoy making my own conclusions.

[Agincourt Concierge]

Back at you DarkReader...After much thought...
Here's a couple quotes from Sai King on an article he wrote about imagery and the 3rd eye.
http://www.wordplayer.com/pros/pr13.King.Stephen.html

"The reader has his or her own third eye; the job of the writer is only to provide a spectacle for it."

"If I can say anything important to writers who are still learning the craft of fiction, it's this: imagery does not occur on the writer's page; it occurs in the reader's mind. To describe everything is to supply a photograph in words; to indicate the points which seem the most vivid and important to you, the writer, is to allow the reader to flesh out your sketch into a portrait."

Maybe it is personal preference, but I like being able to use my imagination to fill in the "holes"....my imagination (all our imaginations) can come up with some pretty scary stuff...and I think this is what Sai King is counting on!
Personally,when I read, I don't want everything spoon-fed to me, I want to make my brain work for those answers (at least a little)...but that is just me and everyone is different :smile2:

[Dark Reader]

Good point Agincourt, didn't Stephen say something similar in On Writing?

I suppose its a delicate balancing act, over describing / spoon feeding and under describing / relying on the readers imagination too much. I guess everyones level of imagination is different and i suppose its hard to please everyone consistently.

[booler]

I would have to agree with you that certain books of his are annoying, for me they are:
Thinner and Christine
For some reason I just hate these books.
In general I find he is usually capable of suspending my disbelief, and make me love most of his books. For me it is not so important that I find his story realistic, or probable, as long as it is either entertaining, or has interesting ideas I would never had pondered myself.
I think if you were to read 30 books in a row by any author you are bound to come across a stinker or two...

[Haunted]

This is one of the things I like about his books. It leaves room for my imagination to take flight.
It also makes it to where you can read the same book twice and enjoy it just as much the second time around. If you read it with a different point of view or in a different frame of mind.

Of course this is just my opinion.




If you see a masked, blood soaked figure and it's not Halloween...RUN

AWDW--Being able to use our imagination...isn't that why we love to read?

[Dark Reader]

AWDW--Being able to use our imagination...isn't that why we love to read?


Yes and no, i do love to use my imagination as i read but i like to use it to create the world which the author is trying to convey and not fill in the wholes that the author has left, i suppose i just like stories and if a story is unfinished or its left up to me to decide how something came to be i just see it as an incomplete story


I'm starting to think that Stephen has gone through phases, i found his first two books felt to me like he was trying to find his style and wasn't quite there, it was as if there was a certain quality missing in Carrie and Salem's Lot.

However from The Shining all the way through to The Running Man i thoroughly enjoyed every single one of them. Stephen has found his style and its first rate.

Then i found that the next two books, Pet Cemetry and Christine, felt like Stephen had lost his way a little and was maybe feeling like moving into a new direction. These two felt a little flat to me.

The next few books jump about a bit in style and i enjoyed them all from Thinner to Misery. But things get weird with The Dark Half and Four Past Midnight, Stephen went a bit too far on the weird front for my liking :)

Which brings me to the book i've literally just finished, Needful Things. To me it seems that Stephen knows that he went a bit too weird and has took a step back and reverted back to that great style he used in his earlier work.

So yes theres been a couple of "stinkers" but i suppose thats not surprising when you take into account the fact authors generally evolve and try and explore new ways to write :glare:

[nunuchis_]

I think that it is characteristic of him to start a book with fabulous ideas, creating fabulous plots than then he doesn`t know how to finish it. In my case, it doesn`t bother me, because the books are always so interesting that the ending doesn`t really matter, at least not for me, I mean, if I enjoyed all the book, I won`t say it is bad only because it may have an "improvised" ending. I think that the magic of his writing is that he can describe common lifes, create common characters and make that all sort of things happen to them, things that are too fantastic sometimes but somehow you still feel the reality of their lifes, you kind of believe that the things are happening and even more important you develop all sort of feelings for the characters.

[TheWalkinDude]

About 99% of authors out there are like the Hollywood producers of today. "Lets mass produce as many meaningless and rehashed stories as we can and concentrate on quantity not quality"

Fortunately ... the world has a brilliant storyteller like SK. King shoots from the hip and that's what makes his stories so interesting. so many authors in the field today lack that vision and are just writing because its thier job.

SK stands far above the rest ... and what better way to spend your free time than by taking a journey through SK's head.

His style never frustrates me ... and its a style you wont find anywhere else.

[staropeace]

Some stuff does frustrate me. In a way,that is probably a good thing. It means his writing is dynamic not static. It hasnt gotten stale if there are certain things that get on my nerves lol.

His magical thinking sorta gets to me. I've got no patience for Stan reciting the names of birds to get rid of monsters. Ralph using that diamond earring stud to ward off the crimson king doesnt make my day nor do the magic of numbers in the Dark Tower.

This is probably because of the type of person I am. I am practical and down to earth and quite anal at times. Lol,that is not always a good thing. :biggrin2:

[kisun]

I can't say I agree with you, but I see where you are coming from.

[pixiedark]

Sometimes SK gets a little longwinded for my adhd brain... But I love him, and just wait until my brain slows down a little bit.

I agree! Especially with the endings! For example It. In this book you get to the final climax or face the monster and the book won't end until 100 pages later. SK has to go through every minute detail and also throw in a few jokes and flashbacks and then the monster dies!

Another example is The Tommyknockers! That book is the most longwinded ever written!:sleepy::sleepy:

[SixPins]

For me, his style is what keeps all his books at a level of goodness, even if I'm not swept away by the story. He his fantastic at developing characters and setting up the execution.

[skaddict1978]

I find I am upset but endings at times. I fall in love with the characters and feel they should have a proper ending or burial if you will excuse the term. I have grown for the most part to except this style. The only other thing that bothers me is that he is, as self confessed, long winded at times. I will confess I have skipped over whole pages before because I can't stand the anticipation of it. Hands down still and always will be my literary love.

[arsepoetica]

read the notes on the story "The Moving Finger" in Nightmares and Dreamscapes for Stephen's thoughts on explaining why things happen. if you want a two-page scientific explanation of how some supernatural phenomena actually occurs, read Dean Koontz. If you prefer more colorful and complex characters dealing with things instead of asking why, stick with us.

[Cognac]

the tower is the center of everything. if you save it for last, i would restart the series from the very beginning. the ride will be much more rewarding the second time around.

[fulmoontat]

Some stuff does frustrate me. In a way,that is probably a good thing. It means his writing is dynamic not static. It hasnt gotten stale if there are certain things that get on my nerves lol.

His magical thinking sorta gets to me. I've got no patience for Stan reciting the names of birds to get rid of monsters. Ralph using that diamond earring stud to ward off the crimson king doesnt make my day nor do the magic of numbers in the Dark Tower.

This is probably because of the type of person I am. I am practical and down to earth and quite anal at times. Lol,that is not always a good thing. :biggrin2:

This is some of the stuff i like the most... some of the things he uses to keep his characters grounded..er.. i guess you could say some of the things the characters use to keep themselves grounded. Stan for instance reverting to recitation of bird names. Probably kept him from going bat-s**t from the get-go. Just one of those "Linus-esque" security blankets. I mean, the monster (IT, aka Pennywise) fed on terror. If he saw that someone was able to resist the psychic input, whether through disbelief or self distraction, he might have decided to shove off in another direction. make sense?

The diamond stud.. eh, probably not the best weapon to use against a kingfish, kind of silly actually - but still a good way to say "F--k you, and here's what i think about your little doctor b---h trying to get at my girlfriend." Also, possibly another example of methods to keep from getting lost in the hallucinations provided, free of charge, from CK himself? I dunno, just my opinions here so, bear with me, or skip them entirely if you will.

As for the magic numbers, I love em. I don't know (at this point) if they'll have any numerological explanations provided or if they just are.. But everytime i come across them it kinda gives me a feeling of the significance they may play. as of yet, it hasn't been unveiled to be anything other than an odd recurrence. but who knows? I'm on DT7 now, a few pages in, and i guess i'll cross that bridge when i get there.

[Trailmix]

Not really, I love how he just lets the reader try to puzzle it out.

And I don't see why people always have to bash Dean Koontz, who, by the way, is one of the best authors in America. Just stick to the topic.

[jacobtlong]

I like having a few mysteries to solve. Too many explanations will just make the novel or story so much more bulky. That's just my opinion.

...And I love Dean Koontz and Stephen King. This isn't a contest. You either like Dean or you don't. If you don't, stop bashing him. Have some respect and stop being so gauche.

[Dark Reader]

Hmmm interesting, because i'm reading the books in order what i think is that i just went through not so good patch, don't get me wrong it wasn't going to stop me devouring each and every book!

When Stephen is on form and his charachters are almost real i don't seem to mind the unexplained or maybe even an open ending but if the charachters aren't quite as good (The Dark Half) or the book is a bit long winded (Gerald's Game) i end up not accepting things that are happening. Its a little hard to explain, so sorry if that doesn't make sense.

I am glad i'm thoroughly enjoying SK books again though, the quality of the charachters in Insomnia and Rose Madder made those books brilliant and after only 50 pages of Desperation i'm hooked :smile2:

[arsepoetica]

I'm more than willing to live and let live when it comes to what people read or watch or eat or listen to...but to me criticism is part of the enjoyment, which is why i like message boards to begin with. and any artist of any kind, amateur or professional who doesn't like criticism is in the wrong line of work. Saying that author A is better than author B is not "bashing."

[Trailmix]

The thing is, this isn't a thread about Koontz vs King, so it was really kind of pointless to bring it up in the first place, but, I'm forgetting about it as we speak...getting kind of off topic.

Kings style has never frustrated me, at least not yet. I like how he comes up with some really fantastical or over the top way for something to happen, yet makes it sound completely plausible.

[skaddict1978]

I am having a bit of trouble with the negativity of some of the posts. I'm not sure that "bashing" of anyone was the point. It looked to me as though the literary style differences were being pointed out. In any case, I very seldom deviate from SK works to other authors. That being said and the fact that you all know how much I love SK works, I think some of you may be getting a bit over sensative about others opinions. Each of us is entitled to our opinion and I don't think anyone said that SK or Dean were horrible or called them any names or anything. We should be keeping these boards friendly. Some of the responses to the Dean reference were not so friendly. Some of your responses make people not want to post because others might attack what they wrote.There's stuff about potty training and all sorts of other non sk stuff on these threads but no one has said"just stick to the topic" or no point in bringing it up" to any of that. Lets all act like adults, shall we

[staropeace]

We are not that rigid here that we cannot veer off topic from time to time. Formality isnt expected. If one has an opinion about another author,then there is nothing wrong with giving it. As long as a poster doesnt use profane language and doesnt personally attack anothers opinion....this board is sorta easy peasy lemon squeezy. And for that,I am grateful.

[Dark Reader]

I certainly didn't intend for any author bashing to happen in this thread :sad:

I haven't read any Dean Koontz books but i intend to, amongst many other authors that is, as soon as i've devoured all of Stephens works.

[Agincourt Concierge]

Hey...who's picking on Koontz? I like Dean...he is not SK....but he has some great stories of his own!

[chopsaw]

In books like Cell, where or what originated the pulse can't be told. The characters involved won't have access to that knowledge, and therefore that information cannot be passed on to the reader. We, like the characters, must deal with the event and not its origins. There are logical limits to fiction based on point of view, etc.

To give that information about where the pulse came from would of course put us squarely in the pages of Misery. In Misery SK gives every reader a brilliant tutorial on the limits of fiction and the value of the truth when it comes to storytelling.

I happen to like when somethings go unanswered, like does the kid in Cell become a normie again? Well, that depends. Is the glass half empty, or is it half full? And therein lies the beauty.

[Trailmix]

Sorry about that. It's just that sometimes people from both fanbases, those of King and Koontz, can get kind of snobbish about the other author. I love both authors, so I get kind of irritated when a fan of one author says something derogatory about the other.

But it doesn't matter. Let's all just get along. Lol.

[MyLife4YouSK]

The only thing that bugs me about SK's writing is when he uses foreshadowing.
random example: "And that was the last time she ever saw him again" leading us to believe that one of the people died. God, I hate that! lol

[Mr Nobody]

Does SK's style annoy? Hmm...not really. I only tend to get frustrated when a story seems like it 'should' have gone one way, but doesn't. However, I get that with every author, and with SK far less than some.
Others argue that Cell and The Mist have 'holes' because they don't say what happens next. I think that is the point. Certainly at the end of The Mist, the future is a great unknown. If I'm going to go all arty-farty critical, you could say the the uncertainty about the future is mirrored by the mist itself and indeed the title could be extended to 'The Mist (that hides the future)'. But I hated doing that sort of stuff in English Lit studies and don't feel too inclined towards that kind of navel-gazing now.
Cell was perhaps left hanging with a sequel in mind. I don't know. But where would the story end, if not where it does? The fact is, we as readers have been taken to this place. We're there with the characters. There are unknowns. What happens when we're kids and say 'What will I do? What will I see? What will happen to me in my life?' We're told 'No idea. You'll have to wait and find out.'
This is what we're left with at the end of some stories. Perhaps SK will revisit them one day and give us the answers, but perhaps not.
The good thing about SK's style, overall, for me is the way he draws you in. It's warm and it's friendly and it really is like sitting by the fire with your favourite uncle Stevie. Sometimes the stories are good, sometimes they're middling, other times they're great. Occasionally, you'll get one that leaves you cold. It's just the way it is. If you have questions...well, isn't that kind of like getting a kindly smile and a 'That'll do for another time'? For me, yeah, it is, and I like that. I also like the 'easter eggs' you find in stories when you've read something for the first time and things in other re-readings suddenly click. Again, there will be those that are driven batty by them.

Someone a page or so back said artists had better like criticism or find a new line of work, something like that. Erm...not really. I'm also a writer (in common with plenty of others on here, I guess) and I don't like criticism - sometimes I flat out hate it - but I can accept crits. It's a key difference. I don't always agree, but then it's all subjective, isn't it?

My two bob on King 'vs' Koontz - their styles are very different. Just reading about the ways they work, you can see obvious differences there, even if some of the influences are the same. Koontz has written some (IMO) very effective stories. He's also written some duds, as we all do. However, while there's some overlap, does DK really write on the same 'turf' as SK? I don't think so. Do I have a preference? Well, a glance at my shelves tells me yes, I do. It's marginal, and it's in favour of SK, yet I enjoy them both for the work they do - even if Koontz's style is perhaps more 'stern great-uncle Dean' than the more relaxed 'uncle Stevie'.

[Dark Reader]

Great post Mr Nobody!

It hadn't occurred to me that there stories may have been left open for a possible sequel in the future. I'd certainly be interested in reading a continuation of both The Mist and Cell :love:

[Phantomking]

No, I actually think that not always knowing the origins of the evil in the Stephen King Universe is more effective; some things can't be explained, and in the end, even if they were explained, it would lessen the mystique of the story.

If he always told you exactly where the "bad guys" or the "evil force" came from, it would be cheap. Also, it's another way of engaging the reader and keeping you interested.

Think about it; let's say that at the end of the Cell, you find out that...I dunno....Arab terrorists set the pulse off. Would that really be much better? And would the ending have had as much of an effect on you as it does now with you not knowing what "really" happens? I bet you wouldn't be talking or reflecting on it, and I think that's part of the magic of it.

[Mr Nobody]

Dark Reader: Ta muchly. Dunno about 'great'. 'Long'; yeah, I got that nailed. :grinning:

Phantomking makes a good point, too. How would we feel about stories that had an obviously tacked on 'this is how it began/ended' thing? Cell is a good example, again. Saying 'Oh it was terrorists' wouldn't be good enough. OK, it was terrorists. But how and why? Apart from that, you'd end up going down the daft route - 'It was a pulse from an unknown alien craft', for example. Some may accept it, others wouldn't, but for all the story would be diminished...and hasn't SK said and written before that the story is the thing?

[Dark Reader]

Interesting... I've just finished Desperation and although the origins of Tak isn't completely explained i got to the end of the book without wanting to know, i suppose i was so immersed in the story and the characters that it didn't matter.

Now Cell is a different story (pardon the pun), i think because the writing and therefore the characters lack Stephens usual genius the lack of any explanation stands out a mile and gnaws at you throughout the book, and also because its a tangible thing and not supernatural at all i feel an explanation is warranted even more. I mean Captain Tripps was explained in The Stand and i think The Stand wouldn't be anywhere near as good if it wasn't.

I'm rambling now, sorry, but i don't think the story would be diminished if the ending was different or some kind of explanation was written in (like The Stand). The fact that i'm discussing Cell here is not a good thing, the magic was missing from that novel i reckon and i found it frustrating

[Undead Constant Reader]

I don't get frustrated with Stephen King's style, but I do find that he tends to slip in information without drawing attention to it. Which is something that I enjoy, it makes the story more like a puzzle, because the information is there, it's just a matter of seeing it all put together.

[nothinglikethesun9]

This might explain things for you:

In the original ancient medieval story of Hamlet— Shakespeare had a play that had a very good motivational structure for what is going on. the old king had a son, which he did, named Hamlet, Hamlet would be expected when he grows up to take revenge against the uncle. And therefore stands to reason that the uncle is no fool, he would want to kill Hamlet as well as killing the father, because he wants to protect his life.

So in the original story, Hamlet has a problem. He’s a little kid, and he has to live long enough to be able to exact revenge for his father against this miserable, murderous uncle. And everyone knows what this is about. Everyone knows the uncle killed the king (common medieval practice).
So what little Hamlet does is start drooling and acting strangely and behaving like a lunatic, and people laugh at him in a rather coarse way. He grows up to be -- to go back and take revenge, kill off his miserable uncle, and exact revenge and become the triumphant prince. Good structure for Shakespeare to use.

Shakespeare takes the story, makes perfect sense as to why the original story as to why Hamlet is -- had to behave like that, that he`s mad. He takes that story. He has instead the murder as a secret, and no one knows, they think it`s a serpent that`s killed the old king while he`s sleeping in his garden. They don`t know that the brother has poisoned him.

The only one who knows is Hamlet, who knows because a ghost has told him, the ghost of his father. So Hamlet is alone in the kingdom knowing besides the murder himself, knowing the secret.

And then Hamlet pretends he`s mad. IT MAKES NO SENSE! It made great sense in the original version. It now makes no sense. And instead of ruining the play, which you would think it might, because the whole play is constructed now around something that is crazy, it actually makes the play the greatest thing that Shakespeare had written up to that point, the deepest, the most complex, the most motivationally maddening, the most celebratd piece of writing in the English language.


King does a lot of this, and it is not surprising that he is the greatest selling author of all time.

-

[Jay77]

Mr. King has a tendency to psychoanalyze his characters. I like that a lot and understand why he does it.

Mr. King is the exact opposite of Cormac McCarthy who doesn't spend much time telling his reader anything but the story. Mr. McCarthy is the best American author at this time, but his style leaves a lot of questions at the end of the book. Mr. King answers most of those questions and he is loved for it.

Mr. King should be considered in the same light as Mr. McCarthy, but his genre choice makes the literary stiffs nervous and doubtful as to the quality.

As a writer, I find King harder to emulate than McCarthy which is saying a lot.

[staropeace]

I find Dean Koontz is the one who psychoanalzes his characters and then goes on to preach. I find that Steve gives his characters alot of things that makes them endearing...usually a good sense of humor.

I also love McCarthy. I enjoy his simple sentences...short and to the point. I dont like Hemingway...too macho...but Cormac has that sorta style which is great. The less said,the better.

[Jay77]

I find Dean Koontz is the one who psychoanalzes his characters and then goes on to preach. I find that Steve gives his characters alot of things that makes them endearing...usually a good sense of humor.

I also love McCarthy. I enjoy his simple sentences...short and to the point. I dont like Hemingway...too macho...but Cormac has that sorta style which is great. The less said,the better.

Never been a Koontz fan. His style is hard to take in for me. Like counting bricks on a wall. One brick, two brick, three brick....a lot of bricks....done!

[Haunted]

I think a lot of people felt that way about "Cell". I know I did.

But in the other stories, I guess to me that part of the fun is using my imagination to figure out where and what.:smile2:

I wholeheartedly agree.:biggrin2:

[kittywings]

Sometimes, if I'm feeling nit-picky the longwinded-ness will come to my attention, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it irks/annoys me.
Someone did have a good point about the whole "if you found out Arabs set off the pulse, would it make the story better?" That's a perfect way of explaining one of the major differences (in my opinion) between King and Koontz. King leaves the mystery alive whereas, Koontz starts out with a mysterious situation and you think "this HAS to be ghosts!" (or something like that) and then you find out... no, their neighbor just has AMAZING security hacking skills. Kind of a letdown. I used to really like Koontz's stuff (especially "Intensity") but his latest stuff "Your Heart Belongs to Me/Odd Hours" for example... RIDICULOUS! I don't think I've ever felt that way about any of King's stuff. Also, Koontz's protagonist's character relationships are always ridiculously perfect. King's are much more realistic (to me). I also agree with the Koontz "preachy" thing, I mean, give it a rest already! Ok, well I worked out today... so getting down off this soapbox might take me a minute... I guess it'll make it easier for anyone who wants to throw rotten tomatoes at me. Have at it. :biggrin2:

[lilydust76]

I agree that sometimes you are left wondering, but I think that's for a reason. It's nice to read a story that's all laid out for you, but I liken it to watching the idiot box. No thought required!
I, personally, enjoy the fact that not only are the stories great, but you're also left with a sense of things being almost unfinished, and you are made to think about it after you've finished reading. It's not such a letdown that the story is over. And especially where RF is concerned, you know that's not the end of the story!

[collisionist]

Maybe he leaves those questions open for you to sort of make up your own story to what happened? I think that is a wonderful style.

Also, in Hearts in Atlantis, doesn't Ted tell Bobby to not read the description of the book before he reads it? To not let it spoil the real story? That is what I always have done, and I think it is a wonderful piece of advice.

[Vegetable in Glasses]

I thought that The Mist and Cell and The Colorado Kid were, in their way, supposed to emulate The Lady or The Tiger sort of storytelling. That the point was to leave the end open so that the reader could learn something about themselves through coming up with their own conclusions. That was how I took them anyway.
And also, some mention has been made of Cormack McCarthy in here. If I'm remembering correctly, one of the most celebrated books of the decade was The Road, which picked up in the middle, never explained how they got to be where they were, and left the end open to speculation. And I loved that one too.
But that stuff isn't for everyone. Find what you love and please keep reading - it can only improve your life and our world!

[jackson992]

Those weren't the only ones that were open ended. The Long Walk and Thinner were also open ended.

[Draga]

Nah it never frustrates me, if something frustrate me, I don't read it. Like Spanish novels from the 80's... I just don't read them, I hate that style. It's sooo boring!

[Dark Reader]

Those weren't the only ones that were open ended. The Long Walk and Thinner were also open ended.

Hmmm true but there aren't as many possiblities if you get my drift, in both of those cases i think it was pretty clear as to which way Stephen was nudging you

[ariam]

Hey! I'm a virgin-writer on forum and I consider myself as a kingsmaniac loyal reader! I would like to mention that Mr King tries to seduce every reader in each of his books. The difficulty exists till the moment you start to read with your mind and only with your eyes. Till you succed that it can be really tough. Sometimes I question myself having succeded it that at all and go to the first page and read all stuff again for 2nd time! This is me I suppose.....

[JRLauer]

Long answer short, not really.

[Vegetable in Glasses]

Welcome to the board Ariam! Keep posting!

[kirkjolly]

Does Stehpen's style frustrate me?

I don't think you are asking quite the right question. You're frustration seems to come from certain aspects of books. His style is his writing voice, and to answer your question, no his writing voice never bothers me. I love it actually. Do certain small aspects of his books bother me? Well yeah, but usually the only thing I am bothered about is that the story is ending.

I think another part of the equation here is that you said you had plowed through about thirty books of his in a row. Of course you are getting tired of him. Who wouldn't. SK is hands down my very favorit author, but I read many many other authors. I would think that if you asked Stephen's advice, he himself would say to give his stuff a rest and read some other stuff. In fact he often recommends reading as many different things you can. You can't be a good reader without expanding your horizons. If horror is all you like to read, there are plenty of other high quality authors out there. Richard Laymon, Brain Keene, Brian Lumley, Edward Lee, Tim Lebbon, Jack Ketchum. Nate Kenyon is new, but his stuff is pretty good. Joe Hill of course. Dean Koontz, especially the Odd Thomas books. Then of course the classics like Bram Stoker, Poe, Lovecraft, Algernon Blackwood, Mary Shelly, Richard Matheson...my point is switch it up. If you eat pizza everyday you'll get sick of it eventually even though pizza is awesome.

Also, some of your gripes would be that he doesn't tell you everything. I've read books where every detail is explained in the plot. The problem is that there is no suspense, and nothing to keep you turning the pages. My advice is to read every book with this in mind. The plot, the storyline you are reading is a slice of somebodies life. The author has to decide how much of that persons life goes into that slice to entertain you and keep you reading. Sometimes, with books like cell, the slice ends before you think it should, but for the author that is where the story ends.

[moonhoney2]

The only thing that bothers me is the long, flowy, often uber-detailed descriptions of things. But that's also what makes his books so great. Altho, I find myself skipping over lots of these parts to get back to the "meat" of the story. LOL I don't care how the air smells or the colors of the grass...I just want to know what's happening! LOL

I'm a bit impatient. :blush:

[tma]

as my memory is still a little hollow on a few things there are some great re appearances of the charchters that have appeard in previous books which i enjoy and at times don't expect.
However writing styles of authors sometimes rarley change stephens style to me at times can go a lot into detail and at times i do find it hard to continue ,but as you all know in the end it is worth it.Also i find that over the years his wrighting style has changed as mr king has travelled more so has his storys so has the fear he writes about what he knows and that is the stuff that keeps us awake...

[Bryan James]

The only thing that bugs me about SK's writing is when he uses foreshadowing.
random example: "And that was the last time she ever saw him again" leading us to believe that one of the people died. God, I hate that! lol

That's the GREAT stuff! Unless it actually turns out as expected. Then it comes down to why bother finishing? "Oh, the writer told me 3 hours ago this was going to happen. And then it happened. I'm done with this writer."

One sentence can become the fishhook.

I'm new to the big version of the writing game (and it's ALL a game), but I'm not new to people. The mass of men leading lives of this and that...nonsense. Well, at least not those who read. So then there are movies. There are weekly relevision shows where Whosie finds out that Whatsit "done her wrong," and then she resolves the problem. And yes, I did mean to use an "r" instead of a "t."

One sentence is the best hook.

I pubically admit that there have been times that I defiled a library book. Just to write something or cross-quote. Ninety percent of the time it has been King. "Oh man, he lost it here," or "Same sentence used on page XXX of XXX." And, yes, I meant to omit the "L" at the start if this paragraph. Just thought it was funny.

King's writing style doesn't frustrate me (although I disapprove of his hairdo at times, but that's not the task at hand). I've gotten the feeling in some of his recenterish books that he loses the tiger's tail in the middle. I've never not been guided to safe port, though.

(Don't get me started on "double-negatives." I have a completely tryptophanesque dissertation on that, and I happen to enjoy them.)

BJS~~Well this is a strange Wednesday, huh?

[Nelsonette]

I'm not so sure what you meant by style (KirkJolly's post is basically my opinion about the use of the word).

Frankly, I love King's writing. He's brief when necessary, 'long winded' when the time for in-depth descriptions arises, and his characters always seem so real to me.

The issue with not explaining everything...sometimes, it just isn't necessary for the story. Do we really need to know who/what started the Pulse to enjoy the book, or aren't we supposed to focus on the trials and travels of the people who have survived it?

The Stand is another one I saw mentioned. Do we really need to know exactly what sort of accident happened that released the virus to really enjoy and understand the novel? I find that honestly, those explanations aren't really necessary. Authors who use them just...seem like they're trying too hard to make readers think it's real, like the more details and explanations they give the more we'll accept whatever is happening.

I don't really consider her to be the best of authors, but Stephenie Meyer would be a good example of someone who tries too hard. Read any of her Twilight series (her other book, the Host, was pretty ok), and you can easily see how she explains and explains and explains, giving the history of every little thing. It kind of ruins any possibility the story had of being interesting, when everything is told to you.

[Blitzkrieg]

Sorry John, yes of course i was thinking of Cell when i mentioned the pulse. But also Captain Trips poses the same ponderings from the Stand.

No i haven't sampled the mighty DT series yet, i'm planning on reading them last and i'm seriously looking forward to it.

Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of the books so far i've thoroughly enjoyed, but the ones that leave me with questions kind of spoils the enjoyment for me. Ones that Spring to mind are:-

The Stand
The Mist
Dark Half
Four Past Midnight (excluding The Langoliers)
Cell (which i read out of sync)

haven't read the others but go read Dark Half again.
i'm sure you'll figure it out.

[Teddy Duchamp]

Dark Reader

I do actually know what you mean. And I think the earlier poster who said that you have read one book after the other in succession without a break in between has magnified any frustration you might have had.

For me, having read everything over the space of 20 odd years - well you get to the stage where you are soooo looking forward to the next book coming out and he is such a brilliant writer that the smaller frustrations tend to go out the window.

But I have to say that there was a period of time where his books frustrated me also - I loved them and they grabbed me - but when I got to the end I felt slightly "empty" as I felt there hadnt been a successful conclusion - now by that I DONT mean that I wanted it all spelled out for me - Im not daft - but I just felt that there were a FEW books (only) that just didnt "gel".........I know that you have to suspend belief while reading something Supernatural - but sometimes the belief was being suspended too much for me.......and I do agree about the Dark Half regarding this. Brilliant writing at the beginning but I felt after half way through it was "how can I get this story finished".........and it lost something for me......:eyebrow:

When I read Desperation I though "yey he's got it back again!!"........and most of the writing after that I have very much enjoyed - but I know thats just my opinion and a lot of folk LOVE the Dark Half etc........

Thats what makes us interesting - not liking the same stuff, I suppose

[Dark Reader]

It seems we are on the same wave length Teddy.

Desperation and The Regulators were great and like you i've enjoyed all the books since (well apart from Cell).

[TriggerHappy]

OK, so I've been rereading all SK books in sync, I'm reading "Insomnia" now, so there's no question about me being a fan.
Having said that, there ARE a few things that irritate me about his writing.
1. Recurrence. If you read even a few books in a row (not necessarily in sequence), you'll notice that some of the minor things happen in almost every one of them. One example is when someone's so stressed out they dig their fingernails into their palms until blood-filled crescents are left. Now, I don't know if Mr. King has ever tried it (hope not!), but it's plain IMPOSSIBLE. Go on, try it, don't be afraid. You simply cannot do it. And it would have been ok for one book, but several of them? Another example is how totally different (on the outside at least) characters seem to feel exactly the same feelings and think exactly the same thoughts. Think of how many times you've come across the phrase "He/she felt unreality wash over him/her."
2. Imagery. Sometimes, in my opinion, King overdoes it with the gory stuff. And no, I don't mean splitting heads or torn-off body parts (hey, I'm a fan, remember?). What I mean are these totally irrelevant similes that just kind of pile up and gang up on you after you've read a few books: "the wind shrieked like someone getting his throat slit," "the though dropped on him like a decaying body from an unused crypt," etc. (I made those up, btw, but you'll find plenty of similar instances).
3. "Flashbacks." I put the word in parentheses because what I really mean is not flashbacks (like people remembering or reliving stuff) but those background stories about major characters that sometimes (sometimes, mind you) seem to pop up in the most inappropriate places: think of Alan Pangborn's and Polly Chalmers's painful backrounds in Needful Things. I mean, just when things are REALLy starting to roll, you have to sidestep and devote a couple of hours to scrutinizing the Sheriff's past and analyzing his feelings on what happened (the death of his wife and son). Now there's nothing wrong with the story itself, except that a) most readers would've already figured it all out from his thoughts on previous pages, and b) at this point, it seems boring and irrelevant, since you're eager to learn what happens to the townsfolk.

Right, so there it is. I feel I have to add that I've been a King fan since I was 14 (I'm 28 now), he is my favorite writer (or what would I be doing here?), and I have read all of his work. So this criticism comes in good faith and results from a slight overdose, probably. Please do not think I get through every novel puffing and huffing and sneering and making wisecracks. If ever there is a thread on Stephen King's GOOD points as a writer, be assured that my reply will be longer still.

[Craig Zadow]

Stephen King is my favorite writer but one thing I will say that I think he overdoes is he tells you what's gonna happen before it does. Especially with character deaths. I don't like it when he throws in a "and that's the last time anybody saw him/her alive again." I think it's just kind of a cheap way to build some easy tension. And the certain deaths I think would be a lot more effective if he didn't do this. Sometimes it works, like in Pet Semetarywith the death of Gage but others I find it kinda gimicky (like the forshadowing of the death of Ilse in Duma Key or the way he tells us that nobody in the Free Zone will ever see Dayna or Judge Farris alive again.

[doowopgirl]

I am sometimes frustrated with Stephen Kings wriritng style as well. For instance, when there is a big build up,It or Tommyknockers for example and then I feel let down when it turns out to be a big Lovecraftian monster with no kind of reason. I think it was summed up best in Misery when his captor told him he couldn't cheat Misery back into exsitence. I don't need an ending spelled out for me, so I like the end of The Stand and Cell, but in Cell there was absolutely no reason for people to get turned into phoners. I always enjoy the journey even if sometimes I don't enjoy arriving.

[thymeoperator]

I know what you mean fullmoontat, in most instances Stephen writes this in beautifully and i just don't question it, but occassionally he seems to go a bot too far with it and i'm left thinking i just don't get it

For me The Dark Half and Four Past Midnight were like this, the very fact of Stark's existence in the Dark Half didn't sit right for me, it could have though if it was explained at all. Although i'm three quarters of the way through Needful Things now and it seems Alan is still struggling with Starks short existence too :smile2:

i must admit, that element of 'dark half' frustrated me too. the reason it got to me was because he was explained at the writer's dead twin. if it had just been a case of 'my pen name came to life somehow and now he's after me' i'd have been able to accept it easily enough in the context of a fantasy story, that's fine. but it mixed it up with having that twin condition and the twin disappearing, and then him coming out at george stark. so i was thinking the whole time...well how on earth did he get out of the man's head and into a supernatural body?? it seemed an overly complicated way of explaining his existence, that just didn't need to be there. i thought it would have been more powerful, in fact, just to have it be his own dark alter ego come to life and corporeal form.

[Jake Featherston]

I've been reading Stephen's work mostly in the order they were written starting with Carrie and i'm currently reading Needful Things. There are a lot of things about Stephen's writing style i love but after reading nearly 30 of his books in a row i'm starting to feel frustrated by small things.

For instance, Stephen rarely explains where certain weird things that happen in his novels come from, that didn't used to bother me but now i'm finding it does.

In The Stand i was left curious to know where the pulse came from and how it happened but i wasn't overly fussed about knowing, but after i read The Dark Half i was frustrated by not really knowing just how Stark came to be.

Take Four Past Midnight as another instance, The Langoliers is an epic tale but the ones that follow seem to thin on the explanation front, Secret Window was a tad confusing at the end.

Some stories just don't make sense if they're too thoroughly explained. How can the existence of Stark be explained? It really can't; you just have to accept that it is. Although I think The Langoliers was a bad example for you to cite; the Langoliers was pretty much the polar opposite of what you are complaining about here ie., it was a look into the cosmological nature of Stephen King's fictional universe (or at least the one featured in that story). The Langoliers were a force of Nature; they require an explanation like gravity requires an explanation - its just the way that universe works. Their very existence constitutes a sort of explanation in and of itself; they're just part of (fictional) reality that we seldom see.

As for Cell, I thought it was kind of obvious that it was a sort of extra-terrestrial attack on Humanity. It was never explained, because the aliens didn't need to reveal themselves, but seriously, who else would have that power?

[JRM]

So far I've only read 3 of his books (a tragedy, I know -- but I have a handful in my collection I'll be reading very soon), and I kinda know what you mean. Insomnia was the book that just left me asking questions. I was also very confused about a lot of things. But as for "Bag of Bones" and "The Dead Zone" (though, I haven't yet finished The Dead Zone...hoping it will answer a few questions in the end), I'm quite satisfied with how they turned out.

[Jake Featherston]

the vast majority of the books so far i've thoroughly enjoyed, but the ones that leave me with questions kind of spoils the enjoyment for me. Ones that Spring to mind are:-

The Stand
The Mist
Dark Half
Four Past Midnight (excluding The Langoliers)
Cell (which i read out of sync)

I guess I misunderstood your remarks about The Langoliers (which I actually happen to think is the weakest of the four; I think The Library Policeman and The Sundog* are two of his very best fictional works - superior to many of his stand-alone novels, and I pretty much love them all), but if you want to better understand The Mist, I suggest you read From a Buick 8, which I happen to think is one of his better novels.


*I don't particularly expect anyone to believe me, but I swear, I had dreams about that canine creature when I was a younger fellow - and I mean years before Four Past Midnight was ever published. Consequently, I probably find that story scarier than many other people find it.

[Dark Reader]

I've read From A Buik 8 and i too thought it was a great book and now that i've finished the DT series and read some information about the links between and all the books i have a better understanding of both The Mist and From A Buik 8.

The Sun Dog however still remains a complete mystery to me. I just didn't get it and i thought Stephen was drawing out the story far too slowly whilst i was reading it hence why i was getting frustrated with it.

I'd forgot about The Library Policeman, a very disturbing story that one! I'm not easily shocked but i was by that! (not frustrated though).

[TimAH]

I agree with the people who mention the characters who just know exactly what to do and when to do it. I especially dislike when they tell others they know exactly what to do and "you'll find out when the time is right"

The other thing that bothers me is know it all children, and kids who take charge over groups of adults. They just always seem so ridiculous to me.

[Flayer]

Stephen King is without a doubt my favorite author and the greatest influence on me as a writer. But here are the things that bother me in his style:

1. The repeated nonsense words that show up so often in his books. "Wif' teef" in Duma Key, "the oppoponox" in Black House, "I'm really Rosie, and I'm Rosie Real," in Rose Madder, you can think of a million more (half of Lisey's Story) if you try. These just start to annoy the hell out of me a lot of the time, I know some people like it but I don't. Just a pet peeve.

2. The foreshadowing of the deaths, like "that was the last time Edgar Freemantle ever saw Ilse alive," which most of the time just seems cheap. It worked well in Pet Sematary and in The Stand (where it purposely misled you to think Stu would die), but elsewhere it hasn't.

3. The Dark Tower and related universes cosmology is so self-contradicting and inconsistent it's insane (the point of it, maybe). I don't know, just thoughts: in Insomnia with the auras they make it clear that every human being possesses phenomenal reserves of power, yet somehow they're useless unless they're psychics as Breakers. Or how Clotho and Lachesis and Atropos could somehow be responsible for every death on Earth between the three of them, especially once their limitations are shown. Basically in a lot of his books with these elements it seems like he really doesn't go back to what he's already written and check on it when he's adding new stuff.

5. Main characters are so often too generic and they all have a very, very similar personality. Think of Alan Pangborn, and Dale Barbara, and Ralph Roberts, and Ben Mears, and Edgar Freemantle. Tell me what's different about them, without using appearances, jobs, or talents. They'd probably make the exact same decisions as each other in almost any moral situation.

Problem with this is it makes the big moral choices in every book kind of flat, because it becomes pretty predictable what a typical Stephen King hero will do all the time.

[Rand]

Somethings, like his frequent runtogether words, can drive me straight up a tree alot of the time.

People often comment on endings of his novels, and I'd guess this is a stylistic thing as well. Before beginning a story, some writers outline a book in excruciatingly painful detail. Some just do a broad outline of key events, and solid character backgrounds. King seems to get the essential premise and characters, then dives in and enjoys the ride. I'd bet he's as surprised about how it ends as we are.

[randallFlaggfan1]

Nothing about Sai King's writing style irritates me. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[91rewoT]

I've been reading King for the past 34 years and I've only been frustrated once about the way he wrote something. That was in DT7 (I won't spoil it for you). But, after a couple of days of being really pissed and thinking it over, I realized, as with all his other stories, that it's written just the way it was supposed to be written. Try not to analyze too much and let your imagination fill in the "gaps" that you find! Be ready to be swept off your feet when you read DT!!!

[cheech721]

I just read the original post and a few of the following ones, not the entire thread. I don't know what it is about Stephen King's books, but a lot of them I have a hard time getting into... but if i sit down and just start reading I'll get hooked and not want to stop until i'm done. While he does go into way too much detail at times, I think it's great for character development and in the end appreciated.

[blunthead]

...But, after a couple of days of being really pissed and thinking it over...

I smile when I reread that (see immediately above). I'm reminded of when, after he killed off Holmes, Conan Doyle was accosted by a fan who called him a Brute!. I think we are true fans if we get mad at the author.

[GLewman]

No...great thing about SK is that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th times are just as good as the first. Also catch stuff you missed the first time around. Some books I've tried to read by Clavell, Dumas, Poe,....etc...and were unable to get into them. I came back to them later and had no problem. Let the author come to you when you are ready :)

[ChickenStu]

I found Dreamcatcher to be a little too stylised for my taste. Still a good read though.

[Countrygirl_sass]

Well I am not sure about his style, for the most part I like the way he writes. So much so he is about the only author I will read. I never liked reading, and if not for him I probably would not have picked it up. But thanks to him I have read many books.

However I did have trouble with Rose Madder only because he used a technique that I guess is just not for me. First he would tell Rosie's side of the story from her pov, then he would tell Norman's side. It befudled me a little bit but I stuck it out and finished what was a very good book.

[Gerald]

Sometimes his books can take a long time to get going. He takes a lot of time to introduce the characters, and it's sometimes past 100 pages that something eventful actually takes place.

But that's just his style, and in the horrorgenre it's used a lot. You can compare it to a rollercoaster that slowly grinds upwards, and then rushes down, does loopings and sharp turns.

But for this reason I sometimes like the short stories best, because they just cut to the chase that much sooner.

[king family fan]

I like his style of writing. I keep coming back,so I guess it isn't to frustrating. I have found sometimes that are-read helps me understand better.

[jellydonut25]

There are certain unexplained things that have frustrated me...

Where 'the pulse' came from is one of them...but at the same time, how would any of our characters in the novel ever have occasion to find out?
But stuff like, how Stark came to be, or where the Pet Sematary gets its power, or how Captain Trips was actually created is not in that list.

Read fifty pages explaining the science behind mutating a disease to create Captain Trips might (might) make for an interesting read, but I don't want it near my fiction...I want my fiction to tell me a STORY and such a non-essential element such as the origin of Captain Trips isn't interesting to me.

Also, "How Stark Came to Be" would lose so much of its luster if it was explained.

[1BachmanKing9]

I'm not that old really, but the older I get the more I realize that strange and unexplainable things happen in life all of time. Things I can't even tell people sometimes.

[Speedygi81]

Yeah, I agree, Stephen doesn't do the best endings in the novel-world, but I don't read him for the endings to be honest.

[DebA913]

I absolutely love SK's books, stories,etc. There is next to nothing I;ve read that I didn't like.
That being said, I don't care for the 'spoilers'!!!
You know, you'll be reading along and all of the sudden, you read........something like----that was the last time he saw her alive....!!
That would be the only thing about his 'style' I have ever been frustrated with. :)

[larchi]

i really love the lack of 'explanation' in King's books. It's kinda like life, it don't come with no manual- lol. but i have to agree with fulmoontat, it is kinda a bummer when a character knows exactly what to do...

[The Nameless]

That being said, I don't care for the 'spoilers'!!!
You know, you'll be reading along and all of the sudden, you read........something like----that was the last time he saw her alive....!!
That would be the only thing about his 'style' I have ever been frustrated with. :)

I would say that is the only thing that I would consider frustrating too. In pet cematary he gives away possibly the biggest peice of plot by doing this.

I wouldn't call them annoying or frustrating, but I have noticed a few recurring things in his style (I am still a beginner when it comes to SK, with less than 5 books under my belt), the main one is when a character is burdened with something on thier mind, they often "fall into a deep sleep, he/she did not dream" - there is alot of dreamless sleeping getting done in Kings books. Also interrupting the text with a thought or idea of the character written in brackets. Lastly, what is with the poem/song excerpts at the beginning of the books or chapters?

Like I said, they don't bother me, just observations - I hope to make many more.

[Gerald]

He doesn't have much style, he's not concerned with it. Sometimes that frustrates and sometimes it surprises. But at least it always keeps things unexpected - and essentially that's a good thing.

Stark was the never fully developed twin brother - I thought that was very clear. But I see what you mean, at that period was the end of the solid King where everything was pure gold. Agree about the Four Past Midnight stories.

I think horror has a balance, of explaining not quite everything, but enough to keep it scary and interesting. When Stephen had given a full explanation how Stark came to be, for example, it had been more sci-fi.

[fljoe0]

He may think over explaining something will bog down the story. Somethings are better left to the imagination.

Watch some Alfred Hitchcock movies and you will notice that Hitch left many things to the imagination. There is one movie that comes to mind (can't remember the name) where people are chasing and killing each other over some substance in a bottle and Hitch never bothers to tell the audience what's in the bottle, it wasn't important.