Why Do You Think Stephen King Is So Famous?

[Celia Cyanide]

I think he's the bomb. I like his writing. But what do you think it is about Stephen King that has given him such great name recognition for SO LONG, even among those who are not that interested in literature?

[scarletpeaches]

The words SO LONG are part of it, I believe. His career longevity makes him recognisable even to people who don't read his books.

I've probably read more than I remember, but his writing doesn't shine for me. However, I'm an admirer of his tell-it-like-it-is attitude, and his work ethic.

[Bracken]

I think he's both talented and relate-able; he appeals to and connects with the masses in a way that more "literary"- and perhaps even more talented- authors don't and can't.

I first read a number of his books in middle school- Christine, Carrie, IT, Cujo, Pet Cemetery, some anthologies of short stories- and I understood them, for the most part, even at that age. I understood them well enough to get the crap scared out of me, which is the whole point!

If a 13 year old kid can basically understand and relate to his stories (and I was no genius; just an average bright kid) and so can a college-educated adult, then he's really on to something. He's got an incredibly broad appeal.

[Jamie Stone]

You know, I've been thinking of reading some of his books as I've never read any of them before. I always assumed that he was like a lot of the authors that put out dozens of books a year, and that the quality suffered for the quantity. What would you guys recommend as his best works? I'm not big into horror per se, but I have liked the movies of his work I've seen like Creepshow 2, Misery, Shawshank Redemption, the Shining, and Nightmares and Dreamscapes... I was thinking of picking up The Gunslinger.

[MadSquirrel]

Exactly what Bracken said. I think his appeal is the fact he has had a long career, lots of books out there, and they are appealing to people from ages 10 to 100. I read Needful Things when I was 9 (I was a precocious child) and loved it. He's the reason I really skipped YA and went on to adult before I knew what I was doing. Of course, now that I'm in my 20s and trying to write for teens I read YA, but I still buy anything and everything that Stephen King comes out with. It's not the best writing per say, but that's not important when it's good storytelling.

[Cybernaught]

I think he came around at the right time for horror. Much of the horror written before him was rather B-quality double creature feature type stuff, and he focused a lot on creating believable characters whom a lot of people could relate to. He prided himself on telling human stories that just happened to have supernatural elements, and it was the characters who mattered the most to him.

I want to say that he legitimized horror into the mainstream market. You could argue that Lovecraft and Poe did horror better, but King's horror was more accessible.

[SPMiller]

It's not complicated. He was one of the best horror writers of the 70s-80s, and horror as a genre was more relevant in those Cold War days. Because King's novels were unusually filmable, his stories were introduced to massive audiences via the silver screen. That's all.

[Jehhillenberg]

I agree Cybernaught.

King is cool and inspired me long ago to write horror. But yes, his long career contributes to his popularity. I'm sure it took him some time to get to where he is (like back in the 70's perhaps). A lot of his books and short stories get turned into movies, series, miniseries and since he's the regarded author he is, he's gets a say and even makes an appearance on the screen inspired by his works. I enjoy his stuff.

[RobJ]

For anyone interested, there's a King interview at the Paris Review site. Might be worth a read even for those who aren't a fan. It's always interesting to hear someone like King talk about his writing career.

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/5653/the-art-of-fiction-no-189-stephen-king

[BenPanced]

I'm not a fan of his work (not really a fan of horror books, in general), but I think understand the appeal because it's so relateable: the family car, the family dog, the little girl down the lane the girl next door, clowns, a Good Samaritan. Many things that might seem harmless and taken for granted are suddenly the basis of our fears and turned inside out (sometimes literally?). True fear and horror can be easily disguised and will strike when we least expect it. Easily filmable is just a by-product of the popularlity of his work; I don't think the publishers had that in mind when they first picked up Carrie.

[thothguard51]

Lets not forget his agent/agents...

I am sure he/she/they had a big part in branding the SK name to publishers and the Hollywood set.

[smcc360]

Because he's honest.

[melodyclark]

I think Stephen King is one of the best prose stylists in the English language. He also has very tight character-driven plots. My favorites of his are "Salem's Lot" and "Pet Sematary" (the latter of which has four or five pages of what may be his best work, contained in a flashback sequence).

[Xelebes]

It's not complicated. He was one of the best horror writers of the 70s-80s, and horror as a genre was more relevant in those Cold War days. Because King's novels were unusually filmable, his stories were introduced to massive audiences via the silver screen. That's all.

Basically sums it up.

[rugcat]

Because he's a great storyteller. Whatever else you may think about him, he's downright easy to read, without being simplistic.

And he found the sweet spot between mass appeal and writing which is complex enough to interest people for whom plot is not enough. But most of all, voice. It appeals to so many different people, but why that is the case is is unknowable.

He is occasionally clumsy sometimes, but it you write five hundred books of a thousand pages each, you're going to have the occasional bumble.

But he's also a skilled technician, despite those lapses. In IT, he manages five or six different viewpoints, skipping backward and forward in time with each one. It's hard to pull that off and make the story even comprehensible, much less interesting. Try it sometime.

And yet, it's not confusing in the slightest. It's done so skillfully that the average reader doesn't even notice it.

Also, I have it on good authority that he made a deal with the devil.

[DeleyanLee]

I think he's the bomb. I like his writing. But what do you think it is about Stephen King that has given him such great name recognition for SO LONG, even among those who are not that interested in literature?

1. He writes damned good stories that lots of people want to read. Consistently. For many years.

2. He has name recognition not only for his books, but for his work in movies, TV, awards, controversy, getting hit by a van and surviving, etc. Translated, he's made the inter/national news often enough that even if you don't read that much, you've run into his name.

[Bracken]

1. He writes damned good stories that lots of people want to read. Consistently. For many years.

2. He has name recognition not only for his books, but for his work in movies, TV, awards, controversy, getting hit by a van and surviving, etc. Translated, he's made the inter/national news often enough that even if you don't read that much, you've run into his name.

True dat.
Especially back in the 1980s, he was a sort of media celebrity, in a way that authors, however popular, rarely are.
How many authors would be widely recognized on sight, the way he is/was?
This had to do with the fact that he made cameo appearances in most of his own movies, and also gave a lot of interviews and just generally appeared in public a lot.
He has a distinctive appearance and a (possibly cultivated) eccentric personality which made him perhaps more entertaining than the average writer.
In this regard, he reminds me of another prolific "celebrity author" of the 1980s- Jackie Collins.
Not that their work was at all similar, beyond being wildly popular, but their celebrity status was similar.

[Celia Cyanide]

In this regard, he reminds me of another prolific "celebrity author" of the 1980s- Jackie Collins.
Not that their work was at all similar, beyond being wildly popular, but their celebrity status was similar.

I see the similarity, certainly. However, the comparison only proves to me that King has something that she does not.

I've read very little of his fiction, but I am utterly sold on him from his non-fiction. Any time I read his column in Entertainment Weekly, The Pop Of King, I would be referencing it for years when a subject he spoke about came up in conversation. The only thing I say more often than, "I read this Stephen King essay about that" is, "Did you see the South Park episode about that?"

[Cybernaught]

Let's not forget his stellar directorial debut with Maximum Overdrive. On second thought, let's just forget that.

[BenPanced]

1. He writes damned good stories that lots of people want to read. Consistently. For many years.

2. He has name recognition not only for his books, but for his work in movies, TV, awards, controversy, getting hit by a van and surviving, etc. Translated, he's made the inter/national news often enough that even if you don't read that much, you've run into his name.
How much he loathes Stephenie Meyer's writing...

Oh, yeah. I went there. Booyah!

[blacbird]

I think he's the bomb. I like his writing. But what do you think it is about Stephen King that has given him such great name recognition for SO LONG, even among those who are not that interested in literature?

1. He's a very talented writer.

2. He hit on a poorly-mined resource of story genre, at the right time.

3. He's energetic and prolific.

4. He's a damn good personal salesman. He's appeared as an actor in several movies based in his work.

caw

[Ari Meermans]

1. He writes damned good stories that lots of people want to read. Consistently. For many years.

2. He has name recognition not only for his books, but for his work in movies, TV, awards, controversy, getting hit by a van and surviving, etc. Translated, he's made the inter/national news often enough that even if you don't read that much, you've run into his name.

I think that second point sums up what makes him famous apart from his writing.

But when it comes to his writing, King is quite simply a master at foreshadowing and creating imagery, especially haunting imagery. Many use "simplistic" or "simple" to describe his writing style. It is and it isn't. He uses simple language, true. But no other author can set me down on a quiet small-town street under a cloudless sky and make me feel as chilled by a glint of sunlight on the fender of a bicycle. I sense the menace but I'm never quite sure why I do . . . yet.

[nighttimer]

You know, I've been thinking of reading some of his books as I've never read any of them before. I always assumed that he was like a lot of the authors that put out dozens of books a year, and that the quality suffered for the quantity. What would you guys recommend as his best works? I'm not big into horror per se, but I have liked the movies of his work I've seen like Creepshow 2, Misery, Shawshank Redemption, the Shining, and Nightmares and Dreamscapes... I was thinking of picking up The Gunslinger.

I prefer Stephen King in his early-to-middle years in the late Seventies through the Eighties. I believe that was his prime time as a writer. The Shining, Salem's Lot, Different Seasons and even The Stand (which is not a good starting point unless you're into length and at times overlength).

The fall-off of King in the Nineties is pretty steep as he hacked out some of his worst books in his drug addiction and post-near fatal accident phase (Dreamcatcher with it's "ass weasles" aliens is probably rock-bottom King with From a Buick 8 almost as pointless)

I kicked my King habit for good after Cell and have no interest in investing any more of my beer money in his books. If I catch one for half-price somewhere I might, but I'm not going out of my way looking for it.

The secret to King's success is as others have said; he showed up at the right time when horror had faded in prominence. He's a simple writer without much in the way of flourish even if he does have his pretensions. King has compared his writing style to McDonald's hamburgers: tasty, if not exactly gourmet.

His unadorned style lends itself to Hollywood and that's done nothing to lessen his popularity. I admire King without always being impressed by him. He's given me a fair share of scares and I've given him a fair share of my cash. Seems like a fair trade.

[Jehhillenberg]

1. He writes damned good stories that lots of people want to read. Consistently. For many years.

2. He has name recognition not only for his books, but for his work in movies, TV, awards, controversy, getting hit by a van and surviving, etc. Translated, he's made the inter/national news often enough that even if you don't read that much, you've run into his name.

Yes! Very true!

[firedrake]

For anyone interested, there's a King interview at the Paris Review site. Might be worth a read even for those who aren't a fan. It's always interesting to hear someone like King talk about his writing career.

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/5653/the-art-of-fiction-no-189-stephen-king

Good interview.

I'm not a fan of his work (not really a fan of horror books, in general), but I think understand the appeal because it's so relateable: the family car, the family dog, the little girl down the lane the girl next door, clowns, a Good Samaritan. Many things that might seem harmless and taken for granted are suddenly the basis of our fears and turned inside out (sometimes literally?). True fear and horror can be easily disguised and will strike when we least expect it. Easily filmable is just a by-product of the popularlity of his work; I don't think the publishers had that in mind when they first picked up Carrie.

That's what I like about King, the small everyday things that can turn into something unspeakable. I like his portrait of small town life and small town minds.
His writing just flows easily for me. I haven't liked everything he's written and I agree with Nighttimer that his best stuff was in the 70s and 80s. He's gone through peaks and troughs, written stuff I hate and stuff I love, but when you produce that many books not every one is going to be universally adored.

[seun]

1. He's a very talented writer.

2. He hit on a poorly-mined resource of story genre, at the right time.

3. He's energetic and prolific.

4. He's a damn good personal salesman. He's appeared as an actor in several movies based in his work.

caw

All of this.

[scarletpeaches]

I bought Under the Dome because it reminded me of The Simpsons Movie.

[bearilou]

Also, I have it on good authority that he made a deal with the devil.

Do we need an agent for that?

I'm a 'short story and novella Stephen King' fan. I could never really get into his books but his shorter works are some of the few pieces of fiction that I return to time and again.

My copy of Different Seasons is dog-eared.

[seun]

I bought Under the Dome because it reminded me of The Simpsons Movie.

As soon as I heard about Dome, my first thought was the Simpsons. Probably says a lot about me that my second thought was The Midwich Cuckoos.

[Her Dark Star]

Never been a huge fan, there's as much about his writing that I dislike as like. However I admire him a great deal, he may not be an awe inspiring artist but he is a dedicated craftsmen. Personally I've got a lot that I can learn from him :-)

To Jamie Stone: The gunslinger is the first in the Dark Tower series, by far my favourite works of his. However they aren't really like anything else he has written and are very odd books. I'd recommend you borrow the first from the library to see if you get into it or not before splashing cash on the series. Could easily have a whole new thread on those books :-)

[Mutive]

1. Some luck...always luck.

2. His stories tend to be easy to read and follow. This is incredibly helpful if you're reading in line/on a plane/etc.

3. Well written, relatable, characters across the spectrum. (Gender, socio-economic class, age, race, etc. He doesn't have the ONE character, he's got a full stable of them.)

4. Incredibly prolific

5. Extraordinary sense of suspense

6. A lot film well, translating into readers who might normally only watch TV/movies

[whacko]

I'm not a fan, to be honest, but I think he's a tremendous talent. If I were Simon Cowell I'd hitch my trousers around my man boobs and tell Stevie he'd be back next week.

[KathleenD]

I also like his early stuff more than the later stuff, but if you feel that way, I heartily recommend Hearts in Atlantis and Duma Key.

And of course, On Writing, which I find more comforting and more helpful than any other book on the topic. On Writing, and Slushkiller (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004641.html) - those two things got me off the couch :)

[benbradley]

I recall reading an excerpt of Firestarter in Omni Magazine.

I remember Omni Magazine.

[KTC]

I think he's the bomb. I like his writing. But what do you think it is about Stephen King that has given him such great name recognition for SO LONG, even among those who are not that interested in literature?

He has books out regularly...and they are front and centre in every bookstore. Someone wants to buy a book for a present...who should I buy? I know...Stephen King. Everybody knows him.

From a reader's point of view...people who actually do read his work...I personally think he's one of the best character writers of the 20th century. I will always be entertained by a King book. He crosses genres...those who don't read have probably seen at least one, if not more, King movie. I really don't think this question has to be asked. He's everywhere.

[crunchyblanket]

He writes damn good stories, and populates them with interesting characters. That's enough for me.

[Soccer Mom]

I like his short stories better than his novels. They're fantastic.

[Eldritch]

...no other author can set me down on a quiet small-town street under a cloudless sky and make me feel as chilled by a glint of sunlight on the fender of a bicycle. I sense the menace but I'm never quite sure why I do . . .

This.

[COchick]

He creates worlds and characters that feel so real...that's the reason for me.

But...I haven't enjoyed his newer stuff as much as his older stuff.

[Cranky]

I like his short stories better than his novels. They're fantastic.

Yep. As much as I love Uncle Stevie, he tends to get a bit of bloat in his novels. His short stories, though, are pretty much genius. I buy them the second they come out and devour them in one sitting.

[Velma deSelby Bowen]

I actually like his novellas best. Like others here, I think his novels tend to bloat, but I think Different Seasons was brilliant.

One thing that appeals to me in King's writing is that his human characters tend to be very believable: they have quirks, and idiosyncracies, and they're not completely heroic and wise under stress. (I am, it seems, one of the rare fans of The Tommyknockers, which is full of real people, by my lights.)

I also think part of his appeal is that the plots feel real. Good people die, as well as the bad ones; no one walks away unscathed, and you can imagine the survivors moving to another town and continuing their lives, but always looking over their shoulders.

[Archie1989]

Dear god, I love everything this man has ever written, I swear.

Which is weird, because other than him I pretty much only read YA fiction and romance-y type stuff.

See my fantabulous blog for a post specifically about my undying love for S.King =]

My copy of The Stand is probably the only book I own that looks anything less than perfect, solely from my having read it so FREAKING many times.

I also thought "simpson's movie?" when Under the Dome first came out, but then I read it, . . . and read it again . . . . and again. I can't get bored even by his longest novels because he incorporates so many different characters and storylines . . . just me though =]

[William Haskins]

I think he's the bomb. I like his writing. But what do you think it is about Stephen King that has given him such great name recognition for SO LONG, even among those who are not that interested in literature?

he is prolific, for one thing.

he was aggressive in selling movie rights, for another.

and his rise coincides with the rise of american mall culture, when there was a waldenbooks and a b. dalton's at opposite ends of just about every american mall for two decades.

plus, he spins a good yarn.

[justkay]

Disclaimer: Avid Stephen King fan - the guy taught me how to read!

But if you look at his horror books, there isn't anything terribly original going on in his monsters. Vampires, telepathy, ghosts, evil houses, dogs, disease - all of it's been done before. What makes the books so fascinating is the characters. He has the ability to zoom into these people, get us into their heads and make them real for us. We either see parts of ourselves in these characters - or parts of ourselves we wish we had.

Because we relate so powerfully to these people, we flinch when the vampire crashes through the window, not because vampires creep us out so much, but because these characters are ours, we're invested, and we care.

That's the mark of a true master.

[ViolettaVane]

He's a brilliant stylist and storyteller. But I don't think his range is all that great. His non-white characters are embarrassingly inauthentic and his settings are limited. He seems to realize his weaknesses, however, which is why 90% of his stuff is set in Maine.

When it comes to short stories, I think he's one of the best writers anywhere, anytime, any genre. Total genius! I like some of his longer epics, but they tend to become bloated and derivative. That whole thing about writing himself into The Dark Tower series was laughably ridiculous. His quality has fallen off in the last decade but some of his short stories are still killers. I love that one about the haunted hotel room (1408).

[burgos]

I started reading outside of class and strictly for pleasure in the seventh grade (I'm a fifth-year senior in university now) and that's largely because of Stephen King. I read him nearly exclusively then. And I think why he's so successful, at least filtered through my experience, is that there's a character in his body of work for all of us.

When I was twelve or thirteen I could relate to his younger characters because he has an uncanny grasp on children, on childhood in general. Now, even some years into an English degree, I can't resist his stories, and, of course, as always, I still relate to those kids -- but now I'm also closer to his adult characters.

That might not be why he's popular, but certainly it's why he'll last decades from now.

[dgiharris]

Stephen King sorta reminds me of a martial arts expert.

Have you ever seen a grandmaster or 3rd degree blackbelt. They are so highly skilled that they actually make their art "appear" easy.

To me, that is Stephen King. He is such a gifted storyteller and writer that he makes it look easy when its anything but.

He understands people and writes in a way in which we instantly relate to.

Lastly, I bolded the storyteller part. That is key and a gift many writers really don't have.

Mel...

[Droood]

He hit on a poorly-mined resource of story genre, at the right time.

I feel it was more to do with this. The stories he told back then were scary for their time, so people really opened their eyes to him. Sure, he has the skill of writing too, but it was the stories more than anything else I believe.

These days it seems like he is really struggling to keep up, or to find his place. Novels about aliens bursting out of people's butts, and cell phones turning the population into zombie-like beings. Really? It's rather awkward to see him this way. I think he should have quit while he was ahead.

The only thing keeping his work alive now is that the film industry has no limits. No quality control. People will throw their money at any old rubbish put on the big screen, so these directors and producers will make it. This includes the recent Stephen King novels.

I know it's harsh, but I feel it's true.

[quicklime]

he was lucky.

I don't want to take anything away from him--he also busted his ass, he didn't quit and run home to mommy after his fifth, or fiftieth, or even five hundredth rejection, and he told honest stories.

At the same time, King had a very successful debut and hit his stride when horror was a HUGE market, and had the good fortune to have several of his early works made into very good and very popular movies (The Shining, The Dead Zone, Carrie--his name recognition might not have been nearly that if his first movies made were Maximum Overdrive and Graveyard Shift).....some of his later films also got high dramatic critical praise as well, broadening his audience with Stand by Me and The Shawshank Redemption. And he's been very constant; I'm not sure where the earlier poster got "20 books a year" but King is pretty reliable at one to two books per year.

[quicklime]

These days it seems like he is really struggling to keep up, or to find his place. Novels about aliens bursting out of people's butts, and cell phones turning the population into zombie-like beings. Really? I know it's harsh, but I feel it's true.


I also loathed Dreamcatcher, but that's over ten years old, isn't it? It isn't exactly a "recent" book. A lot of folks liked "Cell", and while i felt the ending was a letdown most of the rest looked like the old Stephen. And since Dreamcatcher and the last 3 Dark Tower books, he's written Bag of Bones and Duma Key, which I thought were both very good.

there WAS a space in there where I think his getting sober at the same time as his accident left him struggling, but I think he's done quite a bit sonce then, and dreamcatcher was his first post-accident work, IIRC

[Torgo]

He's a superb writer who works really, really hard at it. That's about the size of it, I think.

[Alpha Echo]

I see the similarity, certainly. However, the comparison only proves to me that King has something that she does not.

I've read very little of his fiction, but I am utterly sold on him from his non-fiction. Any time I read his column in Entertainment Weekly, The Pop Of King, I would be referencing it for years when a subject he spoke about came up in conversation. The only thing I say more often than, "I read this Stephen King essay about that" is, "Did you see the South Park episode about that?"

I didn't know he had a column - thanks! I also am not really a fan of his fiction, but I read On Writing and loved it. I think he's just a great story-teller, a great writer.

[AVS]

In the future Mr. King gains/has gained/will have gained/will be going to gain (gah) access to a tachyon driven mind control device. This is why he's popular.

Or perhaps he hits the sweet spot between good writing and good popular stories. Plus he's reasonably prolific.

Steven Spielberg hits the same place.


Hmm I think I will change my name to some variation of Steven/Stephen... it seems to help.

[Selah March]

I also loathed Dreamcatcher, but that's over ten years old, isn't it? It isn't exactly a "recent" book. A lot of folks liked "Cell", and while i felt the ending was a letdown most of the rest looked like the old Stephen. And since Dreamcatcher and the last 3 Dark Tower books, he's written Bag of Bones and Duma Key, which I thought were both very good.

there WAS a space in there where I think his getting sober at the same time as his accident left him struggling, but I think he's done quite a bit sonce then, and dreamcatcher was his first post-accident work, IIRC

I'm re-re-re-re-reading On Writing wherein King states that he had eleven years of sobriety before his accident, which happened in June of 1999.

[quicklime]

I'm re-re-re-re-reading On Writing wherein King states that he had eleven years of sobriety before his accident, which happened in June of 1999.


and I'd have to go back and see what was published....i had thought much of that time was realtively dead and uninspiring, but I'd have to see what came out in that time; i may be wrong about his sobriety years. I am CERTAIN, at least for me, that his early post-accident work was much different though, and much worse.

[blacbird]

Cuz he's a good and highly prolific writer who has sold a scheissload of books and is a considerable egotist and narcissist and likes to be on camera.

caw

[quicklime]

Cuz he's a good and highly prolific writer who has sold a scheissload of books and is a considerable egotist and narcissist and likes to be on camera.

caw


I love the guy (*gets ready to fight) :tongue



seriously, he is my favorite author (when he's on his game) but I've seen a few comments of his, like when he said something about "stealing from the blind newsboy" when he released "The Plant" despite selling another book or two that year for over ten million in advance alone, that make me think "you have no idea how far from reality you have slipped in some things, do you?"

[synger]

He takes normal people to whom you can relate, and puts them in situations you pray you'll never have to face.

And something has to be said for a writer that my 10yo is beginning to read, now that she's graduated from "Goosebumps." She's struggling with Pet Sematary; it's probably the hardest book she ever read on her own. But she keeps plugging away at it.

Because she wants to know what happens next.

Isn't that the essence of good writing?