Sonya, that's a great article, and one I was unfamiliar with. For many years when publicly discussing writing style(s), I've referenced King as who I feel to be the contemporary quintessential talent. And, often, people have given me the "look"--or worse.
One work in particular, and not one of his most highly acclaimed, was the defining element for me, and this was DOLORES CLAIBORNE. To write a 90,000 word monologue is on the same level with Alice Walker writing PURPLE in epistolatory form or Styron writing NAT TURNER in back story. To make it work is beyond brilliant. And there was not one adverb attribute (for that matter, there may have been only one or two attributes in the entire book, if I remember).
Stephen King understands (which is the key, and certainly difficult to teach and even more arduous to learn) the techniques utilized by great writers, as indicated when he referenced that his teaching syllabus employed Jack London. I have tried for years to get academics to look at London's prose, throughout his oeuvre, as being one of the very best models one can use for examples of the development of perfect "readable" rhetoric. And, occasionaly, I make some headway, but not as often as I'd like.
In my abject opinion, London is the best pure prose writer I have ever read, but Stephen King is not a millimeter behind him, which is the highest compliment I can pay.
Thanks again for posting the link to this great author's insight. The mere fact that he mentioned London gives me great pride in at least knowing there is one other person who appreciates what he contributed to the world of literature, even though it might be lumped into that nasty commercial fiction category. What a farce. Great is great; London was great and King is great.
Ain't no doubt about it.
