"Horror" Writer

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

blunthead

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2006
80,755
195,461
Atlanta GA
WOW. Beautifully said- I love this. Truly captures stepping into SK's world, and the sometimes dark worlds within ours. Oh, and I totally watched green mile on AMC last night too! Lol. They played Shawshank right before it, good night of TV!
Due to being trapped indoors I've been watching lots sK movies lately, including Shawshank then Green Mile. I love to turn people on to the fact that those two efforts are based on sK stories. Today my physical therapist told me she isn't an sK fan, smiling and shuddering as she said it. I really wish she had some idea what she's talking about.
 

Wasp27

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2014
65
422
36
Louisiana
Due to being trapped indoors I've been watching lots sK movies lately, including Shawshank then Green Mile. I love to turn people on to the fact that those two efforts are based on sK stories. Today my physical therapist told me she isn't an sK fan, smiling and shuddering as she said it. I really wish she had some idea what she's talking about.
Me too! It doesn't hurt that AMC is probably the best cable channel out there lol, they always play the classics and best original shows (the killing!!!) and I love telling people Shawshank and green mile are sk stories, they're often surprised.
 

Liselle

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2006
1,586
1,448
51
England
I agree with all of the above he may have started as being classified as a horror writer but he has become so much more than that. He spreads himself over all genres and it will very unfair to try and pigeon hole him into any one classification. He can turn his hand from childhood friendships that last a life time to stories of people's struggles whether by an endless search or revenge for acts committed.
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
2,201
7,168
The Netherlands
Horror is often about the human condition. I think a lot of it is horror (apart from stories like Shawshank), just not superficial horror. Some books are more supernatural drama, like Green Mile, a realistic story that just happens to have a supernatural element, but isn't out to fully terrify you - but a great number of books (certainly the early ones) ARE out to terrify you. I wouldn't know what to call Salem's Lot, Pet Sematary, The Shining, Cujo, Misery else than horror.

So, it's not ALL horror, but certainly a good part of it, is. It's just that there is a lot of subtext to go with it. But he enjoys scaring his audience.
 

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
So as this is the place for like minded peeps, I'm curious as to whether you consider Mr. King a "horror" writer and if so (or if not) what constitutes that definition? I ask mainly because whenever I'm telling non King fans/constant readers I'm reading an sk book or watching an sk related film they usually have the same response- "Oh no, too scary for me! I'll stick to my (insert crappy author/crap movie)."
I think the reason a lot of people assume King is just some "horror" writer is based off films primarily Carrie and It. In my experience, people automatically associate Stephen King with "here's Johnny!"/red rum or "that f*ckin creepy ass clown" which is totally understandable, pennywise has provided many a nightmare for my younger self. But then these same people are surprised if you tell the
King wrote the stories The Shawshank Redemption, green mile, stand by me, and hearts in Atlantis are based on.
Since those are some of my favorite works, I have never really considered King a horror writer...even his 'scary' works are to me, like that of hearts in Atlantis, pieces of fine fiction that speak to the human condition. It is frightening as hell for sure, but for me it's a story about the innocence of childhood and the WORLD is the truly scary place, the world made and ruled by adults. The Shining is about the damage of an alcoholic parent and spouse, and the ghosts (literally and figuratively) those people are left with. In any case, you see my point. King uses horror or supernatural elements to illustrate and highlight the very human story within, and I hope more people who may not be all that familiar with King can see that. I think his last works have accomplished that (11/22/63, great for history freaks, and Under the Dome tv series). Above all, I actually consider King's writing to be one long running commentary on both the complexities of human nature and modern American life. And for that, I am grateful.
Sorry if this want long and rangy, I'm just curious as to what you guys think.

I do agree that he has been stereotyped, starting back in the 70s with Carrie which was the first movie based on his first (popular) book.

I got away from his writing for many years and in the last couple of years or so (since about the time 11/22/63 came out) I started reading his books again and discovered many books I did not even know about.

So I guess now I am one of those Constant Readers that he often likes to address in his foreword or afterword.

I consider him to be an extremely talented writer. It is almost as if he was born to write - he has been doing so since a young age.

Over the years he has honed his skills and now to me, he is the ultimate (the best) - I think he will eventually be known for what he is - just an excellent writer, horror or no horror.
Great thread, by the way! Thanks @Wasp27
:encouragement:
 
M

mjs9153

Guest
Me too! It doesn't hurt that AMC is probably the best cable channel out there lol, they always play the classics and best original shows (the killing!!!) and I love telling people Shawshank and green mile are sk stories, they're often surprised.
Which just goes to show,a lot of people just accept the peripheral stuff they hear about SK being that horror guy,and pass on reading his books..sad that so many miss so much good in his written word, because they won't try it for themselves..
 

Wasp27

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2014
65
422
36
Louisiana
I do agree that he has been stereotyped, starting back in the 70s with Carrie which was the first movie based on his first (popular) book.

I got away from his writing for many years and in the last couple of years or so (since about the time 11/22/63 came out) I started reading his books again and discovered many books I did not even know about.

So I guess now I am one of those Constant Readers that he often likes to address in his foreword or afterword.

I consider him to be an extremely talented writer. It is almost as if he was born to write - he has been doing so since a young age.

Over the years he has honed his skills and now to me, he is the ultimate (the best) - I think he will eventually be known for what he is - just an excellent writer, horror or no horror.
Great thread, by the way! Thanks @Wasp27
:encouragement:
Thanks! I'm glad y'all have taken the time to respond!!
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
So as this is the place for like minded peeps, I'm curious as to whether you consider Mr. King a "horror" writer and if so (or if not) what constitutes that definition? I ask mainly because whenever I'm telling non King fans/constant readers I'm reading an sk book or watching an sk related film they usually have the same response- "Oh no, too scary for me! I'll stick to my (insert crappy author/crap movie)."
I think the reason a lot of people assume King is just some "horror" writer is based off films primarily Carrie and It. In my experience, people automatically associate Stephen King with "here's Johnny!"/red rum or "that f*ckin creepy ass clown" which is totally understandable, pennywise has provided many a nightmare for my younger self. But then these same people are surprised if you tell the
King wrote the stories The Shawshank Redemption, green mile, stand by me, and hearts in Atlantis are based on.
Since those are some of my favorite works, I have never really considered King a horror writer...even his 'scary' works are to me, like that of hearts in Atlantis, pieces of fine fiction that speak to the human condition. It is frightening as hell for sure, but for me it's a story about the innocence of childhood and the WORLD is the truly scary place, the world made and ruled by adults. The Shining is about the damage of an alcoholic parent and spouse, and the ghosts (literally and figuratively) those people are left with. In any case, you see my point. King uses horror or supernatural elements to illustrate and highlight the very human story within, and I hope more people who may not be all that familiar with King can see that. I think his last works have accomplished that (11/22/63, great for history freaks, and Under the Dome tv series). Above all, I actually consider King's writing to be one long running commentary on both the complexities of human nature and modern American life. And for that, I am grateful.
Sorry if this want long and rangy, I'm just curious as to what you guys think.
I agree with you that Horror writer is wrong. He is one of the big storytellers of our time. He has a great gift for character and dialogue and finds pathways through the human psyche that are both fascinating, horrific and interesting. He can use horror, and even gore sometimes but he can also do without that. But i think he, at least at home, is getting accepted for what he is though, a great WRITER. Or am i wrong about that? I know that in sweden, where I live, the critics are still highly suspicious when they are writing about a new book.
 

Echo Looper

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2014
54
364
NY/NJ
We as human beings love to organize, alphabetize, sanitize, & categorize our art/music into neat, simple boxes. Stephen King could not have had this astounding career if he was merely one or two dimensional. And yes, as previously stated, movies made from books often miss the deeper meanings behind the original stories. So King, and fans of King, suffer from pop culture's definition of him. They only see the blood and miss the point.
('IT' Spoilers ahead)
For example, in IT, Pennywise is the fantastical / memorable evil of the story right? But really King parallels so many normal human behaviors with that character of Pennywise and his heightened supernatural evil. Think about all the abuse Bev receives at the hands of her husband and her father? What about the school bullies who attack Ben? What about the northern KKK clan that burns down the night club? These are actual, tangible human issues. This book is far more than just a creepy clown tale. There are big monstrous human themes running throughout "IT" that call out to the loss of innocence & highlight issues of abuse and violence.
The novel also stops to marvel at the wonder and pure joy in childhood and friendship. This I especially love and appreciate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy and Kurben

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
We as human beings love to organize, alphabetize, sanitize, & categorize our art/music into neat, simple boxes. Stephen King could not have had this astounding career if he was merely one or two dimensional. And yes, as previously stated, movies made from books often miss the deeper meanings behind the original stories. So King, and fans of King, suffer from pop culture's definition of him. They only see the blood and miss the point.
('IT' Spoilers ahead)
For example, in IT, Pennywise is the fantastical / memorable evil of the story right? But really King parallels so many normal human behaviors with that character of Pennywise and his heightened supernatural evil. Think about all the abuse Bev receives at the hands of her husband and her father? What about the school bullies who attack Ben? What about the northern KKK clan that burns down the night club? These are actual, tangible human issues. This book is far more than just a creepy clown tale. There are big monstrous human themes running throughout "IT" that call out to the loss of innocence & highlight issues of abuse and violence.
The novel also stops to marvel at the wonder and pure joy in childhood and friendship. This I especially love and appreciate.
Agree with you about IT. What makes the book the book great is just the descriptions of childhood and friendship. The rst is great too but the reason that i read it again and again is the parts that relate to these issues.
 

Mr Nobody

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2008
3,306
9,050
Walsall, England
Others have said it already, but for me he's a writer who captures the human condition first and foremost, whether the story is about the fear reaction (horror), the bonds of friendship (perhaps especially those formed in childhood), the relationships between husband and wife, parents and kids, or...whatever, he gets at what is True. And, though the stories capture America and Americana best (how not?), they also contain 'Things Universal'. And there's usually a wry, though not always amused, sort of wit running through the narrative - though he can also be laugh-out-loud funny with a single word or deceptively simple phrase.
In the end, though, what I usually say to naysayers is this: read Carrie, but not to the end. Now take away the psychokinetic element. Do you still have a story?
The answer, of course, is yes. Stripped bare of the obvious horror elements, what you have at the core is the tale of an unpopular, even despised, and deeply unhappy girl with a headcase for a mother. Add 'powers'
and a couple of pigs,
and bingo-bongo.
 

skimom2

Just moseyin' through...
Oct 9, 2013
15,683
92,168
USA
He is a horror writer--to deny that is to deny the first half (so far) of his career. Stopping with that definition, or taking a limited view or that definition, is where some people are mistaken, though. I love something he said, I think in Danse Macabre (though I could definitely be wrong), about the way humor and horror 'lie together cheek and jowl' for children, because their minds are open. Horror was (and still is) a way to make us all children again; to open our minds to possibilities. What Mr. King does that is maybe unique from other writers (though I'm not so sure about that. Maybe he's just the most successful) is to use that tiny corner of rationality that he's prised up to talk about being human--the things that make us alive, that tie us together, that make us cry, or laugh, or keep chugging along when common sense says we should quit. Instead of shoving monster after monster though that crack in reality and only feeding our fear, he makes us think about what makes the monster...and whether the monster is really us.

A quote of his that resonates with me comes from the afterword of Full Dark, No Stars (actually, the whole afterword is a thing of beauty--if you haven't read it, you need to do so): "For writers who knowingly lie, for those who substitute unbelievable human behaviour for the way people really act, I have nothing but contempt... Bad writing usually arises from a stubborn refusal to tell stories about what people actually do--to face the fact, let us say, that murderers sometimes help old ladies cross the street."

Here's to the man who never 'truckles to Fashion' or shies from showing us what people actually do, and in the process leads us to examine our own hearts. Horror, yes, but also love, and courage, and strength, and weakness...they're all there, and Mr. King never lets the reader forget that.