Carnal_Flower
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Posts
- 6,896
I love Stephen King, but he got worse as he went along. The later ones, with a few exceptions, are all ridiculously overwritten and too long, like you say. The pivotal book is The Tommyknockers, if you ask me. That's when his editor decided to take a vacation and everything since then just went off the cliff--with a few exceptions like I said. The JFK book was good.
But his earlier books and especially his short stories are excellent. I would consider him a master of horror, yes, and in some cases a master of writing--at least, popular writing. I don't think he's ever claimed to be avant garde. He writes pop culture entertainment, with some larger themes sometimes, but above all excellent entertainment.
His best book is The Shining, no doubt. IT, Carrie, Misery, Cujo, The Dead Zone, all vastly entertaining and well written. And SO many great short stories and short novels.
I read one or two Dan Brown and found them so lightweight. Not even a comparison. King is so much better, both as a sheer writer and in his ideas. Brown was just silly nonsense with some vague religious idea thrown in--the real comparison is to Umberto Eco and The Name of the Rose. That's what Dan Brown wishes he could be.
But his earlier books and especially his short stories are excellent. I would consider him a master of horror, yes, and in some cases a master of writing--at least, popular writing. I don't think he's ever claimed to be avant garde. He writes pop culture entertainment, with some larger themes sometimes, but above all excellent entertainment.
His best book is The Shining, no doubt. IT, Carrie, Misery, Cujo, The Dead Zone, all vastly entertaining and well written. And SO many great short stories and short novels.
I read one or two Dan Brown and found them so lightweight. Not even a comparison. King is so much better, both as a sheer writer and in his ideas. Brown was just silly nonsense with some vague religious idea thrown in--the real comparison is to Umberto Eco and The Name of the Rose. That's what Dan Brown wishes he could be.
Let me preface everything by saying I have never read a single Dan Brown book. At best I've skimmed a few lines here and there when I find one of his books at a yard sale.
With the exception of Gerald's Game, I have never read a single Stephen King book, either. What I do remember of that solitary book was, "Oh my god. Get to the point already!" It seemed King went on an on about nothing important. Then again, I don't scare that easily despite a fairly vivid imagination.
That said, Dan Brown's newest book, Origin, is coming out this week and CBS has this short interview with him. There is also a link to read the prologue and first chapter of the book.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/author-dan-brown-the-da-vinci-code-origin/
To finally get to the point (see above), Stephen King has called Brown's writing, in general, the intellectual equivalent of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. Which raises the point, is King that good compared to Brown, or are their genres so different it is unfair to make a direct comparison? Would any of you consider King a master of writing? Along the same lines, what about Danielle Steele or Nora Roberts? From what I have read about those two their stories are essentially the same with only the characters and locations changed.
Is King simply full of himself? As Brown himself admits, he's not trying to be like Faulkner.
These are only my questions for those who have read both authors. Just your opinions and thoughts on this. Examples of why, for both authors, would be appreciated.