Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-14 of 14 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 29, 2013 8:16:19 AM PDT
W. Westphal says:
Say what you will about him, but one thing that can't be said is that political correctness has cowed him into not stating his opinion. Remember when he said that Meyer "can't write a d***"? Well now he has some things to say about Fifty Shades of Grey. Part of what he said here:

"I read Fifty Shades of Grey and felt no urge to go on. They call it mommy porn, but it's not really mommy porn. It is highly charged, sexually driven fiction for women who are, say, between 18 and 25."

He elaborated on it and on his dislike of Twilight in this article:

http://moviepilot.com/stories/1127017-stephen-king-insults-twilight-hunger-games-and-fifty-shades-of-grey?stamp=39680&subscribe_to=391697&utm_campaign=stephen-king-blasts-twilight-hunger-games-fifty-shades-in-new-interview&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=fb-stream-post

Posted on Dec 9, 2013 10:52:07 AM PST
Cinn says:
Stephen King is just jealous because he has yet to write a single book that sells 30 million copies. sure if you include all of his books, he may have sold 30 million, but not one single copy. He is just jealous. He wishes that his books were going viral. His books only sell because of his name. If you took his name off of it, it would be mediocre at best.

Posted on Dec 10, 2013 2:31:49 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 10, 2013 2:33:13 AM PST
"If you include all of his books, he may have sold 30 million"?

Ah, pardon me. Stephen King's books have over 350 million - and climbing. And nearly all of them, including the ones which came out over thirty years ago, are still read and enjoyed today. That's what makes a legend: somebody who conceives a concept that still maintains its power a couple of decades on, and has endured throughout every wave of newcomers. Not some passing fad that we'll eventually want to forget ever existed. I find it very dubious that Fifty Shades will continue to be read in thirty years' time. Namely because some other untalented hack is bound to come up with something that'll seize the spotlight from it. Wouldn't be hard. After all, if Fifty Shades has taught me anything, it's the fact that anybody can get famous - and Lord knows, the next erotic author won't have much to upstage. By contrast, King is an immensely talented writer whose stories are not just page after page of repetitive wording and moronic dialogue. He's never just stuck to one formula. Of course he's most commonly recognised as being the master of horror, but let us not forget Stand By Me, Misery, Shawshank Redemption, Dolores Claiborne, and The Green Mile - the latter being one of the most poignant novels I've ever read. Anybody can write about sex. It takes a bit more skill to have a reader put down one of your books feeling extremely moved. King can do that - because he's talented. You need only look at the catalogue of hits that he's built up. He has an entire library of credits which have ranched so eclectically in genre, tone and subject. He is, to sum it up, in a class all of his own. In some cases literally, because he probably has his own section in some bookstores - that's how celebrated he's become.

I'm not saying that everything he's done has been a masterpiece - he's had his moments (Cujo and Maximum Overdrive spring to mind). But when he's gotten it right, he's given us some of literature's most memorable characters and journeys. So to imply that he's *jealous* of EL James, a woman who can't write to save her life? That's rich. You say that "if you took his name off it, it would be mediocre at best". Dude, the whole reason he's GOT a name is because he's a terrific writer. The same cannot be said for EL, who's only on the radar because she turned to something which she knew would get people's attention, and stretched it out into a trilogy. If you have to resort to shock value to get people supporting your stuff, there's nothing to be jealous of. "Take King's name off it, it wouldn't be successful"? To that I say, if you were to take all of the sex out of Fifty Shades, the book would never have been a hit. Because without the aid of raunchiness to get people intrigued, her woeful lack of talent would have been all the more glaringly obvious.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 10, 2013 5:19:47 PM PST
Frankie says:
I'm not so sure that you could call King "jealous", but I do think he is peeved that James is so successful without paying her dues. He makes no bones about the fact that it took him years and lots of rejections before he was finally published.

Be that as it may, he by no means "slammed" FSOG. I honestly don't know why he bothered going on record to say anything, since what he did say was ridiculous. I think Stephenie Meyer showed a lot more class when she was asked about it, and stated that she didn't read books in the genre. So have a lot of other successful writers, who have focused on their own work and declined to comment on the series. Except for Anne Rice, who defended it-right on this very forum.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2013 2:38:39 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 12, 2013 1:51:22 PM PST
W. Westphal says:
I would have written a longer post refuting your claim that King is jealous, but Nicole has already done so. And as you point out, King can send any manuscript in and have it published - simply because of his name. You can't get much more famous than that. King has written some good books and he has written trash (sorry King fans, but read some of his earlier stuff), but each and every one is always on the New York Times list. Mr. King will never get a rejection letter, and let's not forget that dozens of his books are already films. Ms. James has not earned a eights of what he has earned from his books, and that is not even including the money he receives from Hollywood.

So jealousy doesn't fit in here, King is really saying what he thinks. And if he was simply jealous because her one series earned so much money, then why doesn't he go after more famous writers? Why didn't he attack Rowling, who has earned more money from her children book series (understandable, as there are seven)than James did? Instead he praises Rowling whenever he mentions her. And shouldn't he have set his sights on Suzanne Collins by now? No, his praise of Hunger Games is written on the back of every Catching Fire book. The only other big name he has slammed is Meyer.

Posted on Dec 11, 2013 5:30:29 PM PST
Frankie says:
Of course, King hasn't limited his negative remarks to the 50 Shades books. He made a similar comment about The Hunger Games in this article: http://moviepilot.com/stories/1127017-stephen-king-insults-twilight-hunger-games-and-fifty-shades-of-grey?stamp=39680&subscribe_to=391697&utm_campaign=stephen-king-blasts-twilight-hunger-games-fifty-shades-in-new-interview&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=fb-stream-post : "I read The Hunger Games and didn't feel an urge to go on. It's not unlike [my novel] The Running Man, which is about a game where people are actually killed and people are watching: a satire on reality TV."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2013 1:50:40 PM PST
W. Westphal says:
Similar comment? I think not Skippy. There is no reason why Collins or a Hunger Games fan would be offended by what he said, SHE herself said it was like his book and a satire of reality TV. Saying that you are not interested to read the sequel is not a complaint. On the other hand, all the comments I read of FSOG fans across the internet expressed outrage at his "mommy porn" comment. James and her publishers call FSOG adult literature, so Mr. King is contradicting that when he says it is for teenagers to 25 year olds.

Besides, King was beside himself with praise for Hunger Games, just read his review.

Posted on Dec 13, 2013 5:41:24 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2013 12:00:54 PM PST
Frankie says:
Stephen King says that 50SoG is for "sexually driven fiction for women who are, say, between 18 and 25." (basically, young women) Now, that is interesting, because there seems to be some inference that young women shouldn't be reading mature subject matter. Whereas I agree that true adulthood is not reached for several years after the legal definition of 18 years of age and young women should not be arrogantly preaching to mature women (especially about their taste in books), I see no problem with them reading "sexually driven fiction".

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2013 1:13:06 PM PST
W. Westphal says:
"Now, that is interesting, because there seems to be some inference that young women shouldn't be reading mature subject matter."

Doth I sense a not-subtle call for shame? I must compliment your attempt to divert attention away from the topic of my most recent post, though. The topic being that King's comments on FSOG were negative, while his comments on Hunger Games was positive and on Catching Fire neutral.

But Je suis d'accord Frankie, I don't think "young women", meaning people under the age of 18 should be reading this. That being said, I don't think people over the age of nine hundred should be reading this either. You see, it causes brain damage and may lead to insanity. ;)

Bonne journée !

Posted on Dec 13, 2013 5:31:40 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2013 5:39:10 PM PST
Frankie says:
How could anyone take King seriously? In 2008 he says that: "But since this is the first novel of a projected trilogy, it seems to me that the essential question is whether or not readers will care enough to stick around and find out what comes next for Katniss. I know I will. But then, I also have a habit of playing Time Crisis until all my quarters are gone." (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20419951_20223443,00.html) Five years later, he writes: "I read The Hunger Games and didn't feel an urge to go on." His was obviously, in the first interview, couching his terms trying to write what sounded like a positive review, when in fact he was dissing the author: "Balancing off the efficiency are displays of authorial laziness that kids will accept more readily than adults."

King didn't like The Hunger Games. He was being paid to write a review that EW would accept, since the magazine can't afford to alienate the publishers that pay for advertising space, and to provide statements that could be taken out of context and used as selling points for the books.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2013 12:48:48 PM PST
W. Westphal says:
That's interesting, but King isn't afraid to say what he thinks, he's not afraid of offending people - in fact he loves it. In one of his first EW articles, he says "I might make you mad. In fact I hope I do make you mad". I subscribedto EW for a year, and his twice monthly columns have bashed more movies than I can remember, and he has praised more than I could remember. Once he wrote an article where he "translated" the praise that several movies of the year were getting, where he mocked each one in question. And it's not just entertainment that he causes controversy over. Remember when he called Glenn Beck Satan's younger brother? Maybe EW wouldn't have published an article of him bashing Hunger Games, but then he could have reviewed something else that week.

Posted on Dec 15, 2013 6:18:29 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 16, 2013 4:32:22 AM PST
Frankie says:
In addition, it's astounding how the internet tabloids will take a statement out of context, and start writing headlines about how King has insulted other books. When you read the oft-repeated quote in context, in the original article: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/21/stephen-king-shining-sequel-interview , King is by no mean "slamming" any of the books. He was discussing the assertion that the past few years have comprised "The Golden Age of Horror" and was explaining why he didn't consider any of the books to be in the "horror" category.

I have no doubt that King didn't like Twilight or 50SoG, and that he was ambivalent about The Hunger Games. So what? What is really astounding to me is that he's being asked to weigh in on these franchises. He's right, none of the are really in the horror genre. Twilight and The Hunger Games are YA books, which by default eliminates them from being so dark as to be considered "horror" and 50SoG simply isn't dark enough to be considered os either. Now, apparently, King does consider The Casual Vacancy to be worthy of praise as a horror book. The fact that he is dismissing the others isn't "slamming" them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2014 9:09:21 PM PDT
Tigerslilly says:
What? Do you even know who Stephen King is? I'm not a fan of his, but I doubt that King is 'jealous' of any author.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2014 1:53:55 PM PDT
W. Westphal says:
Very true. I'm not a fan either, but the guys a titan. He's got no one to be jealous of.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  5
Total posts:  14
Initial post:  Sep 29, 2013
Latest post:  Jul 22, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Fifty Shades of Grey: Book One of the Fifty Shades Trilogy
Fifty Shades of Grey: Book One of the Fifty Shades Trilogy by E. L. James (Paperback - April 3, 2012)
3.4 out of 5 stars   (27,431)