Stephen King

I know, I know. I'm from New England, so I'm supposed to like Stephen King. He's written one book I like, The Stand. That's it. 

One of the many reasons Stephen King is not a good writer is that he uses stock characters. The villains in Stephen King almost always don't have good motives. They exist solely to be villains and to be hated. That's lazy thinking in itself-no villain starts off by saying "I'm going to be evil." In fact, the most interesting villains believe they are doing good. Oddly, I got into an argument about this with a brainiac in college. I said "Stalin probably thought he was doing good." Foolishly, that girl said "How can you say he did good! He killed millions of people! How dare you!" Right. I never said I thought he was doing good-I said Stalin thought he was doing good. 

Another annoying fact is that King relies on stereotypes. Many of the bad characters in his books are religious fanatics and of course, all of them are evil, unsmiling killjoys (yes, I exempt The Stand). I get it, the man doesn't like religion, republicans or anyone that isn't a clone of his own views. That's the sign of a bad writer and a person who hasn't really matured in life. If you can't separate "good people and bad political ideas" well, I feel sorry for you. You aren't alone-I get that personally all the time. In fact, one guy sent a three page rant telling me that only people on the left "help people". I'm planning on framing it and getting it signed by him. 

Stephen King is also wordy. A good writer can succinctly tell you a story and not babble on. 

You might say "Oh, you are a terrible writer too." Yes, but I've never claimed to be otherwise. From my limited impressions of King (I've only read a few of his books, thankfully) he seems to think he is better than what he is.   

Is he a better writer than I could be? You betcha. He's sold a lot of books. But Nickleback also sells a lot of records. 

Flame on.