As I may have mentioned, I recently took up the challenge of reading one of Stephen King’s most popular and lengthy novels, The Stand. I have just finished this book, which at 1200 pages makes this a pretty monumental feat if I do say so myself. I know there are a plethora of books this length or longer, but 1000+ page books are not the norm, especially outside of the fantasy realm. It took me a while (partially because I moved into a new house during this time), but I’ve finished! And a lot of opinions do I have. I will likely do a specific review of The Stand that I’ll post next week, but the novel has had me thinking about a lot of patterns I’ve noticed throughout King’s books, and I thought that would be a fun topic to discuss today.
Before you question my credibility in this area, I’ve read a lot of Stephen King’s books: The Shining, The Outsider, Misery, Pet Semetary, Cujo, The Green Mile, Carrie, It, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, Salem’s Lot, Doctor Sleep, The Institute, The Mist, Under the Dome, Needful Things, Mr. Mercedes, If it Bleeds, Different Seasons, The Tommyknockers, Dolores Claiborne, On Writing, and now The Stand. Yep, that’s a lot.
Having read twenty-two of King’s books, I’d say I’m fairly qualified to speak about his writing. At least, his horror/general fiction writing. As you can see, I’ve not read any of his fantasy stuff… yet. I’m sure I’ll get around to it eventually, but (as with many of his other books) I’ve heard there’s a lot of mixed feelings about the ending of the Dark Tower series. I’ll wait until I’m in the mood for some controversy before I get started on those, I think.
With so many of his books under my belt, I’ve noticed some unique trends that I think make him a great storyteller, and also the bane of some people’s existence. The main contributing factor to these trends or to his overall style is the exorbitant amount of detail King includes in his novel; and the dedication he must possess in order to do so.
The amount of detail in King’s novels leads me to believe that he is a very intelligent, well-rounded person. In The Stand, there is a sociologist professor who has very in-depth, profound conversations and monologues about his views concerning the world and society. I don’t believe King could have written such a character if he too didn’t have in-depth and profound views about the world and society. There are a lot of other instances of these characters occurring throughout his novels, but I just read The Stand so Prof. Glen was the first to come to mind. I would say these insightful characters are one of King’s trademarks.
Many of the books King writes go beyond what we may consider necessary for detail, which is another of his trademarks. This is the issue many people cite when discussing why his writing doesn’t appeal to them. It can be tedious at times, like overzealous detail in fantasy books, but there is a specific reason why King’s detail is more interesting to me than minute details in fantasy: King’s books often take place in real cities. This means that his details aren’t made up (at least, not all of them) and are instead heavily researched. That’s not to say building entire worlds from one’s own imagination isn’t impressive or skillful. It certainly is, but I find King’s research and the details he chooses to include to be impressive and skillful in a different way.
I find his research to be an impressive feat considering how in-depth he describes the settings of his books. He incorporates detail down to street names, back roads, time-accurate shops and restaurants, actual incorporated history of the town, etc. Sometimes his books take place in a fantasy town set in a U.S. state which means he must seamlessly blend his own made-up town with the real-life cities and roads around it. This may not seem extremely skillful to some (“the town already exists, you don’t have to think of anything original”), but I would argue that with the amount of detail King includes it is very obvious that he is intimately familiar with these cities which is a skill in itself. I would not be surprised if researching towns was one of King’s favorite hobbies because he certainly gets into it.
Along with often specific and well-researched settings, King includes a lot of details for each of his characters. They all have a detailed backstory with very specific events or occurrences that have shaped them into the person they are. One thing about Stephen King is he really knows his man. His women can be hit or miss depending on the way he describes them, but he puts a lot of effort into his characters either way. This can be another issue for some as although his characters are generally well-rounded, the detail provided is often given through some serious inner monologues. Even small characters that are around for a single event are two are fleshed out through careful details. It’s impressive, but also can be unnecessary for characters that are unimportant.
This large, and some may say excessive, amount of detail is something that is found in all of his novels. In some of his later novels (there’s a specific period around the 2000s where I feel this is most prevalent), the amount of detail is so insanely large that I wonder how it got through an editor without getting trimmed. And, if that is the trimmed version, how much more detail was originally included?
Regardless of if you’re a fan of his writing style, I don’t think anyone can argue that he is extremely dedicated to his craft. The amount of time and effort it takes to give so much detail to his characters and settings is proof enough of that.
There is another trademark of his that I find interesting is his attraction to the supernatural or paranormal. During my previous read, it actually frustrated me that The Stand went from plague eruption to supernatural battle (sort of spoiler?). I don’t know why I didn’t expect it as I don’t think I’ve read once of King’s novels that doesn’t have at least one supernatural element to it, but I didn’t expect it and it actually did put me off the novel for a moment. Once I had my expectations adjusted, I jumped back in and enjoyed the rest of the book.
Sometimes the supernatural element seems unnecessary, but I find there’s always a meaning to it. For example, John Coffey having some sort of supernatural presence in The Green Mile elevates the story from a black man being innocently put to death to a larger metaphor of the corrupt criminal system killing what is essentially the second coming of Jesus. Does it need that elevation? Probably not. It was already an incredible story, and adding supernatural powers didn’t really do anything more for Coffey’s character than add that he was even more innocent than originally thought. However, the supernatural elements are a King trademark, so in the story they go.
The type of supernatural or paranormal element he adds is usually interesting, if not always necessary, and does give his books the signature King feel. It is also sometimes used as a callback or connector to his other stories, which I appreciate. I can’t remember what novel it is, but I know in at least one book (or many) there is a specific callback to Salem’s Lot. I believe they mention the town was destroyed by a gas leak. Of course, if you’ve read Salem’s Lot you know that’s untrue, and it’s another unique way of King’s to let us know how other people in his “universe” reacted to those events. I think it also shows how much he enjoys and appreciates the stories he writes.
I’ve mentioned a few pitfalls of King’s writing here, but they’re not important enough to me to spend a lot of time on them. Mainly, I really appreciate how much he cares for his craft as an author. It shows throughout his writing, and makes his books extremely enjoyable for me to read. If you have never read a Stephen King book, I highly recommend trying one (unless you don’t like horror and then DON’T). If you have tried reading one of his books and disliked his writing style, try giving him another shot. Maybe this post will let you see his writing in a new light.
Addendum: I didn’t talk about the weird sex stuff that is often present throughout his book. At the time of this writing I didn’t have much of an opinion on it other than that I don’t particularly enjoy it, but it hasn’t been egregious enough for me to complain (except in IT, I mean c’mon). However, it is a fairly big aspect of his style as there’s some weird sex stuff in nearly every book. I read a reddit comment recently about this that said they’re surprised by how much people complain about the sexual aspects of King’s books while knowing that he is a horror writer. It makes sense that he would explore horror through sex just as he does through humanity, violence, etc. I thought this was a great point, and I’ll leave it here for those of you who have thoughts about King’s written perversions.
The Lit Wiz