Worst of Stephen King - Worst books or stories

[The Un-Clit]

The other three stories are all fantastic, though, and I agree that the gentlemen's club in The Breathing Method is one of the most intriguing, evocative ideas he's ever had. There's one other story set there that I know of, a short in Skeleton Crew called "The Man Who Would Not Shake Hands." Anyone know if he's written any more post-2000 or so?

No, and I wish to hell he had. I loved the concept of that club too, and deeply wished to hear more stories from it, and ABOUT it. My headcanon connects it to the Dark Tower, all those rooms in the upper floors have Todash doorways in them leading to.....anywhere.

 

[Mola Ram]

No, and I wish to hell he had. I loved the concept of that club too, and deeply wished to hear more stories from it, and ABOUT it. My headcanon connects it to the Dark Tower, all those rooms in the upper floors have Todash doorways in them leading to.....anywhere.

Yeah, I think his take on parallel worlds was definitely incubating when he wrote it. The brands that the narrator never heard of, the authors that seemingly don't exist outside the club's library, the warning that men have become lost exploring the club ... man, it's all so great. On the one hand I would love to see it explored more thoroughly, but on the other it's one of those things that probably works best as a never-explained enigma. Especially considering how dopey King's explanations can get.

 

[The Taco Santo!]

Insomnia, whose Tower connection was nearly the only interesting thing about it

Insomnia was his second-worst after Bag of Bones. And it's sad, because it almost seems like there could be a good novel there, if he had a good editor and took their suggestions seriously. 2/3rds could be cut, and should be.

 

[Suel Forrester]

The worst of Stephen King is obvously the child gangbang scene in IT. I have no idea why the fuck that's not on your poll, but I can put it there if you want me to correct that error.

I never got why any of the other insanity in king's books was OK, but this scene gets all this hate.

Like yeah, it's gross...but it's a fictional story firstly, none of the horrible acts involving children are real or anymore "ok"

Just seems weird that in a fiction story of children being eaten and disemboweled, and one of the kids even being molested by their dad, this scene for some reason gets a disproportionate amount of negative attention

It's certainly not wrong to be grossed out by 10 year Olds fucking, but if that bothers you why doesn't other parts of the book raise issue?

 

[Mola Ram]

I never got why any of the other insanity in king's books was OK, but this scene gets all this hate.

Like yeah, it's gross...but it's a fictional story firstly, none of the horrible acts involving children are real or anymore "ok"

Just seems weird that in a fiction story of children being eaten and disemboweled, and one of the kids even being molested by their dad, this scene for some reason gets a disproportionate amount of negative attention

It's certainly not wrong to be grossed out by 10 year Olds fucking, but if that bothers you why doesn't other parts of the book raise issue?

Because the other scenes you allude to are written to horrify.

The underage sewer train is written as ennobling. This is where the Losers' Club embraces the power that binds them together and figures out how to survive Derry's sewers before their memories fade and the magic goes back to sleep. Again, I don't think the scene is proof that King is a pedo, but the emotional impact is similar to when someone shows you an image of a traumatized child in too little clothing and expects you to think it's beautiful. It's still disgusting, but as a result of King's miscalculations rather than any intent to disgust.

 

[Briananderson1138]

So last month I had the misfortune of reading Fairy Tale, and was so thoroughly annoyed with it that I wrote an entire review.

Spoiler: Warning: Long

The most compelling aspect of fantasy literature is, I think, its development of uniquely fascinating and peculiar alternate worlds and scenarios. I was thus as thoroughly unimpressed by Stephen King’s new book Fairy Tale as it was possible for me to be. It is not so bad as to be wholly contemptible, nor so intriguing with regard to certain of its aspects as to enable me to disregard its failings and thereby love it.
The first remarkable thing about the book is the coarseness or rather crudity of its language, not in the sense of its containing actual profanity, but in the sense of having abandoned any pretense to literary or even aesthetic style. The entire book is written in the first person, and appears to be written in the narrative style of a man unacquainted with reading, or of expressing ideas in any but the most basic straightforward fashion, as by a dullard. I particularly recall the description of a kindly old woman’s moral character as adjudged by our protagonist: the single sentence “She was good.”
This narration might be useful in moderation to illustrate the mind of a simple character, but unrelieved by a more erudite narrator it is damnably trying.
The plot by comparison is substantially more interesting. The notion of a young man in his junior year of high school saving the life of a reclusive old man and thereby discovering an aperture to a fantastic other world, while excessively whimsical if mis-handled, has a genuinely intriguing quality. That this portal is reached by a hidden well constitutes a genuinely creative idea; that the other world is characterized and populated by warmed-over ideas from commonplace fairy tales is not.
There exist in this book a number of ideas, which I might characterize as good ideas intermixed with a greater quantity of stale ones. This insofar as Mr. King does not give them the care needed to make them vigorous; even the good ones are dealt with in the most straightforward way possible.
There are, for instance, giants of the traditional fairy-tale type: nothing interesting is done with them. The sky simply has two moons. The true queen of the realm, heir to the throne, is in hiding as a commoner: again, nothing in particular is made of her condition thus.
Regarding the interesting ideas, the corruption which our heir’s treacherous sorcerer brother spreads simply turns people grey and mishappen: why not unnatural colors and patterns on their skin that hurt to look at? Hydro-electric power has been evolved: it was used to power streetcars that are to judge by their description entirely too earthly. The traitor city guard have been turned into visible ghosts bound to their animated skeletons: they are somehow actuated by supernatural electricity and are thus defeated by pouring water over them.
Returning again to the subject of plot, its climax is, if there is any truth to the colloquial wisdom, a typically disappointing Stephen King resolution. It transpires that the evil wizard-prince has found yet another portal to another world, and thus has magically transmogrified into a semi-humanoid monster. Using this portal, he attempts to release another, dragon-like, evil creature. Both wizard and dragon-thing are, or were obviously originally intended to be, flagrant knockoffs of Wilbur Whatley and Cthulhu, respectively.
Eventually the wizard is killed by conventional means and the dragon-thing banished by saying its name.
I understand Stephen King is now an old man; he will hopefully shortly retire from publishing and thereby spare the world any more of this second-rate literature.

 

[The Un-Clit]

Well said. If I were to break 'Fairy Tale' down into a single word description, that word would be: "Lazy."

So little effort was put into the logic of the world of Fairy Tale that it's incredibly disappointing to think that the same author of the Dark Tower series and The Talisman/Black House spewed out this mediocrity. He's old and that's all there is to it. He's worn out. The mind that channeled so many brilliant ideas is worn smooth, and it's a goddamn shame. But it's a fact that must be met.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

I've been re-reading the Bachman books lately and have enjoyed them. Not so much Roadwork, a middle aged man throwing a tantrum because things aren't going his way and fucking over everyone around him hits a little too close to home, but I still love The Long Walk, Blaze and especially The Running Man. The last one has been one of my top "Remake it but more like the book" movie ideas.

Rage is out of print, but I could easily grab it online. I know it's about a school shooting, which is why King pulled it, but is it any good?

 

[The Un-Clit]

I've been re-reading the Bachman books lately and have enjoyed them. Not so much Roadwork, a middle aged man throwing a tantrum because things aren't going his way and fucking over everyone around him hits a little too close to home, but I still love The Long Walk, Blaze and especially The Running Man. The last one has been one of my top "Remake it but more like the book" movie ideas.

Rage is out of print, but I could easily grab it online. I know it's about a school shooting, which is why King pulled it, but is it any good?

I quite enjoyed it. It's not perfect, but there's a lot of story there and kind of does a decent job of telling how a school-shooting incel becomes one. The ending, how the whole classroom turns on the jock isn't all that realistic imo, but King has always been weak on endings. Running Man, in contrast has one of the best endings he's ever written.

 

[pururun]

I've been reading Salem's Lot as my first King book (not counting an attempt to read The Stand that I stopped not from disinterest, but because it felt too close to home during covid) and I'm not too fond of it. I get what he was trying to do making the entire town a character of its own, but Salem's Lot and its residents aren't interesting enough to devote hundreds of pages detailing them. The cast are basically all broad stereotypes and in spite of spending whole chapters describing it I don't get a good image and vibe of the town. It's a different medium, but I think Twin Peaks did a far better job with the "small town mystery where most of the focus is on the town itself" concept. I also don't like the weird jokes and sexual comments King includes that just kill any sense of suspense for me. No bigger mood killer of an ominous scene than an old guy farting immediately after.

Is Stephen King just not for me or was this a bad first pick?

 

[Mola Ram]

I've been reading Salem's Lot as my first King book (not counting an attempt to read The Stand that I stopped not from disinterest, but because it felt too close to home during covid) and I'm not too fond of it. I get what he was trying to do making the entire town a character of its own, but Salem's Lot and its residents aren't interesting enough to devote hundreds of pages detailing them. The cast are basically all broad stereotypes and in spite of spending whole chapters describing it I don't get a good image and vibe of the town. It's a different medium, but I think Twin Peaks did a far better job with the "small town mystery where most of the focus is on the town itself" concept. I also don't like the weird jokes and sexual comments King includes that just kill any sense of suspense for me. No bigger mood killer of an ominous scene than an old guy farting immediately after.

Is Stephen King just not for me or was this a bad first pick?

It's only his second published novel, written in his 20s, and it shows. The story's not half bad, but the dialogue is in general pretty lousy and a lot of the descriptions are overcooked. His style matures a good bit by The Stand and The Dead Zone, but a better first pick might be one of his short story collections.

 

[WhiskeyJack]

Is Stephen King just not for me or was this a bad first pick?

His short stories are generally his strongest work, in my experience. Though I liked IT quite a bit (aside from the scene everyone talks about, of course). The Stand had some good scenes, the tunnel in NY I remember in particular, very much felt like a zombie movie scene for a bit there, but ultimately I found the book lacking, mostly due to the ending of the Vegas plotline. I get that King was trying for a Tolkien-style eucatastrophe, but it was too deus ex machina for my tastes.

I'd suggest trying the first Gunslinger story, it's more a novella length iirc, or at least my version is. I think he revised it later. That's a pretty solid introduction to King, and well written. It's actually what got me into reading King, after I tried one of his books and didn't care for it. The first 3 Gunslinger books are solid for most people, I find.

And if you want more horror, try Skeleton Crew. I haven't read all the stories there, but The Jaunt and The Raft honestly fucked up my head for months. So much that I generally steer people away from them (the Jaunt in particular) unless they really want that sort of thing.

 

[Mola Ram]

His short stories are generally his strongest work, in my experience. Though I liked IT quite a bit (aside from the scene everyone talks about, of course). The Stand had some good scenes, the tunnel in NY I remember in particular, very much felt like a zombie movie scene for a bit there, but ultimately I found the book lacking, mostly due to the ending of the Vegas plotline. I get that King was trying for a Tolkien-style eucatastrophe, but it was too deus ex machina for my tastes.

I'd suggest trying the first Gunslinger story, it's more a novella length iirc, or at least my version is. I think he revised it later. That's a pretty solid introduction to King, and well written. It's actually what got me into reading King, after I tried one of his books and didn't care for it. The first 3 Gunslinger books are solid for most people, I find.

And if you want more horror, try Skeleton Crew. I haven't read all the stories there, but The Jaunt and The Raft honestly fucked up my head for months. So much that I generally steer people away from them (the Jaunt in particular) unless they really want that sort of thing.

I don't know that The Gunslinger is a good intro to King -- it's a deeply weird story and not all that indicative of his usual output. It's great, don't get me wrong, but definitely not what I'd call "typical King." And if the first three books get you invested in the tale of the Tower, well, get ready for the greatest case of storytelling blueballs since the Star Wars prequels.

Definitely second Skeleton Crew. Lots of good stuff in there. Along with the ones you mention, I'd recommend Uncle Otto's Truck, The Reach (not a scary story at all, but downright lyrical), Word Processor of the Gods, Gramma, The Monkey, and a really short piece of juvenilia called The Reaper's Image. You can tell he was almost a kid when he wrote it, but it's weirdly creepy.

 

[McMitch]

Is Stephen King just not for me or was this a bad first pick?

The objective best way to read Stephen King (anyone who says otherwise is wrong): is to go through his books, including short story collections, in order of initial publication with the detour of reading Dracula immediately before Salem’s Lot; and then, after finishing It, pretending he died or retired or something.

 

[Marc]

Because King's output is so severely hit-or-miss, my suggestion for dipping toes into the ouevre is to start from the short story compilations (beginning with Night Shift) or listening to the Blood and Smoke audiobook recordings of the three stories later included in the Everything's Eventual compilation (In any case, King reading 1408 is the best version of that story).

 

[Cr1ms0n_&_C10v3r]

I've been reading Salem's Lot as my first King book (not counting an attempt to read The Stand that I stopped not from disinterest, but because it felt too close to home during covid) and I'm not too fond of it. I get what he was trying to do making the entire town a character of its own, but Salem's Lot and its residents aren't interesting enough to devote hundreds of pages detailing them. The cast are basically all broad stereotypes and in spite of spending whole chapters describing it I don't get a good image and vibe of the town. It's a different medium, but I think Twin Peaks did a far better job with the "small town mystery where most of the focus is on the town itself" concept. I also don't like the weird jokes and sexual comments King includes that just kill any sense of suspense for me. No bigger mood killer of an ominous scene than an old guy farting immediately after.

Is Stephen King just not for me or was this a bad first pick?

I literally just finished reading Salem's Lot today. It's honestly probably a mix of both him not being an author for you, and a bad first pick. (If you don't like gratuitous sexual descriptions and pissing/shitting/farting you'll be put off by like 95% of his work, lmao.) As someone who has read most of his other books over the years before ever touching this one it definitely shows that it's an earlier work of his. It just isn't written as well. I do like the concept, and it started out relatively strong, but seemed to fizzle out towards the end and become shlocky (which is a hallmark of his writing anyway). The character of Straker is also built up far too much for very little payoff, in my opinion.

I didn't like any of the characters. Ben is one of the worst examples of a Stephen King writer Gary Stu self insert. We're supposed to think he's great and like him, but he's so damn boring. He's courting an 18 year old, and is what, late 20s? I know it was a different time and all but...gross. And this book is probably one of the worst dialogue-wise at certain points, everyone starts conversing in the most ridiculous and unnatural way, like they're in a school play or something. And the uncharacteristic way the kid acts i.e barely batting an eye at his parents' murder and escaping from his bonds and killing an adult man singlehandedly are just written off as him being...some kind of super mature introspective wonder child. It's fiction, fair enough, but I couldn't stop rolling my eyes.
I can't pinpoint exactly why, but about a quarter of the way in it stopped being scary and it was so predictable how it was going to end. There wasn't enough mystery. It would've been way better with Straker being made more mysterious, instead of cartoonishly making ominous appearances in town and then retreating back to the infamous spooky old house everyone avoids.

 

[The Nothingness]

Is Stephen King just not for me or was this a bad first pick?

Take a look at The Long Walk and The Running Man since they were written under his pseudonym and if you want something that is non-supernatural.

 

[Mola Ram]

The objective best way to read Stephen King (anyone who says otherwise is wrong): is to go through his books, including short story collections, in order of initial publication with the detour of reading Dracula immediately before Salem’s Lot; and then, after finishing It, pretending he died or retired or something.

I would skip Dracula, because Dracula is an immensely better novel than 'Salem's Lot ... and most of the rest of King's works, now that I think of it. Going to 'Salem's Lot after Dracula will just remind you that you could be reading something of much higher quality.

 

[McMitch]

I would skip Dracula, because Dracula is an immensely better novel than 'Salem's Lot ... and most of the rest of King's works, now that I think of it. Going to 'Salem's Lot after Dracula will just remind you that you could be reading something of much higher quality.

Salem’s Lot is King’s Dracula fanfiction sequel, so it really does work better when you follow it up. Besides, if you’re undertaking reading Stephen King, especially when tackling his good body of work, then you’re really not there to compare it to other authors. Not everything you read needs to be Dovstoyevski.

 

[The Un-Clit]

I've been reading Salem's Lot as my first King book (not counting an attempt to read The Stand that I stopped not from disinterest, but because it felt too close to home during covid) and I'm not too fond of it. I get what he was trying to do making the entire town a character of its own, but Salem's Lot and its residents aren't interesting enough to devote hundreds of pages detailing them. The cast are basically all broad stereotypes and in spite of spending whole chapters describing it I don't get a good image and vibe of the town. It's a different medium, but I think Twin Peaks did a far better job with the "small town mystery where most of the focus is on the town itself" concept. I also don't like the weird jokes and sexual comments King includes that just kill any sense of suspense for me. No bigger mood killer of an ominous scene than an old guy farting immediately after.

Is Stephen King just not for me or was this a bad first pick?

I'd say it was a bad first pick. I never liked Salem's Lot and found it hard to keep my interest right from the get-go. It's early in his career and atypical of much of his work imo. Go with 'Misery' imo for a not too big, fast tension-ramping psychological horror story that can really hold your interest. Damn hard to put down on first-time reading.

I also second the suggestions to go with his short stories, but I suggest 'Everything's Eventual' for an intro collection of SK's short fiction. It's got something for everyone, and the immense banger 1408 as well to cap it off. Then Skeleton Crew/Night Shift, then Different Seasons.