No it's not, but it's not simply "supernatural" stories either.CartesianFart said:Do not read his book,unless you have a fascination on the supernatural.
Do not read his book,scholars of the future will laugh at you for being feeble to read his crap.
It is not the greatest contribution to the theory of literature writing.
Most people i've met in my life never read any literature of greatness,but they read Stephen King,Clancy,Koontz,and etc.etc. off of other magazine rack from a wallmart store.Trust me,my opinion on them are not so great on regarding their intelligent.De Lorimier said:No it's not, but it's not simply "supernatural" stories either.
Try and read The Body aka Stand by Me or Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption for proofs of this. King is very good.
Hey,sometimes i am a victim of other people fantasy stories.I was weak one time in my life and needed the escape of vivid imagery of landscape and crazy pets.I also am a member the Stephen Kingaholic chapter in my town.Sidhe said:Look man I've read Mobey dick and Crime and punishment and Don quixote and a shed load of philosophy and other classics, but sometimes you just want to read some fantasy that diverts your attention from the stresses of the every day world. I'm a big David Demmel, Clive barker and Stephen Donaldson fan, it doesn't make me a bad person alright
Sidhe said:Saying that though Clive Barker is much better
De Lorimier said:What are you, so type of elitist? Yes, Wells, Twain, Dumas, Hugo, Dickens will be remembered in a better light than the likes of King, Koontz or Clancy. But why piss on the people who enjoy the latter as well?
Reading Machiavelli exclusively doesn't mean you're intelligent.
De Lorimier said:What are you, so type of elitist? Yes, Wells, Twain, Dumas, Hugo, Dickens will be remembered in a better light than the likes of King, Koontz or Clancy. But why piss on the people who enjoy the latter as well?
Reading Machiavelli exclusively doesn't mean you're intelligent.