Depends on how you define genius. If you expect high intellectual definitions, no. If you're talking a specific uncanny ability, yes. The dude has a way of getting to you.
The fact you reduced him to a 'pulp writer' is rather a tell, to which i say 'let them fuckin' trees fall'
Never read any author who gets human behavior more so than King. His characters are relatable, understandable. He's especially good with children. Kinda freaky how well I remember my childhood in his characters. Doesn't seem too hot with teens, skips over them to adults.
Pratchett is a very, very close second with his Discworld books. He writes about human behavior on a larger scale though, King's characters are more individual.
Agree on both - pratchett is amazing, but many of his key insights are almost reserved for wham lines or comedic bits (see: rude mechanicals, colon & nobby) as he focuses on plot or - as you said - the bigger picture. Interestingly enough this doesn't happen in the Johnny books and is severely downgraded in the bromeliad and good omens.
King has humans humaning about having things happen to them
I will certainly agree with you that King has a knack of, well, not scaring me, but making me feel uncomfortable in a way that not too many authors do. My soul feels "fouled" after reading one of his books.
But feelings aside, he skimps on substance. Take "Mr Mercedes" for an example. Are we really supposed to accept a near-unified public blame and hatred placed on a car owner because she left keys in the ignition? It's a big part of the plot, and it's just plain silly.
As to the "Pulp" label, it is not denigrating in my mind at all, but just speaks to the common audience and lurid or sensational subject matter. I think Stephen King fits the bill. Along with Dashell Hammett, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, H.P. Lovecraft, H.G. Wells, and many more notable authors.
Just my opinion, but Stephen King will never be remembered as a genius in this timeline. I really can't even believe I have to say that.
I get that you like his books. But com'on. He's a popular pulp fiction writer. King is a good writer. He isn't a genius.
Kubrick however, may well be remembered as a genius.
Depends on how you define genius. If you expect high intellectual definitions, no. If you're talking a specific uncanny ability, yes. The dude has a way of getting to you.
The fact you reduced him to a 'pulp writer' is rather a tell, to which i say 'let them fuckin' trees fall'
Never read any author who gets human behavior more so than King. His characters are relatable, understandable. He's especially good with children. Kinda freaky how well I remember my childhood in his characters. Doesn't seem too hot with teens, skips over them to adults.
Pratchett is a very, very close second with his Discworld books. He writes about human behavior on a larger scale though, King's characters are more individual.
Agree on both - pratchett is amazing, but many of his key insights are almost reserved for wham lines or comedic bits (see: rude mechanicals, colon & nobby) as he focuses on plot or - as you said - the bigger picture. Interestingly enough this doesn't happen in the Johnny books and is severely downgraded in the bromeliad and good omens.
King has humans humaning about having things happen to them
I will certainly agree with you that King has a knack of, well, not scaring me, but making me feel uncomfortable in a way that not too many authors do. My soul feels "fouled" after reading one of his books.
But feelings aside, he skimps on substance. Take "Mr Mercedes" for an example. Are we really supposed to accept a near-unified public blame and hatred placed on a car owner because she left keys in the ignition? It's a big part of the plot, and it's just plain silly.
As to the "Pulp" label, it is not denigrating in my mind at all, but just speaks to the common audience and lurid or sensational subject matter. I think Stephen King fits the bill. Along with Dashell Hammett, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, H.P. Lovecraft, H.G. Wells, and many more notable authors.