I was Googling something else recently when this book came up on Google books. Almost half of the book is there.
Anyway, it rates the top 100 Stephen King pieces. The first twenty:
This made me think what I'd rate, except I ran out of interest before long. It might start out something like
1. It (so I agree with him there)
2. The Dark Tower 1-3
3. Night Shift.
Then, I dunno. Maybe Skeleton Crew. I haven't read a lot of his stuff since highschool, so I can't rate it with perfect accuracy.
For that guy's list, I never finished The Green Mile, though I've read the other 19.
The Talisman is just about the worst Stephen King story I've read, except for its sequel, Black House (?), which I found unreadably terrible and couldn't finish. (Both were written with Peter Straub)
I'd say Bag of Bones and Rose Madder were kind of bad for Stephen King stories. Insomnia is pretty mediocre, borderline relatively bad. (Somehow, I've still read it more than once, but I got the hardcover as a gift)
For the rest, like I said, I probably agree with ranking "It" as #1. It is a good choice for the definitive Stephen King novel -- long, epic, scary, showcases his talent at weaving shorter stories into longer stories.
As someone who has read the 1,100 page The Stand several times, I disagree with it being ranked at #2. Stories where good and evil are so clear cut like that annoy me. I inevitably end up not liking the good guys. I don't like being told who to like. The moral of the story is also nonsensical. As he wrote in On Writing, it's one of those "technology is evil" stories. I don't think he has any plans to move to the Unibomber's shack, though. I guess I understand why so many fans like it so much, but to me it's maybe good, not great.
I didn't care much for Desperation. It was kind of bland and edgeless, like a lot of his work from around that time. I thought The Regulators was a much better book.
I did think Hearts in Atlantis might have been one of his better recent books (except I see that it was released 9 years ago, so "recent" is relative).
No comments on the other choices -- they're either reasonable choices, or I don't remember the book very well.
Anyway, it rates the top 100 Stephen King pieces. The first twenty:
This made me think what I'd rate, except I ran out of interest before long. It might start out something like
1. It (so I agree with him there)
2. The Dark Tower 1-3
3. Night Shift.
Then, I dunno. Maybe Skeleton Crew. I haven't read a lot of his stuff since highschool, so I can't rate it with perfect accuracy.
For that guy's list, I never finished The Green Mile, though I've read the other 19.
The Talisman is just about the worst Stephen King story I've read, except for its sequel, Black House (?), which I found unreadably terrible and couldn't finish. (Both were written with Peter Straub)
I'd say Bag of Bones and Rose Madder were kind of bad for Stephen King stories. Insomnia is pretty mediocre, borderline relatively bad. (Somehow, I've still read it more than once, but I got the hardcover as a gift)
For the rest, like I said, I probably agree with ranking "It" as #1. It is a good choice for the definitive Stephen King novel -- long, epic, scary, showcases his talent at weaving shorter stories into longer stories.
As someone who has read the 1,100 page The Stand several times, I disagree with it being ranked at #2. Stories where good and evil are so clear cut like that annoy me. I inevitably end up not liking the good guys. I don't like being told who to like. The moral of the story is also nonsensical. As he wrote in On Writing, it's one of those "technology is evil" stories. I don't think he has any plans to move to the Unibomber's shack, though. I guess I understand why so many fans like it so much, but to me it's maybe good, not great.
I didn't care much for Desperation. It was kind of bland and edgeless, like a lot of his work from around that time. I thought The Regulators was a much better book.
I did think Hearts in Atlantis might have been one of his better recent books (except I see that it was released 9 years ago, so "recent" is relative).
No comments on the other choices -- they're either reasonable choices, or I don't remember the book very well.
