What are you reading in 2025?

[Nellisir]

Interestingly I see a lot of similarities to Brandon Sanderson: Incredible high output and writing discipline, close contact to their fandom, always open for new marketing techniques (King was one of the first ebook pioneers), very popular and bestselling - but not that great with the critics (although that changed for King in his later career and the same is true for Sanderson), huge pagecount per book, slow pacing etc.

I've read very little "modern" King, but I know the pagecount on the later books of the Dark Tower series ballooned tremendously, and not (IMO) for the better. At the time I felt it was probably a reaction to his accident - he was more indolent of his writing, and his editor was more lenient. I don't have any proof of that (except that once he started writing again, the first stuff out the gate were those books, and the accident was pretty transformative for him). The market has changed, though - mega-novels are the norm; Murderbot novellas the exception.

If you like horror, dive into the short stories. He can and did write shorter stuff.

 

[Nellisir]

@Nellisir , it’s not even Febba yet.

Dude. He's going to hate us. I would pay money to get that out of my head.
Mrs. Todd's Shortcut, though, is just amazing. And inspirational.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I think I might have told this story before, but I was drunk at a party when I was younger and claimed with a straight face that King was the great American author of the 20th century. This was despite the fact that I was reading Pynchon at the time and had read Infinite Jest previously. And there's Vonnegut, Chandler, Faulkner, Hemingway, DeLillo, etc. I think King is a great author, but I was way out over my skis there. The lesson is, of course, don't ski drunk.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I think I might have told this story before, but I was drunk at a party when I was younger and claimed with a straight face that King was the great American author of the 20th century. This was despite the fact that I was reading Pynchon at the time and had read Infinite Jest previously. And there's Vonnegut, Chandler, Faulkner, Hemingway, DeLillo, etc. I think King is a great author, but I was way out over my skis there. The lesson is, of course, don't ski drunk.

Or, you were correct.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Kind of you to say. And though I really do love King, Pynchon's an insanely interesting author, IMO. He's not my favorite, but I can't in good faith say he's not a better writer than King. Of course, neither of them is Dickens, though he's obviously not American.

 

[jian]

Kind of you to say. And though I really do love King, Pynchon's an insanely interesting author, IMO. He's not my favorite, but I can't in good faith say he's not a better writer than King. Of course, neither of them is Dickens, though he's obviously not American.

Dickens was pretty great (and very popular in America) and he was really significant in a whole bunch of ways, including being maybe the first author to have such mass popularity and penetration in a way not seen for maybe any creative person until we started making movies - so many households around the world read Dickens (and other authors) instalments to each other as their main home entertainment before the wireless came along. Dickens almost had a heart attack during his first US tour because he hadn’t really grokked just how many people had read his books and loved them to the point that people were fainting when they listened to him read them out loud.

He was also an extremely eloquent chronicler of Victorian London and English culture, especially focusing on the plight of the poor in a way that few authors had before (at least in English), and excellent at writing memorable characters who are justly part of Anglophone cultural canon.

But honestly, I think he’s quite a repetitive novelist who is (even for his time) rather dismissive and condescending about a wide range of people (especially women), and this isn’t surprising because he was often being paid by the word and his personal prejudices about poor people, women, etc are quite clear in his writing, sadly. So I for one am quite happy for him not to be reckoned anyone’s best anything. He was very good and very successful - that’s enough for most people.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Dickens was pretty great (and very popular in America) and he was really significant in a whole bunch of ways, including being maybe the first author to have such mass popularity and penetration in a way not seen for maybe any creative person until we started making movies - so many households around the world read Dickens (and other authors) instalments to each other as their main home entertainment before the wireless came along. Dickens almost had a heart attack during his first US tour because he hadn’t really grokked just how many people had read his books and loved them to the point that people were fainting when they listened to him read them out loud.

He was also an extremely eloquent chronicler of Victorian London and English culture, especially focusing on the plight of the poor in a way that few authors had before (at least in English), and excellent at writing memorable characters who are justly part of Anglophone cultural canon.

But honestly, I think he’s quite a repetitive novelist who is (even for his time) rather dismissive and condescending about a wide range of people (especially women), and this isn’t surprising because he was often being paid by the word and his personal prejudices about poor people, women, etc are quite clear in his writing, sadly. So I for one am quite happy for him not to be reckoned anyone’s best anything. He was very good and very successful - that’s enough for most people.

Heh, I did my master's degree on Bleak House. We'll have to agree to disagree, as I'm not sure there's a better novelist for me than Dickens. On a personal level, as a man, he does disappoint me, and I recognize that he holds views I find abhorrent, but there's a lot about the Victorian period that's disappointing when you look closely.

 

[John Lloyd1]

On a personal level, as a man, he does disappoint me, and I recognize that he holds views I find abhorrent, but there's a lot about the Victorian period that's disappointing when you look closely.

What views were abhorrent? I know the antisemitism in Oliver Twist was a problem.

 

[John Lloyd1]

But honestly, I think he’s quite a repetitive novelist who is (even for his time) rather dismissive and condescending about a wide range of people (especially women), and this isn’t surprising because he was often being paid by the word and his personal prejudices about poor people, women, etc are quite clear in his writing, sadly. So I for one am quite happy for him not to be reckoned anyone’s best anything. He was very good and very successful - that’s enough for most people.

I've always felt that he was more critical of the upper and middle classes of society. These were intentional critiques of poverty and the system rather than the poor.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

What views were abhorrent? I know the antisemitism in Oliver Twist was a problem.

Mostly the antisemitism, where he seems to be worse than the average Victorian. He's not great on race either, though it's more complicated than the antisemitism (e.g., it's not entirely clear in Edwin Drood if Neville Landless is Sri Lankan or not, and some of it becomes uncomfortable if he is).