The Stand: My First (Written) Stephen King Encounter

I don't read much in general, so it's probably not a surprise I've never read Stephen King before. However, since he is such a famous modern author, I thought I should try it out. Plus I love a lot of adaptations from his work such as Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption and both The Stand miniseries (yes, even the recent one). I also don't generally like horror, so that's probably why I avoided King specifically. He's mostly known for that genre. I decided to start with The Stand because I liked the miniseries a lot and both of them left me feeling like there should be more. And in the novel (the 1990 updated one), there certainly is more but I'm still left with that same feeling: there should be more. (There should be more.) The thing that probably most stood out to me about the writing was just how good the writing is. I mean, I knew he was one of the greats, but just in terms of writing words I can't imagine anyone doing it much better. A lot of famous writers and their works seem to succeed more on the overall project, the full story, than on the writing itself. For example, I did read a lot of Michael Crichton and John Grisham when I was younger, and I'd say their style of writing is simply efficient. They don't draw attention to their writing at all, and the main takeaway is the story. You probably won't remember any lines from their books, but you'll remember certain moments. Even if you go further down that scale to someone like George R. R. Martin....he's perhaps a better writer, but even then his stuff seems to stand out more for the storytelling of it. There's more going on with themes, and POV and foreshadowing, etc. But he certainly has some good prose there too. But King...at least with this one example so far...is all prose. It's the best prose possible, but it just never stops. It feels like a writer who knows he's the best writer in the world, and he's just showing off. And I think that's why I'm left wanting more because I'm not sure if he's that interested in telling an actual story. The ending of The Stand just sort of happens, and there's not a lot of sense to be made of it but it's broad and vague enough that anyone can put their own ideas to it. The other thing is that I think modern sensibilities are more influenced by movies (and television). When you read an older work, the narrator is very present. Modern stuff though tends to hide the narrator for the sake of immersion in the story. (Of course there are exceptions.) I find myself personally preferring the lack of narrator, which is why I was drawn to ASOIAF with the POVs so limited to what's going on for a particular character. And even Crichton and Grisham books felt very narrator-less. The only reminder that someone wrote the story you'd be reading would be their prominent author surrogate characters deployed to state the author's opinion without the author needing to exist. I may try one or two more of King's stories sometime. Salem's Lot was recommended to me, and I remember liking a miniseries based on the JFK assassination. But if all his writing is like The Stand, as good as the writing is itself, I don't know if I could take it. (And if Stephen King had an author surrogate in this book, I have to imagine it is Glenn Bateman because reading a Stephen King book feels like listening to Glenn having to be the smartest person left on the planet.)