> I love Stephen King. Unfortunately, I've not read much of his works, but what I have read has left me shivering.
>
> However, Stephen King is a "pot-boiler". He takes very successful ingredients, mixes them together, and produces a book. The fact that it is a pot-boiler does not impinge on my enjoyment of the book. In fact, it increases it, for when I read the book a second time, I can not worry about the story so much, and see *how* he writes it.
>
> I hope that you can see those elements in it, just like I hope it never ruins a book for you.
>
> samhael
>
> "Samhael's test for a good book: can yu read it a second time?"

Again, I must disagree. You admit you haven't read many of his works. I've read nearly all of them, if not precisely all of them, and especially the early works like "Carrie" and "'Salem's Lot" and "The Shining" are not "pot-boiled." I've read each of those several times over the years, and my favorite of his, "Different Seasons," gets a read just before I give it out to yet another person who thinks he's too pop culture to be good. Besides, labeling someone's particular style a formula is sour grapes, as far as I'm concerned -- much like Kelly's example.

Mou"missed you around here, Kelly, and I'm not just saying that because you liked my post!"sie