I don't know if that's entirely accurate.

I just read The Body (basis for Stand By Me) and it was as personal and emotionally complex as any literary-approved fiction. It reminded me a lot of The Things They Carried, actually.

I think the biggest issue is that once he was pidgeonholed into being a "trope-master, scary fiction guy", no one would look at his writing any other way. And to be fair, MOST of his writing is overwrought genre stuff, but he has certainly developed into a fine craftsman at his best.

The reality is that most "literary" fiction is terrible and navel-gazing, seemingly written to land tenure somewhere or push some stupid literary trend that is just as vapid as any other publishing trend, only less fun. Historically, most fiction (or art in general) that persists was wildly successful in its time as a prerequisite.

> The reality is that most "literary" fiction is terrible and navel-gazing, seemingly written to land tenure somewhere or push some stupid literary trend that is just as vapid as any other publishing trend, only less fun.

I think that's just prejudice. Literary fiction simply has artistic or intellectual value beyond entertainment, and beyond using familiar tropes.

It's possible that King has some of these qualities somewhere. I have only read ten to fifteen of his novels. But that was enough that I could e.g. predict the ending of The Shining after about 50 pages.

Calling Stephen King enjoyable but forgettable I don't think works as an argument because I think it's pretty rare for an author to have 5+ novels that are so influential as to be cultural touchstones for multiple generations. The amount of fiction that he directly inspired or can trace their ideas back to one of Stephen King's novels is overwhelming.

Of all the criticisms I expected to be leveled at the man forgettable was perhaps the last one on my list.