Still writes better than most people on this board. His novels might be page turning slop, but it keeps the publishing industry afloat. The only critics who hate him (S.T. Joshi) hate him over style and plot holes. But who needs that when you write so effortlessly?

The vast majority of he books are boring and really badly paced.
I truly don't understand why he is so popular.

>>24510847
he had a pretty amazing run for a decade or two. the last 20+ years is mostly forgettable, but much his 70s and 80s output still holds up as stellar entertainment.

His short stories are ok entertainment but his longer works are a mess. Bloom hated him too

>>24510841 (OP)
>effortlessly
Not making any effort? That does sound like King.
He's a typist, not a writer.

>>24510841 (OP)
Ayuh. Constant reader. Randall Flagg. Formulaic Arthurian tropes mixed with mid 20th century New England slang.

Delores Claiborne was brilliant, the whole multiple storylines coalescing around the same solar eclipse was a great idea and made for good reads. I agree with the other anon that said short story writing is his forte. The dark tower series had the beginnings of a great overarching literary universe but he never did tie it all together, which he should have done because it could've been epic. There are two stories where the characters are all the same but they're different people in different times and places contending with the same demonic entity that's playing against them in both iterations of reality, I forget the names of the stories, but they were nice. If you're ever bored and want some lite reading the shining and Dr sleep are solid. His politics are plebeian liberal capitalist bullshit but as a writer he's not the worst one to make it big, not even close.

>>24511031
>still holds up as stellar entertainment
Terrible taste. Do you eat rice with your hands?

>>24511463
NTA but Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Homer all had a dominant entertainment motive.
And how do you eat pizza? Fries? Burgers? Wings? Fruit? Tacos?

>>24510841 (OP)
the shining is considered a masterpiece film

>>24511481
>entertainment motive
That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no taste. King is slop. Are you retarded?

>And how do you eat pizza? Fries? Burgers? Wings? Fruit? Tacos?

Nailed it. Brown IQ detected a mile away.

>>24511487
In that case, where was the argument?
>Brown IQ
Sort of my point, it's a cultural bias. But can any otherwise sensible person hold that they're not just drawing an arbitrary line at rice?

>>24511491
If you can't figure out what a finger food is and isn't how are you supposed to know good literature?

>>24511494
Is 'finger food' a universal law or cultural concept? People ate rice with their hands for thousands of years, it predates forks.

>>24511494
>>24511499
radio silence

>>24511499
Universal. We put rice and pizza and utensils in front of Africans and Asians and they immediately know what to do. Indians are obviously stuck in the pre stone age, before man evolved into man. Perhaps this is why few understand their vocalizations.

>>24511570
You’re confusing cultural familiarity with evolutionary biology, in parts of Europe they eat pizza (and burgers) with a knife and fork. Some look down on the unrefined yanks for eating them with their hands.
>Indians are obviously stuck in the pre stone age
An English writer once said every true poet has a source in the primitive.
Also, 'the pre-Stone Age' isn't a term. Regardless, forks were invented during the Middle Ages.

>>24511591
>Europe they eat pizza (and burgers) with a knife and fork

This is fine and everyone accepts this.

>Some look down on the unrefined yanks for eating them with their hands.

This is not true and it's a class thing,not an ethnic thing.

>Calling Americans ya ks to fit in with Britain

Pathetic. You will never be a Saxon you disgusting lout.

> English writer once said every true poet has a source in the primitive.

I hardly think he meant public defecation, eating curry with bare fingers out of the bowl, and flat lining syllables is what he meant.

>Also, 'the pre-Stone Age' isn't a term

It is if you're not human. It's when proto humans existed. Brown IQ strikes again.

>Regardless, forks were invented during the Middle Ages.

LMFAO

>>24511608
Ah god not the autismo point by point greentext treatment. I guess rebut point by point as well:

>everyone accepts this.
everyone?
>it's a class thing,not an ethnic thing.
switching the lens depending on who’s doing it? Aren't you admitting it's linked to social customs, not intelligence?

I actually am British. Between the two of us, you come off more ESL.

>I hardly think he meant
Refusing to engage, didn't you build a lot of your argument on primal or ancient customs being inherently inferior?

>It is if you're not human. It's when proto humans existed
Still not an age. In fact, the first human ancestors who COULD eat rice didn’t exist until well into the Stone Age (rice being a crop first cultivated 9,000 years ago)

>LMAO
forks for eating* with, I guess I have to clarify.

>>24511650
>Ah god not the autismo point by point greentext

Not from around here, huh? Foreigner in Britain and a foreigner on 4chan. There's no way you come out of this without sounding like an ugly rapejeet.

>everyone

How many times do you need it repeated?

>Aren't you admitting it's linked to social customs, not intelligence

No? Eating things with utensils is always better than risking finger fucking something that ought not to be flesh wagged into the mouth. There's a reason everyone recommends not eating ribs on dates. Ribs are considered a "fun" bar food and that's already on the line.

>I actually am British

You will never be a Saxon, no matter how many times you look in the mirror and repeat it to yourself.

>Refusing to engage

I did engage by explaining your misinterpretation. Just because a quote sounds good doesn't mean it can be inserted anywhere.

>didn't you build a lot of your argument on primal or ancient customs being inherently inferior

Public defecation and not using utensils isn't customary, it's disgusting. Savage. I've never said this before, but sub-human.

>Still not an age

You're saying there was never an age where modern man wasn't modern man? Do you just not believe in evolution?

>In fact, the first human ancestors who COULD eat rice

Jesus Christ. It's not about the rice. It's about civilization. Furthermore we don't really know how old rice is, only how old it is at least. It's a minimal dating, not a maximal dating.

>forks for eating* with, I guess I have to clarify.

That is a fork for eating with, retard.

>>24511665
Should we both post face?

>Not from around here
Is that really an insult?

You're not risking anything. Obviously, anything you can naturally eat, you can eat with your hands

My argument is about terminology and historical facts, not denying evolution. 'Pre-Stone Age’ isn’t a recognised term - and early humans didn’t farm rice or use utensils until millennia later. Rice cultivation’s origins are fairly well dated by archaeology.

>That is a fork for eating with, retard.
A Roman one? Look up if Romans commonly used table forks.

>>24511702
>Should we both post face?
That's against board rules, you'll get us both a two day ban, just for you to use someone else's face.

>Is that really an insult?

Yeah, you should probably know what the culture of the place you're visiting is like. 4chan and Britain included

>A Roman one? Look up if Romans commonly used table forks.

Google AI help was a mistake. Ask it why Poland is Catholic. It will tell you it was to separate themselves from the German protestants. AI can't figure out that Poland emerged before Protestantism existed.

I'm seeing absolute seething retards post the most retarded shit based on what google is telling them. Lookup if biking helmets should break and it will tell you yes in order to absorb energy-never mind the fact that it exposes your fucking skull. Still, low IQ chaff will insist having their domes exposed is better than an intact helmet because Google told them. Like those people you are not using logic or sources, you're trusting that what a machine tells you is right without knowing any better.

>>24511718
>two day ban
blessing in disguise for someone like you, but I've posted my face here like five times before bruvva, never got banned. /lit/ said I'm an 8.

Bizarre tangent there. Did you completely avoid answering about Roman forks by complaining about bike helmets?

>>24511722
You can post yourself with a timestamp. I'm not stopping you.

>>24511738
Will you

>>24511722
>Did you completely avoid answering about Roman forks by complaining about bike helmets?

The entire premise is built on the assumption that Romans lacked iron. They did not lack iron. The fork is clearly meant to be grasped by the hand, is lightweight, and though squared in design actually existed before the Romans. Ancient Greeks actually had forks earlier, but samples are even fewer with age. You would expect small sample sizes from items with high utility. Look up how many soldiers throughout time served in the Roman army then lookup how many shields have survived. You're dealing with a million to one ratio.

>>24511749
Finally a real argument, but still wrong. Military shields vs. eating utensils isn't a good comparison. We have lots of Roman dining artefacts (plates, cups, knives) because the wealthy were buried with them and they're made of durable materials. If personal eating forks were common, we'd have found way more.
The Romans primarily used forks for serving.

>>24511764
>We have lots of Roman dining artefacts (plates, cups, knives) because the wealthy were buried with them and they're made of durable materials. If personal eating forks were common, we'd have found way more.

You're gambling. Show evidence of a disproportionate number of dining grave goods with the exclusion of forks.

https://www.sciencealert.com/roman-era-barbarians-carried-tiny-spoons-that-may-have-helped-in-battle

Maybe you're thinking of German cocaine addict theory?

>>24511486
I enjoy King as a film writer, but find him pretty shit in book form. I hated The Stand so goddam much, it's a wonder I liked Stand By Me and Shawshank Redemption much as I do.

>>24511773
You just proved my point about evidence standards while simultaneously making the same error. Didn't you claim Greeks had forks before Romans and that personal dining forks were common in Rome? Where's YOUR evidence for either claim?
The broader archaeological consensus comes from literary sources (Martial, Petronius describing dining customs), or archaeological sites like Pompeii showing table settings.

>>24510841 (OP)
>style and plot holes
Yep, totally unimportant in US fiction.

>>24511773
https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub369/entry-6311.html

>>24511798
>Where's YOUR evidence for either claim?
Because you can lookup the pictures of the forks yourself, that's why I posted a fork. That's different from generating an AI answer that always ends up incorrect. So you couldn't find evidence and now you're deflecting. It's okay. You can admit that you applied faulty logic and had no evidence for your claims.

>>24511802
>Romans had spoons, knives and drinking cups, but no forks

meanwhile, in reality:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=roman+forks&form=HDRSC3&first=1

You can see view the images of that web page being wrong. FFS, use some common sense.

>Sometimes they held a plate in their left hand and used their right hand to take food. Polite Romans lifted their food with three fingers so as not to dirty their ring finger and pinkie.

And then you have to wonder where they came up with this little ditty.

>>24511815
The images show they existed, but that doesn't settle whether they were commonly used for personal dining versus food preparation.

So Romans using forks occasionally = civilised, but Indians eating with hands = evolutionary failure?
The inconsistency is glaring.
In the Satyricon, Petronius describes Roman dining practices in detail.Iin the famous Trimalchio's feast scene, Romans ate with their hands, used knives for cutting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/nxnssi/this_1800_year_old_roman_multitool_from_around/

>Romans had multi tools
>steam engines
>geared machines
>knew about electricity from electrum
>pneumatics and hydraulics since the time of Archimedes at least

>but no, they couldn't figure out forks-too advanced!!!

>>24511833
>We picked up our spoons, each of which weighed not less than half a pound, and punctured the shells, which were made of flour and dough, and as a matter of fact, I very nearly threw mine away for it seemed to me that a chick had formed already, but upon hearing an old experienced guest vow, “There must be something good here,” I broke open the shell with my hand and discovered a fine fat fig-pecker, imbedded in a yolk seasoned with pepper.

So he used his hand instead of a spoon, and this is your evidence that they never used forks?

https://gutenberg.org/files/5225/5225-h/5225-h.htm

Maybe you thought you were witty by posting two sources but Trimalchio's feast is in Satyricon.

>>24511833
>>24511802
Whoops- you accidentally proved yourself wrong. ctrl+f "spoon" = 1 result
ctrl+f "fork" = 3 results

>another grabbed a two-tined fork in the pantry and put himself on guard

>she set a huge kettle upon the hearth and at the same time speared with a fork a cloth hanging upon the meathooks

>she took a mouthful of the meat and with the fork

Let me guess, you need more passages of the fork entering the mouth to prove their use, when spoon only shows up once?

>>24510841 (OP)
>Still writes better than most people on this board
This is true because nobody writes on this board, everyone is too busy pretending to read the new pretentious meme-novel of the moment and gooning to sissyhypno. King is at Death’s door and still pumping out slop

>>24511853
>Trimalchio's feast is in Satyricon
yeah that was my point. And he talks about eating chicken by hand.
Pliny describes different types of knives and forks used in butchery and cooking, but there is no mention of forks or their use as eating utensils. They only appear later in history, mainly in Byzantine and medieval contexts.

>>24511858
Nice try, but context matters. Those three mentions of fork aren’t about personal dining forks.
Look at the quotes carefully.

>>24511491
>got filtered by "Dreamcatcher" and mah toilets and ass demons

>>24511897
>context matters
He used a fork as an impromptu weapon. Spoon chads rise up

Oh fuck wait no, forks show up more than spoons and the one spoon is dispensed with in favor of finger fucking. Hand in curry chads won

This isn't related to anything but how do you even eat rice with your fingers? It's way too hot

>>24511960
It's simple: the curry paste cools it down. The bacteria also help establish several layers of thermal protection.

>>24511960
the ideal temperature for food is the temperature paper comes out of a photocopier

>>24511976
Brahma wisdom...

>>24511897
Context: spoons were used to crack shells and nothing else.

>>24511982
it’s a viral tweet from someone who lives in nova scotia

>>24511997
Kaṇāda rising...

>>24511967
>this anon knows his shit fr fr

>>24511996
For the rest they ostensibly used their hands

>>24511982
You're obsessed

>>24512007
>>>>>"We picked up our spoons"
>>>>>"""""""We...""""'"

>>24512010
>Noooo you can't make joke of me
>Restraining order now for this slanders

>>24512020
Is this the same anon who didn’t want to show face?
Just to be clear, it’s not that I think you’re brown or anything. Reminds me of Evelyn Waugh’s observation in his first novel; the real divide between people isn’t race, sex, nationality, but the gulf between the attractive and the unattractive.

>>24510841 (OP)
>S.T. Joshi
Isn't he the guy that takes stuff in the public domain, edits excerpts of it into a book, and then sells it?

>>24510841 (OP)
>pedo migger worships pedo nigger
Unsurprising really. Like maggots on a dead rat

>>24511570
dude asians eat rice with sticks

>>24512104
Civilized. Obviously. You can't tell the difference?

>>24512203
Doesn’t it immediately contradict what you said?

>>24512230
Chopsticks are utensils retard. Lol how did you got on a lot board, it's like a monkey at the opera

>>24512242
the word utensil just means ‘something used.’ from the latin uti - to use. isn’t’ it just drawing an arbitrary line around what counts. your hands are the original utensils (the ones god gave you?), just not made in (a third world) factory.

>>24512261
>your hands are the original utensils
No waitress is going to respect you when she asks if you need extra utensils and you're like "naw I got some " then grub sauced rice with your hands. Utensil implies fit for usage, and the fact you connected it to Latin implies that Romans would have known that.

>>24512280
in other words ... it's a cultural difference/social norm. 'fit for usage' is obviously subjective and culturally fluid.

>>24512289
And yet the Asians know to use chopsticks and Europeans respect them for it. Your subjectivity argument failed and proves that it's an objective marker of civilization no matter which way you slice it.

>>24512297
so civilisation is defined by the utensils you use rather than the actual behaviour or respect shown? definitely a modern take on things...
and what actually makes civilisation so special compared to primalism (ie what's natural, instinctive, and universal to humanity)

>>24512309
>so civilisation is defined by
See:>>24511608
>public defecation, eating curry with bare fingers out of the bowl, and flat lining syllables

There's no use explaining civilization to monkeys. Pearls and swine and all of that.

>>24512325
civilisation is essentially measured by polished manners?
i hate to bring the /lit/erature board back to literature, but it reminds me of pope's translation of homer: he turned it into an english 18th century poem full of 18th century ideas of decency and proper behaviour and cutting out some of the more unpleasant things. homer's style is his proper semi-barbaric flavour.

>>24511481
You can cut deeper than that. Holmes is held up as classics but was so driven by popular demand it’s one of the first character resurrections. ACD hated the character and wanted to write “real” stories, except those historical dramas didn’t sell so back to the Holmes mines it was.
Dickens is damn close to King in frenetic output to a mass audience, again deemed classic literature, his contemporary intelligensia did not concur.
Twain is as populist and shoves contemporary politics into his stories, people excoriate King for the same.
Poe was writing to a lowbrow audience in his own day to say nothing of Lovecraft who wasn’t even good at it, both now revered and get learned academic editions, annotated editions, small press runs in exotic bindings.
I’m not sure why age adds such authority to the sloppa authors of their day but people will defend their drivel to the masses while attacking anyone doing the same within 50 or so years.

You can see that metamorphosis happen with someone like PKD right now. Shitty, failed author of sci fi slop who couldn’t even compete in his time, now getting institutional backing for canonization as a literary great. Even on this board of misery complaining fags.

>>24512333
There's a clear gold line cut between quibbles and disgust.

>>24512372
can you be less vague? because it’s starting to sound like the gatekeeper has forgotten both the gate and key

>>24512366
Oh and you can see the inverse of this as the intelligensia get bored with books. Proust was hot shit for 70 odd years but then increasingly just forgotten. Ulysses holds the place In Search Of Lost Time did but is itself starting to be questioned and forgotten. Infinite Jest was a temporary replacement by people who thought they were too smart for Ulysses.

Not sure what the current status driven crowd thinks the peak of literature is nor do I really care. The point is even the supposed universals fade. The best books lists in 1940 will include books nobody reads now. Dos Passos? Anyone on the board even know that name? Walter Scott was thought to be a reliable classic author but people who today know Treasure Island have no idea what Ivanhoe is. Of course both those books are also adventure books which was the height of slop at the time, comparable to our obsession with mystery, thriller and horror.

Watched a video yesterday
Someone said his book "On Writing" was the worst piece of shit for advice on writing ever
OP, kys

>>24512378
unrelated to the bad faith argument i'm currently in, but i agree with this. why is there this absolute unanimity and certainty that everybody has about everything? people accept the whole edifice - the books, the paintings, the films, what’s in, what’s out - just because it’s already been accepted. that arouses my suspicion. we are admiring some works now that will disappear, like morillo in the last century. conversely, nobody took the sonnets seriously until 200 years ago.

i also don’t believe, in literature, that anybody can have taste so catholic that he genuinely likes cervantes and milton - and faulkner. and yet, many people accept all of them. i say there’s a point where somebody can’t really rate that other writer if they rate this one. our eyes, our sensibilities, are only so wide.

>>24512375
What you're talking about is a moral quandary, as opposed to a civilizational one. You seem to be making the argument that decency and customs are moral- which actually makes the point that Indians are not moral because of their failure to meet external civilizational standards. You presented the opposite point of that which you intended.

>>24512428
>You seem to be making the argument that decency and customs are moral
no, I was never marking this argument. try reading more carefully.
>external civilizational standards
what, pray tell, are these exactly?

>>24512447
>no, I was never marking this argument
You equated dining without utensils to the pople producing moral corrections in Homer's work. You did that, this was your implication.

>what, pray tell, are these exactly?
Using utensils.

>>24512452
no, actually my point was that imposing modern or 'external civilisational standards on age-old cultural habits is a category error. not that dining customs themselves are moral corrections or critiques.

>>24512459
>actually my point was that imposing modern or 'external civilisational standards on age-old cultural habits is a category error

You brought this up in connection to a conversation related to Indians publicly defecating and eating literally anything with their hands. We haven't even brought up the more wretched of their savageries. You, yourself, just now- have stated that you're talking about "cultural habits" from Homer, but the pope was attempting to correct immorality, not moral habits. Can you not tell the difference between moral quandary and habits?

Would you also say that cannibalism, incest, and public defecation are age-old cultural habits?

>>24512474
>the pope
i'm talking about the alexander pope translation of homer's odyssey. fuckinell lol

>>24512484
I've never heard of it, and yet the point remains. Sorry I haven't heard of your favorite translator. I guess that makes up for you btfo yourself lmao

>>24512510
it's probably the most famous english translation of the most venerated poem in history. who am i talking with here?

>>24512522
>Pope Pius II was a notable example. Before becoming Pope, he was a renowned poet and humanist known for his literary works in Latin, including an erotic novel and comedies. He was even named imperial poet laureate in 1442.

So you don't know this but I have a degree in history and spent some time on post Homerica in the medieval ages. If I had my laptop on me I would lore dump.

>>24512528
don't bother. the moment you mixed up alexander pope with an actual pope, you exposed yourself big time. mistaking 'pope' in this context is pretty unforgiveable. he's talked about twice daily on this board

>>24512535
You admitted that Homer is the biggest figure in western history and you didn't think the Catholic church would have had things to say about that? Poor gamble.

>>24512566
medieval emissaries of the catholic church did a fair share of preserving homer.
but it almost feels like bullying continuing this conversation with you. no one who's read two paragraphs about homer ever would make that mistake. your googling may make it seem like not a big deal but it is embarrassing.

>>24512575
>>24512566
And that is that

>>24512575
if you’d just have said 'i don’t know anything about homer or antiquity,' i’d have been like .. fair enough. but then you follow up with 'degree in history / spent some time on post homerica'?
unless you got that from minnesota community college night classes, that doesn’t add up. calls into question how much of the rest of your posts are actually credible.

>>24512535
Kek

>>24511486
Even with all of the trash that has been made out of his work the main film he seethes about, almost 50 years later, is the one that is regarded as a classic.

That say a lot.

>>24512528
Holy shit you're dumb.

He's good at what he does, but what he does doesn't have much literary value. He gets more hate than he deserves for his books, and less hate than he deserves for his hyper-political boomer twitter account.

>le forks
C'mon. Go to /his/ and save that board of the /pol/lacks.

Itt: a bunch of failed writers bitch, piss, and moan about a dude who has made a trillion more dollars than any of these bitches ever will, lmao. You're all pathetic

>>24513188
>hyper-political boomer twitter account
That must be a mask because King's novel smack actually of /pol/.
>IT
>A transgender horror (male that is actually female) preys on children
>Salem's Lot
>A foreigner who looks Jewish causes the ruin of a whole town
>Tommycknockers
>New technology makes people insane
>Dark Tower
>Conservative Arthurian utopia until a dark force decides to undermine that and turns the world to total shit; the bad guys exploit children, too
>Pet Sematary
>POC leads a family to ruin
>Misery
>Describing the consequences of giving women the ability to read
>Needful Things
>A Jewish foreigner fucks up a more or less wholesome white community
>Cell
>New technology bad
>Dr. Sleep
>Ancient pedophile demons travel across the world and pray on the essence released by tortured kids
>The Revival
>Earth is a trap and mankind a farm for demons
>Duma's Key
>Low key about the destructive influence of black artists
>Desperation
>Prairie nigger culture is demonic
>The Stand
>A wholesome white community has to battle a degenerate mixed community in Las Vegas
>The Institute
>Government agency abuses kids
>Outsider
>Shapeshifting demon abuses and feeds on misery and kids

Stephen King is based as fuck.

>>24513475
>>24510841 (OP)
>Stephen King is based
Going with this and why his jew publishers had him get hit by a vehicle while he was walking on the side of the road.
King made millions for his kike publishers, but as soon as he became defiant to them they whacked him. King survived but was severely injured.
Who doesn't get disgusted by kikes at the caliber of a stephen king.

can you imagine how fun it must’ve been sitting in your study doing cocaine all day writing perverted books

>>24511340
>Not making any effort? That does sound like King.
>He's a typist, not a writer.
>
maybe now.
But he's well known to have written the first drafts by h-a-n-d.
it was a big deal, when he finally switched to "a little" word processing.
Yes, SK had the radical notion, you can just have a premise. Then?Sit and w-r-i-t-e.
SK HATED outlines, said it was the mark of bad formula writing.
Pacing issues, I'll give you. But with a caveat.
SK could surprise you.
you just KNOW the big conflict is coming, with most regular authors.
But with King, you truly never knew.
>
And? He knew how to scare the pants off of a person who was easily scared.
Readers responded, by the millions. SK was just something different.

>>24511420
Doctor Sleep.
I was wooed in? By the promise of a grown up Danny, and... a prescient cat, that knew when people were dying.
Somehow, he brought out the weird horror scenes.
He made aging boomers with their Winnebagos? Creepy and scary.
Exactly how he has the weird ability, to craft modern horror so well? Is debatable.
Things I take away from the whole SK author deal...
1) Be weird. Be original. Don't be afraid to go there.
2) Don't follow a strict outline (SK rails against this!) Your OUTLINE says this next chapter is the "small reversal in fortunes" that the guaranteed to work outline you downloaded, says it has to be. Your GUT says, this is what these two characters would talk about, and come up with. yeah, I go with my GUT. I'm not pants-ing, but I need room to move. Okay, despite my notes, THIS is how the final conflict should go.
3)I see the outine as a GUIDELINE, not a tenth grade english teachers red mark. I now see my outline (a very thin sparse one, at that) as for controlling my sprawl, and giving me SOME pace.
4) books can violate your so called "rules" and still work, and work well.
5) How did SK scare us so effectively, and set in the modern day. That's what I'd like to get a handle on. Modern Horror, is one of the genres I haven't touched yet or tried. My weirdness or strangeness, could really have fun with creativity allowed, in a genre like horror. Anything goes. SK had a gift? For big bad buys. Giant supernatural spiders, an ancient demon unearthed, his list goes on.