>>24569368 (OP)>They don't realise plot and characters and the gross-out factor are just as much pieces of the puzzles.King's plots seem clumsy and, on re reads, you'll see how the plot premise and and the progress of the plot is paper thin.
Take IT and the famous gangbang.
If you read the book, you'll remember that King spends an inordinate amount of time detailing the sexual experiences of the kids - the boys get boner but don't know how to orgasm and can't cum, there's a scene of Beverly seeing a dick for the first time, throughout the novel it's implied the kids don't know what sex is and how it works. Yet all of this goes out of the window when, suddenly, they all develop an understanding of what goes where, and some of the boys even shoot sperm. The sexual act itself is too adult - Beverly comforts the boys as they enter into panic mode after defending It - for a group of 11 year olds. It's obvious the thing was a spur of the moment orgy of writing that came at that moment because King had exhausted all the ability to shock the reader and all the special climactic peak of the movie Hollywood tricks - Derry crumbling during a storm of the century - and needed one final orgasmic act before the cool down and probably forgot, in the heat of the moment, between shifting chronologies, that he was writing kids.
And that's one (1) inconsistency in one (1) book already ridden with inconsistencies.
A King's book reads like an expanded Hollywood script. It follows the same beats. Has the same stereotypical characters. Always result in a big battle with the baddie. And there's cool down in the end that you can imagine the credits music playing in the background.
King's work is movie indebted rather than literature indebted. It might even explain why he's so popular outside the US since most of the world can relate, through Hollywood, to the world and the characters he creates.
And no one but plant bases protein cucks find Hollywood movies and their characters compelling.
