I agree. I think all the time he's spent writing horror hurts his chances at becoming one of the greatest writers in history. Literary critics don't take horror writers seriously even though it takes a specific skill set to terrify that many readers using words only, and their imagination, no visuals at all.

why do you say no bc a lot of people make stephen king adaptations just based on his name alone because they know it will make a lo of money based only on his famous name?
Popularity does not make an author a great writer. If it did, Mickey Spillane would be up there with Charles Dickens.
Yes, as long as he has a famous name and sells zillions of books there will be those who capitalize on it and make and remake his novels into movies. Nothing wrong with that. It's business.
"Best of all time" covers a lot of ground. And no one has ever agreed who is "best of all time" even among the most astute literary critics.
He's a good writer who began by specializing in a particular genre then branched out into other fields. After he is gone, it will be up to future critics to assess his position in the literary hierarchy. He very well may be considered one of the great writers, but at this moment it is far too soon to state definitively.
And This, Too, Shall Pass Away

why do you say no bc a lot of people make stephen king adaptations just based on his name alone because they know it will make a lo of money based only on his famous name?
lukejbarnett

Best? No.
Prolific? Yes.
I like his work, but he is no Victor Hugo.
And This, Too, Shall Pass Away

Yes indeed
If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana