I think I've read all the Stephen King novels with the exception of Black House (which is entirely written in the present tense and I had to respond by throwing it across a room) and the Gunslinger series. There are many, many things I like and admire about his writing.

Here's the but. It may not be his fault -- or maybe not by much. But his books are marketed as horror when some of them owe as much to science fiction. Both he and his publisher do everything they can to avert the discussion of them as science-fiction-influenced. But they really are.

Take The Tommyknockers, for example. It's about a woman who is walking her dog through the woods on her land when she trips over a piece of metal sticking out of the earth. It turns out to be a buried spaceship. Bad things happen as it gets dug up.

Once there are extraterrestrials who are vital to the story, it's both sci-fi AND horror. Every time King is asked about what authors influenced him, he names someone like H.P. Lovecraft, who was considered a horror writer but his subjects often involved space and other worlds.

It makes a world of difference when it goes to the marketplace, because how it's categorized decides which other authors Stephen King is competing against.

He can't really compete in a science fiction market. But horror has carved out a spot just for him. Maybe it shouldn't have done that. His novels' horror subjects include things like --

Doggies who didn't get their shots.

A young man's car goes out of control.

A man dies of a heart attack in the middle of a sexcapade. The woman he has handcuffed to the bed, meanwhile, can't get loose. -- Okay, that one's nightmarish right there, granted.

But some of the other storylines really have to stretch to reach the horror switch. I'd be inclined to call them thrillers or suspense, something like that. When I go for horror I'm looking for mainly supernatural.

And what about the era King lived through, which saw some of the biggest and best science fiction writers we could imagine? The last 5 or 6 decades WERE the era of science. How can we critique King's work without looking at sci-fi writings? You know he read it, and avidly, if you start comparing bits of his stories.

For instance: The Big Front Yard, a novella by Clifford Simak (also wrote the great novel Ring Around The Sun). Story of a man who is walking his dog in the woods on his land when he trips over a piece of metal sticking out of the earth. It turns out to be a buried spaceship. Then he goes inside his house and notices a substance like white ceramic that seems to be growing from inside the cracks in the walls of his house, covering a ceiling.

In King's short story "The House On Maple Street" some kids notice a substance like silver metal that seems to be growing inside the cracks of the walls in their house, and spreading.

I don't think these likenesses are coincidence. I think he picks up ideas and uses them successfully in other ways to make the story entirely his own; I just think he should talk about it. Years ago on the Wikipedia entry for The Tommyknockers I put in a small edit to mention the probable influence of Clifford Simak. It was taken out by someone later, leaving only the "influence" from HP Lovecraft.

But I just noticed that someone has edited the page since last year -- and they've even changed the category of this novel. They're now calling it a science fiction novel! And more, they added another possible major influence: a British TV series called Quatermass And The Pit. It involves a buried spaceship.

I had to go get that series and watch it. It's good. King isn't robbing anyone, these are different stories. The likenesses are significant though. Probably the Wikipedia entry will be adjusted again by a fan of his, or possibly someone connected to the marketing of his work.