If I remember well, Stephen King mentionned somewhere that, while gore is a cheap trick in literature, he sometimes resorts to it in order to gross out and shock the reader. But it's not his main tool, and it never really seemed forced or out of place to me. Still, apparently it sometimes seemed so to himself.

But all genres exist in literature. I'd say that gorefest tend to be low quality, cheap horror, that doesn't get as much success and visibility as other novels, but there is a whole world of gore and sex pulp fictions, and some hilarious websites that review them (more or less sarcastically, but my preferred exemple is in french, sorry) or parody them (garth marenghi's website was fantastic, unfortunately only readable on internet archives anymore - well, there's still the series of course).

In particular, old popular lowbrow spy or crime novels, industrially churned out by more or less legit writers (often switching pseudonyms), could be heavy on self-righteous violence. The 'Bulldog Drummond' series may be a popular exemple, often mentionned by Kingsley Amis in defense of Ian Fleming (to show how dignified and civilized Fleming was in comparison). But the most spectacular exemples are obscure throwaway series. I can only guess that the same must exist in the horror-fantasy genre.

At the higher, saner level of genuine writers, I think that some capitalize on "visual" horror more than others. I haven't read Clive Barker, but I've heard he's way more directly gruesome than King or Koontz. So yeah, it may be a thing.

I absolutely love (the majority of) King's books - and here mostly the older works.

The same goes for the ones he wrote under his pseudonym: Richard Bachman.

I think, the first book with his name on the cover, that I didn't like, was "The Dark Tower".
That was the first book (as far as I am aware) where King strayed away from his usual horror/mystery/morbid settings.
And I didn't like it one bit.

Of course it also didn't help, that it was published in several parts, so that the book quasi ended with a
"to be continued".

His newer works are so lala...some are good, some are meh.

Well so far:
_Carrie: My opinion is in the OP. Part of it felt... raw(?) (and not in a bad sense) But I really enjoyed it.
_Salem's Lot: Solid read. I liked it. Though slowed down towards the end.
_The Shining: Eh... average. Given all the hype I was disappointed. Not bad, but overrated.
_The Stand (long uncut version): Enjoyed it. Pretty good.
_Mr. Mercedes: Wow!
_Finders Keepers: Off to a slower start than Mr. Mercedes. But I haven't read far.

As mentioned above, after End of Watch, I'll probably do Cujo, It and Pet Sematary. Maybe The Dead Zone before Cujo because according to Wikipedia thre is a connection between those 2 novels.

That was his first book, or at least his first published book. It should feel raw; he was still learning. Of course as any artist will tell you, you are always learning, always evolving.

I agree with you on pretty much all of those.

If you get a chance check out some of his short stories, two of which include the origins of the iconic films Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me. Four Past Midnight is an AMAZING anthology.

I also really liked Insomnia and From a Buick 8, both novels.

Of course since you liked The Shining, try the sequel, Dr Sleep.

Cool. Thanks for the suggestions.

Good call. Great book.

American Psycho? I felt like I was being held hostage reading that book.

The 80s Splatterpunk movement? Those are the main ones, I think.

Yes)

great movie both of em neva read waste of teme