Stephen King, although a phenomenal idea-man, is horrible at portraying his ideas on paper. I may not be an author, but I know what ordinary writers would be damned for in the publishing world. If Stephen King walked up to a publisher without his current credentials, they would likely say, "Your writing technique is flat and tedious."
Really, it is.
He has this knack for prolonging a scene; the tension then is no longer present. It becomes a heap of unnecessary, time-consuming details that the story would likely benefit without. His books are big *pleonasms*. Great ideas beneath monotonous writing.
Stephen King is undoubtedly a genius. There's no mistaking that, and I have absolutely nothing on him(but his way of writing).
I appreciate his comment about Stephanie Meyer's inability to write, but his own techniques are bland.
Would I want to edit Stephen King? Damn straight! I'd be throwing out chunks of his scenes and increasing the suspense by shortening his excerpts. He is most certainly capable of great literature, but so are we all. He's already high on the success latter, but he has fans like me hanging from a string. If I have to read one more tedious scene from that man, I may just stop reading his work altogether because it kills me how big-time authors(James Patterson is a great example) stop caring about the quality of their work. Just so long as they make a buck, they don't care how many complaints fill their inbox.