>>106660also
>No Stephen King though, I've found all his movies really boring except for ItI won't come out and say "try him anyway" but I did want to mention that most of the movies based on his books are really awful compared to the actual books. he writes dialogue that seems fine on the page but is cringy as fuck when actors (especially crappy actors) speak it as dialogue. personally I always liked his writing style, although some of his books get pretty damn long. plus a lot of his protagonists are blatant marty stus to the point where probably half his books' main characters are writers from maine. but it doesn't get too annoying til you've read half a dozen or so.
other authors in the big-name bestseller list would be dean koontz and anne rice. I guess they'd be considered kinda entry level. but I have enjoyed pretty much everything I read from both of them.
lovecraft is classic. his prose is more purple than barney. if you're ok with that plus a lot of hinting at, but not showing, the monster, you might like him. at least give him a shot. start with "at the mountains of madness" and go from there. if you dig him, also try robert chambers - he is not terribly scary but did influence lovecraft a lot.
it goes without saying, but edgar allan poe was damn good. bram stoker wasn't bad as well, though dracula is much slower paced than most modern horror.
neil gaiman's work is a mixture of fantasy and horror. some are more horror, some more fantasy. have always been a fan of his.
shirley jackson is considered either horror or "weird fiction" but either way, I would definitely give her a read.
laurell k. hamilton isn't bad. I have read some of her vampire hunter series and I thought they were good.
if you're more into the suspense and gruesomeness of horror than the "oh shit, a monster/supernatural being" aspect, you might try some crime novels as well. minette walters has written some that I found creepier than a lot of the horror novels I've read.
