There's never been a Stephen King novel that I've hated; I think he's unquestionably brilliant and one of America's most valuable literary masters. However, some of his works are better than others, and I couldn't help but think that of "Rose Madder", which I think is best described as lukewarm. Too much of what was bad was mixed in with what was really good.
The Good: Rosie's strength, her journey, and her endurance were excellent points that gave her a flesh-and-blood quality and saved the book. / Norman was definitely a villain to fear. His chapters are haunting and burn with the insanity and cruelty he exudes. / The violence, in my opinion, though indisputably grotesque in many instances, added reality and truth to the story and prevented the novel from becoming to flowery and "safe". King never shows any inhibitions with violence, and that's something I've always respected him for. / The psychology behind Rosie's decisions and emotions made her fear--and her anger at the end--that much more palpable as I read. / And, suspense suspense suspense.
The Bad: Bill and Rosie's relationship had a noticeable superficiality to it that paled in comparison to everything Rosie had been through. Bill as a whole came off as a vague character. / I got rather bored hearing all about Rosie's nervous waiting for Norman to show up at any moment; ironically enough, it was when her life began getting normal that I began getting bored. / Stuffing a creepy alter-ego world inside a painting was very uncharacteristic of King. The horror and fear within that world was good, but the concept of it was sort of a letdown after all that waiting for something to happen.
I think King fell into an unsure slump during the late nineties: some his novels from then, like "Desperation", I loved, while "Rose Madder" didn't do that much for me in the Horror department.