<p>Stephen King has been on Twitter for all of four days, and he seems oddly! at a loss for words.</p><p>The prolific novelist, who has penned something like 29 million words in his lifetime, has managed only four little missives thus far: two on the launch of his account ("no longer a virgin. Be gentle!") and two on things he is reading and watching (Benjamin Percy's "Red Moon," and the French zombie drama "The Returned"). That lack of output hasn't stopped @StephenKing from running up nearly 190,000 followers within its first days online and earning hundreds of retweets and replies to every little dribble of thought he allows out.</p><p>This is, intriguingly, a paradox that many novelists have found themselves in before; Thomas Beller, the essayist and author of "The Sleep-Over Artist," (and, it must be said, a pretty regular tweeter himself), posited in the New Yorker last June that Twitter with its insistence we "think in public" alternately paralyzes and empowers writers, who are so accustomed to the privacy of their own brains:</p><p>I sometimes wonder how the great writers of the past would handle the Twitter predicament. Would they ignore it or engage and go down the rabbit hole?</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/12/10/stephen-king-is-on-twitter-and-at-a-loss-for-words/">Keep reading...</a></p>