Chronic novelist Stephen King may make a good game out of his book plots, but says he has little affinity for the video kinds of games. He insists he rarely plays them and does badly whenever he tries. And given the choice between violent games and nonviolent ones, the high prince of horror likely will choose the latter, if only because he’s easily amused.

Considering all this, it might seem surprising then that King is speaking out against legislation written in Massachusetts to restrict sales of violent video games to minors. The bill proposed in the state House amends an existing law that keeps over-the-counter porn out of children’s hands and assumes such games cater mainly to prurient or violent interests and little else.

Particularly interesting is the line in the legislation that judges unworthy any video game that “lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.” Nowhere near this though lies any stipulation who among Massachusetts’ state agencies has the refined aesthtic appreciation and moral certitude necessary to make this judgment.

King, writing in Entertainment Weekly, thinks this is interesting, too, especially considering the lack of perspective that went into drafting the legislation.

“What makes me crazy is when politicians take it upon themselves to play surrogate parents,” King writes. “The results of that are usually disastrous. Not to mention undemocratic.” (Previous attempts to restrict access to violent video games failed to pass constitutional muster.)

In his view, the games that we play, just like the TV shows and movies we watch and the books we read, evolve from the perceptions we have of our society, so if the stories incorporated into these games seem disturbing then it might be best to look back at ourselves rather than at the games’ makers for answers.

King reminds us that one of the best-picture nominees at this year’s Oscars was “No Country For Old Men,” an extremely violent movie focusing on a failed drug deal and featuring a hitman whose choice of weapon is a stunbolt gun, which is not a pretty way to die (but a tool that probably will turn up in a King novel some day). Though there are parental guidance ratings on both video games and movies, hardly any real obstacles are raised to prevent teens from buying this movie on DVD, or download it online, in part because of its Oscar cred.

And then there’s the “Girls Gone Wild” video series, clips of which are three or four clicks away on any Web browser. If nobody young is meant to see them, then why are these clips so easy to obtain?

The larger point, King says, is that we love guns in this country, we love to cultivate our prurient interests, and we love to assign blame for our own shortcomings to people other than ourselves, particularly when it comes to raising our kids.

“The most effective bar against what was called ‘the seduction of the innocent’ when this hot-button issue centered on violent comic books 60 years ago is still parents who know and care not just about what their kids are watching and reading, but what they’re doing and who they’re hanging with,” King writes. “Parents need to have the guts to forbid material they find objectionable … and then explain why it’s forbidden.

“They also need to monitor their children’s lives in the pop culture — which means a lot more than seeing what games they’re renting down the street.”

Otherwise, parents will wind up with state legislators who don’t know their kids and don’t particularly care about them trying to do that job.

“Could Massachusetts legislators find better ways to watch out for the kiddies? Man, I sure hope so,” King writes in Entertainment Weekly, “because there’s a lot more to America’s culture of violence than ‘Resident Evil 4.”’