K&R is overrated, just like many "cult" books are. I read C: ARM by Harbison and Steele and after trying to read K&R I stopped because I wasn't getting anything new out of it.
Edit: Further proof of this is the blind downvoting typical of critiques of "cult" books. K&R just happened to be there at the right time and it was the first programming book for many people. Their nostalgia makes them think that it is a very good book, when in fact is a simple book that describes a simple language. Nothing bad about that, but nothing spectacular either.
"a simple book that describes a simple language" -- this, and this alone is worth all the praise it gets. It's one of the best books I've read as far as getting out of your way and letting you learn the language. No silliness, no wasted space. It is a super efficient book that gives you everything you need to get started.
They're different books for somewhat different purposes. Harbison and Steele was written because Tartan Labs (CMU (compiler gods) spinoff) needed a strict definition of the language suitable to use for implementing it. And that's what Steele has done with all his language refs (well, I haven't looked at the Fortress one yet).
K&R ... I don't know. To really judge it, I'd want to e.g. look at the Algol 60 spec, and some inbetween.
Anyway, I'm not sure it's a "cult" book, but I do agree it's overrated (see my other comment; at the time I found the Lions' Commentary to be the better tutorial, but it had that tiny problem of being samizdat).
It's not surprising that you wouldn't get anything new from K&R after finishing H&S. H&S is intended to be a reference manual whereas K&R is more of a tutorial (that doubles as a reference manual, especially before ANSI C was created). I think few people would attempt to learn C by reading H&S.
Personally I adore both books. I do find H&S more useful particularly because it is more comprehensive and up to date (very good coverage of C99, not just a listing of changes in some appendix but has discussions about C99 throughout the book).
Edit: Further proof of this is the blind downvoting typical of critiques of "cult" books. K&R just happened to be there at the right time and it was the first programming book for many people. Their nostalgia makes them think that it is a very good book, when in fact is a simple book that describes a simple language. Nothing bad about that, but nothing spectacular either.