# Reading > General Literature >  Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

## dreamylove4u

I picked up the newspaper Canyon News and read the Star-gazing column, for those who don't live in LA, just go to www.canyonnewspaper.com look under Star-gazing, then go to Stephen's website. It's the column that mentions about a book that can't be published, its quite interesting.

----------


## Robert E Lee

> I picked up the newspaper Canyon News and read the Star-gazing column, for those who don't live in LA, just go to www.canyonnewspaper.com look under Star-gazing, then go to Stephen's website. It's the column that mentions about a book that can't be published, its quite interesting.


I don't read commercial fiction. Sorry.

----------


## dreamylove4u

I guess you prefer classic lit. Have you read the book, can't remember the title, the one that just won the Nobel prize?

----------


## AbdoRinbo

Stephen King, _commercial lit?_ Lee, are you kidding or just mistaken? King has done nothing but bash 'popular' literature for four decades. C'mon. You should really check out his literary criticism, it's some of the best around (he's charmingly unpretentious). Furthermore, I mean, who else can craft a horror story with just a dog and a little dehydration?

----------


## dreamylove4u

Did you read his column, isn't it awesome?

----------


## AbdoRinbo

Not yet, I'll check it out tonight.

----------


## dreamylove4u

:Biggrin:  You'll enjoy it. I didn't know about him writing a column. I read about it in Canyon News. Perhaps its common knowledge already.

----------


## Rotty1021

I love Stephen King, but find some of his stuff to be trash, yet other stuff to be some of the most beautiful literature I've read, with delicate characterisations, intricate plot lines, and excellent philosophies on life. "Dreamcatcher" fits into this latter category.

----------


## crisaor

> King has done nothing but bash 'popular' literature for four decades. C'mon. You should really check out his literary criticism, it's some of the best around (he's charmingly unpretentious). Furthermore, I mean, who else can craft a horror story with just a dog and a little dehydration?


That's correct. King's criticism is actually pretty good, and it is in fact underestimated, but the *HUGE* overestimation of his works compensates this. As a great TV show once said, Stephen King's greatest accoplishment is writing "boom" on a napkin and getting US$3,000 for it.

----------


## florencegale182

So anyone here into Stephen King?
I'm currently reading his The Tommyknockers and I find it interesting.
Discuss Stephen King here...

----------


## Pensive

I have read The Long Walk and loved it. I am planning to try some other of his novels.

----------


## Zippy

I'm a big SK fan. I especially enjoy his earlier work and his short stories, although I think recently he's slipped a bit.

I've just bought a copy of 'Cell' and will get around to reading it when I finish the book I'm reading now.

Zippy.

----------


## Bysshe

Yeah, I like Stephen King. I've read The Shining, Cujo, Firestarter, Carrie, and The Stand. I loved The Stand so much I'm re-reading it now.

----------


## Mark F.

My favourite King novels are The Stand and Salem's Lot. It, The Shining and some others are also quite good, haven't read any in a long while though.

----------


## Shannanigan

I am currently reading The Shining; picked it up because I remember hearing about a movie by the same title and made the connection when I saw the book in a Goodwill store. I read King intemittently, though I keep promising myself that I'll get more into his works. I did read Cell earlier this summer, and it was decent, though I am enjoying The Shining much more. I remember reading Dreamcatcher years ago and enjoying it...then being angry at Hollywood's butchering of it in theaters...

I'm sure I've read more, but can't remember titles. I know that I've never read one of his works and been disappointed, and that I usually read more of King when I'm in one of my EAP phases...

----------


## mono

I have read a few books of his, but not anytime recently. Years ago, I read such books as _The Shining_, _The Green Mile_, _Cujo_, and _Hearts In Atlantis_. Mostly because I cannot call myself a big fan of the gruesome kinds of novels, I have avoided several of his novels. Regardless, I cannot deny his immense creativity, and, what I have heard as, his extensive education.

----------


## papayahed

I've read most of his earlier works, I'd call myself a fan. I loved The Stand and The Talisman (not so crazy about the sequel). Oh and that other one about the Clown - sheesh I'm drawing such a blank right now -----I'll be Back!!





They all float down here. And you'll float too!!!!!

----------


## Mark F.

> I am currently reading The Shining; picked it up because I remember hearing about a movie by the same title and made the connection when I saw the book in a Goodwill store. I read King intemittently, though I keep promising myself that I'll get more into his works. I did read Cell earlier this summer, and it was decent, though I am enjoying The Shining much more. I remember reading Dreamcatcher years ago and enjoying it...then being angry at Hollywood's butchering of it in theaters...


Yeah, Kubrick's version of "The Shining" is awesome although it's quite different to the novel. A couple other good adaptations of his novels I've seen are "The Green Mile" and "The Shawshank Redemption". "Dreamcatcher" is one of the worst movies of the last few years next to "Spiderman 2".

----------


## Mary Sue

My favorite King novel is IT. That's the one about Pennywise the Clown, who lives down in the sewers underneath a small New England town. Pennywise assumes the guise of a clown so that he can lure little kids to their deaths. Nice guy, huh? In actual fact he's an ancient, pseudo-Lovecraftian monster that feeds on our deepest fears. And he can take the form of whatever each one of us is most afraid of.

----------


## Idril

> My favorite King novel is IT. That's the one about Pennywise the Clown, who lives down in the sewers underneath a small New England town. Pennywise assumes the guise of a clown so that he can lure little kids to their deaths. Nice guy, huh? In actual fact he's an ancient, pseudo-Lovecraftian monster that feeds on our deepest fears. And he can take the form of whatever each one of us is most afraid of.


The ending of that book was so surreal, I don't even remember the details anymore because it's been such a long time since I've read it but I remember thinking at the time, "He must've been smoking some pretty potent stuff when he wrote that.".  :FRlol:   :Wink:  

_The Stand_ remains my favorite King book, although I can't say I'm very well read in the Stephen King category and what I have read, I read a long time ago but _The Stand_ still sticks out very firmly in my mind as a fascinating and powerful book and Randall Flagg stands out as an incredibly creepy villian.

----------


## Dunpeal

currently reading Hearts in Atlantis and The Wastelands

Salem's Lot is great. Four Past Midnight is good (the best story there was "The Langoliers"). and also, I've read a few stories from Everything's Eventual. the first novel by King I read was Bag of Bones

----------


## papayahed

> My favorite King novel is IT. That's the one about Pennywise the Clown, who lives down in the sewers underneath a small New England town. Pennywise assumes the guise of a clown so that he can lure little kids to their deaths. Nice guy, huh? In actual fact he's an ancient, pseudo-Lovecraftian monster that feeds on our deepest fears. And he can take the form of whatever each one of us is most afraid of.


That's the one I was trying to remember!!!! hehe 

Beep Beep


I love the short story about the guy that gets stranded on the desert island by himself with a broken foot and a butt load of heroin.

----------


## Woland

The Stand is awesome, It and Thinner are good reads too

----------


## mono

> Yeah, Kubrick's version of "The Shining" is awesome although it's quite different to the novel.


Indeed, though the film had some differences from the novel, I can never insult Stanley Kubrick's work of art in staging _The Shining_, partially, in fact, created not far from my home city, a hotel called Timberline Lodge.
Overall, I tend to dislike *many* film adaptions, but with Stephen King's novels, many directors and producers, I think, have done well in film adaptions, primarily with _The Shining_, _The Green Mile_, and _Hearts In Atlantis_.

----------


## kathycf

I liked several of King's books. _Dolores Claiborne_ was more of a very character driven mystery story,rather than horror. I liked that King (at times, not always) can be empathetic, as he was in this novel. 
One of the worst King books, and a movie based on a King novel was (IMO)
_Christine._

Look out, killer, demonic car on the loose!!  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Zippy

> One of the worst King books, and a movie based on a King novel was (IMO)
> _Christine._
> 
> Look out, killer, demonic car on the loose!!


I'm with you on that one.

I just can't get into his 'car books'. I tried reading _From A Buick 8_ about three times before finally abandoning it.

----------


## Mark F.

> Indeed, though the film had some differences from the novel, I can never insult Stanley Kubrick's work of art in staging _The Shining_, partially, in fact, created not far from my home city, a hotel called Timberline Lodge.
> Overall, I tend to dislike *many* film adaptions, but with Stephen King's novels, many directors and producers, I think, have done well in film adaptions, primarily with _The Shining_, _The Green Mile_, and _Hearts In Atlantis_.


I heard that The Apt Pupil was also a very good film. I think I have the short story at home so I might read it one of these days.

----------


## papayahed

I really like that some early Anthrax songs are about Stephen King books.

----------


## Dunpeal

I agree. A novel about a killer car doesn't sound convincing. 
as a short story, I guess that would be OK (in fact, he did write a short story about killer vehicles (and other objects, I guess) called "Trucks"). But having that as the main idea of a *novel*.. eh... pass.

going along with what was mentioned, I'll add that another non horror character driven novel is Hearts in Atlantis. I haven't finished it yet, but so far there's no horror in it (and I doubt there will be).

I saw the movie Apt Pupil ages ago (liked it) and been meaning to see it again. also been meaning to read Four Past Midnight.

and those Anthrax songs are awesome. especially "Lone Justice" and "Among the Living"

anyone out there know a good non horror King novel? (besides the previously mentioned Dolores Claiborne)

(and before I forget.. I don't think King should be known as "that famous writer of scary and gruesome stories." I mean.. check out some of the movies like Green Mile or Stand By Me or the Dark Tower books).

----------


## Mark F.

I don't think The Green Mile qualifies as horrific, and the stories in Different Seasons are non horror (The Shawshank Redemption).

----------


## Zippy

I really liked The Running Man - non-horror, more a sci-fi book. Apparently SK wrote it in a week, I found it an enjoyable read.

----------


## facultease_dept

yeah, I remember that one. he wrote it using the name Richard Bachman.

----------


## EAP

> anyone out there know a good non horror King novel? (besides the previously mentioned Dolores Claiborne)


Hearts in Atlantis? Dark Tower?

----------


## facultease_dept

yeah, those are non horror

----------


## Poe_writer

My favorite King books are The Shining and The Stand, although I do like (most of) The Dark Tower series. I've read The Stand about five times now, and probably will reread it every few years for the rest of my life. It's just so much fun to revisit those wonderful characters.

I had problems with the ending of the DT series, and now that I've read the last 3 a second time, I'm dealing with it better, but I still think it was a poor ending for a delightful series.

----------


## Bookworm Cris

I´ve read some short stories of SK, and those I liked more are Riding the Bullet, Word-Processor of Gods, The Ballad of the Flexible Bullet and Shawshank Redemption. Of the novels, I enjoyed The Dead Zone, Pet Sematary, Dolores Claiborne. 
About the films, I think Dolores Claiborne and Misery were very good films (although the story was slightly different of the book), but kathy Bates saves both movies. Apt Pupil and Shawshank Redemtion were also very good (the latter was very well adapted from the book, vary faithfully).

About the short story about the man in an island with the broken leg and the heroin, it´s Survivor Type. I did´nt like it, thought it was very disgusting, all that self mutilation is not my taste...

----------


## kathycf

> About the films, I think Dolores Claiborne and Misery were very good films (although the story was slightly different of the book), but kathy Bates saves both movies. Apt Pupil and Shawshank Redemtion were also very good (the latter was very well adapted from the book, vary faithfully).


Oh yes, Shawshank Redemption was a very good movie. The Green Mile was also a good adaptation of King's book. 

King wrote a short story called "The Body" which was made into a film (I think in 1986) called _Stand by Me_. I did not read the story, but the movie remains one of my favorites. (It is non-horror, btw)

----------


## Thorwench

I agree. Best film: Stand by Me. Best story: Hearts in Atlantis.
There are both non-horror but pick up on his scares-mindsets of childhood theme.

----------


## Shannanigan

I'm reading "The Eye of the Dragon" and I'm curious...does King have any other books where he uses a "fantasy" setting, with kings, princes, magicians, and dragons and such? Don't ruin the book for me, I'm not done yet  :Wink:

----------


## jayson

I'm not sure schannanigan. I didn't make it far into "eye of the dragon", wasn't in the mood for that type of stuff that day i guess.

"The Long Walk", that's proably my favorite King book, was a great story.

----------


## Pensive

> I'm not sure schannanigan. I didn't make it far into "eye of the dragon", wasn't in the mood for that type of stuff that day i guess.
> 
> "The Long Walk", that's proably my favorite King book, was a great story.


Yep, it was a very good story. I loved the suspense in it and the end was confusing at first but great!

----------


## peterk

The only Stephen King book that I have read was the Shining and it was great. The atmosphere was built up exceedingly well and it was terrifying at bits. I know that by many he is not considered a good writer but I beg to differ.

----------


## Jtolj

Stephen King has a gift for characterization, and while his books are while very appreciated by the reading community, underappreciated in my opinion by the intellectuals. 


Stephen King is my favorite author of all time. The thing that makes him great is his characterization. His books are about characters, amazingly drawn, going through their life, and then about half-way through something horrorific happenings. Or at least his best book, Salem's Lot. 

Stephen King is the greatest author of pure characterization ever. If he made a book that was entirely characters going through their life, it would be an very good experience. But what he does is add horror to it, so it has so many facets and appeals that it notches it to an awesome experience.

The reason why stephen king is so awesome is and has always been is his characterization. His books (or at least the great ones) are first and foremost about developing the characters to death (in a good way). 

If an author can write that well, his books (or at least his top books) should be considered literature the same Tolkien and Fitzgerald are.

What do you think?

----------


## Kurtz

Sure, I think he is a great writer. Remember, many authors who are famous now were scarcely read in their time.

----------


## Jtolj

> Sure, I think he is a great writer. Remember, many authors who are famous now were scarcely read in their time.


I wonder why :FRlol:  Some of their work, seems to be garbage or not that great stuff that was overrated by intellectuals.

----------


## Pensive

I think that a discussion about him has already been done before, but I am too lazy to search.  :Biggrin: 

Anyway, I have personally no grudge against him. He is a good writer, but certainly not my favourite. I didn't like Rose Madder much but when I read The Long Walk, I was really impressed by the book---the horror in it---the plot---the character sketching, it was indeed very good.

----------


## PeterL

Yes, Stephen King writes, and all written material is literature.

----------


## Pensive

> Yes, Stephen King writes, and all wrotten material is literature.


Err. You don't mean rotten material is literature, right?  :Tongue:  Yes, all *written* material is literature, so Stephen King comes in it. That's another thing what kind of literature---good---or----bad. Here, people have different opinions about this guy.

----------


## Jtolj

I meant literature in the "college proffesors recognize it" sense.

----------


## Turk

I've read some of his books such as "Thing", "Mist" and "Psychic" and i enjoyed all of those books. But i don't think he's an artist. Because things he told are just weird/paranormal stories and they are not universal. I think we should firstly clarify what's art.

----------


## Woland

> I meant literature in the "college proffesors recognize it" sense.


I dont think most literature professors would recogize Stephen King as literature worthy of study. 

I like King, hes a good storyteller.

----------


## PeterL

> I meant literature in the "college proffesors recognize it" sense.


There is a great deal of disagreement among college professors. I had one professor who wrote two detective novels that were published. He included some popular fiction in his courses. Remember that Shakespeare wrote his time's equivilent of B movies. With that said, some of King's novels are garbage, but others are pretty good. He is a pretty good writer, and he employs traditional themes and plot devices in some of his novels. I doubt that his writing will become part of the canon, but there's some real trash that is in the canon, so I may be wrong.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> If an author can write that well, his books (or at least his top books) should be considered literature the same Tolkien and Fitzgerald are.


King is a decent writer with a good imagination. Tolkein was a decent writer with an absolutely unearthly imagination. Fitzgerald was a genius. _Salem's Lot_ and _The Great Gatsby_ are in completely different leagues, in my humble opinion.


> Sure, I think he is a great writer. Remember, many authors who are famous now were scarcely read in their time.


You consider Stephen King "scarcely read"? Are we talking about the same man? Stephen King has sold more books than Gutenberg.

----------


## ennison

Yes. Of course it's literature. Bizarre yes? Not really about real life situations and people but about his own strange and powerful imagination.Lots of good writers have followed the same line.He should write more succinctly at times buthe is a storyteller and he once made me stay up all night to finish reading 'Moon'. He has probably got a very good estimation of his own position in any great literature list. There is room in our reading for a whole range of stuff and room on our bookshelves for King and Grisham.

----------


## mtpspur

I'm wondering if the idea here is: Is Stephen King considered literature NOW. At this time I believe he is POPULAR with the MASSES but not REGARDED as literature. I belive King may survive the test of time. I also believe I won't be here if it happens so I'm enjoying but not losing sleep over it. Truth is my son is THE King collector in the family--I'm still casually working on Rafafel Sabatini who still doesn't rate as literature-- thanks to Errol Flynn no doubt. Growing up with rather strict parents (who did never did understand why I thought Edgar Rice Burroughs was a GOD) (and Doc Savage was a prophet--The Shadow came much later) I would show them the classics I would read (Shakespeare, Dickens etc and hide the POPULAR stuff like Burroughs, Fu Manchu books. I still remember having to explain my copy of Haggard's She because Ursula Andress was on the cover due to that wretched film version and Mom never belived me for a second.

----------


## alennox21

NO. A great writer; not literature.

five hundred years will prove that Joyce, fitzgerald, capote and possibly mailer were the literature of 20th century english.

----------


## Shannanigan

I think a lot of people dismiss him as not being literature simply because he writes about paranormal events...similar reasoning to the people who refuse to call fantasy literature. Everyone has different personal opinions about what should be considered literature, and mine is fairly inclusive. King uses characterization, setting, has great plots in my opinion...to me, he is literature, whether or not I like him or his books.

Someone was talking to me today about a woman she dislikes who is always correcting her grammar. I told her that as an English major, I've come to realize that as long as you are getting your message across and are understood, then you are using the language effectively, and there is no need to correct it in casual conversation. Maybe that makes me look like one of those all-inclusive enthusiasts who will call any sound music, any splatter of paint art, and any book literature...but that's not the case. I have my parameters, and those of others may differ...

----------


## Neovia

I have read only one of King's novels: The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and it's one of the most boring novels I have ever read. I don't know, maybe I should read some of the more popular ones, so perhaps I could understand better why everybody likes his books so much :/.

At least Green Mile was brilliant as a film.

----------


## genoveva

Certainly! King's the leading contemporary American gothic writer of our times! Try reading "IT" sometime.

----------


## Turk

> King is a decent writer with a good imagination. Tolkein was a decent writer with an absolutely unearthly imagination. Fitzgerald was a genius. _Salem's Lot_ and _The Great Gatsby_ are in completely different leagues, in my humble opinion.You consider Stephen King "scarcely read"? Are we talking about the same man? Stephen King has sold more books than Gutenberg.


Tolkien's writings are not mostly imagination. He was an English Language Professor and interested in linguistic. His themes and imaginary creatures etc. mostly based on different cultures and myths. For example even there's creature "Troll" is originally Swedish myth, i also recognized Celtic influences on names. Even name of Tom Bombadil has probly taken from Turkish (this is a completely original theory but i think it's really possible) because he was interested in linguistic and "Dil" means tongue in Turkish, so "Bombadil" means Bomb-Tongue (if we remember Bombadil's ability to control the nature with his words, this theory seems more logical). So i don't think he had absolutely unearthly imagination, but he had absolutely wide knowledge of folk literature and different folk myth, also i think LOTR is not just a novel probly a myth. Because style of novel really similar to myths.

Last word about King; please think his subjects and stories, they are probly means anything for a man who comes from different culture. Weird things going on in a little American town. Characters are absolutely similar to each other in every novel, classic American town-folk. When you finish the novel, you feel really satisfied and enjoyed, but did it change you? Did you feel anything different about your thoughts and feelings? No? Then he's not an artist. Art shows us a something different about universe-human relations. It changes us, can King do this? If your answer is no, then he's not an artist, just a good story-teller.

----------


## CourtnyG

I really enjoy reading Stephen King, especially when I've read too much heavy literature and need a break. I'm not sure if he's an artist, but The Stand does illuminate human nature. He shows you how different people react differently when the world appears to be ending, and you learn why the people reacted as they did through the back story of their life. It does require some thought and entrepretation. It's not spelled out for you, but it does illuminate human nature, the way people are, and why they are that way. It is his only novel I have read that I felt had depth to it though (and I've read quite a few). I think he is a very good writer, and it's not about his stories. It's the way in which he draws you into the stories (I personally prefer his short stories to his novels, except The Stand). The way he speaks to the reader. For the most part his stories are fluff, but they speak to me and draw me in in a way no modern writer in his genre does. 

Courtny

----------


## Jtolj

> Tolkien's writings are not mostly imagination. He was an English Language Professor and interested in linguistic. His themes and imaginary creatures etc. mostly based on different cultures and myths. For example even there's creature "Troll" is originally Swedish myth, i also recognized Celtic influences on names. Even name of Tom Bombadil has probly taken from Turkish (this is a completely original theory but i think it's really possible) because he was interested in linguistic and "Dil" means tongue in Turkish, so "Bombadil" means Bomb-Tongue (if we remember Bombadil's ability to control the nature with his words, this theory seems more logical). So i don't think he had absolutely unearthly imagination, but he had absolutely wide knowledge of folk literature and different folk myth, also i think LOTR is not just a novel probly a myth. Because style of novel really similar to myths.
> 
> Last word about King; please think his subjects and stories, they are probly means anything for a man who comes from different culture. Weird things going on in a little American town. Characters are absolutely similar to each other in every novel, classic American town-folk. When you finish the novel, you feel really satisfied and enjoyed, but did it change you? Did you feel anything different about your thoughts and feelings? No? Then he's not an artist. Art shows us a something different about universe-human relations. It changes us, can King do this? If your answer is no, then he's not an artist, just a good story-teller.


Why can't art just be a fantastic story?

----------


## Thorwench

Story telling is definitely an art form because it is always important how a story is told. Take the same story line, give it to different people to actually tell the story and you will find that some will be brilliant, exciting, nerve warckingly thrilling and some will be boring, tedious and repetitive. Art is not only about contents but also about style and it is the style that can make a content appealing, even contents that have no particular merits themselves or don't seem very fascinating (like the smell of cookies, and look what Proust made of it). For me, King IS an artist. I have found childhood fears rarely better described and told than in his books. Hearts in Atlantis really recreates the feeling of a certain generation so much so that it all came back to me, unwanted, unasked for, just like that. I also like his way to deal with accents and speech mannerisms, it reminds me of Nestroy and his attempt to characterise people by their way of speaking. Telling a story well should always be appreciated, even by intellectuals. And anyway, a true intellectual should be beyond snobbishness, should be confident enough not to seek cover behind high brow words, topics or interpretations.

----------


## Turk

> Why can't art just be a fantastic story?


Of course it can be, Kafka, Tolkien, Capote, Marquez and many other writers uses fantastic elements in their stories but if the story doesn't have any universal meaning or something to tell us about human, that's just a pulp story. Think King stories such as Red Rose Mansion or It, what's universal or art in those stories? Something weird going on in a mansion and people dying, so what? Or "It" There's an unearthly creature killing people, so what? Is this art?

I said reading King is fun, but if every enjoyable thing would be art life would be full of art. There's certain limits of art and King is definately out of those limits.

----------


## CourtnyG

As someone who has never created anything in her life, I'm hesitant to define art. I personally don't feel comfortable putting limitations on it, and saying this is art or this isn't art. In the broadest terms I think art is everywhere and in everything. My personal tastes run narrower than that though. Just because you look at a creation and are unimpressed by it, doesn't mean it's not art. Just because you observe a work (read it, listen to it, look at it), and you don't feel that magical feeling you feel when you're moved by something, doesn't mean it's not art. 

I'm not sure it's fair to decide that a writer is not an artist without reading all of their work. One might understand why some people might consider King an artist if one read The Stand (about human nature in the face of disaster), Thinner (about the power of pain and revenge), Bag of Bones, Needful Things (about how people grasp at their dreams when offered to them even when they know something's wrong), or the Bachman books (he wrote some stories under the name of Bachman that are amazing). These are all novels or short stories that tell us about human nature (you have to look past the plot line and into the drawing of the characters to find it though). I think maybe you're not digging deep enough. You're reading the story, and only looking at the plot. Larry Underwood, Franny, Harold Lauder, and Stuart Redman are all characters from the Stand that seem like real people to me. When you can create characters that are so real the reader almost feels that they could reach out and touch them, when the writer draws their characters so well that the reader knows what they'll do in situations not even presented in the novel, you're an artist, it's not all about plot.

Courtny





> Of course it can be, Kafka, Tolkien, Capote, Marquez and many other writers uses fantastic elements in their stories but if the story doesn't have any universal meaning or something to tell us about human, that's just a pulp story. Think King stories such as Red Rose Mansion or It, what's universal or art in those stories? Something weird going on in a mansion and people dying, so what? Or "It" There's an unearthly creature killing people, so what? Is this art?
> 
> I said reading King is fun, but if every enjoyable thing would be art life would be full of art. There's certain limits of art and King is definately out of those limits.

----------


## Zippy

If Stephen King wrote 'straight' books instead of horror he'd be regarded as one of the greatest American writers of the 20th and 21st centuries by even the harshest critics. It's simply a case of genre prejudice.

The man has real literary talent and ability. You only have to read a book like _Misery_, where he uses extended metaphors, stream-of-consciousness and even a story within a story, to see that he knows what he's doing with technique and does it well. His characters are as well developed and sometimes better developed than a dozen other 'literary' authors. His use of dialogue and setting are flawless. The only difference is that King writes horror and has been pigeon-holed into that genre (something he's quite comfortable with). Also, he's hugely successful, which upsets some of the more snobby critics who believe that art is only for an elite and ceases to be art when it reaches the masses.

This is of course a hugely subjective matter. Some of the well-established literary greats have left me cold and unchanged and revealed nothing to me about human nature. While a book such as _The Running Man_ for example, which is regarded by almost everyone (probably even King himself) as a pot-boiler has both entertained and moved me.

Another author who was wildly successful in his day was Charles Dickens. He was regarded as a mere story teller by contemporary critics. However, you would have to go very far indeed to meet someone who doesn't consider his work to be part of the literary cannon these days. 

Zippy.

----------


## Turk

If.

Nobody said he doesn't have talent. But since he just write for money we can't call him artist. Talent is not enough to be artist, if you have it, you should use it.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I've read _The Dark Tower_ (supposedly his 'big message' book) and I didn't find it all that good, frankly. He can write well, and he has a good imagination, but I don't think he's all that earth-shaking.

The man needs to stay out of the movies, though.

----------


## Woland

> Another author who was wildly successful in his day was Charles Dickens. He was regarded as a mere story teller by contemporary critics. However, you would have to go very far indeed to meet someone who doesn't consider his work to be part of the literary cannon these days. 
> 
> Zippy.


/puts on devils advocate hat -

Same could be said for Arthur Conan Doyle but there arent many who would consider him to be part of any cannon

----------


## Shalot

> I think a lot of people dismiss him as not being literature simply because he writes about paranormal events...similar reasoning to the people who refuse to call fantasy literature. Everyone has different personal opinions about what should be considered literature, and mine is fairly inclusive. King uses characterization, setting, has great plots in my opinion...to me, he is literature, whether or not I like him or his books.
> 
> Someone was talking to me today about a woman she dislikes who is always correcting her grammar. I told her that as an English major, I've come to realize that as long as you are getting your message across and are understood, then you are using the language effectively, and there is no need to correct it in casual conversation. Maybe that makes me look like one of those all-inclusive enthusiasts who will call any sound music, any splatter of paint art, and any book literature...but that's not the case. I have my parameters, and those of others may differ...



I took an introductory linguistics class and we talked about people who do correct other people in casual conversations and we decided that it is both stupid and rude. There is a time and a place (and a style) for everything. If you are writing a paper for class or a business proposal then your grammar needs to be perfect. If you are giving a speech in class or putting on a presention then you need to prepare your words beforehand. But if you are just talking or posting on a forum then you are allowed a grammar misstep or typo here and there. We also talked about how the English language has evolved over time. 

And just as the English language has evolved, so too will literary criteria (I think). I think Stephen King will at least be mentioned in future literature classes. If not, they can surely fit him into a 20th century popular culture class.

----------


## Zippy

> If.
> 
> Nobody said he doesn't have talent. But since he just write for money we can't call him artist. Talent is not enough to be artist, if you have it, you should use it.



I think you're making a huge presumption there. Yes, he makes a lot of money, but if you read one of his autobiographical works like _On Writing_ you'll see that money is very far down the list of his motivations. First and foremost he writes because it's what he does, it's almost 'hardwired' into his consciousness. In other words, it's for the sheer love of it.

Why does an 'artist' write? What makes them different from 'popular' writers? I think people have a specific vision of the 'artist' in their heads (swanning around with a cravat and smoking jacket; starving to death in a loft in Paris; unappreciated in their time; ) when someone doesn't fit that vision, we have a break-down of imagination.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that King is a genius or anything. Writers like Joyce, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Woolf et al are light-years ahead of him, but still, his work deserves to be called literature just as much as the work of many lesser so-called literary authors.

ZIPPY :Wink: 




> /puts on devils advocate hat -
> 
> Same could be said for Arthur Conan Doyle but there arent many who would consider him to be part of any cannon


It's a fair point. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has not made the literary cannon - yet. But I'd argue that, his Sherlock Holmes books at least, are hovering on the periphary. After all, there are already 'Oxford World Classics' editions of his books. Surely it can't be too much longer before he's accepted as part of the literary cannon.

To go off topic for a moment, I visited my grandmother a few weeks ago during her birthday and got talking about Sherlock Holmes (it was on the TV). It turns out that Conan Doyle spent the final years of his life in a small village called Cardross where my grandmother was from. My great grandmother was a cook and used to get my gran to take Conan Doyle his dinner every day. As she was just a young girl at the time she was unaware of who he was, only that he was a 'famous writer'. I asked her what he was like and she said that 'Mr. Doyle was a very nice old man'. So there you go - my (tentative) link to literary stardom!

Zippy. :Smile:

----------


## Shannanigan

> And just as the English language has evolved, so too will literary criteria (I think). I think Stephen King will at least be mentioned in future literature classes. If not, they can surely fit him into a 20th century popular culture class.


Ah, exactly  :Smile:  The language evolves according to people's tastes and usage, who's to say literature won't, as well? Stephen King has sold way too many books and become too much of a household name to not be mentioned in future literature classes or 20th century pop culture class...heck, he's mentioned all the time in my lit classes today!

----------


## Turk

> I think you're making a huge presumption there. Yes, he makes a lot of money, but if you read one of his autobiographical works like _On Writing_ you'll see that money is very far down the list of his motivations. First and foremost he writes because it's what he does, it's almost 'hardwired' into his consciousness. In other words, it's for the sheer love of it.
> 
> Why does an 'artist' write? What makes them different from 'popular' writers? I think people have a specific vision of the 'artist' in their heads (swanning around with a cravat and smoking jacket; starving to death in a loft in Paris; unappreciated in their time; ) when someone doesn't fit that vision, we have a break-down of imagination.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that King is a genius or anything. Writers like Joyce, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Woolf et al are light-years ahead of him, but still, his work deserves to be called literature just as much as the work of many lesser so-called literary authors.
> 
> ZIPPY


I see, but as far as i read his works i can't say he's an artist. I read at least 4-5 books of him and i said it's exciting and fun. But after finished his books it didn't change me. When you finish a Dostoevski or Hemingway book you feel changed, developed and matured. But i really didn't get same feeling when i finish King books. Is his style exciting? Yeah. Is he writes good? Yeah. Is it fun to read him? Yeah. But he doesn't have any message for me. He doesn't show me anything i didn't know before about universe. That's why i can't call him artist. Btw, i like Zappa, his song "why does it hurts when i pee?" makes me always smile since he died because of prostat cancer.  :Wink:

----------


## Bookworm Cris

> Originally posted by Shannaniggan:
> Someone was talking to me today about a woman she dislikes who is always correcting her grammar. I told her that as an English major, I've come to realize that as long as you are getting your message across and are understood, then you are using the language effectively, and there is no need to correct it in casual conversation. Maybe that makes me look like one of those all-inclusive enthusiasts who will call any sound music, any splatter of paint art, and any book literature...but that's not the case. I have my parameters, and those of others may differ...



I agree with you; one´s parameters about what´s art differ from other´s. There´s a saying: "One must not discuss matters of taste" (I know it in portuguese, excuse my bad translation). What´s considered art to one person may not be to another, but good taste is a relative thing. People usually consider "kitsch" or "bad-taste" anything that´s popular with the masses. Well, it usually is, but there´s exceptions. Many authors that were popular in their time were not considered canon (some still aren´t, but some have achieved that status). But even if they were not in the Mount Olympus of Art, people enjoyed their work, they earned their living, and perhaps someone could learn something, become a better person, remember their own experiences, recognize common virtues and/or vices, just like other people would do with other art works, the canon ones. It all depends on how a work of art touches someone´s sensibilities and needs, it´s a case-to-case relationship. 
After all this babbling, I like King´s work. I enjoyed many of his books, they are stories well told, his characters are well constructed, and even if I don´t think they´re the best books I ever read, I liked them a lot. :Smile:  
My favourites: Dolores Claiborne, Pet Sematary, and some short stories.

----------


## ennison

Grr I do dislike bad grammar I do! And furthermore ... and ... to elaborate should this site be encouraging students to seek help with books that they are too lazy to read? Ain't that cheating? Should we provide Philistines with handrails? Yes? Ok Yes. Nobody will ever read until there is an element of enjoyment, pleasure, achievement but ... laziness .. 'Tis a sin sure an' a terrible one.

----------


## Mark F.

King is a good story teller, his writing isn't as great as Faulkner's and he's no poet but I'd consider him literature. Not the best but definitely not the worst either.

As Zippy pointed out, you should read "On Writing", Turk. And all artists live on the same thing by the way, money. The great painters of Italian Renaissance, the French Romantics like Balzac who wrote plays simply because it was the easiest way to get rich, all of them do it for the money at some point.

----------


## Evi

Mark F,

I totally agree with that: all artists are professionals like all the others, and they are doing their job for money. Mozart for example was composing music for the king in order to be in the palace and to have all the avantages the nobles had. And all the nowdays very good actors are staring in the blockbasters ( the more silly ones) in order to take millions for two weeks shooting! Artists arent saint, they are regular people and they want to make money like all we want. 

Evi

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> This guy also cares about the language the way Hemingay and Faulkner does.


Ok, King is a compotent writer, but I draw the line at comparing him to Hemingway.

----------


## jerrybreathfire

Yes, Stephen King is definitely literature. And a very good one at that. This guy knows what he's doing and undoubtedly a master of his "craft or sullen art". This guy also cares about the language the way Hemingay and Faulkner does. The difference is that artist sees the same landscape in different light. To criticise is human, to write divine.

----------


## ennison

Joyce? Come on. People in universities are forced to study him. But the universities are self-appointed arbiters of taste. Very few readers would place 'Ulysses' high up on a scale of wonderful books and that other tome of his 'Finnegan's Wake' is for most readers an unread or unfinished lump of a thing. His short stories are brilliant though. Mailer is a clever boomer, Fitzgerald an artist but Capote is very limited. My advice is not to pay too much attention to what the profs say. How many really good writers have uni backgrounds? Precious few.

----------


## RonRay

While I disagree that Stephen King is an intellectual, there's no denying his skill and expertise as a writer.
I just finished his seven-book series "The Dark Tower", and except for the final installment (book #7 - The Dark Tower), the first six books are truly works of art! In fact, I expect a large "cult" following on this series alone!
I even began searching for Dark Tower art work and other media that had nothing to do with the actual reading or "writing" of the books.
As I said, I found book seven (the final book in the series) to be a great disappointment, but all-in-all, it's some of the best reading I've done in a long while!

----------


## The Atheist

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'd like to re-open the case on the basis of a few comments I saw in another thread.

Three major criticisms were made of Stephen King as regards his literary status:

His books are "pulp fiction".

He was influenced by other authors.

His prose is not of the required standard.

Dealing with outside influences first, I don't know of any author from the 20th century who had no literary influences. If anyone would care to name some authors which fit this bill, it may be worth discussing, but without that, it becomes a meaningless criterion and can be dismissed as criticism. 

"Pulp fiction", is open to interpretation, but I would class it as a term befitting many of the books displayed in any bookshop - particularly those which sell new books. As any second-hand book retailer will tell you, the market for "pulp fiction" is small - Stephen King's second-hand market is not, despite being one of the most-published authors on the planet.

As regards King's standard and style of prose - attempting to dismiss him on that basis is ignorant, condescending claptrap. When stream-of-consciousness blathering can count as literature, King's prose certainly can. He uses a vastly larger vocabulary than most of his peers, be they literary geniuses or Jackie Collins

King is derided for many reasons, most of which boil down to one form or another of professional jealousy. I'm certain that King himself realises this as he has indicated in several of his characters' lives and experiences.

Bring on the opposition!

----------


## andave_ya

The only King I've read is "On Writing" and thought it to be a masterpiece. I really enjoyed it, though I don't plan to read much King because I don't like horror.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

There's nothing _wrong_ with King's prose, it's just nothing remarkable. Size of vocabulary is not a reliable measure of quality. I think Hemmingway knew about 500 words, to pick a name at random. The stream-of-conciousness blatherering comment, I must say, counts as a similar form of ignorant, condescending claptrap.

I not willing to get too worked up over King one way or another as long as he doesn't try to have anything to do with film, aside from writing the novels.

----------


## The Atheist

> There's nothing _wrong_ with King's prose, it's just nothing remarkable.


I wouldn't class it as "remarkable" either - that's a level of praise I'd reserve for few. Very, very good is good enough for most great writers. 




> Size of vocabulary is not a reliable measure of quality.


Correct. It's just one area of many where I feel King actually stands out from the crowd. Hemingway stood out for different reasons, but I rate King no less an author than Hemingway.



> The stream-of-conciousness blatherering comment, I must say, counts as a similar form of ignorant, condescending claptrap.


Correct, it's personal opinion and therefore irrelevant.



> I not willing to get too worked up over King one way or another as long as he doesn't try to have anything to do with film, aside from writing the novels.


Some of them turned out ok, notably _The Shining_, but that's the advantage of having Stanley Kubrick writing the screenplay and directing the film. _The Green Mile_ is a masterpiece of both literature and film. (albeit a TV mini-series)

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Some of them turned out ok, notably The Shining, but that's the advantage of having Stanley Kubrick writing the screenplay and directing the film. The Green Mile is a masterpiece of both literature and film.


And, aside from writing the novels, Stephen King had nothing to do with either _The Shining_ or _The Green Mile_. When Stephen King writes screenplays, the results are some of the worst films ever made.

----------


## Stieg

I find Stephen King underwhelms me. I find far more absorbing reads. Take Michael McDowell for instance, one of THE scariest writers of the 20th century, he wrote _The Amulet_ (love the tagline on this one "Whoever possesses it must kill and be killed"), _Cold Moon Over Babylon_, _Gilded Needles_, _Katie_, the Kafkaesque _Toplin_, and arguably the most frightening ghost story ever written _The Elementals_. 

He also wrote a rather very original series on the Blackwater saga involving a Lousianian family and something monsterous in the waters. 

King's inspirations are far more compelling IMO, Richard Matheson, there is a three volume set containing 80+ of this author's short stories that you will absolutely not be able to put down any of them even if your life depended upon it. One will take notice of the heavy influence INSTANTLY.

_The Stand_ is one of King's most recognized works but admittedly it was influenced by another, true-er masterpiece of horror M. P. Shiel's _The Purple Cloud_.

Personally I find King too excessive to be scary. And what about those weak contrived finishes, _Salem's Lot_ had me scratching my head and _The Shining_ was laughable (personally, I am one of the rare people that felt Kubrick added more punch, made improvement with the pessimistic ending).

----------


## The Atheist

> I find Stephen King underwhelms me. ...
> 
> Personally I find King too excessive to be scary. And what about those weak contrived finishes, _Salem's Lot_ had me scratching my head and _The Shining_ was laughable (personally, I am one of the rare people that felt Kubrick added more punch, made improvement with the pessimistic ending).


Fair comments. I [hope] think King himself would admit that a couple of his books have been pretty flat compared to his own standards.

----------


## kiz_paws

> The only King I've read is "On Writing" and thought it to be a masterpiece. I really enjoyed it, though I don't plan to read much King because I don't like horror.


I actually bought that book "On Writing", and want to say that this was one very good book on the craft of writing.  :Smile:

----------


## Stieg

If popularity and readership is the earmarks of a literary giant than yes King is certainly a literary giant otherwise there are too many other writers in the horror and not that preceed him with great margin.

----------


## The Atheist

> If popularity and readership is the earmarks of a literary giant than yes King is certainly a literary giant otherwise there are too many other writers in the horror and not that preceed him with great margin.


Nope, I don't think popularity has anything to do with it. I just don't think being successful at it precludes authors, either.

Again, every writer you can name has precedents which moulded the shape of the finished author. I once asked C K Stead what made a great author.

His answer was telling: "A great reader".

I'm pretty sure I have read most of those whose style and content could be said to precede Stephen King, but I can't put many of them in the same league as him.

----------


## EAP

Stephen King is undeniably one of the most important authors of the 20th century. His influence is enormous and his readership is gigantic and unlike most of his contemporaries/rivals, he is actually readable and a excellent storyteller.

----------


## Stieg

> Stephen King is undeniably one of the most important authors of the 20th century. His influence is enormous and his readership is gigantic and unlike most of his contemporaries/rivals, he is actually readable and a excellent storyteller.


Do you realise how many 20th century horror writers fit these same parameters even deservedly more so? Really Stephen King hasn't contributed anything original and he can't hold a candle to most of them. Horror is a bigger ballfield. Saying King is the most influential is equivalent to saying J.K. Rowling is the most influential fantasy writer in the 20th Century. A matter of the level of personal pleasure one gets out of his novels.

Check out "Richard Matheson: Collected Stories" Volumes One, Two, Three at amazon.com published by Gauntlet Press. He beat King to it by 20-30 years. Great reviews there too likewise these other authors and books I mentioned.

----------


## The Atheist

> Really Stephen King hasn't contributed anything original...


I'm sorry, but that's just a trite comment. I could correctly, but pedantically, argue that there hasn't been a wholly original novel for well over 100 years. If you can find another horror story which bears more than a passing relationship to _It_, I'd be keen to know about it. On the other hand, you could try to tell me that 1984, _The Old Man and the Sea, Lord of the Flies_ or _Brave New World_ were wholly original concepts.




> ...and he can't hold a candle to most of them.


That's personal opinion and yours is welcome. Personally, as one who has read much of the same literature which influenced King, I beg to differ. Lovecraft, in my opinion, is but a candle to King's Kleig.

I'm sure he'd take a couple of books back if he had the chance, but I think most authors would.

I'd suggest that if any literary society made a "Literary Giants" list, there would be unanimity on very few authors.

----------


## papayahed

I don't know if literary giant is a good description but you can't deny his popularity. I have to give credit to Stephen King in that he kept me reading during my high school and college years. During that time i had too many other things to do and reading was not on the top of the list but I always would go back to a King book. 

I liken Stephen King to Marijuana; He's a gateway drug (Even though I don't buy Marijuana being a gateway drug it fits the analogy). He's the guy that drew me in and kept me around until I was ready for the harder stuff.

----------


## Morrisonhotel

> As regards King's standard and style of prose - attempting to dismiss him on that basis is ignorant, condescending claptrap. When stream-of-consciousness blathering can count as literature, King's prose certainly can. He uses a vastly larger vocabulary than most of his peers, be they literary geniuses or Jackie Collins


Being a budding academic, I can't possibly see how you would justify writing that. One of the tenets of the practice of literary criticism (and, for that matter, the basic judgment of whether a piece of writing is, for the want of a better word, good) is engagement with the stylistic qualities of a piece of literature. It isn't condescending in the slightest. If anything, it is the continuation of a practice, in academic circles, of over a hundred years of study.

For my part, I would dismiss his writing (and I do dismiss it) for the same reasons I would dismiss any other literature that I would deem to be insufficient in regards to the stylistic properties of a piece. That is to say, in layman's terms, he can't write for toffee.

----------


## The Atheist

> Being a budding academic, I can't possibly see how you would justify writing that. One of the tenets of the practice of literary criticism (and, for that matter, the basic judgment of whether a piece of writing is, for the want of a better word, good) is engagement with the stylistic qualities of a piece of literature.


No. Unless the style is some incomprehensible gibberish, the style is far less important than the work - unless you're a believer in style over substance, which I think has been shown to be a fairly shallow view.

The point I was getting at is that King is no Orwell, but hardly anyone else is, either. I don't see his style as being so lacking that it detracts from his other qualities. To me, his style is far better than almost all of his contemporaries in popular fiction.




> For my part, I would dismiss his writing (and I do dismiss it) for the same reasons I would dismiss any other literature that I would deem to be insufficient in regards to the stylistic properties of a piece. That is to say, in layman's terms, he can't write for toffee.


Now that's more like it! Honest opinion - I can deal with that, even if you are wrong.  :Wink:

----------


## JBI

The problem with King really isn't his prose, or his originality (though I personally detest his plots, and find his prose BORING) it's his editing and his endings. His work needs a decent chop, and his endings need a little more thought. Basically from my experience with him, it seems to me that he just takes an idea, writes it down, and sees what comes out of it. He doesn't stop to think about where the story is going, and therefore creates junk endings.

I would not say he is anymore influential on the literature world than lets say someone like Grisham. Though not the worst author I have read, I do not deem him worth reading in the future. 

As for you EAP, it appears that on every thread there are about three authors who you like, specifically Stephen King, George R. R. Martin, and Ursula K. LeGuin, whereas you dismiss the majority of literature as inferior. You should really get out more and think who really has influences on literature, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or Stephen King or George Martin. Though by preference you may prefer King's work, you must agree that he is far from the most influential writer of the 20th century. (note, the use of the examples of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were used simply because of the fact, having read a previous post by EAP minutes before, these names were at hand for authors who he loathes).

----------


## EAP

> As for you EAP, it appears that on every thread there are about three authors who you like, specifically Stephen King, George R. R. Martin, and Ursula K. LeGuin, whereas you dismiss the majority of literature as inferior.


I like more than three authors, but yeah, the majority of the literature I have read is definitely inferior to that written by the above three. [or in King's case, his better works] 




> You should really get out more and think who really has influences on literature, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or Stephen King or George Martin.


Tolstoy's and Dostoevsky's influence on literature definitely eclipse's Martin's - Stephen King, on the other hand, is a totally different story. 




> Though by preference you may prefer King's work, you must agree that he is far from the most influential writer of the 20th century.


I disagree, and I believe I have outlined the reasons behind that in earlier threads. Besides, you haven't read much in the fantasy and horror genre if you think Stephen King's work isn't influential. 




> (note, the use of the examples of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were used simply because of the fact, having read a previous post by EAP minutes before, these names were at hand for authors who he loathes).


Please don't go about putting words in my mouth. I said I find Tolstoy and Dostoevsky to be 'over-rated', which is a far cry from saying I hate them - Dostoevsky is one of the best writers of the 19th century, IMO.

----------


## Morrisonhotel

> No. Unless the style is some incomprehensible gibberish, the style is far less important than the work - unless you're a believer in style over substance, which I think has been shown to be a fairly shallow view.
> 
> The point I was getting at is that King is no Orwell, but hardly anyone else is, either. I don't see his style as being so lacking that it detracts from his other qualities. To me, his style is far better than almost all of his contemporaries in popular fiction.


I disagree. I believe that the style intrinisically and implicitally marks all possible arguments in relation to a text. Moreover, I believe that an individual's enjoyment of a text relates to how they relate to the style. Take modernist poetry for example: a recurring word in regards to the style of modernist poetry is disjointed. Now that disjointed style, for me, is a difficult one to enjoy and a difficult one to critically appreciate.

Anyhow, I would rate, in terms of style, Alasdair Gray as the finest living novelist. _Lanark_ is a sublime piece of writing.

----------


## JBI

> I like more than three authors, but yeah, the majority of the literature I have read is definitely inferior to that written by the above three. [or in King's case, his better works] 
> 
> 
> 
> Tolstoy's and Dostoevsky's influence on literature definitely eclipse's Martin's - Stephen King, on the other hand, is a totally different story. 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, and I believe I have outlined the reasons behind that in earlier threads. Besides, you haven't read much in the fantasy and horror genre if you think Stephen King's work isn't influential. 
> ...


To start I will address your last few words, assuming that you truly believe Dostoevsky to be one of the best writers of the 19th century (which I personally will agree with), it would appear that you dismiss all nineteenth century literature as overrated in itself (him being deemed by you one of the best, yet being called overrated can mean nothing but this, assuming you don't wish to contradict yourself)

If you want to look at the influences on the horror genre, you are better off looking to authors like H.P. Lovecraft, or Edgar Allan Poe who had a far greater influence on horror than King ever will (besides which, Kings' influences must be taken into account as well, seeing as he didn't exactly invent horror, nor perfect it (in my opinion)) In terms of fantasy, hands down we can easily say, without question, that Tolkien is by far the most influential fantasy author of the 20th century. Following that, there are authors like Robert E. Howard, C. S. Lewis, and other giants of fantastical literature who greatly influenced fantasy far more than King ever could and will.

Perhaps you haven't read much horror or fantasy to assume that King is so influential, considering the fact that his first book came out in 1974, well after many, many fantasy and horror authors began doing their work. He is no more influential than lets say Stephen R. Donaldson, to put it into terms you can understand.

Besides which, despite your common beliefs, fantasy and horror make up but a fraction of literature. There are many other genres, who have many influential authors that appeared in the 20th century. To even suggest that King is one of the (I assume you at least mean top 50) or even top 100 most influential writers of the 20th century is actually quite humorous. I can respect that you like King's work, as do many others on these boards. But don't try to pretend he is any Lovecraft, or any Poe.

----------


## Scheherazade

*A reminder:

Please keep in mind that we are all entitled to our opinions on authors / books as well as our likes and dislikes 

and 

do not personalise your arguments.*

----------


## EAP

> it would appear that you dismiss all nineteenth century literature as overrated in itself (him being deemed by you one of the best, yet being called overrated can mean nothing but this, assuming you don't wish to contradict yourself)


What you are insinuating is nonsense. I can believe someone to be an excellent author and still find them over-rated; it is more a judgement of the general preception of an author's worth then a comment on the actual writing itself. Dostoevsky is generally overrated by most people on this forum, just as Martin is often overrated by people around different fantasy fora. Your entire reasoning is based around faulty inductive logic. 




> If you want to look at the influences on the horror genre, you are better off looking to authors like H.P. Lovecraft, or Edgar Allan Poe who had a far greater influence on horror than King ever will (besides which, Kings' influences must be taken into account as well, seeing as he didn't exactly invent horror, nor perfect it (in my opinion))


The whole paragraph is irrelevent as far as this thread is concerned. 

I posted the following in this thread, 




> Stephen King is undeniably one of the most important authors of the 20th century. His influence is enormous and his readership is gigantic and unlike most of his contemporaries/rivals, he is actually readable and a excellent storyteller.


I didn't even bring the word 'influence' into the discussion - the importance of an author's corpus extends beyond their literary influence. 

Regarding Poe and Lovecraft, of course their 'influence' is undeniable, Poe basically invented the english horror/detective genres and Lovecraft helped pave the way for authors like Lord Dunsnay, Clark Ashton Smith and several others - you wont hear any arguements from me about their influence. But this thread is not about literary influences, its scope is much broader. 




> Perhaps you haven't read much horror or fantasy to assume that King is so influential, considering the fact that his first book came out in 1974, well after many, many fantasy and horror authors began doing their work.


Stephen King's influence lies in the fact that he made horror a profitable genre to invest in, the unprecdented success of his early novels allowed horror to bloom as a seperate genre, get its own shelf space in bookstores instead of merely being lumped in with either fantasy/sci-fi or forgotten among the multiludes of mainstream books. In Salem's Lot, he re-created the modern vampire, facets of which have been copied by a lot of writers currently invested in writing paranormal fiction. Books like _Pet Cemetery_, _Misery_, _The Long Walk_ and _Rage_ helped the horror genre to expand beyond the long established cliches of vampires, monsters and werewolves and proved that modern psychological mind****s focusing on ordinary humans and without the traditional elements could be as scary, tense and chilling as the giant rats, bloody thirsty vampires, exotic magic and other conventional tools of the trade. This influence extended beyond the horror genre into thrillers and to some extent into mainstream crime fiction. 

Stephen King wasn't the first author to do a lot of these things, he was however the most important one in bringing them into widespread attention - he was to horror what Tolkien was to high/epic fantasy. 




> He is no more influential than lets say Stephen R. Donaldson, to put it into terms you can understand.


I didn't laugh. 





> Besides which, despite your common beliefs, fantasy and horror make up but a fraction of literature. There are many other genres, who have many influential authors that appeared in the 20th century. To even suggest that King is one of the (I assume you at least mean top 50) or even top 100 most influential writers of the 20th century is actually quite humorous. I can respect that you like King's work, as do many others on these boards. But don't try to pretend he is any Lovecraft, or any Poe.


Stephen King is among the top three best-selling authors of the modern times - that alone is enough to cement his place in the 'most influential/most important' list. Consider this funny or a huge joke but it is money that fuels the publishing industry, money that encourages the publishers to take chances with newer authors and Stephen King has been one of the greatest funnelers of money into the publishing industry for over twenty five years; the facts speak for themselves and no amount of literary pretentiousness can blind them. 

He is neither Lovecraft nor Poe, he is Stephen King and more popular than both.  :Wink:

----------


## The Atheist

Good discussion going here - I thought there might be a little polarity on the issue!

Just to cover off on the "influence" of King, I submit that we won't really know how much influence he has had for another generation yet - to give time for those who have grown up with him. I'm more in the camp at the moment that his influence has extended to create a living genre of horror rather the little side-show it had been.

(And why, oh why, has nobody mentioned one of King's biggest influences, Shirley Jackson?)

As regards inconsistency, I see those complaints as a little spurious. I can't imagine any serious author who hasn't written at least one complete bomb - critically speaking. Lots of Orwell's early efforts are considered to be lightweight rubbish, but do we devalue Orwell on those, or praise him for others? I repeat - I'm sure King would take a few of his books back, and yes some of them do have an ill-planned, contrived feel to them. Hanging a man's literary reputation on the basis of a couple of misses doesn't work.

Nice to see that a couple of people would join me in rating _On Writing_ as an excellent work as well.

----------


## JBI

Using your twisted logic, you rank Dan Brown, and Grisham amongst the most important/influential writers of the 20th century. What is importance? Importance means he has had influence/brought about some sort of change, whereas I pointed out already, there are so many other authors who are so much more influential.

And by the way, saying on one hand someone is one of the best 19th century authors, then on the other hand calling him overrated is saying either a) 19th century literature is completely over rated, or b) I don't know what I'm thinking, I just contradict myself and try to act smart. . Take your pick.

Just on a note, I will read your reply, but don't expect one from me since, despite my longing to continue this argument, there are forum rules and I don't crave a banning.

Judge not an author by how many books he has sold, but how good the books he sells are.

----------


## Stieg

> Using your twisted logic, you rank Dan Brown, and Grisham amongst the most important/influential writers of the 20th century. What is importance? Importance means he has had influence/brought about some sort of change, whereas I pointed out already, there are so many other authors who are so much more influential.
> 
> Judge not an author by how many books he has sold, but how good the books he sells are.


Ditto.

Scholar S.T. Joshi put it aptly on speaking of Stephen King's horror novels, "bloated, illogical, maudlin, and prone to deus ex machina endings". 

Academically speaking, 20-40 years down the line, Stephen King is going to offer way too much fodder for literary criticism.

King recreated the Modern Vampire. NOT. that is one of the most absurd comments I have ever heard. Haven't you heard of I am Legend by Richard Matheson by matter of fact.

READ MORE LITERARY HORROR AUTHORS!

I can't believe how much King owes to the likes of Richard Matheson (King self admittedly claims Matheson is his largest influence) but there are many others that have contributed to his literary voice:

(Nice reviews too, saves my breathe.)

Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 1 

Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 2

Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 3

The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson

Dark Ladies by Fritz Leiber 

The Other by Thomas Tryon

Harvest Home by Thomas Tryon

The Auctioneer by Joan Samson

----------


## Chigurh

The defense of King is a prime example of mistaking imagination for invention.

----------


## jenoir

My experience with Stephen King is limited to his _Dark Tower_ series, but based on that alone I think he is an excellent storyteller. For those who are only familiar with King as a horror writer, I think it would be worthwhile checking out the series (King himself describes it as his magnum opus). The whole thing feels very original and extremely imaginative, and meshes together so many genres so cohesively. It's like Lord of the Rings meets the wild west, with a little Arthurian legend thrown in for good measure.

As I was saying, I think he is an accomplished storyteller and that in my mind marks him out as great. I doubt there are many authors who can sustain an interesting plot and momentum across a seven-book series. I suppose it boils down to what you want out of your literature. Stephen King writers clever, entertaining novels. His style may be relatively simple but it's _his_ style, it's unique, and I like it  :Smile:

----------


## The Atheist

> The defense of King is a prime example of mistaking imagination for invention.


Good to see sensible criticism rearing its head.




> My experience with Stephen King is limited to his _Dark Tower_ series, but based on that alone I think he is an excellent storyteller.


You've given me an idea to try and some headway here.

A lot of the criticsim appears to be directed at some of King's books and I would agree wholeheartedly with some of it - a couple of his books have been outright rubbish and a couple of others only fair.

I'm going to arbitrarily (since I started the thread) pick several of King's books and ignore the rest, for the time being.

_The Dark Tower
The Green Mile
On Writing
The Stand
It
Insomnia
Desperation
Carrie
Thinner_

Can I get some specific criticism on this range of books; these being his novels which will, in the fullness of time, prove both his longevity and his greatness.

I reiterate that if we were to review Orwell based on_ A Clergyman's Daughter, Keep the Aspidistra Flying_ and _Coming up for Air_, I suspect he wouldn't be viewed the way he is.

I think the _deus ex machina_ criticism is valid, in some of those, but it's also essential in a couple of them, given the subject.

----------


## Chigurh

So how many "mystical black" characters inhabit the above list? lol. I can think of two off the top of my head...

----------


## Morrisonhotel

> I'm going to arbitrarily (since I started the thread) pick several of King's books and ignore the rest, for the time being.
> 
> _The Dark Tower
> The Green Mile
> On Writing
> The Stand
> It
> Insomnia
> Desperation
> ...



Right, out of those works listed, I have read: It, The Green Mile, The Stand, Desperation, and a bit of Carrie. Speaking with these works specifically in mind, I reiterate my previous problem with King: I just don't think he can write well. I just find his writing, specifically in these works, to be extraordinarily unrealistic (even with the context of the novels in mind) - a horror story like It doesn't need to be based on realistic events but it has to be believable (and I simply find it completely unrealistically written).

Most novelists write a couple of shockingly awful novels, though not all. James Joyce, anyone?

----------


## Seb

My opinion of Stephen King was completely reversed after reading 'The Dark Tower' which completely blew my mind. It is fascinating that many of your criticisms were actually highlighted by him in the 'Dark Tower' which has made me reluctant to read any more of his novels. Based on this limited experience though, if an author is capable of creating the brilliance that is 'Dark Tower' then he surely will rank as one of the greatest authors of all-time - in my opinion, anyway  :Smile:

----------


## Chigurh

> if an author is capable of creating the brilliance that is 'Dark Tower' then he surely will rank as one of the greatest authors of all-time - in my opinion, anyway



Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Proust....King. Hey, he wrote the Dark Tower....

----------


## Stieg

> Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Proust....King. Hey, he wrote the Dark Tower....


Yes, _The Dark Tower_ was quite impressive feat of imagination but I am not glowing with praises or gushing over it either. There were alot about it that annoyed me particularly one schizophrenic black lady with no legs. Bad characters.

And another thing everyone is forgetting, Stephen King has written over 70 novellas and books. Consistant enough to be named with these other literary legends... NO!

I repeat over 70 (not counting individual short stories)!

----------


## Chigurh

I used to get angry when somebody held King to be a literary great. Then, for a while, I laughed. Now I'm almost indifferent. There's no point in arguing **edit**. The culture is going to continue to decay whether we waste our breath or not.

----------


## Stieg

OT: 

Btw, I find the UK site, Fantastic Fiction indispensable when searching fantasy, sci-fi, and horror author bibliographies. I have discovered missing authors yet it covers plenty of ground.

----------


## The Atheist

> So how many "mystical black" characters inhabit the above list? lol. I can think of two off the top of my head...


That would be the two.

Is there some point to that comment?

There are several women in them as well.

----------


## patbox

As King says, The Dark Tower series really is his 'magnum opus'. I've only read short stories and one of his novels (The Dark Half), and they really weren't that great at all. Actrually, they were quite bad. I thought 'Ride the Bullet' was okay. 

The Dark Tower however, is quite impressive. His style actually works well here, and it just forces you to keep reading. I know King might be a bit painful to literary types, but the Dark Tower is really worth it, especially as a feat of imagination. I will however agree on some of the ridiculous characters being almost too much (yes, the legless black schitzophrenic pissed me off too).

----------


## The Atheist

> As King says, The Dark Tower series really is his 'magnum opus'. I've only read short stories and one of his novels (The Dark Half), and they really weren't that great at all. I thought 'Ride the Bullet' was okay. The Dark Tower however, is quite impressive. His style actually works well here, and it just forces you to keep reading. I know King might be a bit painful to literary types, but the Dark Tower is really worth it, especially as a feat of imagination. I will however agree on some of the ridiculous characters being almost too much (yes, the legless black schitzophrenic pissed me off too).


_The Dark Half_ is definitely one of his only good for recycling.

If you liked _The Dark Tower_, kick off with _The Talisman_, a combined effort with his buddy, Peter Straub.

----------


## Stieg

And Stephen King's second child, Joe Hill aka Joe Hillstrom King, has written published short stories many collected in _20th Century Ghosts_ and just released his first full length novel _Heart-Shaped Box_ that is being adapted into a film. 

Joe Hill Fiction

----------


## The Atheist

> And Stephen King's second child, Joe Hill aka Joe Hillstrom King, has written published short stories many collected in _20th Century Ghosts_ and just released his first full length novel _Heart-Shaped Box_ that is being adapted into a film. 
> 
> Joe Hill Fiction


Wouldn't be too hard to guess what his major influence has been?

Looks like dad's given him some advice on internet marketing as well - very slick site.

Thanks

----------


## EAP

> King recreated the Modern Vampire. NOT. that is one of the most absurd comments I have ever heard. Haven't you heard of I am Legend by Richard Matheson by matter of fact.


_I am Legend_ is one of my favourite books of all time - the ending chilled me down to my bones; Richard Matheson is an amazing storyteller. However, Robert Neville does not share a lot of similarities with the vampires being depicted in modern paranormal fiction, vampires which are more than cardboard sock-puppets. Matheson uses vampires as a literary device, they are cannon fodder; as the sum of parts they are a terrifying and canny bunch, but as individuals they are neither well developed nor distinctive - in effect, they are the antithesis of Mr. Barlow and Mr. Straker, and the Joshua Marshes, the Constantines and the Lestats that followed and continue on today in the form of Anita Blake and sundry. 




> Using your twisted logic, you rank Dan Brown, and Grisham amongst the most important/influential writers of the 20th century. What is importance? Importance means he has had influence/brought about some sort of change, whereas I pointed out already, there are so many other authors who are so much more influential.


Dan Brown has a long way to go before he can match King's sales figures. He's yet to become a grandmaster of his genre, his fiction hasn't stood the test of longevity and his output is neither consistent nor particularly inventive/original/distinct to be branded with anything. 

Grisham's influence on court drama's in undeniable. 




> Importance means he has had influence/brought about some sort of change, whereas I pointed out already, there are so many other authors who are so much more influential.


That's an extremely limiting definition of 'importance' and pretty silly in the current context. Importance extends from literary influence and fiscal influence to mass market appeal, pop culture allure etc. 


Chigurh,

Snappy one-liners are occasionally funny but righteous indigination really has no equal, no?




> The culture is going to continue to decay whether we waste our breath or not.

----------


## PeterL

> I'm sorry, but that's just a trite comment. I could correctly, but pedantically, argue that there hasn't been a wholly original novel for well over 100 years. If you can find another horror story which bears more than a passing relationship to _It_, I'd be keen to know about it. On the other hand, you could try to tell me that 1984, _The Old Man and the Sea, Lord of the Flies_ or _Brave New World_ were wholly original concepts.


I didn't even look at this thread before, because I don't see any significant value in King's writing, but your comment caught my eye. I think that it is a gross understatement. I don't think that there has been any wholly original novel ever. Literature is built on what came before. All of the basic themes were included in the _Enmua Elish_ and writing since then has development of those themes. I suspect that the _Enuma Elish_ was built on earlier oral works, but those no longer exist. I think that the most original fiction in the last 100 years was by H. P. Lovecraft; "The Color Out of Space" was very different, and some of his other stories were almost as different.




> The culture is going to continue to decay whether we waste our breath or not.


People have been saying things like that throughout history. Maybe they were right. Nicolo Machiavelli had an interesting comment about such comments in _Discourses of the First Ten Books Of Titus Livius_.

----------


## dyingflame

The Dark Tower series is great...up to around the middle of "wolves of the Calla"..then it just gets rushed up, contrived, silly and pointless. What was the point of Mordred? 
Apart from that, I've read Christine (found it boring and not scary) Salem's Lot because of Fr. Callahan's importance in DT Book 5 (and was disappointed) the shining (was quite good, apart from the ending) and then for me The Stand and Imsomnia rocked my world. Misery and Gerald's Game: DON'T READ, unless you have time to waste

----------


## Stieg

> I think that the most original fiction in the last 100 years was by H. P. Lovecraft; "The Color Out of Space" was very different, and some of his other stories were almost as different.


Lovecraft owes a substantial debt for his three tiered body of work to earlier horror authors, Edgar Allen Poe and others for his earliest stories, Lord Dunsany for his Dream Cycle tales, and Arthur Machen/Algernon Blackwood for his Cthulhu Mythos/Lovecraft Mythos. 

Lovecraft's most scathing critics have accused him of being a hack writer. Nonetheless most know his influences yet can not deny that he is a leading name in 20th Century horror.

----------


## B-Mental

I've just finished King's collection of short stories Everything Eventual. All I can say is that this was far and away one of the biggest waste of time, money, publishing. What F&#37;%^&&$ junk. King is worn out, and takes on some lame already done genre type. I've read much better here on the site. KING SUX!

----------


## tudwell

> I've just finished King's collection of short stories Everything Eventual. All I can say is that this was far and away one of the biggest waste of time, money, publishing. What F%%^&&$ junk. King is worn out, and takes on some lame already done genre type. I've read much better here on the site. KING SUX!


You gotta read his early stuff. Somewhere in the nineties he sold out and started writing crap. But his earliest novels (_The Shining_, _The Stand_, _Cujo_, _The Dead Zone_, etc.) are actually pretty good.

----------


## B-Mental

I have read his early stuff tudwell, when it was fresh and new...that writer doesn't exits anymore. I read all of his books up to the Tommyknockers, and then I said the hell with it. I thought this one would be different, because it was short stories. He's published some good collections of short stories in the past. I still say he sux.

----------


## papayahed

Anybody read "Cell", I'm thinking of picking that one up?

----------


## chaplin

> Three major criticisms were made of Stephen King as regards his literary status:
> His books are "pulp fiction".
> He was influenced by other authors.
> His prose is not of the required standard.


My biggest, and really only, criticism against Stephen King, and Dan Brown, and Tom Clancy etc. etc., is that there are _so many_ better books available to read. I don't think that anyone would try to contend that King is a better writer than any of the greats of world literature, and thus, ideally, one should, if only the best is your goal, never read authors like King, purely because there are better books out there.

----------


## NickAdams

I read On Writing when I was eighteen and developing an intrest in writing. I think it is a good book when you know little on craft. I've read strong craft books since then: John Gardner's two books on craft, Norman Mailer's Spooky and Gotham's workshop book.

I've given up on three King novels in the past, discarding after the 100 page:
Desolation
The Stand
The Dead Zone

----------


## Turk

I have read 4 or 5 of his works. I enjoyed those books though i don't think that's art. First of all he doesn't give anything to me. He doesn't bring any message to us. Though he certainly have talent, he tells stories very good, but only talent isn't enough to be a great artist. If we clarify what's art, then we could tell more easy if he's a good artist or not.

----------


## cows

Well...

I'm a fan of Stephen King. He's not a master of deep literature. He hasn't made a major contribution to change the structure or method of storytelling. But why should those facts make him less of an author? Also, grouping him with Tom Clancy and Dan Brown is sad. King is far more accomplished and skilled in both his concepts and his prose.

Read the Dark Tower series, Carrie, The Stand, The Dark Half. They're all great books. King's prose is clear, concise, and enjoyable to read. That's a virtue that most authors cannot claim. 

On writing was great for anyone who doesn't feel sure of themselves in their writing. I know it helped me when I was starting out.

Anyway, dont bash King because he doesnt fit up to snotty lit-o-saur (a bearded fiendish monster who denounces others out of nostalgic contempt) standards. Its on its way out. Appreciating the old lit is important, but not at the expense of the present and future of writing.

(now I don't want anyone to think I'm saying King is the future of writing, just a contributor who will undoubtedly have some influence on others)

----------


## NickAdams

> (now I don't want anyone to think I'm saying King is the future of writing, just a contributor who will undoubtedly have some influence on others)


I agree. Maybe even an influence to a future Nobel Prize winner.

----------


## motherhubbard

> I've given up on three King novels in the past, discarding after the 100 page:
> Desolation
> The Stand
> The Dead Zone


It took me nearly a year to read The Stand in 1990. Every time I would pick it up I got so sick. I was in the hospital twice. I just knew it was the book!

I like Kings short stories and his older books. But his new stuff  :Sick:  . It seems like he's trying to sound like Steven King.

----------


## Set of Keys

Not many folks know that a young Stephen King was awarded 1st place in a short story competition judged by Samuel Beckett.

----------


## Lyn

I like Stephen King, but there's not really much to argue about. His novels don't make me think, admire his writing style, encourage me to think about philosophical concepts. Nor do they engage my brain in considering why their plots are constructed in a particular way. They just keep me entertained for a while. There are writers who are clearly much better in that they deal with much more complex topics and write in a much more elegant and admirable, intelligent style. However, I still like to read novels by King cos sometimes I can't be bothered with books that make me think, I just want to read a book I enjoy. Same as Harry Potter really. The novels I really don't like are those that are neither intelligent nor entertaining, those that are poorly constructed or just plain offensive. Or offensive just to shock. Or books that try to be clever when they're really not. At least King writes fairly well constructed stories that engage my attention right to the end. I really like when he deals with a simple, concise idea, like Geralds Game for example. I entered the short story competition in 'On Writing.' Didn't win. Oh well. Brings up another point; who am I to criticise when I clearly can't write as well as Stephen King, despite being pretty well read in the 'classics'?

----------


## The Atheist

Thanks for the varied comments!

Second the comment about putting Stephen King in with Dan Brown and Tom Clancy - that is harsh!

I do agree that he hasn't done himself any favours in recent years - he appears to have lost the plot quite severely. If he doesn't find something worth writing in the next few years he's going to be just another writer selling on his name alone.

----------


## B-Mental

from the atheis



> Second the comment about putting Stephen King in with Dan Brown and Tom Clancy - that is harsh!


I call it the KKK club, and link King, Koontz, and Klancy (Clancy)...by and by Brown is an honorary member.

----------


## Stieg

> from the atheis
> 
> 
> I call it the KKK club, and link King, Koontz, and Klancy (Clancy)...by and by Brown is an honorary member.


Not the King of the 70s and early 80s but the late 80s to present, yes, that could fit quite well.

You want a better more literary class of modern horror try Shirley Jackson and Richard Matheson.

I've heard interesting comments about _Cell_ which haven't enticed me to read it. One comment from one review said the novel seemed slapped together like a manuscript (... movie in the works?).

Want to read about zombies and not feel self-conscious about your choice literature I'd recommend _World War Z_ by Max Brooks.

----------


## NickAdams

> from the atheis
> 
> 
> I call it the KKK club, and link King, Koontz, and Klancy (Clancy)...by and by Brown is an honorary member.


 :FRlol:

----------


## Stieg

Oh, recommended reads of Jackson and Matheson, in print in North America...

Jackson:

_The Haunting of Hill House_

_We Have Always Lived In The Castle_

_The Lottery and Other Stories_ (25 short story collection, wide range)

_Come Along With Me_ (Jackson's incomplete novel written just before her death, 16 short stories many horror, and four essays including one on _The Lottery_)

Matheson:

_I am Legend_

_The Incredible Shrinking Man_

_Hell House_ (Matheson's tribute/homage to Jackson, easily equal to Jackson's masterpiece)

_Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 1_

_Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 2_

_Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 3_ (this edition contains _Nightmare At 20,000 Feet_ the famous Twilight Zone episode starring William Shatner, _Duel_ adapted into a Steven Spielberg film, and _Prey_ featuring He Who Kills the Zuni fetish doll one of the three stories featured in the Karen Black Trilogy of Terror television movie. Avoid the Tor/Forge short story collections getting much less per the buck than the Edge Books 3 volume set.)

----------


## NickAdams

> Matheson:
> _I am Legend_


What do you think about the film adaption, in post-production, starring Will Smith?

----------


## Chigurh

> People have been saying things like that throughout history. Maybe they were right. Nicolo Machiavelli had an interesting comment about such comments in _Discourses of the First Ten Books Of Titus Livius_.



True, and the literary capacities of nations has risen and fallen throughout history.

----------


## Stieg

> What do you think about the film adaption, in post-production, starring Will Smith?


Uncertain, I mean, are we in for a farcical radical rewrite that's more CGI and action oriented or are we going to have a film that is going to be faithful to the book is going to make all the difference in the world. Sadly the former resounds because of today's commercialized mainstream cinema institution we aren't likely to get the artistic film this novel demands.

Which reminds me, another film adaptation of Jackson's _The Haunting of Hill House_ is due. Of course, Robert Wise delivered the previous horror classic _The Haunting_ in 1963. What a task to bring Jackson's novel to film considering how deeply penetrating the book goes into the psychological realm and creeps up on the reader. He more or less succeeded despite failing to bring the scariest moments in the novel to the screen. Pales in comparision, nearly always the book is better and likewise probably the same applies with this new take as Will Smith film.

----------


## Countess

> I call it the KKK club, and link King, Koontz, and Klancy (Clancy)...by and by Brown is an honorary member.



Brilliant! I don't care for any of them because they are "story-teller" writers (probably Enneagram Personality 5's and 9's) while I prefer literary authors with substance. 
The closest Stephen King ever got to subtstance was The Green Mile. In that, he actually approached literary status; unfortunately it was the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.

----------


## Stieg

Oh, damn, shoot me. It's _The Lottery_ that's enjoyed a recent remake not _The Haunting of Hill House_. I don't know how I got them mixed up especially since the latter suffered that 1999 debacle.

And _I am Legend_ is being made by a music video director the same one that brought us _Constantine_ starring Neo. 

Interesting, originally Ridley Scott had the project in 90s that was going to star Arnold Schwarzenegger. Eh?! 

Then Michael Bay and Will Smith had it but made _Bad Boys 2_ instead in 2003.

Wow, considering the production's recent history, my expectations are considerably low.

----------


## tudwell

> The closest Stephen King ever got to subtstance was The Green Mile. In that, he actually approached literary status; unfortunately it was the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.


Actually, I think _The Shining_, _The Dead Zone_, _Apt Pupil_, _Cujo_, _The Body_, and _Pet Semetary_ are all pretty 'literary'. They all (quite subtly, sometimes) deal with heavy themes (while still managing to be a darned scary story). _The Shining_ probably shines the brightest as a 'literary' story; it's really just a deep introspection on the nature of addiction.

Everything from _It_ and on, though, is pretty much crap.

----------


## DeathAngel

Um, can i say that ya'll are strayin off the topic, lol...
I'm a King fan, and I know he's influenced by others, but I mean,
the guy can write pretty dag on good,
some of his books show it and some don't,
come on now, writers block, it gets to you,
and every writer has their winning streak and losing streak, it happens,
his books are choppy/random most of the time, 
but they're wuite interesting...


You know what, Neo played a good Constatine too, so ha,
he's been around for ages and now he get's rcognized?

well they're making a Rush Hour 3, 
in 2007 what a way to be late,
Jackie n Chris back in action...

And Rose Red was pretty good...just saying,

----------


## Stieg

> Um, can i say that ya'll are strayin off the topic, lol...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what, Neo played a good Constatine too, so ha,
> he's been around for ages and now he get's rcognized?
> 
> well they're making a Rush Hour 3, 
> in 2007 what a way to be late,
> Jackie n Chris back in action...


Are we speaking the same Constantine? It is a DC Comic titled _Hellblazer_ quite dark and existential, noir even. And dealt with alot of adult themes but included magic and supernatural elements including many appearances by Lucifer, demons, and angels.

The film was about an exorcist named Neo.

Yes, this has gone quite offtopic.

----------


## Aiculík

> My biggest, and really only, criticism against Stephen King, and Dan Brown, and Tom Clancy etc. etc., is that there are _so many_ better books available to read. I don't think that anyone would try to contend that King is a better writer than any of the greats of world literature, and thus, ideally, one should, if only the best is your goal, never read authors like King, purely because there are better books out there.





> I like Stephen King, but there's not really much to argue about. His novels don't make me think, admire his writing style, encourage me to think about philosophical concepts. Nor do they engage my brain in considering why their plots are constructed in a particular way. They just keep me entertained for a while.


Even although I don't think King is the best author in the world (though I like some of his novels very much), can't stand Brown and never red Clancy, I still dare to disagree. Who will decide who are great authors worth reading? For example, I don't think Austen or Dickens are better than King, though they are among "great" writers. Sorry Austen and Dicken's fans - but their novels never made me think, admire their writing style or encouraged me to think about philosophical concepts. Quite contrary - unlike King's novel (well, at least some of them) they are so boring it's lethal. 

You might say that novels by Dickens and Austen have aesthetical values while King's don't. But _please_. What are those "aesthetical values" anyway? What do they evaluate, express? This is a question I recently asked several university professors. And after some thinking, they all came to surprisingly similar conclusion: that _they express experience of beauty that reader has while reading_. That's great answer, but the problem is: there is no definition of _beauty_. That means that different people can have different "experience of beauty" from different books. 

And then there's another thing - it is often said that book should make you think. I agree with that, but... During my life, I met many people, who read only and exclusively classics Why? - because those are books that make you think (other people, critics, professors etc. said so, so it must be true). But when I asked them what they think about the book, I never got their opinion about it - it was exactly the same things one could find in cliffnotes and reviews etc. Yes, they actually read somewhere what should they think about the book. They read what are the aestetical values of the book. And still, they are proud with themselves for reading good, difficult and demanding books, - though they never actually thought about the books, nor had anything that might be called "experience of beauty" while reading it.
(*I don't say that everyone who read classics does this, I just say I met surprisingly great number of such people*).

I think the problem is that these people never read "low" literature. How can one know what is good if he doesn't know what is bad? How can one know the language is great if he never read books written poorly? How can one grow as a reader, or learn to think if you always rely on what other people say about the book? And what does "enjoying" in book mean anyway? If you enjoy it, you must like something about it, right? Pherhaps story, the way it's told, the way characters are described, language... Often it's "experience of beauty" my professors were talking about, but people just don't realise it. And if one sees beauty in King, there's nothing wrong with it. Even King or yes, even Dan Brown can make people think. And if it so, such reader can be actually on higher lever than the one who reads classics just because someone told him that what he's suppose to read and like. 

And if a King's reader tries to pronounce what he liked about the book, to understand why he was enjoying it - and compares it with other books he reads, he can, gradually, by his own reading experience, become really experienced reader, and move to more demanding books. I know few people who now read most difficult authors with ease - and when you aske them about the book, its always fresh and original and full of ideas or facts that I haven't noticed, or that definitely can't be found in cliffnotes.

(Sorry for this being so long and sorry if it sound like I wanted to lecture you - that wasn't my intention.)

----------


## NickAdams

> Are we speaking the same Constantine? It is a DC Comic titled _Hellblazer_ quite dark and existential, noir even. And dealt with alot of adult themes but included magic and supernatural elements including many appearances by Lucifer, demons, and angels.
> 
> The film was about an exorcist named Neo.
> 
> Yes, this has gone quite offtopic.


The film was about an excorcist named John Constantine, played by Keanu Reeves; Keanu Reeves stared as Neo in the Matrix films, which he is now know for.




> ... I think the problem is that these people never read "low" literature. How can one know what is good if he doesn't know what is bad?


I read Da Vinci Code and hated it, but I came away with something. I learned what I dislike, which gives me a better understanding of my own writing style. I learned about the use of similies. Faulkner uses them well and Brown does not, but I learned for myself why and that is more effective.

I've also learned from King: how to start with a bang, but bring it down a bit. It's good to try extremes; it will eventually seep out of you, but the idea remains.

----------


## THX-1138

> Th
> 
> I learned about the use of similies. Faulkner uses them well and Brown does not, but I learned for myself why and that is more effective.
> 
> I've also learned from King: how to start with a bang, but bring it down a bit. It's good to try extremes; it will eventually seep out of you, but the idea remains.


sorry i am going off topic here but i am curious what is your favorite Faulkner's? 
i have three of his novels(Light in August,As i lay dying and the sound and the fury) to read during the summer so maybe you can tell me what to start first?
oh and what are the books by king that you liked?

----------


## NickAdams

> sorry i am going off topic here but i am curious what is your favorite Faulkner's? 
> i have three of his novels(Light in August,As i lay dying and the sound and the fury) to read during the summer so maybe you can tell me what to start first?
> oh and what are the books by king that you liked?


I've only read two of Faulkner's novel: Sanctuary and Light in August.
I think his short stories and Sanctuary was a good primer, but I think you can jump into Light in August with out a problem. It's the longest of the three you've mentioned, but it's not just a great book- it's quickly becoming my favorite. I've learned a lot about craft while being greatly entertained. I'm already planning on a second reading of it. 

Trivia: There are some allusions to Light in August in The Green Mile.

I read The Stand, The Death Zone and Desperation to the 100th page. I lost interest I guess. I think Desperation was the most intense from what I'd read.
I read a little of Bag of Bones and wasn't interested. 

King must have something though, because I keep going back to him. I'm interested in Hearts in Atlantis and Insomnia. Have you read them, are they good?

----------


## THX-1138

> I've only read two of Faulkner's novel: Sanctuary and Light in August.
> I think his short stories and Sanctuary was a good primer, but I think you can jump into Light in August with out a problem. It's the longest of the three you've mentioned, but it's not just a great book- it's quickly becoming my favorite. I've learned a lot about craft while being greatly entertained. I'm already planning on a second reading of it. 
> 
> Trivia: There are some allusions to Light in August in The Green Mile.
> 
> I read The Stand, The Death Zone and Desperation to the 100th page. I lost interest I guess. I think Desperation was the most intense from what I'd read.
> I read a little of Bag of Bones and wasn't interested. 
> 
> King must have something though, because I keep going back to him. I'm interested in Hearts in Atlantis and Insomnia. Have you read them, are they good?



i have Insomnia but i didn't read it yet i like the dark tower series and the shining the most ,i read carrie which was not bad i also read Different Seasons and i lost interest to complete it i liked Apt pupil though.i am planning on reading "the stand" and "it" i have them on my bookshelf,you know you described Stephen King's writing style accuratley in your previous post, i find it right i noticed that about him in his book the waste land he get your attension and at some point he loses it.When i think about the best books he wrote i got to say the gunslinger and the drawing of the three.

thanx i'll read light in august first :Smile:

----------


## NickAdams

> i have Insomnia but i didn't read it yet i like the dark tower series and the shining the most ,i read carrie which was not bad i also read Different Seasons and i lost interest to complete it i liked Apt pupil though.i am planning on reading "the stand" and "it" i have them on my bookshelf,you know you described Stephen King's writing style accuratley in your previous post, i find it right i noticed that about him in his book the waste land he get your attension and at some point he loses it.When i think about the best books he wrote i got to say the gunslinger and the drawing of the three.
> 
> thanx i'll read light in august first


Let me know about Insomnia when you get to it.

After reading Desperation, I wrote a bunch of outrageous opennings, but I couldn't do anything with them. With such a shocking beginning, the other parts become lacklustered.
He has to pull the slingshot farther, if he wants to launch such a large rock. 

I think Faulkner avoids losing the edge by his non-linear approach.

I forgot: I did read some of the Gunslinger. I like it, but stopped only because they don't allow such books in the military.

The most Horror I felt while reading, came with Sanctuary.

----------


## Trillian

I went to "my" used bookstore the other day, and picked out a couple of books. The first was Monkeywrench Gang, by Edward Abbey, and the other, Different Seasons by Stephen King. I got to the checkout, and the person looked over my purchases, and said with a rather unpleasant smirk, "Oh, I see you like a bit of trash with your Literature." Is Stephen King trash? What is the criteria that takes a book from the realm of the common, and exalts it to Literature?

----------


## 1n50mn14

Honestly, I think it's all in your personal preferences. If you can find something in a book that strikes you enough to make you read it, I consider it literature.

Stephen King is extremely modern and doesn't really tackle social or philisophical issues. I respect him as an author because his books aren't your typical horror- they play with the human psyche and I love the italics he uses when he's expressing a character's thoughts. Though I'm not really a fan, I wouldn't call him trash.

----------


## Nossa

I'm not a fan of King, for one thing I don't like his style in writing, a bit boring, and his endings are just HORRIBLE!
But I gotta say, I have one book that I just LOVE, which is his latest, called On Writing, it's a memoir actually, but I loved every bit of it. So I think the only book I'd recommend with a clear conscience is On Writing.

----------


## B-Mental

I think that King is a genius, but the whole premise of some of his books becomes outlandish. Anything that gets people to read is Literature. Try Danse Macabre...pretty good if I remember correctly.

----------


## Trillian

So far, I have thoroughly enjoyed most of King's stories. I know that some find his style tedious, but when I read King, I know I am about to be taken by the hand, and lead somewhere. I love the slow fleshing out of the characters, the strange turns, and the often O Henry-esque endings. I just wondered why the snooty clerk seemed to think King is trash? How many people think that his writing is worth nothing more than a breather between "real" books?

----------


## POTA

I just read my first novel by King and it is his latest (released 22 January) called *Duma Key*. It was actually extremely entertaining and page-turning. 

If you want to have to give your mind a rest after reading an arduous classic novel and want to just be pleasantly entertained, check it out. It requires no thinking...in a good way.

----------


## JBI

He's one of the better bad authors. What I mean by this is his goal is to appeal to the highest bidding crowed, and judging by his sales, he seems to be an expert.

Does that make his books good? Oh, god no. He has his moments, but he has no clue how to edit, and no reason to want to. He's in it for the money, he gets the money, and now he is content to sit on his pile of gold and scribble formulaic nonsense for the high bidding semi-educated. I will say though, the movie the Shining was terrific.

----------


## liberal viewer

While this topic is engaging, I think it is based on a mistaken premise. S. King is not interested in writing literature, but in making money. Hence, he is a "formula writer", like Grisham, and all the best sellers that pop out a book every year. There is no beauty in their language, no surprising literary figure, no complexity. Their characters are "plainer", than cold toast. I don't wish them ill, but when you decide to read one of these books, you must go with the attitude of being willing to accept all the incoherences and implausibilities they will drop on you. Why would anyone insist on reading them is beyond me, but that's life! :Sick:

----------


## papayahed

The elitists will never like anything that appeals to the general public.

----------


## Trillian

> While this topic is engaging, I think it is based on a mistaken premise. S. King is not interested in writing literature, but in making money. Hence, he is a "formula writer", like Grisham, and all the best sellers that pop out a book every year. There is no beauty in their language, no surprising literary figure, no complexity. Their characters are "plainer", than cold toast. I don't wish them ill, but when you decide to read one of these books, you must go with the attitude of being willing to accept all the incoherences and implausibilities they will drop on you. Why would anyone insist on reading them is beyond me, but that's life!


I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the idea that he writes _only_ to make money. If you have read his non-fiction book, On Writing, you will find that he has a genuine love of language, and attempts to inspire a similar feeling in the reader. Too, he writes far too well and far too much to be doing it for money alone, in my opinion. The simple fact that he wrote a novel like The Stand, with all of its characters, locations, concepts of spirituality, and sheer length, speaks to me of a man who loves his art, and immerses himself in his love. After all, a book written in this day and age certainly differs from the days when writers were payed by the page. Moby Dick, anyone?

----------


## Tersely

Also, he's seriously 60 years old now. If he was doing it for the money, he would have stopped along time ago. I always think alot of people unfairly attack contemporary literature, but I do draw a line between the good and the bad. Some of his work is bad and some isn't. Its like that with any author..its a hit and miss.

----------


## FrozenDuchess

I would say that King's success illustrates the need for popular literature, accessible to the man on the street. Pop Literature is ephemeral, much like King's stories. 

I this regard I think the following quote applies:

"There is always a heavy demand for fresh mediocrity. In every generation the least cultivated taste has the largest appetite." -Paul Gauguin

That about sums it up.

----------


## Zippy

I've gave my opinion on the "is King literature?" debate somewhere on this thread already, so I'll avoid repeating myself. 

I just wanted to ask fans of the writer if they've read 'Blaze' and is it worth spending my hard earned cash on?

----------


## Tersely

I say Blaze is about 4 out of 5. Not the best but still interesting.

----------


## ZoeyJuly

I've never read a S. King book,but i have read all the john grisham novels and i don't believe that anyone does anything purely for money.

----------


## INTUNEevolution

I love Stephen King. But I am willing to concede the fact that he is just a fiction mill. It isn't literature, because there are technically no literary elements, but it is fine for reading.

----------


## JBI

> The elitists will never like anything that appeals to the general public.


Dickens was loved in his life time. Many great authors were loved in their life-time, and remain critically loved. Just because most of the general public buys what is advertised the most thoroughly doesn't mean that critics are elitist.

McDonald's is the most popular restaurant in the world. Does that make it the best food? I think we feed our dogs better food than that to be honest. It is the same with literature, music, movies, and television. Your quasi-post-modern perspective is flawed because you haven't provided any evidence to support your theory. Why is Stephen King deserving of critical acclaim?

----------


## islandclimber

I think Stephen King writes fiction that is accessible, and easy to read, with storylines and plots that are interesting and captivating to some... but the truth of the matter is they are not particularly well written... they are not deserving of being called literature.. maybe not trash, for they do get people reading who otherwise would probably not read, but they are not literature.. They are not deep, not beautiful, not all that intelligent... just a captivating and addictive story..

----------


## papayahed

> Dickens was loved in his life time. Many great authors were loved in their life-time, and remain critically loved. Just because most of the general public buys what is advertised the most thoroughly doesn't mean that critics are elitist.
> 
> McDonald's is the most popular restaurant in the world. Does that make it the best food? I think we feed our dogs better food than that to be honest. It is the same with literature, music, movies, and television. Your quasi-post-modern perspective is flawed because you haven't provided any evidence to support your theory. Why is Stephen King deserving of critical acclaim?



I made no mention of critics and I never said I believed popularity equals best. I said that elitests will never like anything that is popular. Perhaps I should have used the word snob instead of elitist but I didn't want to ruffle any feathers. I am refering to the type of person the original poster is speaking of, the type that makes sure you know that they're tastes are better then yours.

----------


## The Intended

He is a master of syntax, of imagery, and of character. And I'll stand by that until the day I die. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## JBI

> I made no mention of critics and I never said I believed popularity equals best. I said that elitests will never like anything that is popular. Perhaps I should have used the word snob instead of elitist but I didn't want to ruffle any feathers. I am refering to the type of person the original poster is speaking of, the type that makes sure you know that they're tastes are better then yours.


Still, that doesn't mean King is good... Please, if you wish to identify King as having literary merit, argue for that. Otherwise, like the above post is doing, you are just unleashing your own personal off topic demons on the thread.

As for me, I'll stand by what I said. King is the king of mediocre authors.

----------


## papayahed

> Still, that doesn't mean King is good... Please, if you wish to identify King as having literary merit, argue for that. Otherwise, like the above post is doing, you are just unleashing your own personal off topic demons on the thread.
> 
> As for me, I'll stand by what I said. King is the king of mediocre authors.



oh cool your jets. The original post, before it was merged, was about a cashier calling King trash, my post was in direct relation to that. 

I already posted on this thread what I thought about King. I don't feel like searching, but it probably was something like this:

I like King. I don't consider his works great literature, more so I think of him as a story teller. He can spin a good yarn.

----------


## islandclimber

> oh cool your jets. The original post, before it was merged, was about a cashier calling King trash, my post was in direct relation to that. 
> 
> I already posted on this thread what I thought about King. I don't feel like searching, but it probably was something like this:
> 
> I like King. I don't consider his works great literature, more so I think of him as a story teller. He can spin a good yarn.


You just said what I was trying to say a few posts up... I think you just put it more succintly, much better *smile*... but I agree with you completely, King isn't great literature, but he does tell a good story, one that captivates and ensnares a reader... but for the story, not for the literary merit of it.. 
cheers

----------


## Etienne

> He is a master of syntax, of imagery, and of character. And I'll stand by that until the day I die.


Oh, this life hangs by a hair!




> I said that elitests will never like anything that is popular.


What a cheap rhetoric...

----------


## Trillian

I think, on the topic of literary examples, perhaps King should be given credit for the short stories that he has written. I believe a prime example of that would be his dystopian story, The Long Walk. Not only gripping, but a bit prophetic as well, when you consider the direction television is going with "reality" shows. Too, The Breathing Method was a bit of a social commentary as well as a story about the supernatural, and Mrs Todd's Shortcut... Well, okay, other than the character study in the story, it may not be the best example of literary excellence, but it made me teary in a jubilant way. :Smile:

----------


## Ryduce

His actual writing may not be what we classify as great literature,but I respect him very much for his extensive knowledge on literature and his endless pursuit of becoming a better writer.He is really quite humble and almost childlike when he speaks of Dostoevsky and Lovecraft among others.He obviously has great reverence for them.

His nonfiction book On Writing is great,and IMO a must read for many aspiring writers.

----------


## The Intended

> Oh, this life hangs by a hair!
> 
> 
> 
> What a cheap rhetoric...


Hmm, debates like this always bring to mind wether or not the naysayers have actually picked up a book and read it through, rather than relying on word-of-mouth, late-night sci-fi movie specials or the high-browed chic of denouncing what is popular.  :Wink:  

King is original, and has managed to combine three worlds: science fiction, horror, and the supernatural. The last person to do it was H.P. Lovecraft, and the last to do it _well_ was Algernon Blackwood. King has always had inventive, original ideas, and though I do admit his style is sometimes simplistic, I have never read an author who was able to evoke as intense emotion in the reader as he, or stir the thrill to read in people who would otherwise bask in a culturally stagnant society. 

Other than J.K. Rowling, but that's a different debate.

The title of 'fiction-mill' should be reserved for 'woman-dectective/lawyer-stalked-by-a-serial-killer-she's-investigating' books or dime-store romance novels set in the 18th-19th century with no respect for the culture or prose of the era. King is the author that impressed upon me the love of reading and the love of writing, and I will always defend his work.

----------


## kirkwars

King is okay,but Koontz is better .Nothing really compares to the classics though.

----------


## Etienne

> Hmm, debates like this always bring to mind wether or not the naysayers have actually picked up a book and read it through, rather than relying on word-of-mouth, late-night sci-fi movie specials or the high-browed chic of denouncing what is popular.  
> 
> King is original, and has managed to combine three worlds: science fiction, horror, and the supernatural. The last person to do it was H.P. Lovecraft, and the last to do it _well_ was Algernon Blackwood. King has always had inventive, original ideas, and though I do admit his style is sometimes simplistic, I have never read an author who was able to evoke as intense emotion in the reader as he, or stir the thrill to read in people who would otherwise bask in a culturally stagnant society. 
> 
> Other than J.K. Rowling, but that's a different debate.
> 
> The title of 'fiction-mill' should be reserved for 'woman-dectective/lawyer-stalked-by-a-serial-killer-she's-investigating' books or dime-store romance novels set in the 18th-19th century with no respect for the culture or prose of the era. King is the author that impressed upon me the love of reading and the love of writing, and I will always defend his work.


Guess what: yes I have read some Kings from Cover to back and guess what - I found it was utterly cheap. That you like him, I don't mind that, but why are people trying to find excuses for others not to like it? I can find excuses for the fact that you like it like: "Oh that's because he can't read literature, he can only keep to best-sellers,..." but I don't say or think that. I have great friends who love books - or many other things - that I hate, what do I care?

Respect of opinion goes in two ways: You have to respect that I think his writing his cheap, without having to hear such things as "elitests (sic) will never like anything that is popular." and "the high-browed chic of denouncing what is popular." I don't HAVE to like him, do I?

That he is "better than nothing" in a "culturally stagnant society" is also none of my personal literary concerns.

----------


## jon1jt

Yeah I think it was a cheap shot by 'The Intended' against ol Etienne. C'mon Intended, Steven King is a money-making scoundrel. He produces crap books about monsters and dream worlds that any novice writer could have cooked up on a drunk Friday night with a good editor.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Etienne

> Yeah I think it was a cheap shot by 'The Intended' against ol Etienne. C'mon Intended, Steven King is a money-making scoundrel. He produces crap books about monsters and dream worlds that any novice writer could have cooked up on a drunk Friday night with a good editor.


I wouldn't go as far as that, but again, that's not the standards I use when it comes to my literary tastes  :FRlol:

----------


## jon1jt

> I wouldn't go as far as that, but again, that's not the standards I use when it comes to my literary tastes


Okay, fair enough. But you have to admit that Steven King writes first and foremost for the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I just hope Steven King doesn't get hit by another car because what would the world do without his stories about the boogie man? Yea boogie man!

----------


## Nico87

Has anyone here read _Duma Key_? My mum bought it for me the other day and by the look of the reader reviews of it on amazon.com, the book seems really interesting.

----------


## islandclimber

> Hmm, debates like this always bring to mind wether or not the naysayers have actually picked up a book and read it through, rather than relying on word-of-mouth, late-night sci-fi movie specials or the high-browed chic of denouncing what is popular.  
> 
> King is original, and has managed to combine three worlds: science fiction, horror, and the supernatural. The last person to do it was H.P. Lovecraft, and the last to do it _well_ was Algernon Blackwood. King has always had inventive, original ideas, and though I do admit his style is sometimes simplistic, I have never read an author who was able to evoke as intense emotion in the reader as he, or stir the thrill to read in people who would otherwise bask in a culturally stagnant society. 
> 
> Other than J.K. Rowling, but that's a different debate.
> 
> The title of 'fiction-mill' should be reserved for 'woman-dectective/lawyer-stalked-by-a-serial-killer-she's-investigating' books or dime-store romance novels set in the 18th-19th century with no respect for the culture or prose of the era. King is the author that impressed upon me the love of reading and the love of writing, and I will always defend his work.



yes he is totally a genre writer which for the most part excludes him from literature anyways... as I said, I have read a few of his books too, and they are for cheap thrills... ensnaring story, but no literary merit worth praising... 

and you say Stephen King is the author who can inspire the most intense emotions in a reader???? isn't that taking it a little far... I mean, have you never read a piece of tragic literature that has made you cry, read literature that has made you feel as though you were inside the story... I have... 

I wouldn't call Stephen King an inspirer of emotion besides maybe anticipation as to what happens next, for that is how he captivates... but real emotion... not in the slightest when I read it... Even for a modern writer... go take a look at say, Rohinton Mistry's "A Fine Balance"... there is a book that can make you truly feel... and there are so many other great writers who draw real, genuine emotion...

cheers

----------


## The Intended

> Guess what: yes I have read some Kings from Cover to back and guess what - I found it was utterly cheap. That you like him, I don't mind that, but why are people trying to find excuses for others not to like it? I can find excuses for the fact that you like it like: "Oh that's because he can't read literature, he can only keep to best-sellers,..." but I don't say or think that. I have great friends who love books - or many other things - that I hate, what do I care?
> 
> Respect of opinion goes in two ways: You have to respect that I think his writing his cheap, without having to hear such things as "elitests (sic) will never like anything that is popular." and "the high-browed chic of denouncing what is popular." I don't HAVE to like him, do I?
> 
> That he is "better than nothing" in a "culturally stagnant society" is also none of my personal literary concerns.


And yet you must remember that it was you who struck the first blow in insulting my intelligence . . . my words were not directed specifically towards you, rather than the group of people I most often find the critics of King. And I would appreciate if you wouldn't pull arguments from others and put them in my mouth. 

I do respect your opinion, and understand that King is not for everyone, and I wouldn't exactly tie you to a chair and force you to read The Stand. It would be the same if instead of denouncing King it were James, or Joyce, or Dostoevsky: there are people that like them, and people that don't, and between them they are likely to squabble on the reasons, which doesn't mean that they don't have merit. (And please, spare me the 'OMG, she just compared Dostoevsky to King!', it's an example) I just happen to be one of the people who feel very passionately that people short change King a little too often. 

*islandclimber -*  I couldn't sleep after reading The Shining or It. Any book can make you cry, but make you afraid . . . I think that's something special.

----------


## Etienne

I simply think that his syntax, imagery and character are objectively not the product of a master. I mean his syntax, really?

If you want me to concede that his stories are good, that's a more contestable point...

Oh and - I can't talk for James - I can completely understand someone not liking Joyce or Dostoevsky. Now I'll have a hard time understanding someone who doesn't like some other writers, but those two are quite understandable (even if I like them a lot).

----------


## islandclimber

"it" was scary... why? make believe isn't really scary.. reality maybe at times, but fantasy, why? same with "the shining"... demons and spirits are a little too much for me... not really all that scary.. and King lacks the power of imagery as well to make these fantasies beome even slightly real for me... I guess having emotions and feelings inspired within you is more dependent on what you're like, than what you're reading...

I found the movie "the shining" was far better than the book... for King writes in a way that can make an entertaining movie, just not a piece of literature, or a good book....

----------


## JBI

> I simply think that his syntax, imagery and character are objectively not the product of a master. I mean his syntax, really?
> 
> If you want me to concede that his stories are good, that's a more contestable point...
> 
> Oh and - I can't talk for James - I can completely understand someone not liking Joyce or Dostoevsky. Now I'll have a hard time understanding someone who doesn't like some other writers, but those two are quite understandable (even if I like them a lot).


Not liking, and acknowledging merit are different. I can say Dostoevsky writes boring books, but that doesn't mean he has no literary merit. The fact that so much work, and philosophy has been shaped off his work is proof enough of his merit, whereas with King, the debate is possible. I can also argue that I like his novels, but don't think he has literary merit.

Not liking something, and acknowledging their literary merit are two different things. Ezra Pound, horrible person, who wrote some disgusting things in his Cantos, yet he I acknowledge for his literary merit. Same with T.S. Eliot to some extent.

The point is, I feel the only thing I gain from reading a King book is the loss of hours. If I read Joyce however, not only do I have a linguistic experience, a cultural experience, and an in depth portrayal brought to me of the human psyche, I also am challenged with working to solve a literary puzzle, working to understand a complex story, and working to understand most of his 30,000 words (speaking of Ulysses. Finnegans wake is a different story).

With King do you come even close to getting the same worth out of a book as other contemporary writers, such as Cormac McCarthy? Does one get the same experience from reading Poe as they do from reading Emily Dickinson? not even close. Some things yield more worth than others. Some authors have more merit, whereas some authors appeal to more fans. The fact remains that King is every inch a pragmatic author. Appealing to the most fans is his goal.

You see this in the movie industry at a more clear level. All the "best" films of the year tend not to sell as well as the rest of them. Why is that? because not everyone has the desire to appreciate good film, or good art.

----------


## islandclimber

by the way, (as I said before on this thread) I'm not saying King's books have no merit in any way, I think they can be entertaining, I just don't think they could be called good literature, by any stretch of the imagination... entertainment, not literature... 

JBI says it well above...

----------


## mayneverhave

> You see this in the movie industry at a more clear level. All the "best" films of the year tend not to sell as well as the rest of them. Why is that? because not everyone has the desire to appreciate good film, or good art.


This is, sadly true. I wrote a research paper dealing with this phenomenon and found that for the most part, it works both ways. There are plenty of films that are critically lauded and also box office winners (The Godfather, for example), while there are critically acclaimed box office busts (say, Raging Bull).


As for literature, it _is_ rare for a writer to achieve critical acclaim while also appealing to a wide audience. The most prominent example of this is probably Byron.

----------


## ZoeyJuly

Not to take the path of least resistence here,but hey... literature is defined as "writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays." if that helps anyone... i really think everyone is taking this thread way too personally... which is odd for me to say because im in law school... :FRlol:

----------


## Etienne

@JBI:

This is all very well said.

----------


## mehihco

Stephen King is in no way a writer of 'Literary fiction' we know this because in 50 years when he is dead and we're all older or also dead, nobody, but maybe the older us, will care about him or read his work. 

This isn't because he's "trash", but becasue he is a 'popular fiction' writer. Stephen King is as good as any writer out there. His mere popularity is proof enough. If his work was badly written, even the uneducated would find it unattractive.

But he's not Shakespear, or Poe or Wilde. He's not the father, the inventor, or a revolutionist of anything. He writes what he writes well, but it isn't really new. That is why he isn't a 'literary genius', but I do believe he appreciates literature and writes very well.

It offends me what has been said here, because people need to relax. Because in 50 years, just like Stephen King, this conversation, along with writers like Dan Brown, J.K Rowling, John Grisham, Jodi Picoult, J.R.R Tolkien, and so many more won't matter.

Just because you don't like Stephen King or don't understand the hold he has on the market, doesn't mean he's 'trash', it just means you should ignore him.
 :Thumbs Up: 

Literature is entertainment, do you think anyone would read it if it was boring?

The ability to entertain is the gift of literature itself.

:P One last thing, 
"The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. 
All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde

----------


## Big Al

> It offends me what has been said here, because people need to relax. Because in 50 years, just like Stephen King, this conversation, along with writers like Dan Brown, J.K Rowling, John Grisham, Jodi Picoult, *J.R.R Tolkien*, and so many more won't matter.


J.R.R. Tolkien won't be remembered in 50 years?

----------


## islandclimber

> Literature is entertainment, do you think anyone would read it if it was boring?
> 
> The ability to entertain is the gift of literature itself.


entertainment is only one part of literature... would you call the "see spot run" books for 5 year olds good literature? cuz they entertain the 5 year olds.... if you do, well you're idea of literature is different than mine... the only part Stephen King has going is in the entertaining department, and maybe the ability to think up a story that will be exciting to people in love with fantasy horror! a mediocre genre in the first place besides a couple exceptions...

King won't be remembered because he is a mediocre writer... you can't call him as good a writer as anyone out there right now... he just doesn't have the ability, and his work is great evidence of that... Tolkien, though I am not really interested in his writing, has already been around for quite some time... If King lasts that long, I will be surprised... though I guess anything is possible with the way the world is... people did elect George W. twice so I'm sure anything is possible...

A writer doesn't have to be an inventor, father, revolutionist to be good literature, or a literary genius... there are many writers who have followed others stylistically, but still found their own voice that is beautiful and amazing... Look at all the writers who followed in Dostoevsky's footprints, there are alot of great writers there... or in Kafka's footprints... That's where Nabokov started... even writers in the Magical Realism school like Borges, Marquez, etc... owe something to Kafka... but no one would say they are not good literature.. King just has none of the qualities of good literature, same with Dan Brown, Tom Clancy, JK Rowling, etc...

but don't tell us to relax and then jump right into it, and tell us we're being offensive...

anyways, I'm done with this... everyone has their own opinion, and I respect that, whatever it may be... I have to say this was quite interesting...  :FRlol: 

cheers

----------


## Etienne

> Literature is entertainment, do you think anyone would read it if it was boring?
> 
> The ability to entertain is the gift of literature itself.


Certain people don't see literature as simply entertainment, maybe that's where a line is drawn. Actually one can call this entertainment, but on a different level perhaps, than what you mean.

----------


## mayneverhave

I could see King being remembered in years to come, but perhaps only in Cultural studies literature classes

----------


## JBI

J. R. R. Tolkien's popularity greatly diminished until the movies rebooted it. The fact remains that I'm certain that it is the emperors new clothes bit going on with his popularity, and I am also certain that many who say they like him have only seen the movies.

Like I said though, much earlier, the Shining was a great movie, yet mediocre book. That shows Kubrick's genius, not Kings.

The same with Tolkien and Peter Jackson's team.

----------


## Big Al

> J. R. R. Tolkien's popularity greatly diminished until the movies rebooted it. The fact remains that I'm certain that it is the emperors new clothes bit going on with his popularity, and I am also certain that many who say they like him have only seen the movies.
> 
> Like I said though, much earlier, the Shining was a great movie, yet mediocre book. That shows Kubrick's genius, not Kings.
> 
> The same with Tolkien and Peter Jackson's team.


I am an enormous fan of Tolkien's meticulously-crafted poetry, but I hated the movies. Peter Jackson should have continued to make films like Bad Taste and Braindead.

In what way are you measuring Tolkien's alleged popularity drop? The Lord of the Rings is consistently named by critics as one of the most excellent examples of fantasy writing, and it usually ranks at the top of any science fiction or fantasy fan poll. His work may not be remembered quite as well by general reading audiences, but then again, how popular would Faulkner or Conrad be with those same people?

I think you're mistaken in your assessment of Tolkien's work. Like any great literature, it's timeless and will always be remembered -- by whom is a different story, however.

----------


## JBI

There was a huge spike in Tolkien popularity. His career bloomed in the 60s and 70s as a result of counter-culture acceptance, than sort of fell out except amongst fantasy readers until the movies. I didn't comment saying he hasn't had influence, I just said he had a popularity drop.

And as for critics accepting him, he has had mixed reviews since first being published, and has as many, if not more, detractors than fans. Many, many critics have criticized his work.

Quit pretending like he is an untouchable godly literary figure. Read some criticism on his work before you talk.

And P.S., the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works, is regarded by most "literary" critics as not being literary. What fantasy readers deem the best fantasy book isn't necessarily what general or literary readers deem the best book. Distinction in audience.

----------


## islandclimber

> There was a huge spike in Tolkien popularity. His career bloomed in the 60s and 70s as a result of counter-culture acceptance, than sort of fell out except amongst fantasy readers until the movies. I didn't comment saying he hasn't had influence, I just said he had a popularity drop.
> 
> And as for critics accepting him, he has had mixed reviews since first being published, and has as many, if not more, detractors than fans. Many, many critics have criticized his work.
> 
> Quit pretending like he is an untouchable godly literary figure. Read some criticism on his work before you talk.
> 
> And P.S., the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works, is regarded by most "literary" critics as not being literary. What fantasy readers deem the best fantasy book isn't necessarily what general or literary readers deem the best book. Distinction in audience.


I think Tolkien is one of the best of the fantasy genre and his books may survive for quite some time, be remembered.. but he isn't great literature either as JBI says...

Genre writing for the most part, when talking about literature, is not considered literature... at least in the eyes of most "literary critics"...

----------


## Big Al

> There was a huge spike in Tolkien popularity. His career bloomed in the 60s and 70s as a result of counter-culture acceptance, than sort of fell out except amongst fantasy readers until the movies. I didn't comment saying he hasn't had influence, I just said he had a popularity drop.


I'm not questioning that fact that the books recieved added popularity from the films (although I wonder whether or not its popularity in the 60s and 70s was a result of the counter-culture movement, or the fact that it hadn't been available in paperback until then). However, your assertion that it just sort of "fell out except among fantasy readers" is ludicrous. In 1999 in an Amazon.com customer poll it was voted the favorite "book of the milennium." And I realize that it's actually three books, but that's just nit-picking.




> And as for critics accepting him, he has had mixed reviews since first being published, and has as many, if not more, detractors than fans. Many, many critics have criticized his work.


Really? An author having critics, and whose works receive "mixed reviews?" My God, this must be completely unheard of in the literary world!

Name me an author or a book that hasn't received any negative criticism. Hell, I've read scathing criticisms of the works of Shakespeare and Dante. For a more modern-day equivalent, Blood Meridian, which is now widely regarded as one of the greatest American masterworks of the 20th century (and no, I'm not just saying that because I recently finished it and proclaimed it to be my favorite book) received some immensely harsh reviews upon its initial release. There's no accounting for taste, apparently...




> Quit pretending like he is an untouchable godly literary figure. Read some criticism on his work before you talk.


Why? Do you think the notion that he has critics never crossed my mind? He's an author I greatly love; why would I go out of my way to read criticisms of his work? Did you go out of your way to read reviews by Tolkien proponents before you made this post?




> And P.S., the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works, is regarded by most "literary" critics as not being literary. What fantasy readers deem the best fantasy book isn't necessarily what general or literary readers deem the best book. Distinction in audience.


Now this is interesting...Specifically, which critics hold this viewpoint? I find it extremely elitist and narrow-minded to judge a book's literary qualities on its subject matter (though I actually thinks it's worse to pigeon-hole a book into a given genre in the first place), and I would hope any literary critics whose work I would be reading would feel the same way. And why "fantasy" but not science fiction? What qualities are inherent in fantasy somehow make it "un-literary?" Perhaps you could provide me with some sort of list of genres ranked in order from "most literary" to "least literary." I'd be interested to know so I can spend the majority of my time reading works from that exalted genre.

----------


## Big Al

> I think Tolkien is one of the best of the fantasy genre and his books may survive for quite some time, be remembered.. but he isn't great literature either as JBI says...
> 
> Genre writing for the most part, when talking about literature, is not considered literature... at least in the eyes of most "literary critics"...


"Genre writing," eh? What is "genre writing," exactly? After all, one could assign a specific, narrow-minded genre to any book.

Writing a book that could theoretically fit into a given genre is only bad if one assumes that the genre is inherently bad, or "un-literary," in which case I would ask that person what specifically is wrong with said genre.

----------


## Etienne

> Now this is interesting...Specifically, which critics hold this viewpoint? I find it extremely elitist and narrow-minded to judge a book's literary qualities on its subject matter


You are turning his point into something it is not. It does not say fantasy literature is not literary. What it says is that most of it does not fall under the, perhaps academic definition of literature, or Literature. And so, to say that it is ranked high among fantasy literature really, in the end means absolutely nothing in the great scheme of Literature.

Science-fiction doesn't hold much credibility in the literary world as a genre, but that doesn't mean that there are works that are held in esteem, Herbert's Dune, for example, only to say that Dune is one of the best Science-fiction work would tell squat about it's literary merits.

And what exactly is wrong with elitism, mind you?

----------


## Big Al

> You are turning his point into something it is not. It does not say fantasy literature is not literary.


"And P.S., the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works, is regarded by most 'literary' critics as not being literary."




> What it says is that most of it does not fall under the, perhaps academic definition of literature, or Literature. And so, to say that it is ranked high among fantasy literature really, in the end means absolutely nothing in the great scheme of Literature.


Well, I would argue that majority of books in all genres do not fall under the "academic definition of literature," so it seems odd to me to single out fantasy. And I suppose your last point is valid, but there are plenty of general literary critics who consider The Lord of the Rings a masterwork, and I certainly think it's more than just your average "fantasy book."




> Science-fiction doesn't hold much credibility in the literary world as a genre, but that doesn't mean that there are works that are held in esteem, Herbert's Dune, for example, only to say that Dune is one of the best Science-fiction work would tell squat about it's literary merits.


Science fiction doesn't hold much credibility in the literary world? What about 1984, Brave New World, the works of Herbert and Heinlein and Philip K. Dick? Okay, I realize these are just a few examples, and that the majority isn't usually regarded as "literature," but with that being the case, once again I'm forced to ask: why single out "fantasy?"




> And what exactly is wrong with elitism, mind you?


Who constitutes "the elite" and who determines the qualifications for being a member?

----------


## Etienne

> "And P.S., the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works, is regarded by most 'literary' critics as not being literary."


Exactly what I said myself: the fantasy genre in general. Are you simply confirming what I said with this quote?




> Well, I would argue that majority of books in all genres do not fall under the "academic definition of literature,"


What one considers a genre is so vague in the first place, that making such a general statement means close to nothing.




> Science fiction doesn't hold much credibility in the literary world? What about 1984, Brave New World, the works of Herbert and Heinlein and Philip K. Dick? Okay, I realize these are just a few examples, and that the majority isn't usually regarded as "literature," but with that being the case,


Oh! And what did I just say? You disagree with me and then repeat almost word for word what I said, I'm sorry if I don't understand your method of argumentation, it is quite new to me.




> once again I'm forced to ask: why single out "fantasy?"


Hmm... because we're discussing "fantasy"? If we were to discuss something else, we would discuss something else? If I say cats are felines, and you come up and say: Oh why single out cats, what about tigers? I'd answer: Well we were simply discussing cats and not tigers...




> Who constitutes "the elite" and who determines the qualifications for being a member?


That's a good question, but who talked about elitism in the first place? Maybe he should answer? Oh that's you, so was it a rhetoric question?

----------


## JBI

It's the same way the mystery genre, thriller genre, and romance genres aren't highly regarded as literary works. Romance is one of the (I think it is the) best selling genre there is. Yet how many of those paperback novels are really worth reading? A lot of people are actually embarrassed to admit they read those books. That doesn't mean those books don't have the "best in the genre". They do, as does every genre. The point is though, the "literary" classification is beyond genre, and takes books based on merit as works outside of genre.

We shouldn't make exceptions for single genres. Nora Roberts, or whatever name she writes under now, is a highly best-selling author. Do you rank her amongst Joyce, Proust, Faulkner, or better yet, more contemporary greats, Atwood, Pynchon, Rushdie, Byatt, Saramago, Morrison, etc.? God no, you can't.

The same with fantasy. Fantasy fans are many, and have influence. But they aren't everything. Besides which, an internet poll on an online website is not the greatest statistic. A) there is a major sample bias, since only people with internet access, and amazon frequency will vote, and b) because many people would not vote, or have votes scattered. With a great deal of fantasy readers, Tolkien is seen as the ultimate choice, whereas the votes of others, particularly in the literary field, where there are 3000 years of volume to contemplate, the key figure is way more difficult. Some people would think Shakespeare the obvious choice, but that isn't a narrowed margin. People need to think of which play to choose, etc. There is also the language bias which narrows the overwhelming votes of English speakers against the world, who offer a tradition as old, or older, of equally as excellent works.

There is also the point to consider about how much one has read, versus another. The same archetype, if you have not come across it before could hamper your judgment. A plagiarist who to the reader seems original is held as high in esteem as the original. Tolkien is believed, by some ridiculous propagated fallacy, to have invented the modern fantasy genre. How many people have read his primary sources of inspiration? I bet many kids would think Wagner ripped off Tolkien.


I didn't say it wasn't your more than average fantasy book, but I did say it was your mediocre book. If you want to examine literature, you need to break genre biases, and look at works for literary merit above genre, in order to classify them as good "Literature". 

Herbert, now on this subject, can be seen as a great of science fiction, but a bad writer (I have not read any criticism on him, so this is purely my speculation). He redefined mainstream sci-fi, but did little else for literature as whole, or for language. The only possible work that I could consider for literary merit, though I decline there is any, is Dune. However, the 5 sequels he wrote show an incompetence at writing. I am unsure if it is alright to only value one novel, since he intended it to be 7 long, and since that is compared to only reading "The Fellowship of the Ring".

That being said, to lure us back on topic, literary merit needs to be beyond genre. If only a fantasy lover CAN enjoy a book, then what sort of quality does it have for humanity?

And anyway, I would think the best book of the millennium, by the influence the works carried alone, would come down to 4 names, 1 of which being lesser than the rest in everything but influence;

Moliere's Tartuffe 
Dante's Comedia
Cervantes's Don Quixote de la Mancha
Shakespeare's Hamlet

for non-fiction probably (though I am no authority at all on this, and confess to trying to broaden the scope of this list as much as possible).

Montaigne
Descartes
Thomas Aquinas
Galileo
Nietzsche
Freud
Marx
Darwin

----------


## Big Al

> Exactly what I said myself: the fantasy genre in general. Are you simply confirming what I said with this quote?


The quote contradicted almost word-for-word your first sentence, so I thought it would be funny to put them together. And it was. To me.




> What one considers a genre is so vague in the first place, that making such a general statement means close to nothing.


Wasn't I the one who, a few posts earlier, was arguing against classifying works by genre because it encouraged people to make assumptions based on pre-conceived notions? The other posts I have made regarding genre were to attempt to contradict the initial assessment which was that fantasy was somehow not literary.




> Oh! And what did I just say? You disagree with me and then repeat almost word for word what I said, I'm sorry if I don't understand your method of argumentation, it is quite new to me.


It was tongue-in-cheek. I'll try to make any further attempts at humor more obvious.




> Hmm... because we're discussing "fantasy"? If we were to discuss something else, we would discuss something else? If I say cats are felines, and you come up and say: Oh why single out cats, what about tigers? I'd answer: Well we were simply discussing cats and not tigers...


We were discussing The Lord of the Rings, and its place in the literary world, when the other user (whose name I can't immediately remember) pointed out that fantasy was often considered "un-literary," insinuating that because The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, it's somehow less literary in nature. To which I replied (and I'm paraphrasing myself), "What about other genres? Are others genres somehow less literary as well," because I was trying to understand what qualities are inherent in fantasy that make them less literary, and what qualities are present in other genres that make them more literary. This has never been a discussion exclusively about fantasy, and maybe you would know that if you had kept up from the beginning.




> That's a good question, but who talked about elitism in the first place? Maybe he should answer? Oh that's you, so was it a rhetoric question?


Yes, I did mention elitism, because it seems elitist to me to assign arbitrary genres to literary works and then judge them according to one's perceptions of that genre. But let me see if I understand your meaning correctly...Because I mentioned the idea of elitism, I am therefore partaking in elitism?

...So by your logic, if I call somebody else a necrophiliac, do I have to have sex with corpses as well?

----------


## Etienne

> The quote contradicted almost word-for-word your first sentence, so I thought it would be funny to put them together. And it was. To me.


Absolutely not... it says "the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works"... which makes all the difference, but of course, you can choose to ignore some parts as it's always easier to take a Manichean view, unfortunately, that also makes you completely off the track.




> We were discussing The Lord of the Rings, and its place in the literary world, when the other user (whose name I can't immediately remember) pointed out that fantasy was often considered "un-literary," insinuating that because The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, it's somehow less literary in nature.


And why was he saying this about fantasy? Because of something you said... concerning fantasy literature! And the first mention of it too!

"In what way are you measuring Tolkien's alleged popularity drop? The Lord of the Rings is consistently named by critics as one of the most excellent examples of fantasy writing, and it usually ranks at the top of any science fiction or fantasy fan poll." post 207, by you.

Uh-oh!




> Yes, I did mention elitism, because it seems elitist to me to assign arbitrary genres to literary works and then judge them according to one's perceptions of that genre. But let me see if I understand your meaning correctly...Because I mentioned the idea of elitism, I am therefore partaking in elitism?


No, I want to answer your own question "Who constitutes "the elite" and who determines the qualifications for being a member?" You are the one talking about elitists and the one who brought that up, you must have an idea about it, no?




> ...So by your logic, if I call somebody else a necrophiliac, do I have to have sex with corpses as well?


 :Eek2:  Do you?

Actually this is so non sequitur, I don't know what to say or where it came from!

----------


## Big Al

> It's the same way the mystery genre, thriller genre, and romance genres aren't highly regarded as literary works. Romance is one of the (I think it is the) best selling genre there is. Yet how many of those paperback novels are really worth reading?


A Farewell to Arms is commonly regarded as a "romance novel," and I'd say that people usually consider Hemingway a pretty good read.




> A lot of people are actually embarrassed to admit they read those books. That doesn't mean those books don't have the "best in the genre". They do, as does every genre. *The point is though, the "literary" classification is beyond genre, and takes books based on merit as works outside of genre.*


Isn't that what I've been saying this entire time? That every work should be judged on its own achievements rather than the genre one assigns to it? I believe that was one of my first points.




> We shouldn't make exceptions for single genres. Nora Roberts, or whatever name she writes under now, is a highly best-selling author. Do you rank her amongst Joyce, Proust, Faulkner, or better yet, more contemporary greats, Atwood, Pynchon, Rushdie, Byatt, Saramago, Morrison, etc.? God no, you can't.


You certainly could, if that's what tickles your fancy. I don't, and I also don't understand what point you are trying to make.




> The same with fantasy. Fantasy fans are many, and have influence. But they aren't everything. Besides which, an internet poll on an online website is not the greatest statistic. A) there is a major sample bias, since only people with internet access, and amazon frequency will vote, and b) because many people would not vote, or have votes scattered. With a great deal of fantasy readers, Tolkien is seen as the ultimate choice, whereas the votes of others, particularly in the literary field, where there are 3000 years of volume to contemplate, the key figure is way more difficult. Some people would think Shakespeare the obvious choice, but that isn't a narrowed margin. People need to think of which play to choose, etc. There is also the language bias which narrows the overwhelming votes of English speakers against the world, who offer a tradition as old, or older, of equally as excellent works.


Oh, we're back to the whole "popularity of the trilogy thing," eh? Okay, fine. Because a poll doesn't encompass the broad spectrum of human existence, its results mean absolutely nothing, and we'll just have to go with your *unsupported assertion* that The Lord of the Rings was only popular with fantasy fans.




> There is also the point to consider about how much one has read, versus another. The same archetype, if you have not come across it before could hamper your judgment. A plagiarist who to the reader seems original is held as high in esteem as the original. Tolkien is believed, by some ridiculous propagated fallacy, to have invented the modern fantasy genre. How many people have read his primary sources of inspiration? I bet many kids would think Wagner ripped off Tolkien.


Thank you for the lesson professor, like this thought never occured to me. *How does this relate to my previous questions?*




> I didn't say it wasn't your more than average fantasy book, but I did say it was your mediocre book. If you want to examine literature, you need to break genre biases, and look at works for literary merit above genre, in order to classify them as good "Literature".


Will you stop pretending to lecture me by reiterating things that *I already said?* Genres are restrictive...Every work should be judged on its own merits...I believe I wrote that three or four posts ago.




> Herbert, now on this subject, can be seen as a great of science fiction, but a bad writer.


Or a great writer of science fiction *and* a great writer.




> He redefined mainstream sci-fi, but did little else for literature as whole, or for language.


Are you now insinuating that literature must be judged in relation to its influence on other works (or at least other works outside a given genre)?




> That being said, to lure us back on topic,


Finally.




> literary merit needs to be beyond genre. If only a fantasy lover CAN enjoy a book, then what sort of quality does it have for humanity?


I generally greatly dislike the vast majority of books commonly defined as "fantasy," so not only a fantasy lover CAN enjoy The Lord of the Rings.




> And anyway, I would think the best book of the millennium, by the influence the works carried alone, would come down to 4 names, 1 of which being lesser than the rest in everything but influence;
> 
> Moliere's Tartuffe 
> Dante's Comedia
> Cervantes's Don Quixote de la Mancha
> Shakespeare's Hamlet
> 
> for non-fiction probably (though I am no authority at all on this, and confess to trying to broaden the scope of this list as much as possible).
> 
> ...


And yet, no matter what any expert or literary critic thinks, there is no such thing as an objective opinion, and even the ideas about what consitutes great literature are subjective to each individual. I think you are displaying a remarkable narrow-mindedness, as well as elitism in your insistance that the "best book of the milennium" could only come down to books which you personally regard as the best in literature.

----------


## Etienne

> And yet, no matter what any expert or literary critic thinks, there is no such thing as an objective opinion, and even the ideas about what consitutes great literature are subjective to each individual. I think you are displaying a remarkable narrow-mindedness, as well as elitism in your insistance that the "best book of the milennium" could only come down to books which you personally regard as the best in literature.


Elitist here, elitist there! Burn all the elitists! Actually he said based on their influence, so there's some kind of objective reasoning. But I agree with you in the end, however I don't think it's "narrow-minded and elitist!", I think it's more naive and futile...

----------


## Big Al

> And why was he saying this about fantasy? Because of something you said... concerning fantasy literature! And the first mention of it too!
> 
> "In what way are you measuring Tolkien's alleged popularity drop? The Lord of the Rings is consistently named by critics as one of the most excellent examples of fantasy writing, and it usually ranks at the top of any science fiction or fantasy fan poll." post 207, by you.
> 
> Uh-oh!


You're ignoring the fact that I wrote that before the debate started. It was a simple description of the book that immediately came to my mind. I didn't forsee a debate coming, and I've made my stance clear, so "uh-oh," that has no relation to the posts that came afterwards.




> No, I want to answer your own question "Who constitutes "the elite" and who determines the qualifications for being a member?" You are the one talking about elitists and the one who brought that up, you must have an idea about it, no?


I was asking *you* who *you* thought constituted the elite, and who *you* thought should determine the qualifications, because you insinuated (or at least hinted -- it's hard to say for sure when you're being so evasive) that you thought elitism wasn't necessarily a bad idea. And I've already explained, in context, why I referred to an idea as elitist, so maybe you could answer the questions instead of beating a dead horse?

----------


## Big Al

I just realized something, and this why I hate debating on forums like this one -- we're all essentially taking the same side of the issue. How did that happen?

----------


## Etienne

> You're ignoring the fact that I wrote that before the debate started. It was a simple description of the book that immediately came to my mind. I didn't forsee a debate coming, and I've made my stance clear, so "uh-oh," that has no relation to the posts that came afterwards.


yes because it in fact started the debate, and it shows that you were the first to bring in this "genre" rhetoric.




> I was asking *you* who *you* thought constituted the elite, and who *you* thought should determine the qualifications, because you insinuated (or at least hinted -- it's hard to say for sure when you're being so evasive) that you thought elitism wasn't necessarily a bad idea. And I've already explained, in context, why I referred to an idea as elitist, so maybe you could answer the questions instead of beating a dead horse?


 :FRlol:  But I have no idea! I'm not the one talking about it all the time and I can only say what I think about it once I know! It's your definition that is lacking here so we know what you mean by calling people elitists.

----------


## JBI

You misinterpret my words by means of your quasi-rhetoric misquoting/halfquoting. You said we need to accept books despite their genre. I said we should judge books outside of their genre. That is a completely different concept.

One would say Tolkien is a great fantasy author, therefore a great author, whereas the other would say Tolkien is a mediocre author, and is restricted to not going above the archetypes already previously used in literature before him. Completely different comparison. 

But Mr. fallacy, if you wish to give argument. I am willing to listen. What do you personally think grants Tolkien the status of "literary" author? I have what I would deem proof of his failure as an author sitting on my desk. I can quote his crummy prose style, his horrible poetry, and write theses on his crummy characterization, whereas you are yet to offer a shred of proof.

I can also characterize his work, as many critics already do, as a VERY ELITIST PIECE OF WRITING. You are calling me an elitist for criticizing the work of an elitist? 

Just for you to note. A Farewell to Arms is not a Romance novel, since it lacks the key ingredient, which, by genre definition is required; the happy ending.

We are dealing with structuralist critical theory here, and it is important to use terminology correctly before making pseudo arguments.

And as Etienne has so beautifully put it, when he talked about your fantasy poll as proof of critical acclaim, that doesn't justify the book as Literature. It justifies it as popular fantasy fiction.

Joyce is hardly the most accessible author, and is clearly not the most commonly read, yet he is literary.

The merits for literary status, though not (how could they be) definable as such, involve the requirement of certain criteria which we have come to accept as a general rule. There is a general consensus that for something to be literary it must possess at least one of several things that have been seen throughout the progression since Homer started Western Literature. a few are: Originality, neither King nor Tolkien have that. Unique/new use of language/prose stylistic devices. A new view/revelation on the human experience, and human psyche/what it means to be living/what it means to be human. A new philosophical development of thought. A new structure to the novel, such as Faulkner's head hopping, etc. There are a few more, but those are some big ones.

Selling books, and being read by many ignorant readers doesn't make you literary. If we were judging books based on sales, Dan Brown would be taught in schools over Faulkner, Grisham over Fitzgerald, and people would gain nothing, learn nothing, and feel nothing, but some cheap thrills at finishing a novel (look mommy, I can read, I actually can read a book! Woopie!!!).

Thanks.

----------


## teejay17

> Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?


That all depends if we're talking about literature, or capital "L" Literature. 
How is "Literature" being contextualized for this discussion?

----------


## Trillian

Does anyone else see that? *walks toward a can just barely visible through the smoke* It's a can! *looks closer* By golly, it's full of _worms_!! :FRlol:  

Seriously, though, I appreciate this. I am actually discovering quite a bit about the true definition of Literature, and have found some definite merit in the trash vs. lit debate. I must say, since I adore King, and have read everything he has written (except for a few things so old and obscure that I can't find them), that I find myself in a position of bias that I thought I was immune to. Until the King bashing began, that is. _How dare they,_ was my thought. _He is a genius! They just don't know good writing blah blah blah..._  Then, it hit me. Some people don't like King, and that is it. I can't change their minds, and that is fine. And, after some serious soul-searching, I must reluctantly admit that, while King is my go-to author for some thrills, he so far has not provided me with the serious train of thought that some books have, like 1984, The Monkey Wrench Gang, Illusions, Fahrenheit 451... The type of thought that demands that you set the book in your lap and think about what you just read. That demands that you take notes, or take action, or really hash it out with anyone who will listen, just so you can sound off. The type of book that makes you feel changed when you finish it.

Despite my "born-again" moment, however, I will never see King as Popular Fiction Trash, and refuse to believe that he spends so much time fleshing out his characters, unfolding his story lines, and simply writing just to make money. I think that for him, the money is just a bonus. Unlike Dean Koontz.  :Biggrin:

----------


## islandclimber

> "Genre writing," eh? What is "genre writing," exactly? After all, one could assign a specific, narrow-minded genre to any book.
> 
> Writing a book that could theoretically fit into a given genre is only bad if one assumes that the genre is inherently bad, or "un-literary," in which case I would ask that person what specifically is wrong with said genre.


I don't think you can assign a specific narrow-minded genre to works of great literature, for the very reason that usually they transcend genres and encompass aspects of so many different genres into them... what genre would you place "don quixote" under, or "the brothers karamazov" or "hamlet" or "the divine comedy"... I mean you could find elements of so many genres in each of them, but at the same time works of great literature, in my opinion transcend classification into specific genres... they are outside genre writing... and that is what I was trying to say...

not that this is that relevant to the argument... but look at literary journals/magazines or literary competitions... generally in their submission guidelines they say we will not accept works of genre writing.. I don't think they're saying we won't accept any works that have fantasy or science fiction or mystery elements in them, just that they won't accept mediocre works that only strictly fit into a genre... such as Tolkien, or King, or Clancy, or Danielle Steele... and maybe Tolkien is a great fantasy writer but that is it, that doesn't necessarily make him great literature too... same with King, he can great in science fiction or fantasy or horror, but he isn't a great writer, not by any stretch of the imagination... they lack the broad scope and influence that literature needs to have in my opinion...

maybe this is elitist, but I don't think it is... I respect others opinions on what they like to read, what they enjoy reading but I have my own opinions too, and telling me I'm wrong and elitist isn't going to change my opinion... I'd have to be convinced that my opinion wasn't right, which you haven't even started to do... basically this argument has been about semantics... and to say that we are elitist for having our own opinions, which we are not forcing on anyone, but just stating what we think and believe... I mean I thought that was a right of each person, freedom of opinion, free will, free thought... we're not looking down on others, we just have a different opinion, as do you, so in a sense, you could be called elitist for your own views, someone who thinks Danielle Steele is the best writer in the world, and say all the stuff we think is literature, she thinks it's crap... according to your definitions she is elitist too... This type of thinking is how the communism turned oppressive, how the ideas of utopias get mutated into saying everyone who thinks differently is elitist, and evil, and should be punished, oppressed for any originality, any freedom of thought... 

So as I said, I think you can't call someone elitist for voicing their opinion... maybe if in so doing they say that anyone who thinks different is stupid, yes that is elitist, but not just for saying what they think, while respecting what others think... 

back to topic, as JBI said, I think for any book to be great literature it has to be looked at for its merits outside of genre, not despite its genre as you said.. two very different things... I believe books have to transcend genres to be great literature and until someone convinces me otherwise this will not change...

cheers

----------


## ZoeyJuly

well i agree... srry had to say so.... i was bored

----------


## teejay17

While this is still King's generation (he's still alive and writing, so to speak), I don't think he'll ever truly be considered capital "L" literature. We'll leave that for the future generations of academics.
After all, professors in the future have to eat too!

----------


## ZoeyJuly

haha thats tru
big al and others should learn 2 take the high road... 
its really quite nice, good 4 biking... jk

----------


## billhicks

steven king is one of the most fantastic writers of our times
dickens was a popular writer in his time and i am pretty sure some day some kid is gonna get depsessed coz he has an essay due in on steven king.
the characterisation in his books is flawless, as is the dialouge.
the subjects he deals with in the books are vast, he is gennerally termed a horror writer but he is so much more.

take IT on the surface sur it a horror story about a clown whup de dooo
the real magic for me lies in the description of the kids playing in summer 
the comeradery one feels with those kinds of friends
the drifting away after school 
and the way you never really feel like that again 
universal you bet you *** it is

just finished blaze and its worth the cash, slightly sparse, and noirish .
the main character kidnaps a baby but you cant help rooting for him

----------


## Prole

I don't mind Stephen King from what I've read of him. He definately writes page turners, and I'm the first to admitting to being a snob about authors. Would I go out and buy a Stephen King book? No. But if its put in front of me I probably would. Its pulp, no arguement about that, but as JBI said one of the better bad authors.

----------


## NickAdams

> ...what genre would you place "don quixote" under ...


Meta-fiction, but for approach not content.

----------


## SirRaustusBear

Stephen King can occasionally write well, like the title chapter of Hearts in Atlantis, but I don't understand why people are saying his dialogue is wonderful. He insists on making his character use phrases that no one in the history of the world has ever said. "Bite my bag" as a comeback in Dreamcatcher comes to mind, as does the phrase "lay chilly" (meaning be cool) from the short story Gramma.

These made me wince while reading, and I still remember them years after reading the books, but not in a good way. So I have to disagree of the genius with dialogue thing.

----------


## Etienne

> For the most part, I agree with islandclimber, but I do have to add that King writes dialogue the way Mozart wrote music. He's a natural.
> 
> I think his works will live on for quite some time in the horror genre, but they'll never attain the status of "great literature."


Comparing King to Mozart?? :Eek:  

And do you mean to say that Mozart's works never attained the status of great music??

----------


## Etienne

> The post is self-explanatory. It says something about Stephen King, not about Mozart.


Yes but it traces a parallel between King and Mozart, and this I find a much doubtful and inappropriate comparison...

----------


## capek

King attains competence as a storyteller. But in no way, shape or form has he ever broken into the plane of Art or Literature.

----------


## JBI

> Yes but it traces a parallel between King and Mozart, and this I find a much doubtful and inappropriate comparison...


Comparing the best composer of all time (perhaps only rivaled by Beethoven) to a sub-par author is actually quite humorous. In terms of dialogue, he is, as he is with everything else, O.K. In terms of dialogue style, I think the best the world has seen is probably Terentino (his movies have amazing dialogue) and Hemmingway (especially his short stories).

----------


## teejay17

> Comparing the best composer of all time (perhaps only rivaled by Beethoven) to a sub-par author is actually quite humorous. In terms of dialogue, he is, as he is with everything else, O.K. In terms of dialogue style, I think the best the world has seen is probably Terentino (his movies have amazing dialogue) and Hemmingway (especially his short stories).


Are you suggesting that Tarantino is more literary than King?

----------


## Seabird111

I love Stephen King! I really don't like a lot of his new stuff, but his old stuff is some of the best writing out there. 

I particularly like Christine and IT. Carrie is pretty good too. I think King writes best when he's writing about children.

----------


## JBI

You did compare Mozart to King. You said Mozart, one of the most prolific and greatest composers, known for being able to write out full symphonies without revising, known for writing complete masterpieces almost over-night, and meanwhile creating some of the most enduring and inspirational music ever written, is a comparison at how natural King writes dialog. I admit, King doesn't revise his books, but that really comes from being over-confident, money hungry, and lazy, as apposed to being perfect the first time. King's dialog is not the best, nor is it even top 100. The fact that he spits so much of it out is where the comparison to Mozart ends.

His dialog is rubbish. For dialog to be good, one has to both balance revelation through dialog, as seen in the works of Shakespeare, and Ibsen, in addition to believable sound (I.E. people actually would say that, and do talk like that). I don't think King is good at that, nor much else. 

Regardless of this nitpick, the fact remains that even King's early work has begun to period-piece-afy before our eyes.

----------


## Drkshadow03

I'll start by adding I have not read all the posts in this thread. I read the first couple and the last couple.

I agree with JBI that comparing King to Mozart is ridiculous. 

As far as King's merits, well I think from the little I read that people are making certain assumptions about "time." It's true that to a certain degree time chooses what stays and what goes, mostly time demonstrates what literature has staying power.

However, we've since entered a literary period that has broken into specific genres ("story types/fields" might be more appropriate if you subscribe to the group who don't like using the word "genre" because of its other meanings). 

This is exactly the point that makes this argument a tad more complex. Not only is there a Canon of Great Literature as typically understood, but I think for lack of a better term there is also sub-Canons of particular genres. So horror fiction for example has its own "makeshift" Canon. Literally there are stories that would be recognizable within that field by the fans of that type of fiction as better and more important than others, relating to quality, originality, and influence. King was extremely influential and quite a few of his stories are fairly original whatever you might think of the writing itself. I suspect while the horror field exists and there are fans of horror fiction, Stephen King fiction isn't disappearing. 

Evidence in favor of my view. Well, there are plenty of New York Times Bestsellers or whatever Bestsellers publishing in the Seventies popular in their day who most of us have never heard of. If I raised the name most of us would probably scratch our heads and ask, "who?"

Notice we are still talking about Stephen King. Most people know who Stephen King is, while they'll probably have no clue who those other writers happen to be. The response then might be to suggest that is because King is still publishing, thus people are reading his latest offering and he remains in the limelight. But this doesn't explain why people still purchasing Carrie, one of his first novels published in the 1970s in a way that people generally do NOT buy Bestsellers Thriller novels from the 1970s (they instead by the latest thriller by the next big thing).

This isn't to say Stephen King is the equivalent of a James Joyce or a William Faulkner. What I am suggesting however with the points I raised is that there is something to King's popularity and that his older books haven't disappeared into the nether that is worth thinking about, that I think corresponds to the nature of the horror genre itself and this idea of sub-Canons.

Not to mention King has written a few stories particularly in the short story realm to show he does have talent beyond what he typically displays.

----------


## JBI

Hmm, I'm skeptical about the thought on sub-canons. Sooner or later I think all genres will just become one, as they seem to be starting to do now.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Hmm, I'm skeptical about the thought on sub-canons. Sooner or later I think all genres will just become one, as they seem to be starting to do now.


Evidence for this phenomenon? 

I don't see genres converging at all. I think it's just the opposite. There is a way in which all genres began as one (as far as we know) and they've converged out into their own little sub-categories. 

If they ever become one again I suspect it will be for two reasons: 1) People no longer read books at all of any genre literature or not. 2) The idea of a Canon in the first place has been dismantled.

----------


## PeterL

> Hmm, I'm skeptical about the thought on sub-canons. Sooner or later I think all genres will just become one, as they seem to be starting to do now.


It will be good when the artificial subdivision of fiction will come to an end. Even these fifty, or so, years have been too long. There are people who are afraid to read some good literature, because it is outside of their preferred sub-genres. Oh for the days when there will be two types of fiction: good and not quite as good.

----------


## teejay17

> Hmm, I'm skeptical about the thought on sub-canons. Sooner or later I think all genres will just become one, as they seem to be starting to do now.


In academia, the opposite is actually occurring: rather than having a unified, single Canon (capital C), there are instead propositions for alternative canons, and feminist canons, and gay/lesbian canons, and so on and so forth. Thus, although you're a skeptic of sub-canons, and I see the merit of your skepticism, I can't foresee one agreed on and unified canon in the foreseeable future.

----------


## JBI

> In academia, the opposite is actually occurring: rather than having a unified, single Canon (capital C), there are instead propositions for alternative canons, and feminist canons, and gay/lesbian canons, and so on and so forth. Thus, although you're a skeptic of sub-canons, and I see the merit of your skepticism, I can't foresee one agreed on and unified canon in the foreseeable future.


This is different. We are using sub-canon in different ways. I was alluding to a genre sub-canon, such as the Fantasy Canon, etc. Which, because of modern trends in writing, seems to be breaking with the destruction of the genre walls created in the 20th century, and the influx of mixed styles, as seen by magical realist and other post-modern movements.

The gay, female, racial, whatever canons aren't really sub-canons, they are more like critiques on the traditionally perceived canons, and desired additions by those academics who believe in that sort of critical approach. The feminist critic is still required to have a thorough grounding in non-female letters.

I can only talk from my experience, but the programs offered at my university (University of Toronto) don't allow for an undergraduate to only take feminist, or queer theorist courses. The program requires certain selections of courses, involving things like 1 Canadian/indigenous North American course, 1 theory course, 1 introduction course (only ones offered are the history of narrative, the Western Tradition, The Study of Literature, and The Performance of Literature, each of which take from a variety of sources. It is inevitable that a Canon will exist within these confines, and it is also inevitable that specialist courses will vary in the definition of the Canon from the traditional Canon. 

These however, are not sub-canons, but rather sub-aspects of the Western canon. The specialist courses in certain genres seem less popular, each, according to the course calendar in front of me, only available in one course, (one for sci-fi, one for mystery, one for fantasy, etc.) and not really focusing on the genre canon, but the genre relative to the western tradition and canon. And even then, these specified courses (according to their reading lists) deal with cross-over works that fall both within the western canon, and the perceived sub-canons. The theory of a canon headed by writers like Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks doesn't really exist within academic thought, and probably cannot exist, since it would most surely fail within 20 years.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> This is different. We are using sub-canon in different ways. I was alluding to a genre sub-canon, such as the Fantasy Canon, etc. Which, because of modern trends in writing, seems to be breaking with the destruction of the genre walls created in the 20th century, and the influx of mixed styles, as seen by magical realist and other post-modern movements.


I should point out that I was also bringing in fandom and average readers into the equation, not only what academia chooses to study. It is misleading I think to assume a work is Canonical simply because academia studies it. I would argue the first and most important definition and test of Canonical status is if a work has stood the test of time (literally are people still reading it twenty, thirty, a hundred years from now). 

Believe me I could probably write a paper analyzing Jordan's Wheel of Time and Brooks's Shannara series and get it published in a scholarly journal. If I wanted to I could probably teach a course on those books as well. So I think it is a mistake to put too much stock in what is getting taught. Either way it doesn't prove Jordan and Brooks have such a sub-Canonical status or that they do not. Personally, I think they'll both disappear after awhile, whereas I think King might last (emphasis on the word: "might").

I actually agree with you that the genre sub-canons that I mentioned don't get taught on a frequent basis. They exist more among readers of the genre. If you went to a genre convention for example most of the readers there would know what you're talking about if you mentioned those books. The same can also be said for much older works of genre fiction that were published forty/fifty/sixty years ago. This is an important hole in people's analysis on this topic I think because I doubt too many professor types attend genre conventions.

Ironically, what originally led me to this site was my frustration at the disconnect between academia and what the average reader actually reads and how they read. It's partly why I am here among many other reasons (such as I enjoy the intelligent conversation here, sometimes far more intelligent than anything you'd find in academia sadly enough).

My hypothesis is that a hundred years from now readers of that genre will STILL know what you're talking about when you say Stephen King. Can I prove that for certain? No. A hundred years has to pass and we'll both probably be dead. Might I be wrong? Sure. Thus why I am presenting it as a theory. 

In addition, it should be noted that many genres books that aren't taught in the class room frequently do in fact have some presence among scholars who are _specifically_ interested in those genres. One need only read scholarly books dealing with genre to see that there are certain books that are constantly mentioned (hence a de facto Canon), and often the discussions do NOT deal with such books' relationship to the broader Western Canon.

Then again, sometimes they do.

I also think it is a faulty assumption that feminist critics necessarily have a thorough background in "non-female" letters. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. This is not meant as a libel against feminists as many of them are very strong and effective scholars, but I've also met many a feminist critic who could care less about "non-female" letters and the value of such works, except for the purpose of exposing sexism. 

All of this intimates a more problematic assumption underlying your words: that literature professors necessarily have a thorough background in the Western Canon, whatever that might be, rather than their very narrow and very specific specializations. There is plenty of debate centered around this very topic. You could read Camille Paglia, E.D. Hirsch, and many others who claim I think convincingly from my own personal experiences that most professors and students have very little knowledge outside of their narrow niches. 

From my own experience most of my fellow graduate students, including myself in certain cases, did not have a very good background and understanding of literary periods, countries, or regions outside of our specialized areas. The same could be said for many of my professors (I focused on 19th and 20th century American, much broader than most people advised I should); I got the impression from talking with a lot of my American lit professors that few had much knowledge about British literature outside of the most rudimentary understanding. 

This is one reason for example that Master students with a strong background in American literature struggle on the English GRE, which is British heavy. 

You remind me a lot of a person I used to debate with on these very same topics over at the Other Fantasy section of Wotmania.com. He was also from Canada. I wonder if you're the same person. Probably not.  :FRlol:

----------


## JBI

Internet fandom canons aren't Canons. The term western Canon refers to a list of cross-genre books that are required reading in academic life, and study of literature. A person's 100 best novels lists don't count for anything, and don't count as a Canon. They simply are lists, being that they don't stand the test of time. The canonic traditions require that it be the foundation and accepted works of a specific group It isn't fair to say that Dan Brown is canonical literature amongst readers, despite his sales. I would say however, James Joyce is a canonical writer, despite his rather small readership, relative to other writers.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Internet fandom canons aren't Canons. The term western Canon refers to a list of cross-genre books that are required reading in academic life, and study of literature. A person's 100 best novels lists don't count for anything, and don't count as a Canon. They simply are lists, being that they don't stand the test of time. The canonic traditions require that it be the foundation and accepted works of a specific group It isn't fair to say that Dan Brown is canonical literature amongst readers, despite his sales. I would say however, James Joyce is a canonical writer, despite his rather small readership, relative to other writers.


Who said anything about internet Canons? Where in any of my posts have I spoken specifically about internet canons? 

Anyway if you're done putting words into my mouth and making strawman arguments, you'll notice what I actually referred to was larger fandom, not specifically internet fandom. There is no denying that a de facto Canon exists among fans of science fiction and fantasy. There are some works that are simply known by all serious fans, that are of a higher quality, that are more important (you know typical criteria for a Canon). It is also no coincidence that many of the works I would place in such a genre Canon are the ones being studied by scholars (read: academics) in Scholarly Journals of Fantasy  and Science Fiction. So scholars and fans often have the same understanding of what constitutes the important works within genre. 

Gee, I don't know sounds like a Canon to me. 

You have no evidence that such works haven't or will not stand the test of time (certainly many of these works are equally as old if not older than certain literary works that have been Canonized such as works by Philip Roth, Don DeLillo, Ernest Hemingway). The point here is that there are quite a few works pushing 50+ years that both scholars and general readers interested in the field STILL read, and are considered seminal works in the field.

As far as top 100 lists in general. Sure, Joe Schmoe's top 100 favorite novels list posted on the internet shouldn't be understood as any sort of official list. Of course I never actually said that, but that's beside the point. However, there are many literature top 100 lists that quite obviously are meant to be taken as Canonical and authoritative.

Modern Library's Top 100 Novel list

The Novel 100: A Ranking of the Great Novels of All Time by Daniel S. Burt. 




> The canonic traditions require that it be the foundation and accepted works of a specific group


Precisely! That's EXACTLY the point! Most works that would probably belong on a Sci-fi Canon (some obvious ones): Frank Herbet's *Dune*, Orson Scott Card's *Ender's Game*, Philip K. Dick's *The Man in the High Castle*, Joanna Russ's *The Female Man* fit this criteria, foundational works within the genre, accepted by both fans, readers, and scholars working on genre fiction as their area of specialty (hence a specific group). 

Notice you also use the word, "traditions" (emphasis on the "s" at the end). What I've been suggesting this whole time is that certain genres have not only interactions with the larger Canon (as you stated yourself), but also intertextuality within their own genres and their own specific histories and play around with their own intra-genre tropes.

I think Science Fiction, Fantasy, and horror in particular are different from Romance and thriller genres partially because they do in fact deal with deep ideas and issues (even, though, a great deal of those stories are also "gee whiz look at the neat gadget pulp adventures"). Many of them are in fact doing more than just trying to be entertaining or make money (why someone would turn to genre to make money is beyond me as it generally pays poorly) and have some very thought-provoking ideas in a way certain other sub-genres simply do not. 

I'm NOT saying they are part of THE Canon. I am not saying there aren't certain works that are better than others between Canons and within Canons. I am NOT saying Philip K. Dick is superior to James Joyce. I am NOT saying that a great deal of genre work is in fact poorly written. What I am saying is it seems quite obvious that a de facto Canon of genre works does exist hidden behind all the popular works at the moment (a core set of books that have stood the test of time within the genre thus far), and while these genres exist those de facto Canons will remain and the works that make up those lists will also last. 

Now if you truly believe genres are disappearing and these works will disappear because those genre histories will become meaningless from this process, you may in fact be right. I am not so sure that is really happening however. I think the genre interaction has opened up quite a bit and let a lot of writers into the fold who wouldn't have found a place for their work a few years back (too literary for some genre fans, too genre for typical literary readers), but I also see Magic Realism as its own special phenomenon, not necessarily evidence that genre fiction is going the way of the dodo.

----------


## teejay17

> As a fiction editor, I think genre fiction is alive and flourishing. Though I only edit literary fiction, most of the fiction that comes in is genre fiction. Some large and small houses handle only genre fiction. There's a great demand for it, much more so than literary fiction.


It's interesting that you are an editor of literary fiction, but do see the value of genre fiction generally, and King's work specifically. 
Can you foresee a time when genre fiction won't be scoffed at because it is indeed "genre" fiction? Also, there are some good examples of writing that transcend the latter and become a part of the former: Ursula K. LeGuin and Harlan Ellison immediately come to mind.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> It's interesting that you are an editor of literary fiction, but do see the value of genre fiction generally, and King's work specifically. 
> Can you foresee a time when genre fiction won't be scoffed at because it is indeed "genre" fiction? Also, there are some good examples of writing that transcend the latter and become a part of the former: Ursula K. LeGuin and Harlan Ellison immediately come to mind.


Ellison is extremely hit-or-miss. His best work is timeless, in my opinion, and is some of the best short fiction ever written. However, about 90% of his short stories that fill out his collections tends to feel horribly dated and overly "gee whiz! Ain't that neat!" pulp adventures.

But I agree that when Ellison is ON, he is really ON in his fiction.

----------


## cipherdecoy

What's the big deal about him? I haven't read any of his books, but I want to know if in your opinion, his works have literary merit, and if not, why he receives so many accolades.

Thanks.

----------


## Jozanny

He is popular because he understands working class pragmatism, and respects it, in the same way that Henry James understood the Victorian upper caste. King's work endures because his fantasy credibly upends the no nonsense working class sensibility. You can see this in all of his protagonists. Carrie is the outcast who satisfyingly takes revenge on the high school pecking order. Cujo is the everyman's dog who is supposed to be a loyal friend, not a demon. Pet Sementary is about that same American everyman who gets sucked into an immortality which may not be a very good thing. The janitor in the green mile (I think) gains power which challenges what he had been certain of as an old man.

The problem with King, even at his best, is that he is oversimplistic about good, evil, and messianic triumph--and he wrote (and may still write) a lot of trash which probably only gets published because he is the author of Carrie and Salem's Lot.

I've had enough, and working class though I be, prefer the enduring riches of an aesthete like Henry James.

----------


## Pecksie

You guys are probably going to ostracize me  :FRlol: , but I've actually liked the few books of his that I read.

I know there's been some sort of controversy going on about King since someone (I think it was Harold Bloom) objected to his being admitted to the American Writers' Association, or being awarded some distinction, or something like that (as you can see, I'm not clear about the specifics  :FRlol:  ).

But I agree with an assertion I read somewhere, that the originality or merit of his works (which are not the ordinary horror fare) lies in that he perverts the American middle class world, turns it upside down (this has been already mentioned by Jozanny), and makes commonplace people and things become sinister. And this never happens suddenly, as might be expected of a lesser writer - creepiness and evilness are built little by little, by accumulation of details and little events... and tension also builds slowly but steadily... Maybe that's what's so interesting about King: his ability to show us the American dream gone horribly wrong. 

That said, I must admit I wouldn't like to sleep in the bed of a guy who can think up such hair-raising stuff  :Alien:

----------


## Tersely

> You guys are probably going to ostracize me , but I've actually liked the few books of his that I read.


I really think that's with any author. A lot of works can be hit or miss, whether it's Stephen king or Charles Dickens. 
My opinion is try him out, it won't hurt. I'd start with his more popular and well known novels before really exploring the rest. Trying Salems Lot, Carrie, Pet Sematary, ect. You can even look him up on amazon and see what books people rate better then others. 
Personally, I like him. I wish a lot more people would stop being so pretentious about his work and just try him.

----------


## Jozanny

I will admit that I genuinely like one King shorter story, _The Long Walk_. It is well paced, and I found it a credible alternate reality that did not rely on the usual bag of tricks that King shakes up for his output, but the end of it was a kind of sputtering mea culpa which was a tad confusing.

_Carrie_, is a minor commercial masterpiece. Misogynist? Perhaps. I argued that in another forum, but the story works, scared the wits out of me when I read it at 14, and Sissy Spacek made the role her own, but like I indicated in my first post, King publishes too much material that is utterly ridiculous, and doesn't know when to quit.

_The Stand_, which his fans ooo ah and goo goo about, is nothing more than an overwrought retelling of apocalypse followed by creationist rebirth. I hate it. All those characters developed for what? To battle a devil and win and woohoo, humanity gets a second shot.

And with some of his novels, you are better off leaving for classic cartoons like Bugs Bunny. Far too many to list.

----------


## EricP

Even though King is the only famous person from my state, I must admit that I haven't read anything by him since I was in high school. I do respect him, though, because he has given a lot back to Maine. He's donated millions to the state university system, art and reading programs, and public libraries.

----------


## ravilobo

If I could change one thing, I would probably wish Stephen King to be a normal writer than a horror writer. King is a talented writer, unforutantely most of his stuff is supernatural. 
However some of the movies based on his books are great movies. For e.g. Shawshank Redemption , Green Mile , and Hearts in Atlantis.
I read green mile. There is a little bit of supernatural stuff, still it is a good book. 
I abolutely dont like horror , sci-fi, travelling into past/future literature. However King has a good style. His book  On Writing is a nice book. I want to give him one more try.
Could any one suggest me his normal books (no horror/no super natural)?

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

I think this is one of the problems with the publishing world you can easily get 'stuck' in a particular genre, you build up a fan base and all the publisher is interested in is when the next horror novel is ready. I guess though that he has enough money to break from the genre and write what he wants, should he so wish, but I doubt he would sell many copies should he announce to the world that his next book is a romance! 

It is a long time since I read anything by Stephen King, over ten years, but I seem to recall (at that age) I thought he a fair enough writer, though his plots would soon turn crazy in order to conform to the wants and constraints of the genre - shame.

----------


## Captain Trips

Different Seasons is good, it is a collection of four novellas including The Body and Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redmeption, which are both excellent. I am reading Blaze right now, and although its not as well written as some of his later stuff, it has a really good story and I am really enjoying it.

----------


## Dark Muse

There is nothing wrong with horror and there is nothing wrong with a writer choosing to write in the horror genere, or any other genre, just becasue one person might not like it , does not mean they should not write in that genre anymore

----------


## MattG

> If I could change one thing, I would probably wish Stephen King to be a normal writer than a horror writer.


I think, perhaps, the problem with your statement is twofold. First, why would you classify horror or the supernatural as abnormal? Horror happens around us everyday as does a belief in things supernatural (consult your favorite religion). Writing about those things isn't abnormal. 

Secondly, I think it's difficult to classify 'horror' as a genre. What makes a horror book? Generally, a horror book is like any other book in that there is a theme, there are characters, there is a progression of story and there is an outcome. The horror aspect of any given work is fleeting and momentary. Would you consider Dicken's A Christmas Carol a horror book, for example? What about Puzo's The Godfather? Certainly horrific things happen in either of those books. 

One could create quite a long list of King's work that has nothing whatever to do with the supernatural. The same could be said for his work that probably shouldn't fit into the common perception of what a horror novel is comprised of.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> I think, perhaps, the problem with your statement is twofold. First, why would you classify horror or the supernatural as abnormal? Horror happens around us everyday as does a belief in things supernatural (consult your favorite religion). Writing about those things isn't abnormal.


I think to defend the threat starter though he did state that he didn't like horror novels "I abolutely dont like horror, sci-fi, travelling into past/future literature". With it he is not necessarily attacking the genre (however you define it) but merely stating personal preference. 

For me too I have read and seen some films based upon King's novels and feel that they are weakened at times by some bizarre supernatural encounters, reminds me a bit of X-files. At times you have a fairly good episode involving a serial killer and then it turns out to be a bounty-hunting alien who can transform appearance at will!

----------


## ravilobo

Thank you for saving me Neely. 

I don’t have anything against horror /sci-fi books. By choice I don’t like them. Harry Potter is a widely famous series. However that is not my cup of tea. 

I don’t want to totally ignore King, because he is a talented writer. Since I have a taste for non-horror/ non sci-fi literature, I am looking for the ones written by King.

----------


## MattG

Sorry, didn't mean to come off as prickly as I did.  :Smile: 

Dolores Claiborne and Misery are good ones, neither are supernatural but one is scary (Misery).

The Shining does have supernatural elements but it's primarily about a man's battle with himself. 

Cujo isn't supernatural, but has some horror elements. 

Gerald's Game is a good one too, nothing supernatural there. 

I think King's literary Kung-Fu is really that he understands people and every one of his characters are interesting. I would agree that sometimes the stories themselves turn south but his characters are always fun to read about. 

King has a lot of short stories too that would possibly fit your criteria. They are probably further and fewer between though and you'd have to buy 10 you wouldn't like to read one that you might like.

----------


## ravilobo

> Dolores Claiborne and Misery ....


Thank you for suggesting - Dolores Claiborne and Misery. They look like my kind of books. I read the review on Amazon, the books have been appreciated by non-regular- King readers. 

On the other hand I am skeptic about -Gerlads Game. I will finish the other two first and comeback to this one.

----------


## MattG

> Thank you for suggesting - Dolores Claiborne and Misery. They look like my kind of books. I read the review on Amazon, the books have been appreciated by non-regular- King readers. 
> 
> On the other hand I am skeptic about -Gerlads Game. I will finish the other two first and comeback to this one.


Yeah, Gerald's Game is an odd one. If you were to read it casually it might not seem all that brilliant. If, on the other hand, you were to picture yourself in the place of the protagonist and apply your own experience as you go, you might come away with a better picture of yourself than you had prior to reading. I've personally never strayed far from the idea that reality is very thin... particularly the reality constructs of society, the illusion of safety etc. 

The other two are quite brilliant in a different way. Be sure you catch Dolores Claiborne on DVD if you get a chance (after reading of course). There is an inspired cat and mouse game going on that underpins the entire plot. The film catches it and really brings it to light but perhaps in a more salient way to those who have read the book. 

Happy reading!

----------


## ravilobo

> Happy reading!


My office is right across  Borders. Just bought both the books. (Misery, Dolores). I am also reading at the moment  Hearts in atlantis. Even that one is good. I loved the movie. 

Thank you again.

----------


## MattG

> Hearts in atlantis. Even that one is good. I loved the movie. 
> 
> Thank you again.


That one is a small part of the much larger "Dark Tower" series. It almost stands on its own but a real understanding of who the low men are would ... 

never mind, shouldn't say too much if you're not done yet.

----------


## ravilobo

> That one is a small part of the much a real understanding of who the low men are would ...


I have seen the movie. The low men dont really make much difference. Somewhere I had read that in the movie low men refer to  intelligent agency like FBI or CIA. 

But the in the book version they are aliens or similar things. 

I am sad that low men had to be aliens (where as the movie version looks more real). 

The book has 5 stories. Is any of them has horror/sci-fi/aliens? Please tell me, so that I can skip it.

----------


## MattG

> I have seen the movie. The low men dont really make much difference. Somewhere I had read that in the movie low men refer to  intelligent agency like FBI or CIA. 
> 
> But the in the book version they are aliens or similar things. 
> 
> I am sad that low men had to be aliens (where as the movie version looks more real). 
> 
> The book has 5 stories. Is any of them has horror/sci-fi/aliens? Please tell me, so that I can skip it.


They are not aliens. King's Dark Tower series presents an alternative universe that exists alongside the one we live in. Odd occurrences, unexplainable phenomena etc are sometimes the result of the universes overlapping (as it's germane to the canon of this story). The low men have a specific function and it's far afield from what you've said you're interested in. 

That being said, I don't think Hearts in Atlantis goes very far at all into explaining who or what they are (been a while since I've read it). That story focuses mostly on Bobby & Brautigan if I remember correctly. There will be some things that will remain unexplained to you at the end of the book, low men included.

----------


## SirRaustusBear

I havn't read the dark tower series but I read Hearts in Atlantis and the only story that I remember having aliens or whatever the low men are is the first one. The second story, the one called Hearts in Atlantis, is great and realisic. Its my favorite thing Stephen King has written and really worth reading.

----------


## ravilobo

Thank you guys.

----------


## papayahed

Eye of the Dragon was pretty good - or was that Talisman? both were more on the fantasy side though.

----------


## MangoAmane

Hey! I'm reading Cell by Stephen King right now and I thought it'd be cool if there was a Stephen King discussion here.... =)

----------


## dfloyd

but he really is a good writer, combining reality with mysticism. I particlarly liked Thinner and On Writing.

----------


## MangoAmane

Why would people look down on him? o.O

----------


## kevinthediltz

He pushes out stories from the top of his head like a catholic family pushes out babies.
He has a few good books. The green mile, shawshank redemption, and a few others. But alot of them are just forced out of him so he can make more money.

----------


## jon1jt

When Stephen King dies the Barnes & Noble Co ought to buy his corpse and mount it in one of their cafes with a sign that reads, 

*The Undisputed King Of Pop*


 :Rolleyes:

----------


## kevinthediltz

THAT^^^ made me laugh.

----------


## Stella Mica

i love king! Esp his nonfiction, but Pet Semetary remains the scariest book I ever read, and i still can't watch The Shining -- even the TV version! he is underrated.

----------


## kevinthediltz

No doubt he is a great writer. But there is also no doubt that he pushes alot of books out for money.

----------


## JBI

> When Stephen King dies the Barnes & Noble Co ought to buy his corpse and mount it in one of their cafes with a sign that reads, 
> 
> *The Undisputed King Of Pop*


Nah, he's a writer, the term is pulp.

----------


## Stella Mica

If only I could do the same!

----------


## jon1jt

> Nah, he's a writer, the term is pulp.


Charles Bukowski, Jack London, O Henry, Kurt Vonnegut, are members of that group called pulp writers. With all due respect, you are delusional giving King that label.

I predict in less than 100 years all Stephen King books will be gone from the shelves of public libraries and bookstores, and his contribution to literature with it. 

Stephen King better be enjoying all that money that he can't seem to get enough of. When he writes something substantial do let me know.

----------


## JBI

> Charles Bukowski, Jack London, O Henry, Kurt Vonnegut, are members of that group called pulp writers. With all due respect, you are delusional giving King that label.
> 
> I predict in less than 100 years all Stephen King books will be gone from the shelves of public libraries and bookstores, and his contribution to literature with it. 
> 
> Stephen King better be enjoying all that money that he can't seem to get enough of. When he writes something substantial do let me know.


Recycling is a beautiful thing. All old books at booksales that don't sell just end up being crumbled down. That will happen to King too - you'd be surprised at the amount of "popular" authors' books that get recycled.

----------


## jon1jt

> Recycling is a beautiful thing. All old books at booksales that don't sell just end up being crumbled down. That will happen to King too - you'd be surprised at the amount of "popular" authors' books that get recycled.


King will die knowing that, in spite of all his wealth and pop fame, that he took advantage of the public. And yet in years to come nobody will remember a single word he wrote, or even his name, because his life's work went into the black hole of history---onto that ash heap of chameleon turd.

It's better to die once a nobody having pursued a substantial end than to have lived one hundred lives a hack.  :Wink:

----------


## Jeremiah Jazzz

His work has always entertained me, from a young age at that. I started reading King when I was in middle school and as it is with all pop lit, it sparked the flame of wonder and interest in reading which I think is a great thing. So he's not totally useless..

----------


## Drkshadow03

> King will die knowing that, in spite of all his wealth and pop fame, that he took advantage of the public. And yet in years to come nobody will remember a single word he wrote, or even his name, because his life's work went into the black hole of history---onto that ash heap of chameleon turd.
> 
> It's better to die once a nobody having pursued a substantial end than to have lived one hundred lives a hack.


Maybe. I predict while Horror exists as a separate genre, and a specific fandom exists around that genre, Stephen King isn't going anywhere.

----------


## JBI

> Maybe. I predict while Horror exists as a separate genre, and a specific fandom exists around that genre, Stephen King isn't going anywhere.


I will dispute that. I think horror, as a genre will evolve. Certainly Mad Shadows is a better psychological horror than It and about 1/5th the length. Gothicism in general is a prevalent style in Canadian fiction, especially French Canadian, and there are very many accessible Horror texts, which are not pop, and which are great reads. Kamouraska, for instance, is a better psychological horror text. Whereas Lovecraft perhaps will exist in the future, King I don't think will. He isn't as central to the genre, and I doubt will age well. But that is all just a guess - chances are, I'll be the only one here reading French Canadian Gothic fiction, when all those names have faded. Who can tell?

In terms of horror existing as a separate genre, that is bound to die. All separate genre eventually mix into a mainstream genre, before being broken up into new genre. The Historical Romance, or the country novel, for instance, have faded, as have the popular Gothic romances, morality tales, and even, I would argue, the original concept of Science Fiction (though perhaps you can argue differently, given that you are more qualified than me on the subject). 

The marketing power of King will ultimately die with his death. After that, there will be no real advertisement of his works, as scholars don't particularly support him, and the next generation will certainly not, if what I sense about new trends in criticism is true. The only possibility of him surviving really, is to be adopted by those who would advertise his books, either publishing firms, or academic critics. The papers that advertise and critique popular novels will only really support new novels, so the only hope he has, outside of academic circles, is a sustained influence on future writers. Is that possible? Gene Wolfe, I can see as maybe fulfilling that, Lovecraft certainly, Zelazny, hopefully, Le Guin, definitely, but King? I'm not to sure.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I will dispute that. I think horror, as a genre will evolve. Certainly Mad Shadows is a better psychological horror than It and about 1/5th the length. Gothicism in general is a prevalent style in Canadian fiction, especially French Canadian, and there are very many accessible Horror texts, which are not pop, and which are great reads. Kamouraska, for instance, is a better psychological horror text. Whereas Lovecraft perhaps will exist in the future, King I don't think will. He isn't as central to the genre, and I doubt will age well. But that is all just a guess - chances are, I'll be the only one here reading French Canadian Gothic fiction, when all those names have faded. Who can tell?
> 
> In terms of horror existing as a separate genre, that is bound to die. All separate genre eventually mix into a mainstream genre, before being broken up into new genre. The Historical Romance, or the country novel, for instance, have faded, as have the popular Gothic romances, morality tales, and even, I would argue, the original concept of Science Fiction (though perhaps you can argue differently, given that you are more qualified than me on the subject). 
> 
> The marketing power of King will ultimately die with his death. After that, there will be no real advertisement of his works, as scholars don't particularly support him, and the next generation will certainly not, if what I sense about new trends in criticism is true. The only possibility of him surviving really, is to be adopted by those who would advertise his books, either publishing firms, or academic critics. The papers that advertise and critique popular novels will only really support new novels, so the only hope he has, outside of academic circles, is a sustained influence on future writers. Is that possible? Gene Wolfe, I can see as maybe fulfilling that, Lovecraft certainly, Zelazny, hopefully, Le Guin, definitely, but King? I'm not to sure.


Oh, I don't know. There are a cadre of scholars working in academia who respect King. People are still writing criticism about his books in the form of peer-reviewed articles, popular articles, dissertations, and book after all these years at rates similar to Lovecraft, LeGuin, and Zelazny. I know, I checked MLA database, and the amount of articles they have indexed for each of those authors are all similar in numbers. So there are people writing positively about King who rank him highly. 

Add on the fact that he has won quite a few prestigious literary awards outside and within the genre, has had a few his works included in the only "list" of top Horror novel thus far written (thus making it a standard for new readers looking to get into horror), and I think there is ample evidence that King may in fact survive for some time. But I could be wrong.

----------


## bluevictim

> King will die knowing that, in spite of all his wealth and pop fame, that he took advantage of the public.


You make it sound like King somehow scammed the public or something. As far as I can tell, his only crime is that he writes books that people want to buy. Why shouldn't he be proud of that on his death bed?

----------


## Emmy Castrol

Trash. And I can't stand how he dumbs down his characters to get a story going.

----------


## kevinthediltz

^Its because he is just forcing more s**t out of his brain to collect his next paycheck.

----------


## JBI

In terms of literary vision, he is the human manifestation of what Coleridge called fancy, a mediocre rehasher of others' ideas.

----------


## 1n50mn14

Stephen King... oh, Stephen King...

I read one story I enjoyed, that being the short story 'The Langoliers'. I mainly enjoyed just... the idea of it, as it played off of some _personal_ fears. However, his writing style is terrible, his ideas are... well, not at all horrific, or original. There are a few little things of his that I like though, such as the brackets of a characters thoughts vs. what they are actually saying.

----------


## jon1jt

> You make it sound like King somehow scammed the public or something. As far as I can tell, his only crime is that he writes books that people want to buy. Why shouldn't he be proud of that on his death bed?



That's the same as saying that that it was okay that not a single US journalist or prime time anchor publicly spoke against the US decision to invade Iraq. I hope Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are not proud of that on their death beds. 

Authors have a MORAL responsibility to educate and inspire their readership, not feed them junk all the time. Burger King, McDonalds, and Kentucky Fried Chicken do enough of that anyway.




> know, I checked MLA database, and the amount of articles they have indexed for each of those authors are all similar in numbers. So there are people writing positively about King who rank him highly.


And since when have the particular interest of a bunch of scholars demonstrated anything meaningful about a writer besides whose little a ss they're kissing at any given moment? It's trendy to write about King, like it was trendy for many colleges to offer Madonna Studies when she was the flavor of the month. C'mon. I love how you MLS guys go to your database for questions that are better answered with common sense.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## JBI

Her tears fell with the dews at even;
Her tears fell ere the dews were dried;
She could not look on the sweet heaven,
Either at morn or eventide.
After the flitting of the bats,
When thickest dark did trance the sky,
She drew her casement-curtain by,
And glanced athwart the glooming flats.
She only said, 'The night is dreary,
He cometh not,' she said;
She said, 'I am aweary, aweary,
I would that I were dead!'


From Mariana by Tennyson


Where's the politics there? Though I agree with you, that in a way King doesn't really have any grounding in contemporary politics within his novel, necessary to make them immediately relevant, I do think that that isn't necessarily a problem.

In prose most certainly you need a tinge of political flare - it seems all great novelists have had such an insight. 

Certainly though, the lack of female insight within his texts is a problem. And certainly, he is the status quo, mainstream American fiction writer, who doesn't address minorities much, or anything outside of his mainstream focalization, but I'm not sure if that is excuse enough to dismiss him.

He doesn't though, I will argue, have the creative inspirational capability to, to borrow Abrams metaphor, light a lamp on the world. I don't think he has the capacity to make one feel a sense of emotional overpowering, the way some of Munro's stories make me feel. He certainly doesn't have an innovation of technique, as exemplified in innovators like Munro again, and Marie-Claire Blais, or even mainstreamish figures like Philip Roth (who seems to bridge the Judeo-American style of Yiddish culture into the 21st century). 

Character too seems weak. He most certainly isn't Zola, or Dickens in that regard (two authors just as popular in their life times as he is now). 

To me though, coming from an ex-centric (to use Linda Hutcheon's term) Canadian position, he seems the epitome of the American consciousness at the current moment. And that sort of fuzzy lack of drive, that come with the mechanization of a culture after Vietnam. 

On the other hand, he does get people reading, which is worth something. Perhaps they may go on to read books that will later in life help them realize King's mediocrity. I started off, strangely enough, when I was 10-11 reading Young Female Adult novels by a Canadian sci-fi author called Monica Hughes, and I moved on, so perhaps there is that (though, I moved on mostly by chance, stumbling upon a copy of Onegin, and giving it a try). There is that.

But my problem with him, I think, is that he really pushes people out of the way. So much shelf room is given to his books, yet so little to great authors, generally all ex-centrics. It seems there really hasn't been a mainstream acceptance of ex-centric authors, even within a society that preaches pluralism. Grisham, Roberts, Clancy, Brown, King, etc. all seem to be immensely popular, yet all happen to be mainstream American creations, and Mainstream American in appearance.

That being said, it isn't fair to bash him on those grounds. One should just leave him at mediocre, and say that he doesn't address real issues in his work, unless they are sensationalistically portrayed, and without much ground. Certainly he is not an academic, or innovative writer, and certainly he is more business oriented, I would argue, than craft oriented, though I think he imagines himself a great author.

The thing that bugs me the most though, is New York Times' insistence on printing his reviews of other mediocre novelists, from J. K. Rowling to Twilight. But, I guess they don't really review books to begin with, so what's the real harm.

----------


## bluevictim

> That's the same as saying that that it was okay that not a single US journalist or prime time anchor publicly spoke against the US decision to invade Iraq. I hope Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are not proud of that on their death beds. 
> 
> Authors have a MORAL responsibility to educate and inspire their readership, not feed them junk all the time. Burger King, McDonalds, and Kentucky Fried Chicken do enough of that anyway.


That's an interesting perspective. Your view on the moral responsibility of authors seems a bit idiosyncratic, and I'm not sure I know what you mean by educating and inspiring the readership. It seems to me that the devotion of his fan base is evidence that he does inspire his readership, but obviously you mean something else by "inspire". As for education, I don't really find any other writer of fiction that is significantly more educational. I'm guessing that you don't mean to make writers like Tom Clancy (whose books can be quite educational about military technology) a model of fulfilling the moral responsibilities of authors, so I would guess you have something more specific in mind when you say "educate" as well. I'd be interested to know what exactly you mean by "educate and inspire" and why you think it is the author's moral responsibility.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> That's the same as saying that that it was okay that not a single US journalist or prime time anchor publicly spoke against the US decision to invade Iraq. I hope Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are not proud of that on their death beds.


Again, this is an emotional appeal to play on people's opinions about a political issue and a poor analogy. There is no logical connection between the moral duties of an author and the moral duties of a journalist. One writes imaginary stories that are supposed to reflect reality, the other is supposed to accurately report on events happening in reality. 




> Authors have a MORAL responsibility to educate and inspire their readership, not feed them junk all the time. Burger King, McDonalds, and Kentucky Fried Chicken do enough of that anyway.


Not necessarily. As an inspiring writer myself I feel no moral responsibility to educate and inspire my readership, although it depends what you mean by that. However, I don't see my work as Dead Poet's Society lite. No one is going to finish reading one of my stories, jump on their desk, and start declaring, "Oh, captain. My Captain." 

Now I'm certainly saying stuff about the world in my stories, but my primary purpose is still to entertain my reader and to hopefully make a few bucks for my time and effort.






> And since when have the particular interest of a bunch of scholars demonstrated anything meaningful about a writer besides whose little a ss they're kissing at any given moment? It's trendy to write about King, like it was trendy for many colleges to offer Madonna Studies when she was the flavor of the month. C'mon. I love how you MLS guys go to your database for questions that are better answered with common sense.


I'm not only an MLS. I also have an English degree and a history background. And I clean windows!

If read in context as a response to JBI, my comments all make perfect sense. He claimed that the only way King could survive is for academics to continue commenting on his work. Then he gave some names of genre authors he thinks may survive the test of time: LeGuin, Zelazny, or Lovecraft more. So it was worth pointing out that when one looks objectively at the number of scholarly works written about these authors, they are on par with the scholarly works written about King. Secondly, it was worth reminding everyone who likes to make broad comments like, "Academics reject King" that academics are not a hivemind that all agree with each other. 

I wasn't just looking in those databases as some sort of librarian reflex response. What evidence do you have that King scholarship is a flavor of the week phenomenon. Most academics loathe him, but there are a cadre of academics who think he should be added to the Canon or at least should be studied in academia. According to the literature, this argument has been happening for 20 years ongoing. How is that a flavor of the week?

Besides if it isn't academics who get to decide, the average reader, or fandom, who exactly gets to decide what is sticking around? 

As usual your comments are personal attacks against academics and librarians. You have no evidence for anything you claimed above. There really isn't much substance to it. Just quick little zingers: academics = brown-nosers, librarians = people who hide in their databases and lack common sense. Even as you yourself show little understanding for the reasons why I turned to the database and reported back what I did, which was explained above and is ultimately based on common sense: let's look at how much academics are in fact writing about King in relation to these other authors my interlocutor mentioned as worthy of academic attention and see if it is in fact true that academia is completely ignoring King.

----------


## JBI

It seems, from browsing bibliography, there are in fact, book length works on Stephen King.

The primary trend seems to be, that they all criticize him as popular fiction, and a large portion of them take a psychoanalytical angle to his more "horror" works. Generally, it seems most people are preoccupied with his horror books, with many titles comparing him to Mary Shelley. I, however, can't really find a critical work that really goes beyond that niche. I have read the word "double" too many times now, to know that there is some sort of onedimensionalism going on.

On another note, just from reading the titles, it seems a large majority of feminist critics are taking issue with him. Still reading in that Freudian vein though, you get interesting titles like this:

The Rape of the Constant Reader: Stephen King's Construction of the Female Reader and Violation of the Female Body in Misery 

Cars Are Girls: Sexual Power and Sexual Panic in Stephen King's Christine

Stephen King's Misery: Freudian Sexual Symbolism and the Battle of the Sexes

On Stephen King's Phallus: Or, The Postmodern Gothic

Take Me for a Ride in Your Man-Eater: Gynophobia in Stephen King's Christine

The Face of Mr. Flip': Homophobia in the Horror of Stephen King

Stephen King's Dark and Terrible Mother, Annie Wilkes



Either way, none of these critics are really read critics from what I can tell (there may have been a few I missed), and, none of them seem to be making any canonical claims, or claims about his status (there is the odd one who writes a book called "The Art of Stephen King" or something). But I don't see an F. R. Leavis really championing his work, and the bulk of the criticism tries to put him in line more or less with other horror authors, despite the fact that he writes a large amount of non-horror texts. I think then, it is safe to say at least, there is somewhat a rejection of at least part of his oeuvre.

Either way, it is too early to tell - he is still with us. There was, of course, this much criticism written on Harry Potter, and on countless other big names. I don't, however, see much championing of his works, in terms of canonical thought. The bulk of these critics probably don't even believe in canons.

It will be interesting to see. One can already see an ebb in the popularity of his earlier work, and it would seem he has already become too much of a convention to grow anymore during his lifetime. I can't see him really lasting for more than 1-2 books, and even if he does, I can't see that coming at the expense of another author, given that there are so many great American writers today. I have yet to see a book title that calls him a great original - most seem to throw him in line with Shelley and Poe, which is disheartening, given that if you are so in line, you are, as I said, all fancy. 

Is there an academic acceptance? Perhaps on one level - there are critics who write about popular fiction, especially American ones, and who jump upon the most popular book of the moment. The MLA Bibliography gave me hits on searches like Nora Roberts, and John Grisham, in addition to Tom Clancy, so he isn't alone (though I guess there has been more work done on him).

I don't particularly think he can really get out of an American context, and I'm not to sure he could possibly be canonized into another language or country's tradition. I stick by what I said earlier, about how he is the embodiment of the mainstream American consciousness. When that shifts however, I don't know what will be left.

----------


## mayneverhave

It's quite sad really. The majority of adults that I know that read (which is pitifully few, unfortunately - and I'm talking outside of my university academic circles) tend to only read in the vein of Stephen King, which is unfortunate given that (if they are related to me) they have a relative who is relatively knowledgeable in the area of literature, and therefore should know better. 

For some reason, however, people seem to be really put off when you tell them that what they are reading is trash. Oh well.

----------


## jon1jt

> (there is the odd one who writes a book called "The Art of Stephen King" or something). But I don't see an F. R. Leavis really championing his work, and the bulk of the criticism tries to put him in line more or less with other horror authors, despite the fact that he writes a large amount of non-horror texts. I think then, it is safe to say at least, there is somewhat a rejection of at least part of his oeuvre.
> 
> Either way, it is too early to tell - he is still with us. There was, of course, this much criticism written on Harry Potter, and on countless other big names. I don't, however, see much championing of his works, in terms of canonical thought. The bulk of these critics probably don't even believe in canons.


Interesting post, JBI. I just checked out Wiki and about 90% of King's work is classified under horror. How's about the title, Pop Supernatural Junk?





> Nora Roberts, and John Grisham


I hope on their death beds they regret every book they pawned off on the public. 




> I don't particularly think he can really get out of an American context, and I'm not to sure he could possibly be canonized into another language or country's tradition. I stick by what I said earlier, about how he is the embodiment of the mainstream American consciousness. When that shifts however, I don't know what will be left.


What will be left: pigeon doo. 





> That's an interesting perspective. Your view on the moral responsibility of authors seems a bit idiosyncratic, and I'm not sure I know what you mean by educating and inspiring the readership. It seems to me that the devotion of his fan base is evidence that he does inspire his readership, but obviously you mean something else by "inspire". As for education, I don't really find any other writer of fiction that is significantly more educational. I'm guessing that you don't mean to make writers like Tom Clancy (whose books can be quite educational about military technology) a model of fulfilling the moral responsibilities of authors, so I would guess you have something more specific in mind when you say "educate" as well. I'd be interested to know what exactly you mean by "educate and inspire" and why you think it is the author's moral responsibility.


Thank you for raising the question. What is the moral responsibility of writers to their readers? Tom Clancy's writing has a moral basis. Even though I have zero interest in Clancy's books, reading small portions of them I have come across some mesmerizing prose and analysis about military technology and the government. It's the low bar set by writers like King, et al, whose ideas do little more than tickle mediocrity with their entertainment feathers and who are responsible for contributing to the birthing of a whole generation of little shi tface writers with MFA tassels looped around their middle fingers in golden Magna cum Laude peddling novel after imbecilic novel, which they know to be garbage, and justify on the ground Darkshadow does:




> As an inspiring writer myself I feel no moral responsibility to educate and inspire my readership, although it depends what you mean by that. However, I don't see my work as Dead Poet's Society lite. No one is going to finish reading one of my stories, jump on their desk, and start declaring, "Oh, captain. My Captain." 
> 
> Now I'm certainly saying stuff about the world in my stories, but my primary purpose is still to entertain my reader and to hopefully make a few bucks for my time and effort.


When you say things like this---that you have no moral responsibility to your readers---I don't see you as an inspiring writer. I don't see you as half a writer. You, Grisham, King, Roberts, are all vaudeville---and your snake oil is the idea of writing as a form of entertainment. Drink some and you're a writer too. 




> There is no logical connection between the moral duties of an author and the moral duties of a journalist. One writes imaginary stories that are supposed to reflect reality, the other is supposed to accurately report on events happening in reality.


You mean to tell me that after all the years I've spent studying fiction, that all I've been doing is reading imaginary stories??  :Bawling: 

Look, when Daniel Pearl got his head chopped off, what if moments before the sword came down somebody had whispered into his ear that what he had been chasing all those years into dark musty caves with stick men shadows was only a perspective of the truth and not the truth itself? Similarly the fiction writer that his characters, setting, conflict, narrative, are just stories? No breath. No tongue, no blood. Fiction as temporary psychosis between the eyes with the occasional nosebleed.

As the journalist travels by foot so does the good fiction writer, and sometimes they leap over intersecting paths, and what the fiction writer doesn't travel in miles he's travelled inside his bones---because if the story is not an imaginative story as I believe it to be, but an imaginary story as you have it---then you'll have to convince me and every writer on the face of the earth that imaginary stories have no basis in suffering and growing up and love and invincible human power that mimics the self. Listen harder for the whistling in the lighted window, a grandeur of the surf. 


**


Moral fiction goes beyond merely reflecting reality. Reflected reality is only what's been done, whereas moral fiction grapples with the could-haves and what-next---with what's possible in ourselves, in our communities, and the world. And text is organic and reading hermeneutical in that sense, with language bringing together a heterogenous set of sense perceptions that are culturally and socially transformative. But if fiction writing is only about entertaining, cheap forms or otherwise, the writer absolves himself of that self-reflective as well as collective responsibility. I reject that. 

Moral writing, which every real fiction writer strives toward, is a quest for beauty, truth, and the Good. I expect someone to come down on me that such a standard is too abstract or devoid of meaning to be a standard at all. So then, I offer here one simple way that we could determine the value of a given novel. Select any three books in the western literary canon---"the greatest works of artistic merit"---and place your selection with them side by side. For example:


Homer's Iliad

*King's Carrie* 

Plato's Republic

Joyce's Finnigan's Wake


Now ask yourself: "Does it deserve to be among such great books _at this time_?" Screw the professors, the university database, the feminist whine. This is as good as it gets.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Thank you for raising the question. What is the moral responsibility of writers to their readers? Tom Clancy's writing has a moral basis. Even though I have zero interest in Clancy's books, reading small portions of them I have come across some mesmerizing prose and analysis about military technology and the government. It's the low bar set by writers like King, et al, whose ideas do little more than tickle mediocrity with their entertainment feathers and who are responsible for contributing to the birthing of a whole generation of little shi tface writers with MFA tassels looped around their middle fingers in golden Magna cum Laude peddling novel after imbecilic novel, which they know to be garbage, and justify on the ground Darkshadow does:


Most of the people who graduate from MFA programs are writing pretty straight forward New Yorker-style "literary" fiction, which bears the influence of Hemingway and Faulkner more than it does Stephen King. In fact, genre fiction and writers like Stephen King are generally frowned upon in MFAs. So I am not actually sure what your point is here, unless you have some personal experiences you want to share?




> When you say things like this---that you have no moral responsibility to your readers---I don't see you as an inspiring writer. I don't see you as half a writer. You, Grisham, King, Roberts, are all vaudeville---and your snake oil is the idea of writing as a form of entertainment. Drink some and you're a writer too.


Heh. I meant aspiring, my bad. As far as you personally not seeing me as a "real" writer, exactly who are you that I should care? 

Writing for me is a mix between a hobby/career/passion. Of course I have something I feel is important to communicate to my audience beyond merely entertaining them, but I still feel it is my goal first and foremost to make my point in an entertaining fashion. If I simply wanted to get a moral truth or point across I could write a philosophical treatise or some kind of essay. Fiction isn't for edification and entertainment; it is edification through entertainment. 






> what the fiction writer doesn't travel in miles he's travelled inside his bones---because if the story is not an imaginative story as I believe it to be, but an imaginary story as you have it---then you'll have to convince me and every writer on the face of the earth that imaginary stories have no basis in suffering and growing up and love and invincible human power that mimics the self.


Uhm, pretty sure I covered that fiction has a basis in "suffering and growing up and love and invincible human power" when I said fiction is a reflection of reality (mimesis). It doesn't change the fact that fiction still uses an imaginary story to convey such things. Next . . .





> Moral fiction goes beyond merely reflecting reality. Reflected reality is only what's been done, whereas moral fiction grapples with the could-haves and what-next---with what's possible in ourselves, in our communities, and the world.


Isn't that Science Fiction?  :Wink:  

As for the rest of your essay, my thoughts ranged from: "When did I step back into Grad School and into a theory class?" to "Okay, you're entitled to your opinion."

Great, it's nice to hear your theory of fiction. Other than that I am not really sure how to react to your post or what you actually want from me as an interlocutor. If you want to know my own theory of fiction, on reading, and what I believe the study of literature actually entails you can find them in a number of other threads on this forum or re-read my previous post more carefully. If you'd like to gouge my tastes or what it is I get out of the books I read besides entertainment you're more than welcome to click on the link to my blog.

----------


## bluevictim

> Thank you for raising the question. What is the moral responsibility of writers to their readers? Tom Clancy's writing has a moral basis. Even though I have zero interest in Clancy's books, reading small portions of them I have come across some mesmerizing prose and analysis about military technology and the government.
> ...
> Moral fiction goes beyond merely reflecting reality. Reflected reality is only what's been done, whereas moral fiction grapples with the could-haves and what-next---with what's possible in ourselves, in our communities, and the world. And text is organic and reading hermeneutical in that sense, with language bringing together a heterogenous set of sense perceptions that are culturally and socially transformative. But if fiction writing is only about entertaining, cheap forms or otherwise, the writer absolves himself of that self-reflective as well as collective responsibility. I reject that.


Thanks for the response, and for expanding on what you believe to be an author's moral responsibility. I see that my guess was wrong, and your idea of morally responsible writing does not preclude authors like Tom Clancy. I'm still interested in knowing why what you described is an author's moral responsibility. Based on your insistence that an author failing your standard should be ashamed on his deathbed, I conclude that you're claiming this idea of an author's moral responsibility to be not just your own opinion, but some kind of universal idea that everyone should accept. You've made a distinction between "moral fiction" and "entertainment". Why must every writer produce what you call "moral fiction" and eschew "entertainment"? In fact, I can't help but wonder if what you dismiss as entertainment is inspiration to someone else. It's not clear to me that the features of moral fiction that you speak of -- grappling with the could-haves, cultural influence, self-reflection -- are not facets of that phenomenon we call "entertainment".





> So then, I offer here one simple way that we could determine the value of a given novel. Select any three books in the western literary canon---"the greatest works of artistic merit"---and place your selection with them side by side. For example:
> 
> 
> Homer's Iliad
> 
> *King's Carrie* 
> 
> Plato's Republic
> 
> ...


Surely you don't mean to imply that any writer whose work doesn't measure up to Homer's _Iliad_ and Plato's _Republic_ must consider himself a failure on his deathbed?

----------


## Zee.

> It's quite sad really. The majority of adults that I know that read (which is pitifully few, unfortunately - and I'm talking outside of my university academic circles) tend to only read in the vein of Stephen King, which is unfortunate given that (if they are related to me) they have a relative who is relatively knowledgeable in the area of literature, and therefore should know better. 
> 
> For some reason, however, people seem to be really put off when you tell them that what they are reading is trash. Oh well.


What's your opinion on The Green Mile?

Stephen King seems to me, to be a writer who possesses a very twisted, chaotic, brilliant imagination. That's what he'll be remembered for.

I'd like to add, in this third little post of mine, that some people seem to have forgotten the joy of reading a novel for the simple sake of enjoying the story. The idea of reading heavy books day in an day out makes me feel a little sick. That being said, I find it really disturbing that novels that don't have, as it has been quoted many times in this thread "literary merit", are considered trash. They aren't trash. If I want a good thriller/horror i'm going to be running to the pile labeled what many of you consider "trash". I don't find novels that are of great "literary merit" of the horror/thriller genre, disturbing or interesting at all. The fact that so many literary works that couldn't make a baby shake, get labeled "terrifying" and "disturbing" is ridiculous.

----------


## jon1jt

Limes! 




> Thanks for the response, and for expanding on what you believe to be an author's moral responsibility. I see that my guess was wrong, and your idea of morally responsible writing does not preclude authors like Tom Clancy. I'm still interested in knowing why what you described is an author's moral responsibility.


As far as moral responsibility, maybe try to think of it this way, as silly as it may seem: Writers do more than just write on pages that that get printed and bound and sent to the four corners. Writers quite literally put words in their readers’ bodies, a process which is physiological, and why that kind of writing is moral. Moral, not as a religious sense of duty, but moral as _care_. 




> Based on your insistence that an author failing your standard should be ashamed on his deathbed, I conclude that you're claiming this idea of an author's moral responsibility to be not just your own opinion, but some kind of universal idea that everyone should accept.


Yes and no. While art is a process that grows up _ex nihilo_, even the writers who remain true to their craft still have the capacity to shape and steer those emergent thoughts or impressions. Stephen King is like the Ancient Greece sophist concerned only with the intention of the message whereas the moral writer is concerned with both intention and content. In King’s case, he never once strays from the archetypes that work for him. Even in his On Writing he made sure to stay inside the entertainment-value frame, indulging in cheap witticisms and anecdotes that the reviewers in lockstep met with high praise, calling the book, ‘fun and practical,' which was just another way of saying it offered nothing new or insightful. 




> You've made a distinction between "moral fiction" and "entertainment". Why must every writer produce what you call "moral fiction" and eschew "entertainment"?


I don’t think the entertainment value of a book has to be sacrificed at all. In fact, moral fiction, when done the right way, can instruct as much as entertain. One can’t help reading the last page of John Gardner’s Grendel without feeling the rush to go out and pick up a copy of Beowolf. The first time I finished The Iliad I picked up and started The Odyssey. Stephen King doesn’t do that for me. He doesn’t do that for me because his kind of fiction is so transparent that once I stuck my tongue clear through one of his novels and watched the letters slide off the pages onto the floor and into my cat's water dish. The cat used her paw to fish some out and started up a game of scrabble with the cat next door. The first word she spelled was "Brad." It concerns me.  :Wink:

----------


## Drkshadow03

Limajean, 

I agree with what you said about King's imagination. I would, however, point out that I think King does far more in his fiction than you give him credit. Carrie is one of the best novels about bullying, teasing, and harassment I have ever read, capturing perfectly the modern high school atmosphere. Certain imagery like the opening with the girls throwing tampons at Carrie and shouting at her when she has her first menstruation stick in your mind as the epitome of cruelty. The "horror" element of a deranged telekenetic matches well with the "reality" of the story. She suffers years of mental abuse, and she responds with abnormal mental powers that allows her to become the ultimate homocidal mass murderer. 

IT is about a demonic clown that eats children. Of course as the story progresses we find out the clown is actually the town itself. The children protagonists all have family issues or abusive parents. The town literally swallows up its children. The metaphor speaks for itself. The horror elements in King's novel always match up with the screwed up reality the characters experience. 

As one critic who has argued for King's Canonicity notes the people who occupy King's novels are always far scarier, far more malevolent, and more horrific than the supernatural elements. 

I personally think King should be read in the American Gothic Horror tradition as a modern Poe. I agree with JBI that there is something distinctly American about his writing, and that thematically his writing is essentially about the darkness in the heart of America.

----------


## JBI

You must admit though, he is probably not the best at displaying it though - I think the obvious darkness of America author today would probably be McCarthy, but even then. I think the problem is that King likes to jump on sensationalist plots, rather than focus on less plot. And, as a writer myself, that goes against my aesthetic. Anybody can manufacture plots (and he has the worst endings, so I guess he can only half-manufacture them). As a Canadian reader (a very Canadian one, yes, I am aware that is somewhat of an oxymoron) I don't see particularly how he can possibly relate to me, or my tradition. Toni Morrison, for instance, used to create very strong portraits of the darkness of America, and I think those, notably Beloved and Song of Solomon, really capture something, but King? I'm not too sure.

Really though, I think a lot of my rejections of novels mostly seem to be rooted in the tradition I really belong to. Firstly, I grew up reading mostly female authors, and got started off, at around 9-10 reading predominantly Young Adult, female bildungsromans. After that, I moved on, when I was ending high school, to focus more on Canadian authors, as I felt that the American ones overrepresented, and clashing with my political sensibilities. A large amount of the contemporary Canadian players in fiction, also happen to be poets (many of them poets before novelists), Ondaatje, Atwood, Kroetsch, Carson, Hebert, etc. In that sense, I think my aesthetic has been molded somewhat to appreciate works of prose that have poetic elements, rather than conventional prose elements. So that, for instance, my favorite novel is Eugene Onegin, and my favorite American novelist is, like most people, Faulkner, who seems more influenced by poetry than most prose writers, and actually started as a poet.

King seems pure prose though, to the point where he relies purely on prose convention, and nothing else - I wouldn't be surprised if he only reads prose, and is really incapable of thinking metaphorically. The narrative tradition only goes so far, I think, and quite honestly, we have come to the point where, unless it is really manipulated and formed by other ideas, the contemporary novel cannot particularly flourish. The realist trend seems to have run out of steam, and quite honestly, one can see why.

King can, I would argue, only really manipulate one genre at a time, and seems rooted in rather mainstream, conventional genres. I personally like to see a bit more working of new, or different elements and traditions within my work.

It is interesting though - I think, as a genre, fantasy, and horror, really have been suffering from lack of attention to particularly good, innovative authors. The phrase "good old fashion prose" seems to be an excuse for mediocrity, yet gets used to justify the praising of works which in themselves aren't particularly bad, but are by no means worth much attention, or any real sort of critical admiration.

Good old fashion essentially means old fashion, and rubbish. If one does not move forward, they no longer are particularly important to the tradition. I don't think King moves forward - I think all his novels generally have the same traits, all of which were convention somewhat before his day.

The only real difference I think with him and other authors, is his sales, and that, if I were to attribute it to something, comes because he focuses on the American experience, without a) being too difficult, and b) criticizing it too much, the way someone like Dellilo does. Lets be honest, there is nothing particularly innovative in his work. Nothing that someone else could not have written. But he has found the perfect place - on one hand, he fits the American diagram perfectly, so his sales flourish, on the other hand, he is so successful that the critics of popular fiction support him, as he is somehow seen as "populist", attacking the "elitist" assumptions of academic critics. In essence, people get Ph. D.s in Stephen King, and eventually end up in a 500 person line to try and get a tenure-tracked position, or leave the field.

It's interesting to note though, that there really is no effort by academics to see the emergence of a fantastical genre in itself, with good authors. There are great authors who use fantastical elements, but I think the purer a genre becomes, the more it suffers. Autobiography of Red certainly has fantastic elements, but ultimately it fits better as a modern day bildungsroman than anything else. One could, presumably, write a thesis on Terry Goodkind, and his captivation of the racist, jingoist, radical Americanist, colonial imagination of today's (predominantly male) adolescent readership. But I'm unsure if that would go well, quite simply because I don't think anyone but adolescent male jingoist Americans (with a touch of misogyny thrown in) care anything about him. King on the other hand is such an American convention already, that there may be people interested in his work.

It's all the same anyway - these books will soon be unread, and this scholarship ignored. If someone is so uncreative as to work mostly on King, they probably will just end up standing in line with the others, hoping for an opening in Academic institutions. In truth, how far can a scholar of a text so mediocre, but so contemporary go? Academia is one of the most competitive fields, and contemporary American literature probably the most competitive in America, and I think, ultimately, the scholar of Chinese-American, or First-Nations American authors will probably have an easier time getting in - quite simply, because there is less competition. 


I don't know - I confess, fantasy, and to a much lesser extent, horror fiction is a particular interest of mine, from a theoretical perspective. It is almost impossible to read most genre books, but even so, I am very interested in the concept, in the way I am interested in Maesterlink's Pelleas e Melisande. The genre itself, has tons of potential, as it seems the romantic variant of magical-realism, which would rely more on negative capability, and metaphor, and generally, the fairtalesque, than on symbolic realism. Ultimately though, I don't think readers would be interested in it anymore. Certainly though, if someone were to craft a decent verse-novel in it (or prose-poem-novel, how ironic) they could do very interesting things. But alas, realist stylistics, without any sense of realism.

Back to King though, I don't particularly think him worthy of my time, in the sense that I feel his "imaginative" creations as those pertaining to the aesthetic of middle-class-centric-male-America, something which I am not part of, and which I personally am a) afraid of, and b) somewhat repulsed by. I don't see King as really standing for much more - I think he is rooted in the 1970s, and that he can't break into a 21st century perspective, or a multi-cultural, or even a female perspective. I consider him on par with mass-media outlets, in his focus, and quite frankly, that's probably why he sells so well.

----------


## Ryan002

What's really alarming is that King is often slammed because he refuses to correct, or sometimes even discuss, his political views. I think a lot of people tend to forget , firstly, that writers are not somehow bound to political principles. They are neither religious leaders nor politicians. King is not Montaigne or Swift, nor has he aspired to be. Secondly, I recall T.S. Eliot's suggestion that a writer should not be read into his text. King may not have any agenda beyond what so many readers seem to want to associate with him. I suspect that much of the stereotyping, sexism, etc. that many readers see come from their own interpretation rather the source.

King is unpretentious, his critics often are not. The only honest criticism I can find regarding King is from Harold Bloom. Even then, Bloom's dislike is largely due to personal taste in prose style, and I don't think Bloom attempts to conceal this.

As for the people who lash out simply because King is a commercial writer, well all I have to say is that they had better come down from that Ivory Tower and have a look around. As far as comemrcial writers go, King isn't all that bad. In fact, he's a virtual Homer next to Mr. Midnight, Sweet Valley High and the Sophie Kinsella nonsense that is spreading like a plague amongst the new generation. In case these people haven't noticed, the high modernist project *failed*. Laypersons generally do not walk around with James Joyce or Virginia Woolfe tucked under their arm, and *never will*. If the end purpose of the modernist project was to make a universal literature, than King has come farther than either of those two (not that I discount their contributions).

----------


## JBI

You prepetuate the myth I mentioned earlier. Margaret Atwood is a best selling novelist, who is perhaps the most recognizable of Canadian authors. I don't dispute her place as a somewhat canonical figure (though some of her books are rather repetitive, and I think she peaked early on). Alice Munro too is a bestselling author, and quite simply perhaps the first major commercially successful Canadian writer working only in short stories.


Either way, I think I'm as vocal a critic of Bloom as King - both are mediocre mass-market American creations, with American agendas. If we take your view, then whoever sells the most copies would be deemed the most powerful, and important author, and by that reckoning, I think The Davinci Code wins as the greatest example of fiction in the past 10 years.

Yeah right.

I trust you've read academic criticism outside of Bloom however (though many on these boards, it would seem, have not, and take his word for granted). If so, you would note the variance in perspective amongst critics of all different fields.

The notion of the ivory tower seems if anything, to not hurt academia, but to hurt the reader, as it acts as a justification for the ignoring of any form of critical inquiry into textual composition and stylistics.

Either way though, I'm not a novel reader, and don't pretend to be. My specialty is, most definitely, in poetry, and my interests lie in contemporary Canadian verse (most English). Name one poet since Tennyson/Browning who has been a major economic success in the English world, from writing poetry alone. Certainly one can name novelists, but even if you take the most achieved poets, they usually have a day job. Eliot had to edit books for publication, and write journalism and introductions in order to stay afloat. Are you suggesting that poetry should be ignored, because it isn't a commercial success?


That King is better than most commercial writers isn't the point. The point is, he isn't better than many writers, and he uses the strength of his publisher, and name, in order to penetrate Canadian, and international bookstores. The myth of the elitism in the ivory tower, in this case, makes him immune from criticism, because if one criticizes him, instantly they are labeled "elitist" or a snob. Yet at the same time, ironically, the King came down from up high to dub Stephanie Meyer as a mediocre author - is he an elitist now?

And by the way, everyone discusses the politics within T. S. Eliot's poetry. If King doesn't speak about his politics, or political stances, his novels certainly do. We know very little about Eliot than what is within his poetry (to date there has never been an authorized biography of him), yet we know much from his poetry. It is the same with King.

----------


## Drkshadow03

JBI,

If you're looking to expand your knowledge on theories of the fantastic you might want to check out the Critical list my friend put up on this blog where he is keeping track of his reading list for his Ph. D. You also might want to read some of the posts, which he is using to keep track of the various critical works.

As far as whether you can get a job while writing positively about Stephen King in the competitive American academic market, as usual their is an objective way to check that. Tracking the authors of Pro-King criticism as found in MLA: 

- Susan Love Brown (associate professor of Anthropology at Florida Atlantic University and women studies: Gender and culture)

- J. Madison Davis (University of Oklohoma Gaylord College English department and award-winning mystery writer)

- Heidi Strengell who has written not one, but 3 works on King including a dissertation on his Multiverse (University of Helsinski, I think)

- Greg Smith (Assistant Professor William Woods University)

- Tony Magistrale (Professor University of Vermont)

A great many of them have managed to land tenure-track jobs. In all fairness I discluded criticism written by those I couldn't link to a specific university. However, all those I discluded did not seem to have a Ph. D in the first place. Anyone who had a Ph. D. and wrote about King had a full-time job in Academia. The real point being you still can get a full-time academic job if you write about Stephen King. Maybe not at Harvard, but still a job.

----------


## JBI

> JBI,
> 
> If you're looking to expand your knowledge on theories of the fantastic you might want to check out the Critical list my friend put up on this blog where he is keeping track of his reading list for his Ph. D. You also might want to read some of the posts, which he is using to keep track of the various critical works.
> 
> As far as whether you can get a job while writing positively about Stephen King in the competitive American academic market, as usual their is an objective way to check that. Tracking the authors of Pro-King criticism as found in MLA: 
> 
> - Susan Love Brown (associate professor of Anthropology at Florida Atlantic University and women studies: Gender and culture)
> 
> - J. Madison Davis (University of Oklohoma Gaylord College English department and award-winning mystery writer)
> ...


I don't know - I'd need to cross reference their criticism to their positions at the university - obviously many of the works on King are negative, or critical, and take issue with his work. I was just noting the overpopulation of theses written on King in general, as apposed to other writers. Of course, some go on to become professors, and many texts are written by professors, but it is interesting to note exactly where Ph. D.s are being written, and who goes on from there.

For instance, it's been a common myth that Comparative Literary Ph.D.s have harder times entering Academia, but I think that has been proven the opposite. It also is suggested that the further back in time your specialist, or removal from the mainstream, the easier it is to enter academia. I think specialists in Women writers from the Restoration until the French Revolution received a lot of new Ph. D.s and professorhips for a period in the 80s and 90s, and certainly post-colonial critics emerged quickly in the 80s, landing degrees and positions, but I'm unsure how open the market is.

It's rather curious actually, and yes, of course writing on King goes outside of the field, as you demonstrated, into Anthropology, which isn't English, or Literary Studies, and is perhaps more fitting. But beyond that though, it's curious as to what is written about what and for whom - The University of Toronto Archives 650 Literature periodicals, so I think there is room for King somewhere, but I doubt the Ivory Tower as it is called will welcome a King Specialist and give him a lecturing position, in the same way they would welcome a Milton Specialist.

Of course though, one knows the lineups to enter Academia - they are virtually endless for contemporary American fiction, as that, it would seem, has attracted the most students and specialists, and with the decreasing size of Academia, has created a huge overpopulation of scholars.


Either way though, the blog you posted is interesting, however, the problem remains. The texts are mostly literary Magical Realist novels (more than half of which I have read). Perhaps the criticism will be more interesting, and I'll poke my head into those books when I have the chance. But what I'm really looking for, is something that approaches fantasy from a fantasy perspective, yet remains literary. Magical realism doesn't do that, and Calvino's Post-modernism always seems to have a rather ironic agenda, and political undercurrent. We'll see though - right now I'm backed up on an essay on Hugh Maclennan, but later perhaps - during exam time - I'll fit in some more reading.

----------


## bluevictim

> As far as moral responsibility, maybe try to think of it this way, as silly as it may seem: Writers do more than just write on pages that that get printed and bound and sent to the four corners. Writers quite literally put words in their readers’ bodies, a process which is physiological, and why that kind of writing is moral.


 Thanks for expanding on why you think authors have a moral responsibility to their readers. I'm afraid I'm still not entirely clear on what exactly distinguishes your idea of morally responsible writing from mere entertainment, and why (granting that authors do have a moral responsibility to their readers) it is incumbent upon authors to pursue the former.

As I said before, it seems to me that those qualities that you are looking for (eg, grappling with possibilities, cultural impact, self-reflection) are in fact different aspects of entertainment; a given work may be quite transparent and facile to one individual while being deep and profound to another. The fact that you don't find King entertaining is consistent with this -- obviously there is something that others see in King that you don't.

Assuming that there is a meaningful distinction between "inspiration" and "entertainment", why is it an author's responsibility to provide "inspiration"? Your explanation about the physiological aspect of a writer's effects only seems to imply that authors have some moral responsibility, but it doesn't seem to elucidate what that responsibility is.






> Moral, not as a religious sense of duty, but moral as _care_.


Unfortunately, I have no idea what this means. 






> Yes and no. While art is a process that grows up _ex nihilo_, even the writers who remain true to their craft still have the capacity to shape and steer those emergent thoughts or impressions. Stephen King is like the Ancient Greece sophist concerned only with the intention of the message whereas the moral writer is concerned with both intention and content.
> ...


I'm sorry, I wasn't able to see the link between this answer and the quote that it was ostensibly a response to (my assumption that you are claiming that your standards of moral responsibility is not just a matter of your own taste, but something universal that every writer ought to be judged by).






> The cat used her paw to fish some out and started up a game of scrabble with the cat next door. The first word she spelled was "Brad." It concerns me.


Yes, "Brad" is completely unsuitable for a game of Scrabble since proper nouns are not allowed. If the cat next door had any sense at all he would have challenged.  :Smile:

----------


## jon1jt

> Heh. I meant aspiring, my bad. As far as you personally not seeing me as a "real" writer, exactly who are you that I should care?


No of course you wouldn't care, you're Dark Shadow Man. Chill my brother, you're the guy with two masters degrees and that writing workshop under your belt. So as far as I'm concerned, you're the man! And in no time you will have a wonderful job in some fancy smancy University library working so close to the stacks that at the end of a long day you'll return home smelling like books, and you'll be a better man for it. The closest I'll ever come to working in a library will be playing hackey sack in the quad. I suspect you will be going for a Ph.D soon, yes? You must be planning to do your Ph.D in Library Science, after you've secured a full-time tenure position, of course. Land the big paying university job and then let your employer pay for your education---isn't that how it works? If I had two masters degrees like you my life would be so much more fulfilling. Sigh. For starters I wouldn't be a starving poet. I'd be the man. I'd be successful. I'd be just like you. I want to be the man too dammit!  :Bawling: 




> Writing for me is a mix between a hobby/career/passion. Of course I have something I feel is important to communicate to my audience beyond merely entertaining them, but I still feel it is my goal first and foremost to make my point in an entertaining fashion.


Yeah but what about art? 




> If I simply wanted to get a moral truth or point across I could write a philosophical treatise or some kind of essay.


Call it 'The Critique Of Hot Bullshi t' 


Stephen King could also try to write fiction that won't be used for toilet paper by his readers soon as they're done with them. Oooh. 


I'll get to ya BlueVboo.  :Tongue:

----------


## Zee.

I really, really, really do not understand the comments made in this thread about King being a "story teller" therefore he is not an "artist".


A story teller isn't an artist?

.... is this a joke?

I'm a sketcher. Am I any Da Vinci? uh, no. But I am still an artist.

King may not be my Steinbeck, but how very narrow minded you all are to consider him anything less than an artist. His imagination is a work of art itself.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I don't know - I'd need to cross reference their criticism to their positions at the university - obviously many of the works on King are negative, or critical, and take issue with his work. I was just noting the overpopulation of theses written on King in general, as apposed to other writers. Of course, some go on to become professors, and many texts are written by professors, but it is interesting to note exactly where Ph. D.s are being written, and who goes on from there.
> 
> For instance, it's been a common myth that Comparative Literary Ph.D.s have harder times entering Academia, but I think that has been proven the opposite. It also is suggested that the further back in time your specialist, or removal from the mainstream, the easier it is to enter academia. I think specialists in Women writers from the Restoration until the French Revolution received a lot of new Ph. D.s and professorhips for a period in the 80s and 90s, and certainly post-colonial critics emerged quickly in the 80s, landing degrees and positions, but I'm unsure how open the market is.
> 
> It's rather curious actually, and yes, of course writing on King goes outside of the field, as you demonstrated, into Anthropology, which isn't English, or Literary Studies, and is perhaps more fitting. But beyond that though, it's curious as to what is written about what and for whom - The University of Toronto Archives 650 Literature periodicals, so I think there is room for King somewhere, but I doubt the Ivory Tower as it is called will welcome a King Specialist and give him a lecturing position, in the same way they would welcome a Milton Specialist.
> 
> Of course though, one knows the lineups to enter Academia - they are virtually endless for contemporary American fiction, as that, it would seem, has attracted the most students and specialists, and with the decreasing size of Academia, has created a huge overpopulation of scholars.
> 
> 
> Either way though, the blog you posted is interesting, however, the problem remains. The texts are mostly literary Magical Realist novels (more than half of which I have read). Perhaps the criticism will be more interesting, and I'll poke my head into those books when I have the chance. But what I'm really looking for, is something that approaches fantasy from a fantasy perspective, yet remains literary. Magical realism doesn't do that, and Calvino's Post-modernism always seems to have a rather ironic agenda, and political undercurrent. We'll see though - right now I'm backed up on an essay on Hugh Maclennan, but later perhaps - during exam time - I'll fit in some more reading.


I think writing about King can come from different angles. Magistrale seems to have a firm intellectual grounding in American Gothicism, while some of the others looking at their scholarship seem interested in Popular fiction. While others seem interested in the idea of Genre fiction itself (horror, detective, etc.), which I suppose can be considered an off-shoot of studying Popular Fiction. 

So I suspect they aren't so much King scholars, but people with experitise in American Gothicism or Popular Fiction who have written work about King because they feel he is an important writer who fits into their niche of study. Obviously these people are studying more than just King. Interestingly the only to have written multiple book-length works on King is Magistrale who happens to have the highest-ranking job of the bunch (state university as opposed to community colleges).

I'm not sure academia is decreasing. In some areas enrollment is down certainly because of the economy, but I believe the trend has been increased enrollment. The real problem seems to be that the full-time jobs are decreasing and being replaced by adjunct and part-time positions to save money. Administrators love this situation because you can pay adjuncts significantly less money and they have to teach more classes than a normal full-time professor to survive, plus if your student enrollment decreases they can simply lay you off.

It's true as you said that the further you go back in your area of focus, the less the competition for a job. Instead of fighting with 300 people for that American job, you can be one candidate of 100 for that Medievalist position. One of the reasons for this I suspect is that those areas are more specialized. You have to learn Old English, have a larger grasp of criticism, etc. It makes me glad that I've given myself other options to choose from besides academia. But good luck to you when you go out into the job market eventually JBI; if anyone deserves an academic position, I think you do, because I can tell you've put a lot of work into your studies.

----------


## jon1jt

> Thanks for expanding on why you think authors have a moral responsibility to their readers. I'm afraid I'm still not entirely clear on what exactly distinguishes your idea of morally responsible writing from mere entertainment...


People are more adrift in mental space than every before, and Stephen King lit only ensures we'll continue to lose sense of ourselves and the world of organic experience by offering little to no room for self-reflection and growth, contemplation or discussion.

----------


## MrRegular

Stephen King is far from being literature but everyone has to admit that he is a major influence on book culture.
I've read quite a bit of his work and am of two minds. One is that he writes for money, like a businessman. Very little of King's work has any philosophical value. My other mind says that he writes what he feels (everything he feels) and that is kind of the definition of an artist, even if what he feels relates to baseball, 50's rock and bodily functions. He also goes a long way to inspire other artists which is very admirable.

----------


## mal4mac

Literature does not have to have any more philosophical value than a Stephen King novel. It can get by on aesthetic value. But King's novels don't have much aesthetic value. They might pass the time when you don't want to work too hard, but Dickens can do that for you, and much else. I wouldn't want to chance reading more King after reading "Tommyknockers", which is part vomit-inducing and part more boring than watching paint dry.

----------


## myrna22

> But King's novels don't have much aesthetic value.


Stephen King's writing has no aesthetic or intellectual value. He is a hack, an entertainer.

----------


## cgrillo

I used to read a lot of Stephen King before I became much more interested in classic literature (although, I still have a broad range of what I enjoy to read; for example, Moby-Dick is my favorite book, but I still enjoyed The Short-Timers by Gustav Hanson). I agree with mal4mac in that his books are good for passing time, but if you want to really get something out of a book than he's not the author for you. 

But if you just want a book that can kill some time and capture your interest (most of the time) than Stephen King would probably do fine.

----------


## PeterL

I've read enough of King's work to know that I don't like it, and it he is not a very good writer. He isn't bad, but he usually breaks several of the Rules for Good Writing that Twain gave to the world. I don't think that he had 114 offences out of a possible 115 in the space of two thirds of a page, as Cooper did, but he usually has a handful to a score on a page.

----------


## wat??

> I've read enough of King's work to know that I don't like it, and it he is not a very good writer. He isn't bad, *but he usually breaks several of the Rules for Good Writing* that Twain gave to the world. I don't think that he had 114 offences out of a possible 115 in the space of two thirds of a page, as Cooper did, but he usually has a handful to a score on a page.


Bolded - Oh knock it off. Do you honestly think that "good" writing follows some sort of formula?

----------


## Night_Lamp

I think his 70s stuff is good. And all of the vampire lovers should check out 
_Salem's Lot_; it is really scary, with no emo-vampires. Most of the later stuff I have read didn't really strike me as very good, and was overly cliche and predictable. I did read and really like the first three books of the 
_Dark Tower_ series and think this is the best work of his I've read in a long time. Can someone who's read it all tell me if the other novels in the series are worth it?

----------


## PeterL

> Bolded - Oh knock it off. Do you honestly think that "good" writing follows some sort of formula?


Grow up and learn something. If you don't like them, then ignore them and write badly.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I have to agree to "knock it off." Anyone who thinks good writing has to follow some established rules made by _one guy_ (even if it is Mark Twain, who I think is overrated) is extremely closed minded. 

I don't think Stephen King is a great writer, and definitely not a very deep writer, but he is still one of my favorites. He is a writer who wants to entertain people, nothing more than that, and I don't think anyone can deny that he is very imaginative and creative. And I think he is a very good writer. I still haven't read anyone who can paint a picture as clearly and vividly as SK, whether it be something obscene and gory, or something as simple as a character desc4iption. Plus, any writer as prolific is going to have good books and bad books, much like most other authors.

----------


## dfloyd

I read a few of his books just to see what he was like. I read three or four including his On Writing. Now I can hardly remember their titles. Some, like Thinner, weren't bad, but an Edgar Allan Poe he is not.

----------


## papayahed

I've read a good many Stephen King books, he is very good dragging me into the story and creating characters that are relate-able (did I just make that word up?). As with any other writer I didn't care for a few of his books but those I just tossed aside. 

Best line of any book:

Nadine, Don't mess with my Disco.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I read a few of his books just to see what he was like. I read three or four including his On Writing. Now I can hardly remember their titles. Some, like Thinner, weren't bad, but an *Edgar Allan Poe* he is not.


I dob't really think anyone has claimed he is, though. I'm pretty sure even SK himself has said he isn't trying to be a great literature artist, just writing what he likes.

----------


## wat??

> Grow up and learn something. If you don't like them, then ignore them and write badly.
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt


So before Mark Twain wrote this what did people do?

----------


## soundofmusic

I really like the movies that have come from the Stephen King novels. I love alot of his ideas and he is an easy read when I have that little break at work or have a few minutes before bed; unfortunately, I get really irritable with his anticlimatic endings...the screen writers repair this.

----------


## MrRegular

> Bolded - Oh knock it off. Do you honestly think that "good" writing follows some sort of formula?


I have to agree with you here. Formulas are for those who lack the self-confidence to do it their own way.

----------


## MrRegular

> I've read a good many Stephen King books, he is very good dragging me into the story and creating characters that are relate-able (did I just make that word up?). As with any other writer I didn't care for a few of his books but those I just tossed aside. 
> 
> Best line of any book:
> 
> Nadine, Don't mess with my Disco.


In Misery (his best book in my opinion) the protagonist, who happens to be a novelist, says that he writes two kinds of books: the best sellers and the good ones. Though this isn't entirely true is King's case, it is a good way of putting his writing style. Some of the books he writes because HE likes them (ever read the Dark Tower series? <shudders> I feel dirty now), the others he writes because he knows what the people (or shaved cows trained to walk upright and read novels like people) like.

----------


## wat??

Cough*

"1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But the
Deerslayer tale accomplishes nothing and arrives in the air."

See J.D Salinger for frequent breaches of this "rule". 

"They require that the episodes of a tale shall be necessary parts of
the tale, and shall help to develop it. But as the Deerslayer tale is
not a tale, and accomplishes nothing and arrives nowhere, the episodes
have no rightful place in the work, since there was nothing for them to
develop."

In this context what exactly does necessary mean? If necessary means getting from point A to point B in a story then what isn't unnecessary?

"They require that when the personages of a tale deal in conversation, 
the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human
beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances"

Maybe things were different in 19th Century Russia but as far as I can tell people do not speak in long uninterrupted monologues when conducting arguments. Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky are all guilty of breaking this "rule". 

"They require that when the author describes the character of a
personage in his tale, the conduct and conversation of that personage
shall justify said description."

Anna Karenina anyone? Tolstoy breaks another one. 

"12. Say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.

13. Use the right word, not its second cousin.

14. Eschew surplusage.

15. Not omit necessary details.

16. Avoid slovenliness of form.

17. Use good grammar.

18. Employ a simple and straightforward style."


These seem more of less like common sense for good, technical writing, not rules set in stone. It looks like James Joyce and many other celebrated authors may have ignored number 18.

I've only made up a few examples and they might not be very good ones; but the fact is that there's not a single one of those rules which hasn't been broken (besides maybe some of the minor rules at the end) by a great or celebrated author at one time or another. Telling me to "grow up and learn something" is childish.

----------


## MrRegular

On, your idea, WAT?, many authors through time have attempted to create guidelines to be followed when writing (Poe, Orwell, King and Twain, come to mind immediately). This usually stems from the inquiries that a successful writer, or any other type of professional for that matter, will receive; 'what's your secret?' or 'any advice for beginners?' They will then expound upon this idea in the form of an essay which is promptly gobbled up by aspiring professionals of that field. 
Though usually the ones who attain the holy grail are those who have paid little to no heed to the advice of the greats and instead have analyzed the works that made them great, which was not the essay on how to write. 
Anyone will naturally begin to dissect their own method of working, especially when it is their life's work their dealing with. It is also natural to wish to bestow this wisdom on others, thus multiplying one's influence by the number of pupils. And influence is, after all, one of the primary goals of the artist.

----------


## PeterL

> So before Mark Twain wrote this what did people do?


The same as most people still do: They suffered through bad writing.

----------


## wat??

> The same as most people still do: They suffered through bad writing.


So those old greats who weren't yet aware of Twain's rules (you can't blame them as he hadn't yet been born) were suffering through bad writing? 

I'm confused... The rules are clearly broken fairly often, by very celebrated authors no less.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Hi8s endings are weak. Though not always. I loved the ending to The Dark Tower.

----------


## eric.bell

> an Edgar Allan Poe he is not.


Do you people know anything about E.A. Poe? It would seem that you do not. Poe was to his time what King is to ours, although King has had more commercial success (note: I am a Poe fan). Poe is infamous for selling out. He would write about whatever was popular and selling at the time. And I don't blame the man one bit. He was poor and needed what little he did get. I am glad that Herman Melville and later on Nathaniel Hawthorne (those now known as his contemporaries) did not, in fact, sell out. Moby Dick was a commercial disaster in its time and broke Melville but is now considered to be a masterpiece (by myself included). With that said, Poe could write circles around most any writer; he was an artist.

King on the other hand writes whatever it is that he wants to write and makes no apologies for his doing so. I think that his The Shining, Roadwork, and The Green Mile (especially The Shining) could someday, scratch that, will some day be considered classics. King in my humble opinion is an artist but also is more of a story spinner/weaver than a novelist (much like Neil Gaiman, another of our day from the horror/fantasy genre that I believe will some day be recognized as great). King writes of real people for real people and, like Hemingway, writes in a simpler and more easily understood manner, but could write (and some of his short stories show this) as well as a classicist. 

I will make note that I am a classics reader and 90% of the books on my shelves (some 300+) are the accepted classics. I just despise snobbery, especially ill-placed snobbery.

----------


## WingedWolf

eric.bell makes a good point. Many authors we hold on pedestals today were writing commercial fiction. Dickens was mentioned earlier, and he was paid for each word he wrote. Not only was he writing to sell, but he was embellishing for the sake of money, not because it would enhance his writing. I'm not saying that Dickens was a bad writer or that King is a good one, but it's something to consider. 

I have enjoyed a few King movies, because to me he is a good story teller, especially for the screen. But his writing style leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe he's just working with the wrong form?

About the debate on the rules of writing, I think both sides have a point. I don't you can give a set of rules and always follow them. If that were the case you could just write a computer program to follow these rules and randomly generate the details. But then we would lose the human element of literature, and that is what makes it touch our hearts and our minds.

That said, I looked over Twain's guidelines, and though I wouldn't sit down with a manuscript and check it to the list, I don't think I would find a reason to break any of those guidelines.

----------


## Katy North

Frankly, I attempted to read a couple of Stephen Kings novels, and the bored me to tears. 

I will say that Mark Twains List is extremely useful. Can you be a great writer and ignore that list? Yes. However, if you're not a "great" writer, and you can't use those flaws to your advantage in story-crafting, it is an excellent idea to read the list and check your writing against it.

----------


## eric.bell

> I will say that Mark Twain's List is extremely useful. Can you be a great writer and ignore that list? Yes. However, if you're not a "great" writer, and you can't use those flaws to your advantage in story-crafting, it is an excellent idea to read the list and check your writing against it.



So what are you saying? Is King one of these writers? Should he go and read this "end-all be-all" checklist of Twain's and try to apply it? If you think so, why is that? (I really would like to know. I am not being just being facetious with you) But if it is simply your finding him boring that is what qualifies this, then apparently (according to oh so many on this site) Dickens should have been finding himself a list as well; because lots (of people on this site, myself not included) find him boring--to the point of tears.

----------


## ktr

I've read the first 4 parts to The Dark Tower series, mainly because i enjoy epic stories.

book 2-3-4 are pretty freaking enjoyable.

----------


## Katy North

I will clarify... King has his place, and although I personally don't enjoy him, it is evident that many people do. Certainly he is doing something right. The same goes to Cooper, whose books are considered a classic now (I haven't read them yet, so I can't personally judge). I agree that following the list as a FORMULA would stint the growth of the art of literature and is generally a bad idea. 

However, if you're just STARTING to write, or if you're trying to be published but are unsuccessful, it would probably be a good idea to go down Twain's list and see if there is something he has listed that can improve your story/novel. Using his list as a GUIDE would be very effective, especially to aspiring authors.

----------


## Travis_R

I've read both _The Shining_ and _The Gunslinger_ by Stephen King. I found The Shining to be very enjoyable with great characters. I couldn't bring myself to finish The Gunslinger.

As to the ongoing writer's argument, I personally believe there is no set formula to writing. There are plenty of superior authors to Twain (Tolstoy, Joyce, et cetera) who disregard these rules in favor of fashioning their own. Like said above, writing doesn't follow a set foruma; that's the beauty of it.

----------


## ktr

> I've read both _The Shining_ and _The Gunslinger_ by Stephen King. I found The Shining to be very enjoyable with great characters. I couldn't bring myself to finish The Gunslinger.
> 
> As to the ongoing writer's argument, I personally believe there is no set formula to writing. There are plenty of superior authors to Twain (Tolstoy, Joyce, et cetera) who disregard these rules in favor of fashioning their own. Like said above, writing doesn't follow a set foruma; that's the beauty of it.


travis, i had the HARDEST time getting through the gunslinger, especially the first half of it. it's terrible, like - beyond atrocious - however, as the book itself was written over a huge time period, you can actually tell, specifically, where king gets a hang of the story, and a feel for how to write it - and the last part of the book is completely on another level.

if you are in the mood for some good entertainment reading, i almost promise you - you will find the end of if, and all of book 2/3/4 way, way better.

also - frank muller narrated the first few books of it before, tragically, his accident and eventual death - but i would highly recommend finding a torrent and downloading the books as read by him if you can find them.

----------


## Drkshadow03

I agree with eric.bell. I'm not sure Stephen King is a literary genius, but I think he's a talented horror writer whose work has a place in the "horror canon" so to speak. I also think he's writing in the same vein as Poe. I find his shorter books and short fiction to have more substance.

Carrie, for example, I think is a solid work.

----------


## JBI

I will put it this way. That he writes for money, is of no consequence, as many great authors write for money, and in truth, the vast majority of them write for money. That is not the problem I have.

The problem I have is he publishes everything, doesn't edit well, and doesn't plan what he is writing - he merely writes for the sake of publishing. One cannot deny his endings flop enough of the time to show that his method of no outline, no pre-planning eventually leads him to rather silly ends - the speed he churns books out at doesn't help either.

His work has an interesting motif, in that it uses horror/fantastical elements to try and show the darker aspects of American history, culture and society. In that sense, it has moments, but really, he could have perhaps been a great writer had he not had such a drive to publish everything, and had instead limited himself to more refined books.

The man writes trash, but only because he writes nonstop - he has the talent necessary to write great fiction, but not the drive to.

As for Poe, call this idiosyncratic or whatever but I don't think there is much there either - to me Poe's conceptualization is interesting, but not his delivery. He had a great mind of phantoms and dark images, but lacked the language to deliver them properly.

Poe's cemented place in the American literary tradition however is by necessity exaggerated by the fact that he is an American author, and not an English author. Longfellow is usually held up as a counter example (though Hiawatha no longer has for me any real interest as it did when I was younger) for the period, and a few more names, but Poe remains due to the fact that there wasn't an Eliot writing in the US in the period to have replaced him - compared to his English or French counterparts, he is undoubtedly lacking, but compared to his countrymen, well...

In that sense Poe, like King, is relevant in that his subject matter is that of concerning a country that doesn't like to read outside its own borders, and likes to play down hard on the early national pride, in the sense that it hammers its own early history into a sort of cultural mythology. Within that scheme though, you need American authors - you need at least one high school year of pure early America to play into the program, so now the trends require Poe.

In Canada it is different in that literature is taught in an international sense, mostly focusing on earlier English works, as well as American ones. Without the agenda then, we do not promote Lampman even though he is by my reckoning a better poet than Poe, and nobody today really reads the Confederation school or that hideously boring poet Sangster.

In that sense, the appreciation of King to me seems to at least really like to limit itself to his American mythologizing, and I don't know - that doesn't quite do it for me. Others see something else, but the whole tradition from Poe to King seems rather boring. But then again, I do not really read prose fiction that often anymore so perhaps it is just a genre-bias.

----------


## .harlequin.

Title says it all.
How has Stephen King impacted the culture of America?

----------


## PeterL

What Impact Did Stephen King Have on American Culture/History?

None beyond the mere sale of popular fiction. He has produced nothing lasting.

----------


## Night_Lamp

We did gain a couple of great movies from his books; like The Shinning and Salem's Lot.

----------


## Drkshadow03

Here is a great essay answering some of your questions. 

For what King lacks in polish at times, he makes up for in his ability to capture the American Zeitgeist.

----------


## dfloyd

American culture as Harriet Beecher Stowe did with Uncle Tom's Cabin.

----------


## The Comedian

This is a really great question. I like dfloyd's comparison to to Stowe -- but the analogy is not that simple: I think in terms of vast popular appeal (and cultural influence) the two authors are similar. Stowe's book helped bring about an important social change, while King's, to my knowledge, have not. 

But I agree with the comparison overall. 

Drkshadow03 -- I'll have to read that essay. Thanks for the link.

----------


## Desolation

> We did gain a couple of great movies from his books; like The Shinning and Salem's Lot.


Carrie was pretty good too.

I think that it says a lot about King that he hated Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining, though.

----------


## Modest Proposal

His non-fiction about the necessity of horror in this day and age, along with Drkshadow's point about Zeitgeist, are generally concieved as very important in academic circles.

PeterL's point is both impossible to prove correct, and very probably wrong altogether. There is NO telling if what he has written is "lasting" because it is still extremely contemporary. Furthermore, many writers--Shakespeare, Dickens--where frowned upon by the elite but lasted because of their popularity to become the cornerstones of the cannon. I've never read King and feel no compulsion to at this time, but to categorically dismiss him as having no affect on culture and history is about the stupidest thing I've heard.

Since this is not a thread about literary merit but rather about culture--i.e. the calculable affect on the public at large--it would be reasonable to say that King as the most published and most adapted modern novelist is THE most impacting living American author. I don't feel completely comfortable defending this claim completely, since some people with a slightly smaller fan-base but more readily seen influence might be more impacting. But my point is that he is certainly one of the most impacting writers on culture. How can you even defend the position that the most read author is not, in some sense, impacting the culture? It's not as if he is writing instruction manuals. King's novels don't, probably, affect each reader to the same extent as, say, Coetzee but what they lack in hugely influencing lives on the individual level, they make up for in slightly influencing the populous at large.

Stand By Me, The Green Mile and The Shining are often ranked in the top 100 American films. While the largest and most respected movie ranking site, IMDB, has Shawshank Redemption jockeying between 1st and 2nd place. That is not even the impact of his scores of books and hundreds of stories, but merely the impact of a FEW of his adaptations.

Add onto this, the influence of all the people and works influenced by his body of work...

Like him or not, he is HUGELY impacting in American culture.

----------


## JBI

> Here is a great essay answering some of your questions. 
> 
> For what King lacks in polish at times, he makes up for in his ability to capture the American Zeitgeist.


To an extent; the question though is the evolution of American identity - not from a change within, but from an emergence amongst minorities like African Americans and Hispanic peoples. To me, he seems to capture the sort of Melville-geographic American horror - seems to continue the sort of New England rooted Gothic mode, but I think in terms of scope, that is limited now, in the sense that McCarthy really captures a different landscape, or Amy Tan tries to capture another.

I would agree with you if King had the ability to flip his imagination, but to me, instead of capturing a sort of American darker self, he just seems absorbed in it. The clown in It does seem the embodiment of the evil within the town it takes place, but his resolution to the novel seems conflicted and stretched.

I guess my problem is he has an idea, but nothing particularly inspiring to get beyond it - there is no real development, unless you count his usual Deus ex Machina endings which undercut the often profound foundations of his work. This is excluding his large body of rather mediocre almost meaningless work, but even if we just focus on the best ones, he seems to discover the darkness, but is not able to move forward beyond there.

----------


## sixsmith

Basically agree with what Modest and Drk (and his essay) have said. In addition, I can recall reading a few of King's short stories and thinking that a couple of them had merit beyond the pleasures of the genre.

----------


## spookymulder93

A lot of you guys sound like you shouldn't really be on the internet. You should just give up all of your worldly possessions and move into the woods and talk to each other and discuss reality. 

I find reality to suck most of the time so I like to escape it and be happy.

----------


## breathtest

> A lot of you guys sound like you shouldn't really be on the internet. You should just give up all of your worldly possessions and move into the woods and talk to each other and discuss reality. 
> 
> I find reality to suck most of the time so I like to escape it and be happy.


I second that completely. 

I think writers do not have a moral responsibility to anybody, except maybe to themselves to get down in writing exactly what is in their heads. Be as truthfull as possible in other words. 

Yeah, maybe some literature is intended to make the reader think and become a little contemplative, but at the same time we need entertainment, we need the writers that provide us with something to escape reality for awhile.

It is ridiculous to sit there and think that writers owe us anything or have a responsibility toward us, and it is even more ridiculous to look down on the writers that provide us with the literature to help us escape from our lives a little.




> Moral writing, which every real fiction writer strives toward, is a quest for beauty, truth, and the Good. I expect someone to come down on me that such a standard is too abstract or devoid of meaning to be a standard at all. So then, I offer here one simple way that we could determine the value of a given novel. Select any three books in the western literary canon---"the greatest works of artistic merit"---and place your selection with them side by side. For example:
> 
> 
> Homer's Iliad
> 
> King's Carrie 
> 
> Plato's Republic
> 
> ...



So, by your logic, lets just forget what some people like and enjoy to read. Who cares that - from the example you used - stephen kings book Carrie sold millions and that tonnes of readers read the book and liked it. Lets just forget that and if a book is not the best of the best, then it should not be published and it is not worth anything. Nice one jackass. You need to stop judging a books worth based on other books, or judging writers' worth based on other writers, and starting judging based on whether people actually like what has been written. I think that makes the book worthwhile, and the writer too.

----------


## Mr.lucifer

Or go with your own judgmement, which is the most important.

----------


## spookymulder93

I honestly think some of the great authors that get a lot of praise from the literary community would be sickened by their hardcore fans. 

The river does not represent freedom it is just a river.

----------


## LMK

I am a fan of Stephen King's writing, not his subject matter usually, but his style. I have enjoyed much of his work (ex, Night Shift, Carrie, Salems Lot, The Shining, The Langoliers, The Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Dreamcatcher), in addition to his On Writing, hes a gifted writer, in my opinion.

My only disappointment was IT, and I enjoyed the writing but did not care for the ending. I mean, really? (I dont want to give any spoiler here so wont go into why it disappointed me)

By the way, what is non-commercial lit? If it's for sale doesn't that make it commercial?

----------


## Heteronym

> Yeah, maybe some literature is intended to make the reader think and become a little contemplative, but at the same time we need entertainment, we need the writers that provide us with something to escape reality for awhile.


Regarding that _maybe:_ let's compare the number of writers who belong in the category of literature with the number of writers who belong in the category of popular fiction. How many Kunderas, Kadares, Coetzees, Saramagos, García Márquezes, Roths exist in comparison to Rowlings, Kings, Browns, Meyers?

Maybe some literature is intended to make the reader think? I think we should rephrase that: so many books exist to merely provide cheap entertainment, that we should be thankful for the few writers that still invite us to reflect about life. A Rowling and Meyer can and will be replaced by the next franchise-making writer. José Saramago is irreplaceable in 20th century literature.

People complain that the poor popular writers are always under attack, but when we consider that they exist in greater number than great writers and that they make a lot more money, I wonder why there aren't equal efforts to complain about the poor great writers that no one reads and that live in obscurity for ages before being discovered, if they're discovered at all.

----------


## Mr.lucifer

I prefer the great entertainers to the average entertainer. The entertainer who gave us a good story that was memorable and still had good characters and plot. Writers like dumas, bradbury, vernes, carrol, and shakespeare.

Shakespeare was a mix of someone who was both an entertainer and someone who gave us a lesson about life.

I like my entertainers to have legimately good. I don't like my stories for entertainment to have poor qualities. I don't demand an entertainment to be just another ordinary distraction , I want something good and memorable.

----------


## spookymulder93

Have you ever read The Stand? It was epic!

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Regarding that _maybe:_ let's compare the number of writers who belong in the category of literature with the number of writers who belong in the category of popular fiction. How many Kunderas, Kadares, Coetzees, Saramagos, García Márquezes, Roths exist in comparison to Rowlings, Kings, Browns, Meyers?
> 
> Maybe some literature is intended to make the reader think? I think we should rephrase that: so many books exist to merely provide cheap entertainment, that we should be thankful for the few writers that still invite us to reflect about life. A Rowling and Meyer can and will be replaced by the next franchise-making writer. José Saramago is irreplaceable in 20th century literature.
> 
> People complain that the poor popular writers are always under attack, but when we consider that they exist in greater number than great writers and that they make a lot more money, I wonder why there aren't equal efforts to complain about the poor great writers that no one reads and that live in obscurity for ages before being discovered, if they're discovered at all.


I'm pretty sure Philip Roth is not starving or struggling in obscurity. Ditto quite a few of the other authors you named. Ironically enough, the Stephen Kings, J.K. Rowlings, and Stephanie Meyers of the world are indeed rare. Anyone going into writing to become a millionaire is going into the wrong profession. Just ask about any writer who decided to write a YA series for entertainment hoping to repeat Rowling's success and who managed to get their series published--I promise most of them probably didn't come remotely close to Rowling in sales, and most likely didn't come anywhere near Philip Roth in sales either.

One of the reasons no one complains about "the poor great writers that no one reads" is because none of the writers you named are obscure and in need of discovery; not to mention there are plenty of people who actually read them.

----------


## Heteronym

You truly believe that writers like Roth, Kundera and García Márquez are as widely read as Meyer, Rowling and Brown? And you truly believe that the proportion of great writers versus mediocre writers is identical?

----------


## Scheherazade

> You truly believe that writers like Roth, Kundera and García Márquez are as widely read as Meyer, Rowling and Brown? And you truly believe that the proportion of great writers versus mediocre writers is identical?


It is not the quantity but quality!

_Obviously,_ people who read Roth, Kundera or Marquez, like ourselves, are, like, way superior intellectually to those who read Meyer, Rowling or Brown. 

Thousand Marquez readers would be same as one million Meyer readers, I'd say.

Not only we read better stuff but probably understand the harder, more complicated stuff more thoroughly than _those_ underlings.

----------


## Alexander III

> A lot of you guys sound like you shouldn't really be on the internet. You should just give up all of your worldly possessions and move into the woods and talk to each other and discuss reality. 
> 
> I find reality to suck most of the time so I like to escape it and be happy.


What he said !


Seriously this discussion has transformed into a series of personal insults, which are quite saddening, considering this is a literary forum, if you insult someone, have some style at least, don't sound like just another kid. 


King is an artist, his books are well written. Is he a great writer however ? In my opinion no, he is just a good writer, nonetheless there is nothing wrong with that and his ability to make millions of of his writing is a remarkable feat. At the end of the day a writer writes what he wants to write, the second a writer changes because he thinks that what he does is not right, is the day he is no longer an artist.

----------


## Heteronym

> It is not the quantity but quality!


But it is a question of quantity. Many people complain that pop fiction writers are always under attack, that they're treated unfairly. But the truth is, there are lots of them. Truly good writers are so rare that they should be cherished because of that. The pleasure they can give is rarer, whereas the pleasure one gets from reading King is no different than the pleasure of reading twelve other horror writers.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> You truly believe that writers like Roth, Kundera and García Márquez are as widely read as Meyer, Rowling and Brown? And you truly believe that the proportion of great writers versus mediocre writers is identical?


Re-read my previous post, and you'll see that's not what I said. 

The specific writers Meyers, Rowling, and King (where did Brown come from?) certainly sell better than Roth, Kundera, and Garcia Marquez for the most part. However, so-called mediocre writers (by which I assume you mean genre fiction writers who write for entertainment) don't usually sell better than Roth and Marquez or other literary heavyweights. 

If we're talking specifically about how much money they make, Meyers, Rowling, and King are flukes rather than representational. 

Roth and Marqeuz are awful examples to prove your point. Roth's novels consistently make the bestseller list (you know, just like James Patterson, Dan Brown, J. K. Rowling, etc.). Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude was selected as an Oprah's Book Club read. They sold/sell in astronomical numbers.

----------


## mortalterror

> If we're talking specifically about how much money they make, Meyers, Rowling, and King are flukes rather than representational.


Since 95% of writers lose money for their publishers, Stephen King, JK Rowling, Dan Brown, Stephany Meyers, James Patterson, and the like make the rest possible. They are like the rich upper class in America that pays the majority of taxes while the lower half have nothing and pay less than they get back in return. They keep the publishing houses afloat. The divas of literature serve a purpose, and provide opportunities to beginning authors. For every Stephen King worth $400 million, there are a hundred poets that made about $50 this year. Publishing companies would go out of business without their superstars and then nobody would get published.

----------


## breathtest

That's an interesting point you made, i never thought of that side of it.

----------


## David Lurie

> Since 95% of writers lose money for their publishers, 
> 
> Publishing companies would go out of business without their superstars and then nobody would get published.


Please show some data to support your theory, I have worked for a few years in the publishing business and I can assure you it doesn't work this way.

----------


## Alexander III

Well statistically only 5% of books make a profit, I read this on amazon I believe.

----------


## breathtest

> Please show some data to support your theory, I have worked for a few years in the publishing business and I can assure you it doesn't work this way.


How else do publishers make money?

----------


## DonovanTalbot

> How else do publishers make money?



Publishers want profits, readers have their tastes. Most publishers want to appeal to any and all demands.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Since 95% of writers lose money for their publishers, Stephen King, JK Rowling, Dan Brown, Stephany Meyers, James Patterson, and the like make the rest possible. They are like the rich upper class in America that pays the majority of taxes while the lower half have nothing and pay less than they get back in return. They keep the publishing houses afloat. The divas of literature serve a purpose, and provide opportunities to beginning authors. For every Stephen King worth $400 million, there are a hundred poets that made about $50 this year. Publishing companies would go out of business without their superstars and then nobody would get published.


Really? I never heard 95%. Are you sure that number is correct? Having talked to some midlist authors, most of them told me they do earn a small profit for their publishers on most books, usually enough to recoup costs and pay for someone's salary. 

Here is a good article from a midlist author discussing her career.

-------------------------------

By the way, to those who think "entertainment" genre writers make more money than people writing serious literature. The midlist author in the article I linked to who claims to have been critically acclaimed and be writing serious lit made advances from $25,000 to $150,000 (and she complained about $25,000 being abysmally low), and remember this is someone who lost money in many cases for her publisher. Meanwhile, according to this survey conducted by SF writer Tobias Buckell, the average fantasy and SF writer with multiple books published gets a $12,500 advance for SF and $15,000 advance for fantasy. The average advance for your average SF and fantasy author is far less than the midlist author writing "serious" literature.

----------


## LMK

I agree with Alexander III that King is an artist and well written; although, I have no want to make a distinction other than the man can write and I like to read his writing. As I've stated I'm not always crazy about his subject matter, and I don't necessarily agree that a writer writes what he wants. Sometimes a writer has stories to tell and simply tells them, the stories are what they are. What I like to read and what I write are not the same.

It is also my opinion that Mr. King, as well as any other author, can make as much money as they care to and it will not affect my opinion of their writing or of their talent.

While it might be true that some formulaic authors who churn out the stories and make money, arguably without much literary substance does allow publishing houses to publish a wider variety of work. So, good one!

----------


## Razeus

Well I'm 33 and I read Stephen in my teen years, eagerly trying to read alot of his stuff. I loved him then, but lost touch with him after a while. Partly because I realized he's been writing gibberish or he simply lost his touch.

Books I've read from those good old days:

The Stand
It
Misery
The Shining
The Dark Half
Needful Things (I think this was the book that made me move on from him)
The Tommyknockers (this one too)
Cujo
The Gunslinger
Eyes of the Dragon
Night Shift
Skeleton Crew
Nightmares & Dreamscapes
Four Past Midnight
Bag of Bones (this one sealed his fate)

But he's still writing and it's been years since I picked up any of his books. What are some his best, latest material. I'm looking at getting "Under the Dome" but it looks like it's one of his writing just to be writing overly long novels.

Thoughts?

----------


## Alexander III

dont go back, just dont...

----------


## ElBennet85

I recommend the Duma key.Very well written with loving characters, touching,frightening.... :Smile:  :Smile:

----------


## LuggageFan

> I recommend the Duma key.Very well written with loving characters, touching,frightening....


I disagree. I thought it was overly long and really, his writing has become really pedestrian; that is, why does he or his publisher think writing the equivalent of "Jack and Jill went up the hill, after making some small talk. Jack wanted to scream at the scary thing he saw there, but first, he scratched his butt like a character in a Bullwinkle cartoon, who's just inhaled a ****load of crystal meth and can't make up his mind what to do next, and actually Jill did this first (only after she made a call to her long-lost daughter who lived in Venezuela with a dog named Spot - not making that up), but then suddenly..." And on and on and on like that FOR 700 PAGES!  :Cuss:  

His early stuff, though, was terrific.

----------


## solaris

always been a King fan as, even if his books might not be the most enlightening or traumatic or deep, they were always a place to go for an easy read that never failed to entertain me. sometimes i need that, and he never fails to deliver, unlike the films.  :Frown: 

my suggestion is that you read his Dark Tower series, beginning with The Gunslinger, followed by (in order) The Drawing of the Three, The Waste Lands, Wizard and Glass, Wolves of the Calla, Song of Susannah and, finally, The Dark Tower. for me, these are the story that all his other stories have only been drafts of. here there are so many references, links, nods... The story follows the same set of people in various worlds running parallel to our own - and it's in these parallel worlds we see hints of his other tales, like the Cap'n Trips epidemic for example.

my only problem now is reading any more of his writing; The Dark Tower series seems to be what all the rest has been about.

if you did want to read individual King publications, not of this series, i'd recommend his 1996 *Desperation* and *Black House* (brilliantly co-written with Peter Straub).

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I second Duma Key, Black House (pick up The Talisman first, also written with Straub and also brilliant) and his Dark Tower series.

Though, I liked Bag of Bones, haha.

----------


## laymonite

Of all the King novels I've read (all except _Thinner_ and _The Running Man_), I was enthralled with _Bag of Bones_, _Hearts in Atlantis_, _Cujo_, and _Lisey's Story_. I thought all of these showcased a solid writer with an amazing imagination and eye for detail. That being said, I haven't been impressed with the last couple: _Duma Key_ and _Under the Dome_.

----------


## hampusforev

Wow, as always when discussing King, I'm reminded how overprotective and slightly obsessive his fans are. The only other person I've seen so protective is Bazarov about Dostoevski. That kind of loyalty is actually kinda sweet, I doubt I feel as strongly about any writer. 

The only thing I can add to this is my personal opinion, which probably won't be either unique or revelatory. King is a supreme storyteller, I always listen with bated breath whenever he has something to say, be that in writing or in interviews. He also seems like a real swell guy, hilarious and unpretentious, if I had to befriend any writer I'd rather go with King than Tolstoi or that nutcase Dostoevski (that's probably unfair, both Tolstoi and D seems nutty). But as a writer, I find him lacking in what makes me love Tolstoi, Faulkner or even Cormac McCarthy. I don't marvel at the world or its inhabitants when I read King, even though I itch to turn the pages. The movie, Stand By Me is excellent however, a real gem. I haven't read the original story The Body, so I don't know what to attribute to King. Shawshank Redemption is classic Hollywood, but pretty stale imo, same with The Green Mile. 

I think comparing King to Hemingway or Faulkner is laughable, there is no comparison in my mind. And if you feel that way, our parameters for great literature is so disparate that I doubt I could ever agree with you on anything literary.

----------


## ralfyman

I tried reading "The Mist" because it was part of the _Dark Forces_ anthology but couldn't continue because I found the prose very bland. It also didn't help that days earlier I was reading short stories by Hemingway and Faulkner, and could not stop myself from comparing King with these writers. (I also read McCarthy's _The Road_ more than a year ago and found it notable.) On top of that, I started reading a story from Isaac Bashevis Singer from the anthology just mentioned and enjoyed it!

About Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, I started reading the first in secondary school and Tolstoy in uni, and it helps that many of the other things that I learned, including modern philosophy, are strongly connected to their works. With that, I will very likely have less time to read King's works, although one day I might try _Dolores Clairborne_.

----------


## mal4mac

> Hi All, 
> 
> Still finding my feet here, so please tell me if I am posting this in the wrong place and prod me in the right direction!
> 
> I am about to start reading The Green Mile. Now, I am a bit of a speed reader and I feel that I am missing out on a lot of the detail and points that authors make. Hence me joining here! 
> 
> So, Is anyone interested in having a bit of a 'book club' style discussion as we read through the book? Thinking of starting towards the end of this week. 
> 
> I'm sure this book has been reviewed on here already, but would really like to hear peoples thoughts as they progress through the book.......


Is Stephen King an appropriate author to discuss on a literature forum? 

The Wikipedia page on King, in the 'critical response' section, has no positive responses from any literary academic or acknowledged 'gatekeeper of literature'. 

But it has several negative responses. 

Richard Snyder, the former CEO of Simon & Schuster, described King's work as "non-literature", Harold Bloom really disliked him: 'The decision to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.'

Even genre critics are harsh about him - Joshi argues that King's supernatural novels are mostly bloated, illogical, maudlin and prone to deus ex machina endings. 

Joshi suggests that King's strengths are the accessible "everyman" quality of his prose, and insightful observations about the pains and joys of adolescence. That seems about right, and perhaps explains his popularity amongst a young audience who "know no better".

I did read a few King novels as an adolescent but gave up on him - for reasons that Joshi and Bloom explicate quite well - Tommyknockers was the final straw - what an awful book on every level!

Discussing King here would be like discussing cold fusion in a physics forum - maybe it would be safer to seek out a Stephen King fan forum?!

But I am now quite tempted to read "The Modern Weird Tale" by S. T. Joshi.

----------


## Scheherazade

On this Forum we discuss homosexual tendencies of animals, video games, _Twilight_ and _Harry Potter_ as well as Faulkner and Coelho. It is open to discussion of all books and authors (as long as they are legal) and I am appalled by the suggestion that it is inappropriate to discuss this book on here.

Bath might be a young reader but has every right to read and discuss any book of their choice.


This is one of the books listed in BBC's Big Read, actually, and I haven't read it yet. If you give me sometime to acquire it, I will join you, Bath!  :Smile:

----------


## Abookinthebath

Many interesting points there, Mal, and I agree, to an extent, with some of it.

However, please understand, I am not a literary critic. I am trying to get into some of the more meaningful and classic texts, but equally, I enjoy a good story. And is the enjoyment factor not as important as the response of 'literary academics'?

I am open to suggestions of books to read that have a higher academic standing, indeed there are a few on my 'list'!

And I'll avoid the King fanboy forums for now!

Scheherazade - let me know when you have it!

(And for reference, I'm a 30 something guy, who is quite proud of his immaturity!)

----------


## mal4mac

Of course anyone has the right to read any book of their choice. But I also have the right to question whether a Stephen King book should be discussed in a forum that tags itself as a 'literature forum'. 

Using 'define: in Google', we get the reasonable definition 'Literature - Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".'

I'm surprised to see you taking this forum to be about "the looser" definition - "Written works" - when most postings here seems to take the broader definition on board - "...those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit".

"The Big Read" is evidence for the dumbing-down of the BBC, not evidence for "literature of superior or lasting artistic merit". Looking at the list, I'd guess it was voted for mostly by Tolkeinists and seven year olds - two factions famous for spending too much time on the internet. 

The BBC does still do some things well, of course. The Christopher Hitchens essay series on BBC Radio 4 at the moment is superb... and "Start the Week" has started well this season...

----------


## Scheherazade

Mal, as always, one has the option of not taking part in any discussion that does not appeal to their tastes... And that starts by not posting in those threads.

----------


## Abookinthebath

Um, Mal, if you care to have a look at the bottom of this page, you will find the 'Stephen King Trash or Literature' thread. Many opposing views there. 

This discussion isn't why I started this thread.

----------


## mal4mac

> I am trying to get into some of the more meaningful and classic texts, but equally, I enjoy a good story. And is the enjoyment factor not as important as the response of 'literary academics'?
> 
> I am open to suggestions of books to read that have a higher academic standing, indeed there are a few on my 'list'!


What's enjoyable about bad writing? There are many literary novels that are easily enjoyed, that have King's "Everyman appeal" - anything by Dickens. Tolstoy's shorter novels. R.L. Stevenson's adventures. H.G. Wells' science fiction, Philip Roth, ...

----------


## cafolini

> Is Stephen King an appropriate author to discuss on a literature forum? 
> 
> The Wikipedia page on King, in the 'critical response' section, has no positive responses from any literary academic or acknowledged 'gatekeeper of literature'. 
> 
> But it has several negative responses. 
> 
> Richard Snyder, the former CEO of Simon & Schuster, described King's work as "non-literature", Harold Bloom really disliked him: 'The decision to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.'
> 
> Even genre critics are harsh about him - Joshi argues that King's supernatural novels are mostly bloated, illogical, maudlin and prone to deus ex machina endings. 
> ...


It seems that King is of little interest, which makes it very amazing the length to which you go about.

----------


## Vladimir777

How would you guys compare this to King's other books? I like him a lot. My favorites are _The Shining_ and _It_. I've attempted _The Stand_ several times, but have yet to complete it.  :Brickwall: 

Not sure why people aren't supposed to talk about Stephen King on a literary forum. How is he not literature again? Just because he isn't high art doesn't mean that he isn't an author of literature. I find the elitism on this board sometimes frankly quite ridiculous. If you guys like this a lot, I might add it to my list of books to read. I liked the movie.

I'm currently reading the King James Bible, so it might be a while before I have time to read something else.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Is Stephen King an appropriate author to discuss on a literature forum? 
> 
> The Wikipedia page on King, in the 'critical response' section, has no positive responses from any literary academic or acknowledged 'gatekeeper of literature'. 
> 
> But it has several negative responses. 
> 
> Richard Snyder, the former CEO of Simon & Schuster, described King's work as "non-literature", Harold Bloom really disliked him: 'The decision to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.'
> 
> Even genre critics are harsh about him - Joshi argues that King's supernatural novels are mostly bloated, illogical, maudlin and prone to deus ex machina endings. 
> ...


We should determine discussion criteria based on the commentary of a whopping three critics? Why should critical acclaim even be a factor? It seems quite shortsighted to leave out any book not endorsed by a certain group of people. Not to mention incredibly close-minded, shortsighted, and pompous. 

Oh, and that you based your argument there solely on what Wikipedia provided is quite humorous.

----------


## mal4mac

> Not sure why people aren't supposed to talk about Stephen King on a literary forum. How is he not literature again? Just because he isn't high art doesn't mean that he isn't an author of literature. I find the elitism on this board sometimes frankly quite ridiculous. If you guys like this a lot, I might add it to my list of books to read. I liked the movie.
> 
> I'm currently reading the King James Bible, so it might be a while before I have time to read something else.


According to the loose definition, any "written work", is literature, so the phone book and Stephen King's novels are indeed literature, by this loose definition. 

If by "high art" you mean "written works considered of superior or lasting artistic merit" then that is, indeed, the tighter definition of "literature". Why is it elitist to want to discuss superior and lasting works of artistic merit? Why would you want to read works that are inferior and ephemeral?

I might not want to read certain superior and lasting works because they are "difficult", but I can admit they are superior and lasting and bow to those who make the effort to overcome the difficulties. So good luck with the King James Bible.

I've read some works of Stephen King and don't find his works to be superior, and think they have little chance of lasting. This feeling is backed up by several serious critics, and the opposite position is not backed up by any critic I respect. 

His success is based, I feel, on being an "easy read", having some facility in story telling, and being at joining point of several trends in popular culture - teenage angst, horror... - but this is no reason to call his work literature in the stronger sense.




> We should determine discussion criteria based on the commentary of a whopping three critics? Why should critical acclaim even be a factor? It seems quite shortsighted to leave out any book not endorsed by a certain group of people. Not to mention incredibly close-minded, shortsighted, and pompous.


So are you looking forward to threads for "The Trainspotters Manual" and "Phone Book Appreciation Society"? 

There has to be some criteria for distinguishing great literature from trash, and from any old writing. It has been my experience that great critics are good pointers to great literature, to books that *I* want to read and that are of lasting value.

----------


## Abookinthebath

> Oh, and that you based your argument there solely on what Wikipedia provided is quite humorous.


LOL! I remember when someone asked me to describe a critical part of my job, and told me I was wrong because of a Wiki entry!!

----------


## JCamilo

> According to the loose definition, any "written work", is literature, so the phone book and Stephen King's novels are indeed literature, by this loose definition.


Yes, the phone book is literature. You know, because listing as boring it may be, is textual form present in several works such as biblie - where they list laws or genealogies to Homer, that lists the greek fleet. 

I find funny that you do not notice that 'Literature - Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".' are bad definitions, because to consider Stephen King a work of literature of inferior or ephemeral artistic merit, or a small work of literature, I have to first consider it literature. It is only dismissed as literature after we demand it to have qualities of literary work. It is like me dissmissing Pele as football player because he was a bad basketball player. IOW: You are commiting the mistake of demanding from Stephen King literary vallue, so you must expect to find literary traits to show or in this case, fail to show, those traits. Thus, a work of literary traits is literature. 






> If by "high art" you mean "written works considered of superior or lasting artistic merit" then that is, indeed, the tighter definition of "literature". Why is it elitist to want to discuss superior and lasting works of artistic merit? Why would you want to read works that are inferior and ephemeral?


Well, It is elistist. Sorry, but it is true. Snobbery is a fine art, mastered by those who ellect and demmand the finest qualities. 

There is someting completely different from discussing X, Y, Z works and denying the definition as literature. I for example, do not go to discuss all classics in the world. Not all of them appeal to me. Something Stephen King appeals to me, specially considering he was part of my teen years, so I can feel like talking about it. This does not imply I consider Stephen King superior or a work of lasting merit. This imply those are my personal choices, as much as talking about classical authors that many wont talk about.

And really, a definition is something universal, not based on opinions. Moby Dick didnt became literature after the critics discovered the qualities of the work, it was already literature. Critics are not owners of vocabulary, so really, their opinion means square rat *** about the definition. 





> I've read some works of Stephen King and don't find his works to be superior, and think they have little chance of lasting. This feeling is backed up by several serious critics, and the opposite position is not backed up by any critic I respect. 
> 
> l, on being an "easy read", having some facility in story telling, and being at joining point of several trends in popular culture - teenage angst, horror... - but this is no reason to call his work literature in the stronger sense.


Virginia Woolf said about the same about Robert Louis Stevenson. Thank god we had Henry James to allow us to call him in the stronger sense. Yet, in a more snobeberry level, as much Stevenson is a perfect story teller, we can be even more snob and rule him out. He didnt got on Cervantes level, so we call him what, Literature with a * ?






> So are you looking forward to threads for "The Trainspotters Manual" and "Phone Book Appreciation Society"?


As if the Encyclopedia is not as ridiculous right? 




> There has to be some criteria for distinguishing great literature from trash, and from any old writing. It has been my experience that great critics are good pointers to great literature, to books that *I* want to read and that are of lasting value.


Here, again: there has to be some criteria for distinguishing great literature from trash _literature._ 

Indeed. And the first step on a critery, that can be fairly applied to both, is to accept both are literature. Otherwise, you would be avoiding the very critery.

----------


## Calidore

> How would you guys compare this to King's other books? I like him a lot. My favorites are _The Shining_ and _It_. I've attempted _The Stand_ several times, but have yet to complete it.


_The Shining_ and _The Stand_ are my favorites, but I liked pretty much everything until _The Tommyknockers_, except _It_ (actually well-written, but once the nature of the antagonist was revealed, that was it) and _Cujo_. _Tommyknockers_ was another decent story with a bad ending (also _Needful Things_ which reused the ending of another novel), but then the bad novels started flying thick--_Dark Half_ , _Gerald's Game_, _Insomnia_ (neat idea here, but early on the old people started shooting energy beams from their hands like Ultraman, and that was it for me). He did recover a bit with _Rose Madder_ and the _Desperation/Regulators_ twofer, but I think at this point the heavy alcohol and drug abuse had taken enough of a toll on his brain that he was no longer capable of the depth he used to have. I haven't read anything from _Bag of Bones_ on, so I'd be curious if he's recovered any of his plotting skill since going on the wagon and recovering from that horrific roadside accident.




> I'm currently reading the King James Bible, so it might be a while before I have time to read something else.


I would be interested in reading the Stephen King James Bible. He could at least make the boring bits less boring.

----------


## cafolini

Anything is literature. Literature is an interpretation, not a particular form or meaning. A phone book could be literature depending on how it is interpreted.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> His success is based, I feel, on being an "easy read", having some facility in story telling, and being at joining point of several trends in popular culture - teenage angst, horror... - but this is no reason to call his work literature in the stronger sense.


Yes, it is. 




> So are you looking forward to threads for "The Trainspotters Manual" and "Phone Book Appreciation Society"? 
> 
> There has to be some criteria for distinguishing great literature from trash, and from any old writing. It has been my experience that great critics are good pointers to great literature, to books that *I* want to read and that are of lasting value.


Whether or not I'm looking forward to such threads is irrelevant (despite your straw-man argument). 

There "has" to be some criteria? Since when? How can a universal criteria agreed upon by everyone even be determined? Plus, why would something that is determined "trash" not be literature?

In any case, I've read books that are critically acclaimed that I've not been impressed with.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Is Stephen King an appropriate author to discuss on a literature forum? 
> 
> The Wikipedia page on King, in the 'critical response' section, has no positive responses from any literary academic or acknowledged 'gatekeeper of literature'. 
> 
> But it has several negative responses. 
> 
> Richard Snyder, the former CEO of Simon & Schuster, described King's work as "non-literature", Harold Bloom really disliked him: 'The decision to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.'
> 
> Even genre critics are harsh about him - Joshi argues that King's supernatural novels are mostly bloated, illogical, maudlin and prone to deus ex machina endings. 
> ...


There are quite a few professors that take King's work seriously such as Tony Magistrale. He even edited a collection of essays that you can find here, which includes work from lots of different professors. Assuming all the essays are positive then we can assume at least 14 professors in academia take King's work seriously. My guess is there are plenty more. 

Last time I checked, King's also been publishing his stories these days in the literary elite, The New Yorker. On the wiki page you quoted, it notes he won an O Henry award for a short story. You talk about Joshi's dislike, but fail to mention John Clute's positive assessment (one of the major genre critics of the century); he is a major and well-known genre critic. Not to mention King won the National Book Award Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. You can find quite a few college level syllabi with King either headlining or include in the course. That doesn't sound to me like someone who isn't being taken seriously. 




> We should determine discussion criteria based on the commentary of a whopping three critics? Why should critical acclaim even be a factor? It seems quite shortsighted to leave out any book not endorsed by a certain group of people. Not to mention incredibly close-minded, shortsighted, and pompous. 
> 
> Oh, and that you based your argument there solely on what Wikipedia provided is quite humorous.


In these discussions, people will always invoke an imaginary nonexistent literati who unsurprisingly agree with their viewpoint. "Oh, no critics have anything positive to say about Harry Potter. No serious critic likes Stephen King."

In reality, there is no such thing as a homogenous group of critics who all like the same books and all dislike the same books. There are plenty of critics teaching at universities today with published scholarly books on Stephen King and his work. Hell, there are plenty of dissertations on King's novels.

----------


## JCamilo

Of course, even to dismiss the qualities of Stephen King (he is not thaaaat bad), we must take him seriously.

----------


## mal4mac

> Yes, the phone book is literature. You know, because listing as boring it may be, is textual form present in several works such as biblie - where they list laws or genealogies to Homer, that lists the greek fleet.


The list in the Illiad is not just a list of people in your town, it is a list of Greek heroes. For a Greek person of that time just hearing the names would have had a great emotional impact - the choice of that particular list is what makes it a work of artistic creation and a work of literature.

But, I must admit, I found the list in the Iliad list almost as tedious as the phone book because I did not know who most of those Greeks were! (Also that list was only one section - there is wonderful story telling in there. There aren't many wonderful stories in the phone book.




> I find funny that you do not notice that 'Literature - Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".' are bad definitions..


I do think this is a bad, or at least ambiguous, definition; but it's what we are stuck with! (I copied it direct from Goggle define.)

Stephen King's work is literature in the broad sense, that includes the phone book. In the narrow sense, according to several critics, it is inferior literature, or not literature at all.

You make a good point about considering King to be inferior literature, rather than not literature at all. I will concede that.

Not all "classics" appeal to me. The basic readability and "teenage angst" themes of King somewhat appealed to me in my youth, and I got through some of his novels. I haven't got through the Bible, Ulysses, or Proust. I think he's a bit like junk food - goes down easy, but it's not really very nutritous or tasty - and likely to be bad for you in excess. And I could have been reading Stevenson, Dickens, more Wells,... 

We need to be able to, at least, create categories of great literature and not-great literature. Stevenson makes it into the "great" camp not just because he's the perfect story teller, but because he writes superbly well, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and has some very important things to say about the human condition - Dr Jekyll has received iconic stature in our culture, second only to the greatest figures (Hamlet, Don Quixote...)

I think King is in the not-great camp, along with the phone book, though in a different category - the phone book is at least useful!




> Assuming all the essays are positive then we can assume at least 14 professors in academia take King's work seriously.


As they are publishing essays on him then they take him seriously, but why do you assume they are all positive?

You *can't* assume that, for instance, Harold Bloom & Tony Magistrale appear under the same cover here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y-vdjwEACAAJ

The National Book Award Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters cannot be taken seriously as an award for literary merit. You don't even need to be a writer! Oprah Winfrey has won it, and the introduction explicitly says this was for her Book Club, not for anything she has written..., for being a good book seller. Does that mean Amazon or Waterstones can win it? 

"A few college level syllabi" will include anything in this dumbed down age. 

You can always find some critics say positive things about anything, even (especially?) in third rate colleges.

You *can* find some great critics who dismiss books that almost all other critics say are masterpieces. 

But you can find many authors that almost all serious critics admire. 

Stephen King isn't one of them.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

It's so convenient to pick out one little section of a person's rebuttal to choose to refute, isn't it?

----------


## mal4mac

One small section? I thought I engaged fairly well with the main arguments being made. Why not engage with the arguments? It's usually a sign that someone is losing an argument when they attack the method of arguing...

----------


## Scheherazade

*~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing inflammatory or off-topics comments will be further without further notice.

~*

----------


## JCamilo

> The list in the Illiad is not just a list of people in your town, it is a list of Greek heroes. For a Greek person of that time just hearing the names would have had a great emotional impact - the choice of that particular list is what makes it a work of artistic creation and a work of literature.


Probally the same impact that some people feel reading babies names books, or the list of people in their 4th grade class, or watever: reckognition and memory. 

The thing is: listing is a form of organization of text (just like many others) with specific function that a writer can use to try to cause impact. You cann't dismiss the form based on effect, for as you even agreed, the effect is not a norm. 




> But, I must admit, I found the list in the Iliad list almost as tedious as the phone book because I did not know who most of those Greeks were! (Also that list was only one section - there is wonderful story telling in there. There aren't many wonderful stories in the phone book.


Not much storytelling in Confucious either. Or in Emily Dickinson poem. The listing obeys probally the same idea of a phone book, information: here, those are the cities that attacked troy. If you belong to any of them, see how they were represented and by which "family". 

Plus, The Illiad whole organization is "artificial", when Homer was singing, the sections are probally split...






> I do think this is a bad, or at least ambiguous, definition; but it's what we are stuck with! (I copied it direct from Goggle define.)


Goggle is not god, so I am not stuck with him. For example, try to use Evolution or Theory on goggle and apply it on a debate about biology or science in the middle of religious creationists. It will be truly "Useful" to use goggle as basis. 

A good definition resists to testing, circunstances and can be understood by all. Goggle just select popular definitions, not the best definitions. 




> Stephen King's work is literature in the broad sense, that includes the phone book. In the narrow sense, according to several critics, it is inferior literature, or not literature at all.


Critics that say he is bad literature, are saying he is literature. Even because many people define literature by fiction literature, much narrow than the definition as written text. But that goes to drain: Critics consideration (specially literary critics, which obviously only have status as analysts of literature in first place, not cousine) cannt be used as basis. It is not solid. Herman Melville started to write literature after his death? Until them, critics are slamming him. So did Emily Dickinson? All would be necessary is to find one critic saying something good about King (it is not as hard, he obviously know how to write the pulp-fiction/horror, he clearly continues a lineage of authors, he certainlly provoke emotions on people) to have a new definition? Everyday, a new dictionary! Imagine then when you get a bad work from a great author. Even Shakespeare, despite doing exactly the same technique intentions, etc, you will say some of his plays are not literature and some are? 




> You make a good point about considering King to be inferior literature, rather than not literature at all. I will concede that.
> 
> Not all "classics" appeal to me. The basic readability and "teenage angst" themes of King somewhat appealed to me in my youth, and I got through some of his novels. I haven't got through the Bible, Ulysses, or Proust. I think he's a bit like junk food - goes down easy, but it's not really very nutritous or tasty - and likely to be bad for you in excess. And I could have been reading Stevenson, Dickens, more Wells,...


Well, you do not need to return to King, but it is insane to consider that all your reading is classical reading. You obviously do not have the capacity to judge or know the quality of works before as you may have now, so it was a path you have to walk. I see people who love Murakami, and I frankly, have yet to see something that would set him apart of Stephen King - in fact, his Kafka at the shore seemed like a Stephen King story... 

And it is not Stevenson or Wells, but guys like Haggard, Conan Doyle, Lovecraft, Poe, Chesterton all suffer attack from some critics that put they waaaaaaay down on the shelves, because they could be reading Flaubert, Woolf or Faulkner... Sure, you can be reading anything, but I cannt be defining anything based on my reading story.

We need to be able to, at least, create categories of great literature and not-great literature. Stevenson makes it into the "great" camp not just because he's the perfect story teller, but because he writes superbly well, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and has some very important things to say about the human condition - Dr Jekyll has received iconic stature in our culture, second only to the greatest figures (Hamlet, Don Quixote...)




> I think King is in the not-great camp, along with the phone book, though in a different category - the phone book is at least useful!


All art us useless, so...

----------


## osho

He is the commercial type and his creativity was not wielded in an inventive bowel and he is the bus-stand type we read while waiting for something, a kind of time-passer. He got the National Book Awards along with a life time achievement award which he did not deserve at all. That is why Harold Bloom rightly said:
The decision to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## Fai

Stephen King is definitely NOT trash. Of course he's not classic or something, but I like the ideas of his books, and I enjoy films made after his novels very much. He's got his talent and I really like what this man creates, I think his life phylosophy is pretty much like mine.
_____________
ipad developer

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> it's interesting that most of you are talking of Stephen King as if he has written one book, or as if he is a book. The man has written dozens of novels, novellas, short stories, and screenplays. I agree that, generally, most of these fall under the rubric of trash, but a mature mind can evaluate each work individually. _Pet Sematary_ and _The Shining_, for example, are juvenile pieces of trash, whereas _Needful Things_ has a very profound plot. It is the story of evil that is by itself impotent, but with the help of generally good yet weak and stupid accomplices can achieve its evil goals. Sounds familiar? Hitler, Stalin, Mao - the list is long. Scrap most of the supernatural crap and put this plot in the hands of Dickens, and it would have become a classic for the ages. Even in the hands of King it was a pretty good novel.


Really? I always thought _The Shining_ was one of his better novels, and I'm pretty sure I've seen this sentiment echoed.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> As they are publishing essays on him then they take him seriously, but why do you assume they are all positive?
> 
> You *can't* assume that, for instance, Harold Bloom & Tony Magistrale appear under the same cover here:
> 
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y-vdjwEACAAJ
> 
> The National Book Award Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters cannot be taken seriously as an award for literary merit. You don't even need to be a writer! Oprah Winfrey has won it, and the introduction explicitly says this was for her Book Club, not for anything she has written..., for being a good book seller. Does that mean Amazon or Waterstones can win it? 
> 
> "A few college level syllabi" will include anything in this dumbed down age. 
> ...


I made the assumption about the collection of essays from one of the Editorial reviews (magazine/journal) on Amazon, which read:




> With three respected studies of Stephen King already published, Tony Magistrale has become the strongest voice among those who argue the respectability of King's fiction. In this volume he has selected the best essays from the vast body of recent King scholarship to support his contention that King is not only one of America's most popular writers, but he is also one of its best. The essays argue collectively that King's works are deeply influenced by the mainstream traditions of 19th- and 20th-century American and European fiction and are a commentary illustrative of the major political and social tensions shaping contemporary American life. They argue further, with limited success, that King's works rely on a rich literary tradition that includes such respected genres as the gothic and classical Greek tragedy. Remarkably effective in this argument are G. Weller's "The Masks of the Godden," E. Casebeer's "The Three Genres of The Stand," and R. Curran's "Complex, Archetype, and Primal Fear." - Choice


It sounds to me like the collection will mostly be positive criticism that analyzes the themes, structures, and lineage of King's work, especially since the first sentence informs me that Magistrale is a proponent of King's literary worth and this is his third book on the topic, even though I knew that already. 

The National Book Award Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters is for "a person who has enriched our literary heritage over a life of service, or a corpus of work." So you can win it for either of those two reasons. Oprah won it for the former, while Stephen King won it for the latter. Given the many prestigious names on the list: Eudora Welty, Saul Bellow, John Updike, Toni Morrison, Arthur Miller, Philip Roth sounds like they're awarding for literary merit to me. You might not agree with the choices, but that doesn't change what the award is for. Why do you think Harold Bloom and company got in such a huff and puff about him winning? Because they did take the award seriously. After all, you don't see them freaking out over all of King's other major genre awards.

Most serious critics admire the same exact authors because most of those authors are dead, old, and well-established. It's uncontroversial to claim Shakespeare or Dickens is a great writer. So it's not surprising we find most serious critics admire them. 

But when you start looking at contemporary texts, you quickly notice there isn't that same strong agreement. Oh, there is certainly some. I suspect if you polled most academics today some names will continually pop up like Roth, Pychon, etc. But even then, you'll find a much higher ratio of professors and literati who think Roth or Pychon is overrated crap than you would for names like Shakespeare.

As for King, he's an important author in the horror genre. I think he's an author whose work (maybe not all of it, but some of it) will continually appeal to people who are interested in horror in particular. The poorness of his writing is greatly exaggerated usually by people who haven't ever really read much in the way of actual bad writing. I was particularly impressed by his first novel, Carrie, which was succinctly written (it's not long and bloated like his later novels; it's a lean, raw, powerful monster), fits in the same vein as Stoker's Dracula by taking an epistolary approach, but is experimental and modern in that it does so through newspaper clippings, magazine articles, and such. But I've never seen a novel that really understands the psyche of social dynamics of modern bullying, which is an epidemic these days. 

You don't have to like Stephen King. That wasn't the point of my post. The main point of my post is please stop pretending all critics agree Stephen King is awful when in fact I just demonstrated that there are critics in academia who like Stephen King's work.

----------


## Delta40

Do you think most popular equates to best?

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## mal4mac

> Not much storytelling in Confucious either. Or in Emily Dickinson poem. The listing obeys probally the same idea of a phone book, information: here, those are the cities that attacked troy. If you belong to any of them, see how they were represented and by which "family".


I wasn't trying to argue that all literature must be mostly story, I agree that Confucius and Dickinson are literature.

Ok the listing in the Illiad certainly contained useful information somewhat like the phone book, but it shows more discrimination than the phone book (!).

You don't get Homer saying things like "Here is Pericles, he delivers milk. Here is Plato he drives mules, and so on for ten thousand people pursuing mundane tasks. This mundanity, and indescrimanation may be what makes the phone book bad literature (I'll concede your point abou calling it literature... but you have to admit it's bad!)

The phone book exists in another space besides literature of course - the space of "useful guides" - this might provide a useful two scale graph on which to place literary artifacts. For instance, a history book might score highly as literature and moderately as a useful guide.

------

I'm just using Google as a common starting point, if you want to pull out the OED and argue that Google's definition disagress with that of the OED, then let's go there!

I'm sure the Google people want to select the best definitions - they are a bright bunch of geeks, i can't imagine them throwing up any old rubbish on purpose. Given their automated processes they may not always provide the best - contact them and tell them off if you don't like their definitions! I'm happy to work with their definition of literature ... It doesn't seem too bad for a two liner...

Most critics agree that it takes time (a hundred years?) before you can be 'reasonably sure' about the status of a work of literature. The critics slamming Herman Melville when he was alive might have had "personal issues", or were not yet equipped to appreciate him properly

If you find one critic from a minor college saying that a King novel is great literature does that make it great literature?




> Even Shakespeare, despite doing exactly the same technique intentions, etc, you will say some of his plays are not literature and some are?


Read my last post carefully. I'm conceding your main point! You win! Everything, including the phone book, the beer mat, and the bus ticket are literature.

How far can you go with this? I just drew a squiggle on a piece of paper that isn't a character (as far as I know...) Is that literature? Or a painting? Is it bad art - or primitive, or surreal?

I don't just read classical literature. I'm trying to read a lot of different new authors recently using a random method of picking a "rated" author of the library new shelf.

I read my first Murakami novel recently, Wind Up Bird Chronicle, and it was quite "different" to start with, so I was quite enjoying it. But I quickly got bored with it, and I now agree with you - not much to set him apart from Stephen King.




> And it is not Stevenson or Wells, but guys like Haggard, Lovecraft, Poe, Chesterton all suffer attack from some critics that put they waaaaaaay down on the shelves, because they could be reading Flaubert, Woolf or Faulkner...


I read all these authors in my youth (except Chesterton) and only Stevenson and Wells left a warm glow that makes me seriously want to repeat the experience as an adult.

Flaubert is in the class of at least Stevenson, maybe Dickens - I'd personally recommend reading him without reservation. Also, most of the critics love him -and he's been around for a 100 years. 

Woolf and Faulkner I have strong reservations about, I struggled reading "To the Lighthouse" and "As I lay dying". Some first-rate University professors don't rate these modernists highly (e.g., John Carey) - and they are less than a hundred years old - still subject to being hyped by trendies. Maybe in twenty years they will be consigned to the dustbin? carey makes an atrgument for such works as *trulty* elitist - they were designed by the snobs to be unreadable by the newly literate working class. 

This has the unfortunate aspect of making the average reader think that "literature is not for them" and that "King is for them". Better would be *some* great literature is not for them (too archaic/specialised- Bible Illiad,...) and some supposed great literature (Wolfe, Faulkner) either isn't great, or is great, but specialised to support the leanings of a snobbish elite (which IMHO puts them beyond the pale, great literature has to be *universal*, at least for the time in which it is written.)

----------


## Drkshadow03

> If you find one critic from a minor college saying that a King novel is great literature does that make it great literature?


Define minor college. The University of Vermont is ranked 82 out of 1600.

----------


## mal4mac

> Define minor college. The University of Vermont is ranked 82 out of 1600.


Given the population counts in the UK that would make it about equivalent to 21 - I would count that as "pretty high"... but it's not Harvard. Then again, I would expect a College that high to have a few world class experts, and your Stephen King critic *might* be one of them. As harold Bloom , unreservedly a world class expert, has included him in a collection of essay edited by him then that's a point in his favour - or did he do it just to show the weakness of his case? 

Do the top class academics/critics reference his paper in a positive fashion? Do his ideas (in detail!) make sense? It would probably take several PhDs and many conferences to sort this one out.

One thing I don't like is Stephen King's control of the marketplace - I've read several "little heard of" writers recently who are just as easy to read as Stephen King, and have much better qualities, in general, IMHO. So certainly read *one* Stephen King novel, but then why not move onto someone else.. they may need the money... King doesn't....




> _Needful Things_ has a very profound plot. It is the story of evil that is by itself impotent, but with the help of generally good yet weak and stupid accomplices can achieve its evil goals. Sounds familiar?...


All too familiar. It's a cliche of most documentaries on "the Nazis" and other nasties. Does he do anything new with this idea? Stevenson took this idea and showed us the evil Hyde spurred on by the weak and emotionally stupid Dr Jekyll, who was (shock, horror!) himself. Now that's original...

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I'm surprised you guys take college ranking seriously in the first place, as, from what I've seen/heard, such ranking are a complete joke that depends on how much money a college can invest in their ranking number. 



> Mutatis-Mutandi, 
> 
> Whether your sentiment has been echoed or not is of no concern to me. As I stated in a previous comment, appeals to majority and expert opinion are poor substitutes for substantive arguments. I am much more interested in why you think _The Shining_ was a good novel than in whether others agree with you.


I don't remember, really. I read it years ago and recall liking it.



> _The Shining_ is juvenile trash because it tries to scare the reader using the cheapest, simplest tricks in stock. That living cadaver thing in the bathtub  what did that have to do with the story? Boo  big bad ugly thing is coming at you! Other than that, nothing.


First, because you state opinion as fact doesn't make it so. 

The living cadaver was a part of the hotel--it was one of the ghosts, because, ya know, it was a ghost story. You can point to any one thing in a story and either say it had nothing to do with anything, or interpret it as having an impact. The cadaver was another demonstration of how the hotel was *haunted*, another demonstration of the evil that had infected it, etc. If I'm not mistaken, the dead woman was even given a back story, no? Also, it was another part showing how the hotel was after the kid, being threatened by his power, craving his power and what-not. 

And, even if it's meaning was solely to give a scare to the reader . . . so? What was the point of the wave of blood coming out of the elevator in Kubrick's film adaptation? Many authors of many books have done this, inserted certain parts of a book for no other purpose to elicit an emotional response. Now, one may consider this a poor technique, but when you have the likes of Poe, Hawthorne, and Lovecraft doing it on more than one occasion, I don't see a problem with it. If a story is completely filled with these instances, than it's a problem--and maybe _The Shining_ is, it's been a while since I've read it, like I said--but I don't even consider the cadaver scene to be one of those parts in the first place. 



> Also, the development of the main characters descent into madness was childish and unconvincing - oh, that thing in that place is just driving me mad! And what about that hand that taps the wife character on the shoulder and then disappears? Another cheap trick that any child could have conjured, a _Demon Ex Machina_, if you will.


I recall his decent into madness as being quite evocative. Obsession with something, whether that thing be relevant or irrelevant, is a cornerstone of mental illness, OCD in particular. 

Have you ever suffered from mental illness? I have. I had a bout of depression some years back, and it's quite easy to become depressed with a facet of life, whether it's what people think of you, personal health, or if something's wrong with the car. That King takes that idea and takes it to another level is pretty compelling, for me, at least. 

I don't remember the wife-being-tapped-on-the-shoulder scene.



> Compare that nonsense with the evil thing (I forget the character name) in _Needful Things_. It is seemingly a nice old gentleman who sells stuff. Slowly, his evil character develops by showing itself as a master of deceit, rancor, and strife. It is a subtle, puppet-master character. He delegates violence; he doesnt exercise it. He acts like a real-life devil. 
> 
> Consider the scene in which the woman (again, I dont recall any names) goes down on her knees to give him fellatio in exchange for something she wants and needs (arthritis panacea, if I remember correctly). As she unbuttons his zipper, he looks down at her with contempt and repugnance and then he pushes her away. Hes had his fun; he sucked her pain, humiliation, and weakness, and he is satisfied. A psychological fellatio took the place of an actual one. This is powerful yet subtle writing.
> 
> In addition, _Needful Things_ doesnt have the standard good-versus-evil dichotomy. The people of the town are at once the things victims and its accomplices. As such, they pose a problem to the reader.


I've never read _Needful Things_, but none of the seems neither more nor less compelling than anything in _The Shining._

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Given the population counts in the UK that would make it about equivalent to 21 - I would count that as "pretty high"... but it's not Harvard. Then again, I would expect a College that high to have a few world class experts, and your Stephen King critic *might* be one of them. As harold Bloom , unreservedly a world class expert, has included him in a collection of essay edited by him then that's a point in his favour - or did he do it just to show the weakness of his case? 
> 
> Do the top class academics/critics reference his paper in a positive fashion? Do his ideas (in detail!) make sense? It would probably take several PhDs and many conferences to sort this one out.
> 
> One thing I don't like is Stephen King's control of the marketplace - I've read several "little heard of" writers recently who are just as easy to read as Stephen King, and have much better qualities, in general, IMHO. So certainly read *one* Stephen King novel, but then why not move onto someone else.. they may need the money... King doesn't....


No, it's not an ivy league, but should we only care what professors at Ivy League colleges have to say? Besides Harold Bloom, how many works by these other Yale English Professors have you actually read. The irony is that Harold Bloom isn't so much a world-class critic, but rather he is a popular and prolific critic much like Stephen King is a popular and prolific author. It's not clear how much of this has to do with his being a good critic and how much of it has to do with him pumping out hundreds of work on hundreds of authors (which is mostly just him collecting other professor's essays, and adding an introduction) and his tendency to write for popular mass media more than the typical professor (like in the Wall Street Journal). 

Number of citations are good criteria, but tricky business because English is such a rarefied field. Magistrale studies horror films, Stephen King, and Poe. So people studying those topics in particular are the ones who are going to be citing his work, not every and all English professor.

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Oh, come on! Shall we preface every sentence with in my opinion? Everything I say here is my opinion, and unlike other people here I dont use words like _fact_ or _reality_ to refer to my opinions.


Yes, I think you should preface your statement with qualifiers. I do, and it's not that hard. How am I supposed to know a statement is your opinion when you state it as fact? Am I supposed to be able to read your mind? Plenty of people on here make statements like that and mean them as fact. So, you can be facetious all you want, but it isn't my fault for interpreting your statement in exactly the way it should have, as written, been interpreted. 

Thanks for taking all my points into account, though. I'm afraid I don't have time to go through Poe and Hawthorne's works and pinpoint all instances of "cheap scare tactics," but if I should read them in the future, I'll be sure to take note of them and present them later.

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

You're not being dragged into anything. You never had to respond to my accusation--many don't. Plus, it's your statement that started this foolish discussion. 

Here's the problem with saying I'll "have to figure it out" on whether or not you're stating opinion or fact--I don't know you, at all, so how I'm I supposed to figure it out, hmm? Is there some magical method I'm not aware of?

Again, stating something as fact doesn't make it so, even when stating that statements of fact aren't statements of fact in a factual manner. "_The Shining_ is a piece of juvenile trash” is you stating _opinion_ as _fact_.

As to Poe, if it isn't gratuitous . . . so? Does that mean he wasn't using it to evoke and emotional response? Anyways, I can't "prove" anything (you do seem partial to those pesky absolutes), as it's a matter of interpretation; the terror he generates for that particular critic is never gratuitous, but for others it is. So, even if I did give an example, you would just interpret it differently, in your mind "proving" me wrong, surely.

----------


## Scheherazade

*~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your comments.

Yadayadayada... 

They will be removed... You will get infraction points... Thread will be closed.*

~

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Yes there is, and I thought I explained it already. The statement _The Shining_ is a piece of juvenile trash is, *by its nature*, a statement of opinion and not of fact. Since it is *intrinsically* a statement of opinion, you need not know me to figure it out.


That explains nothing. 



> Whats the "magical" method? If the statement can, theoretically at least, be shown to be true or false, then its a statement of fact. The statement Poe wrote _Hamlet_ can be shown to be false, therefore it is a statement of fact. The statement ice cream tastes better than cake cannot be shown to be true or false, therefore it is a statement of opinion. Are we clear now?


Clearer, but not crystal. 



> Yes, thats *exactly* what it means. Read the quote again  the whole thing.


That's what the quote means, but that doesn't make it true, as it is the statement made by one person. I wasn't questioning the quote, I was questioning what it stated. Frankly, if you don't think Poe was trying to evoke an emotional response with his writing (practically the whole of it could be used as an example), then you're missing the point of his writing.



> I extended a genuine invitation to you to bring to the table instances in which Poe and Hawthorne were using cheap scare tactics, in your words. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion, as opposed to the nonsensical arguments about university rankings that polluted this thread. You failed to bring one, although you claim there are many. I read _The Shining_ thirteen years ago, and was able to point two such instances from memory. Since theres some sort of an infraction points threat for personal arguments, Ill stop here.


I don't think there's any reason to stop . . . I'm pretty sure Scher was just giving us a reminder, as these things seem to have a tendency to escalate. I can be civil, and I extend the invitation to you, also.

First, I put "cheap scare tactics" in quotes for a reason--to denote a certain flippancy in the statement. 

I didn't want to point out any of these instances because, having not read any Poe or Hawthorne lately, I can't really elucidate on them since I don't have the specifics in mind. Three of Poe's stories come to mind, though (and I'll stick to Poe, here)--"The Black Cat," "The Fall of House Usher," and "The Masque of the Red Death." Each story seems to me to have the main goal of, well, "scaring" isn't exactly the correct word for each of these cases, but making the reader feel a sense of abject uneasiness, especially in the case of "The Black Cat." He's going for the emotional response when we get the gruesome scene of the the narrator killing the cat, the corpses in "The House of Usher," and the revealing in "The Masque." Now, I freely admit all are deeper and done with more nuance that what King does, but their main goal is the same--to "scare" the reader.

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## LeNoirFaineant

If the discussion has not degenerated into some butthurt fanboy debate,
I would, in all politeness, ask those who claim Mr King's books are worth our time:

Why?  :Seeya: 

What exactly do Mr King's novels have that an educated reader cannot find in any other horror novel?

None of his works that I have read was particularly original or deep.

- Not that this would be an issue for me; some books are campy, and there's great delight in it. 
(I casually salute my favorite fantasy writer of all time, Angus Wells.  :Wink:  )

But what exactly is that book of Mr King that is apparently such a revelation?

Because, frankly, if I look at just the movies, too, none of them managed to best John Carpenter's style either.

So, educate me!

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I would, in all politeness, ask those who claim Mr King's books are worth our time:
> 
> Why? 
> 
> What exactly do Mr King's novels have that an educated reader cannot find in any other horror novel?
> 
> None of his works that I have read was particularly original or deep.


Why read Marlowe when you can just read Shakespeare?

----------


## Calidore

> What exactly do Mr King's novels have that an educated reader cannot find in any other horror novel?


Personally, I like King's "voice." Even when the material's not good, I'm entertained by his writing style. I also like the fact that he'll spend a hundred pages filling in the background of a character who died just to show what that death meant to the people around her (I think that happened in _It_). Basically, he's got enough going on in the background that his locations and side characters, as well as the main characters, seem real.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Personally, I like King's "voice." Even when the material's not good, I'm entertained by his writing style. I also like the fact that he'll spend a hundred pages filling in the background of a character who died just to show what that death meant to the people around her (I think that happened in _It_). Basically, he's got enough going on in the background that his locations and side characters, as well as the main characters, seem real.


I couldn't agree more. 

I love the Dark Tower series. It's a rich, complex tapestry of characters and their development. His female characters are more relatable and well written than any sex & the city type clucking hens. His stories are imaginative. Sometimes the imagined scenarios involve the lowest forms of life, but the most interesting literary characters are usually very flawed. His grammar is excellent. His voice is just fun. If a reader can't connect with a King book, I don't know how they can connect with any lit.

----------


## LeNoirFaineant

> Why read Marlowe when you can just read Shakespeare?


Whoa, take 'er easy there, Pilgrim. 
Lovecraft's corpse just sneezed.

But seriously, which book by King am I missing that is so earthshakingly good?

I really tried to get into his stuff a bit, but the only one that I found more than average was "Jerusalem's Lot", 
and that was such a blatant ripoff that I am frankly surprised he got it published without reprimands.

----------


## mal4mac

> I couldn't agree more. 
> 
> I love the Dark Tower series. It's a rich, complex tapestry of characters and their development. His female characters are more relatable and well written than any sex & the city type clucking hens.


That's a rather low point of comparison. How do his female characters compare to those of Austen, George Eliot, or Iris Murdoch?




> His stories are imaginative. Sometimes the imagined scenarios involve the lowest forms of life, but the most interesting literary characters are usually very flawed. His grammar is excellent. His voice is just fun. If a reader can't connect with a King book, I don't know how they can connect with any lit.


Well any toddler is imaginative, and sometimes I'm wondering if King is channelling his toddler self too much. Imagine a living car! (Wow!) "Grammar is excellent" should be a given for anything that gets published (unless it's experimental...) You can write awfully bad stuff with excellent grammar, so this really isn't a good point in defence of King. 

Many people who dislike King connect with Dickens, Shakespeare, etc, etc... So although you can't imagine it, they certainly *do* connect with "some" lit.

----------


## Calidore

My reply to both LeNoir and mal4mac would be the same: If you've tried King and he doesn't work for you, fine. It's a matter of taste, which is wired in all of us. What I don't understand is the need for some to pronounce what they don't like as beneath them, rather than simply not their cup of tea.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> That's a rather low point of comparison. How do his female characters compare to those of Austen, George Eliot, or Iris Murdoch?
> 
> 
> 
> Well any toddler is imaginative, and sometimes I'm wondering if King is channelling his toddler self too much. Imagine a living car! (Wow!) "Grammar is excellent" should be a given for anything that gets published (unless it's experimental...) You can write awfully bad stuff with excellent grammar, so this really isn't a good point in defence of King. 
> 
> Many people who dislike King connect with Dickens, Shakespeare, etc, etc... So although you can't imagine it, they certainly *do* connect with "some" lit.


I still think there's an unreasonable bias. Toddlers are imaginative, they obviously lack well developed story telling abilities. I was comparing King to more modern literature popular amongst females in my country, because I wanted to make the distinction that King's female characters are often intelligent or just more multi-layered than female characters found in "trash" lit. I'm sorry if that was somehow unclear.

Stephen King's characters compare very well to Austen's. Both Austen and King wrote/write the female perspective as being equally important to that of any male character, only Austen often took it to a greater extreme and made women superior. She was writing something bold in her time of living. Lots of people called it trash. Pride and Prejudice was shelved for ten years before being given any credit.

I'll amend what I said about being able to connect with King. I can understand a reader from somewhere other than America not being able to relate to him and his many references to our culture, though his books have had quite an impact on current Asian and French lit. Stephen King is no more a trash writer than Terrence Malick is a trash film maker for having made movies about the darker side of the human condition. You can say you don't like King, I have to wonder how much King you have actually read, but I still don't see how it can be deemed "not literature". If you haven't found a King character or story you can relate to, you haven't read enough King. I'm not a fan of "Eyes of the Dragon," for example, but it's completely different from all of his other stories. I thought "It" was the most like a cheesy pop culture Wes Craven horror flick. Aside from those, the stories vary so greatly, it's hard for me to wrap my head around someone lumping them all together and slapping them with a stamp of negativity. One could say that "The Dark Tower," "Insomnia," "The Talisman," and "Black House" all have similar themes, but that's because they're all continuing and branching off of the same intricate story. Without having read all of them, I don't see how a reader can proclaim authority on the matter.

King gave us The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Dead Zone. I think it's sad when he's dismissed by literary snobbery.

----------


## LeNoirFaineant

Again, don't misunderstand me, please:

I don't think contemporary literature can be measured fully by the, well, contemporaries.

For comparison, just check the nobel prize winners of the first half of the century,
and consider if you had read just ONE of them by your own motivation, outside of school or other research.  :Wink: 

I am just asking, which book of his should I read to get an idea what is good about him?
"The Shining"? "The Shawshank Redemption"? "The Green Mile"?

Because an author who cranks out one or two books a year surely has higher and lower points in his writing - so, my impression doesn't necessarily have to be reliable.

So, recommend me a book of his, please.  :Smile:

----------


## stuntpickle

I will never understand the Stephen King controversy, in which he is either a modern Dickens or a literary scourge. The only thing more ridiculous than Harold Bloom railing against Stephen King is Harold Bloom railing against J. K. Rowling. I fully expect Harold Bloom to soon write a book entitled "Why Batman Comics Aren't Literature."

King's work varies from the heroically awful ("The Lawnmower Man" from _Night Shift_ in which a guy shows up to mow the lawn and then, after having stripped naked, starts to eat the grass--no really) to the fairly decent (the half of _On Writing_ that wasn't actually "on writing" constitutes a mildly pleasurable memoir). I think King is an obviously competent storyteller. However, his novels and his acceptance speech for the National Book Award lead me to believe he fails to understand the whole "art" part of literature. Kafka's "Metamorphosis" is more than just a page turner with believable characters.

Of course, it must be said that Stephen King approaches Harold Bloom's idiocy when he deigns to inform the public about the horrors of Stephenie Meyer. Really, Steve? Perhaps he's now working on his masterpiece of literary criticism "Why Danielle Steel Sucks." Never mind, I think he already wrote it.

----------


## Kyriakos

I used to think that King is utter trash, but recently i bought a collection of (arguably his best) short stories, and much to my surprise i rather liked a couple of them, and parts of others. The one about the two children that played a game with the wooden ladder in the barn was particularly interesting since i did not think King grasped symbolism that profoundly. I also liked "Grey matter", although it has to be a homage to Arthur Machen's excellent "White Powder", the two stories resembling each other considerably. Finally i liked the twist in "the man who loved flowers" although it was predictable; i liked the aroma of that story.

Some others i read i did not like.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Again, don't misunderstand me, please:
> 
> I don't think contemporary literature can be measured fully by the, well, contemporaries.
> 
> For comparison, just check the nobel prize winners of the first half of the century,
> and consider if you had read just ONE of them by your own motivation, outside of school or other research. 
> 
> I am just asking, which book of his should I read to get an idea what is good about him?
> "The Shining"? "The Shawshank Redemption"? "The Green Mile"?
> ...


The Dark Tower series. Start with the Gunslinger, I guess. It's like Tolkien, but if you think Tolkien is non-literature too, read the Talisman.

I've read books from Nobel prize winners that my teacher never asked me to. In fact, I know a still living Nobel laureat who rather likes King. I've read hundreds of classics that my teachers also never asked me to read. I don't live in the past alone though. I appreciate art that is happening now. The fact that it's happening now gives no cause to scorn it.

If contemporary literature can't be measured by contemporaries, why are you measuring Stephen King as lacking?

----------


## Calidore

> I think King is an obviously competent storyteller. However, his novels and his acceptance speech for the National Book Award lead me to believe he fails to understand the whole "art" part of literature.


Possibly he's just not interested in being an "artist" of that sort. His main priority is to tell good stories well and to entertain the reader who likes the kind of stuff he likes. As he put it:

I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I'll go for the gross-out. I'm not proud.

On the flip side, I think Sturgeon's Law applies to Literary Artists just as much as anyone else.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Possibly he's just not interested in being an "artist" of that sort. His main priority is to tell good stories well and to entertain the reader who likes the kind of stuff he likes. As he put it:
> 
> I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I'll go for the gross-out. I'm not proud.
> 
> On the flip side, I think Sturgeon's Law applies to Literary Artists just as much as anyone else.


I would agree that what masquerades as literary art today is mostly trash. Thanks to MFA programs, we have an abundance of middle class morons with absolutely nothing to say, who, nevertheless, feel compelled to write mediocre tomes devoid of sentiment and beauty. So we get scores of AM Homeses writing "daring" stories about suburbanites smoking crack. No thanks.

How does King compare to the aforementioned variety of writing? I suspect he compares well. But I also suspect that history will sort out all the AM Homeses. It generally takes generations for us to figure out what really constitutes the art of our age. We're so immersed in the madness of our time that we can't make out the one sane person scribbling in the corner. I find it likely that the great artists of our age are now writing in obscurity, simply because time has not yet equipped us with the proper understanding. We're just too good at buying our own bull****.

I share King's love for Shirley Jackson's _The Haunting of Hill House_, which critics tend to ignore for precisely the same reason the public loves it: both groups wrongly believe it is simply some ghost story. What Jackson was writing about was alienation and how all people are essentially awful; what haunts Hill House, after all, is the group of persons inhabiting it. Jackson is now deservedly enjoying a critical reevaluation. I suspect over time we will learn to love her better. But it is never popular to stand up and announce that everyone else is crazy. Imagine the fortunes of a presidential candidate suggesting in a debate that what ails America is Americans. I suspect we'd all hang him.

My point is that King is not the same variety of writer as Shirley Jackson. I think he is incapable of the sustained artistry of Jackson's _Hill House_. The reason he won't be recalled as some literary sage isn't because he has written outlandish stories about vampires and killer clowns, but because he has written thoroughly conventional stories.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a simple storyteller, but if the conversation is chiefly concerned with whether one is MORE than a storyteller, then the answer must be, as it is in the case of King, "no."

----------


## Calidore

> My point is that King is not the same variety of writer as Shirley Jackson. I think he is incapable of the sustained artistry of Jackson's _Hill House_. The reason he won't be recalled as some literary sage isn't because he has written outlandish stories about vampires and killer clowns, but because he has written thoroughly conventional stories.
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a simple storyteller, but if the conversation is chiefly concerned with whether one is MORE than a storyteller, then the answer must be, as it is in the case of King, "no."


I think it's hard to say whether King is capable of Jackson's level of artistry, because he's never shown an interest in writing that way. That may be because he doesn't think he can do it or it may be because he doesn't care.

I can't really argue about King's stories being conventional, as he doesn't load them with allusions and hidden profundity and whatnot, but I would disagree that conventional=simple. King's depth goes a different way, in his fleshing out of his characters and their relationships with each other and their locations. He takes more trouble than most to give the reader a realistic three-dimensional world of realistic three-dimensional people, and that's not simple.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

There is a certain comfort when I open up a King novel. I admit, they are perfect for when I just want to relax and go for a ride. Some people say it's a fault, but I think King's work being "easy" to read is its greatest strength. You don't have to think a lot, you get what's going on, etc. It still always comes off to me as good writing, though. Where King really excels, and I think this balances out his often lame endings/climaxes, is his character creation. I have rarely become as attached to characters as I do in King's books. He has a way of writing that really makes them seem _real_, and in no small part to his great ability to write dialogue.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being just a storyteller. Just sitting down and reading a story, sans allusions and deep metaphors and difficult prose and more allusions, is quite an enjoyable experience.

----------


## tinybore

I don't know why people refer him as a horror writer. I think most (those I've read) of his novels are mystery, thriller, and fantasy. Sure some of his book has some "horror" in it, but I find them more irrelevant to the story itself. 

I like King's stuff, it's always a joy to imagine and live in the fantasy of his stories, and to get very close to the characters, so close you love the good ones, and really hate the bad people  :Smile: 
My fav ones are The Stand, The Shining, Talisman, Dark Tower series and Needful Things.

But damn. Apparently I'm not a "true" literature friend, because I like King...too bad  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Abookinthebath

> I don't think there's anything wrong with being just a storyteller. Just sitting down and reading a story, sans allusions and deep metaphors and difficult prose and more allusions, is quite an enjoyable experience.


Absolutely. 




> But damn. Apparently I'm not a "true" literature friend, because I like King...too bad


Now now, don't beat yourself up!! :Biggrin5:  But I'm sure you'll be able to live with yourself.....

----------


## inbetween

literature or trash.. does the one really exclude the other? I'm not sure

----------


## LeNoirFaineant

> literature or trash.. does the one really exclude the other? I'm not sure


Oath, bro.  :Smile:

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> literature or trash.. does the one really exclude the other? I'm not sure


For the purpose of this poll, I think it does, or is meant to.

----------


## Sancho

Lit.

But hey, El Sancho is a plot junkie.

----------


## TheChilly

About to be giving "Insomnia" a shot sometime soon. 

"Cell" was one of the better novels I've read from King (despite being kinda minor for me), and I still have yet to give "It" and "Lisey's Story" another shot after having to put them down.

School. -_-

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

_Insomnia_ was one of my favorites. Has heavy connections to his _Dark Tower_ series, but good even if you can't connect the two. 

Also, I just learned he's releasing a new, stand-alone novel set in the _Dark Tower_ universe.

----------


## naluneabezshapk

I love Stephen King, his stuff is great, albeit I'd say if all all you read is Stephen King you might be missing the big picture. (although you are probably enjoying yourself immensely.)

I'm of the opinion that it is out of line to say that what Stephen King does isn't literature, just because you do not enjoy it.

----------


## Delta40

Doesn't being good enough to get continually publish go some distance to calling it literature or am I missing the point on what constitutes literature?

----------


## mal4mac

In physics you look to great physicists to say who the other great physicists are. Just because Isaac Asimov (at one time) was a best selling, popular physics author doesn't make him a great physicist - in fact, he isn't a physicist at all! 

So, surely, it is the expert academics who get to say what is great literature. Who else would you have doing it - Xlktl from literature forum, or a vote from McDonald's customers? Stephen King has only won one prize that is sometimes mistaken for a worthwhile literary award:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/bo...phen-king.html

But, overall, he is not at all admired by the literary establishment, so how can he be said to write literature? You might argue that, as King is a modern author, the jury is still out - but the sounds from the jury room don't sound too good for the accused. He might be walking that green mile pretty soon...

----------


## Alexander III

> In physics you look to great physicists to say who the other great physicists are. Just because Isaac Asimov (at one time) was a best selling, popular physics author doesn't make him a great physicist - in fact, he isn't a physicist at all! 
> 
> So, surely, it is the expert academics who get to say what is great literature. Who else would you have doing it - Xlktl from literature forum, or a vote from McDonald's customers? Stephen King has only won one prize that is sometimes mistaken for a worthwhile literary award:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/bo...phen-king.html
> 
> But, overall, he is not at all admired by the literary establishment, so how can he be said to write literature? You might argue that, as King is a modern author, the jury is still out - but the sounds from the jury room don't sound too good for the accused. He might be walking that green mile pretty soon...



When you say literary establishment who do you mean? Critics, Academics? Sorry to break it to you but look at the winners of the Nobel Prize - half of the names most literary students don't know - Academics are a good source for further understandinmnet of canonical texts but on predicting what is great and trash contemporary art? Their odds are 50-50 - I mean if you think King has a bad rap, wait till you see what was the academic consensus in regards to Impressionism, or Symbolism - Heck Fitzgerald spent most of his life knows as the equivalent of a one time best-selling trashy writer for kids.

I say all this without ever having read a word of King. Maybe I will like him, maybe I would think he is trash, but I am not foolish enough to think my opinion will be the same as that of my children.

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## mal4mac

> The comparison of a physical science to literature is a standard false argument used by those who try to "scientificate" the humanities. Great physicists make falsifiable predictions that later withstand experimental tests. No equivalent procedure exists in literature.


I was not trying to "scientificate" the humanities. I did not suggest that literature professors should make falsifiable predictions that withstand experimental tests. You are arguing with a straw man, not with me.




> Surely you should try to be consistent even when you use false analogies. According to that analogy, it is great *authors*, not literary critics, who should judge what great literature is. Why do you defer to academics?
> But, how would you know who the great authors are unless you have other great authors to tell you that? An infinite regress ensues.


The only literary critics worth considering *are* great authors - at least of literary criticism. They may also be great authors in other respects.

Trust can stop the infinite feedback - you may trust the academic consensus that Dickens is a great author and King is not - and then have a much enhanced reading life by reading more Dickens and less King (that was my experience... which is why I tend to trust the gatekeepers of literature... they usually know what they are talking about.)

----------


## mal4mac

> When you say literary establishment who do you mean? Critics, Academics? Sorry to break it to you but look at the winners of the Nobel Prize - half of the names most literary students don't know - Academics are a good source for further understandinmnet of canonical texts but on predicting what is great and trash contemporary art? Their odds are 50-50 - I mean if you think King has a bad rap, wait till you see what was the academic consensus in regards to Impressionism, or Symbolism - Heck Fitzgerald spent most of his life knows as the equivalent of a one time best-selling trashy writer for kids.


The Nobel prize is only one signifier of literary greatness, you need many more, before something like a consensus is reached. And there is consenus over many authors - those usually to be found in the "classics" section of the book store. 

Reading anything that hasn't been around at least a century, i.e. something that hasn't had much of a chance to reach a critical consensus, should be looked at as a sacrifice you make to the gods of literature, a sacrifice performed to keep literature 'alive' - but it's a sacrifice because you are chancing a trashy experience (reading Stephen King, say) when you could be having a great one (reading Walter Scott, say)

At least read widely in modern authors - King has enough money...

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> In physics you look to great physicists to say who the other great physicists are. Just because Isaac Asimov (at one time) was a best selling, popular physics author doesn't make him a great physicist - in fact, he isn't a physicist at all! 
> 
> So, surely, it is the expert academics who get to say what is great literature. Who else would you have doing it - Xlktl from literature forum, or a vote from McDonald's customers? Stephen King has only won one prize that is sometimes mistaken for a worthwhile literary award:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/bo...phen-king.html
> 
> But, overall, he is not at all admired by the literary establishment, so how can he be said to write literature? You might argue that, as King is a modern author, the jury is still out - but the sounds from the jury room don't sound too good for the accused. He might be walking that green mile pretty soon...


You're making stuff up again. 

Stephen King has won and been nominated for lots of awards. 

And basically only Bloom seems to dislike King. Hardly a jury of critics.

----------


## Scheherazade

*~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Such posts will lead to thread closure as well as earning those involved infraction points.

~*

----------


## cafolini

Excellent quote by Twain and I also agree with Drkshadow03.

----------


## mal4mac

> So, Asimov wrote about physics, but he was not a physicist. Bloom writes about literature, but he is not a poet or fiction writer. Should we look to Asimov to determine who great physicists were? Should we look to Bloom to determine who great poets and novelists were? Why or why not in each case?


Bloom is a Professor of Literature at one the world's leading universities, and one of the world's most admired critics. Even so, he's only one of many who should be taken into consideration - along with many critics who are also considered to be great fiction writers. 

Bloom has written fiction, but the book didn't do too well! Who knows, it could be considered a great novel a hundred years from now.

Bloom might best be compared to a physicist like Oppenheimer - someone heavily involved with physics, doing 'reasonable' creative work, but better at teaching, at having a broad overview of the field, at being a great gatekeeper. If you argue Oppenhimer's work on black holes was seminal, then Dennis Sciama is perhaps a better example... 

Asimov had a great deal to do with pointing out great physics and physicists to me in my youth, but as a student of physics I would also have looked to people like Feynman, Oppenheimer, and Einstein as having the most to say about who the great physicists are. Surely in any field you have to look to the experts, the real experts, as to what is best in that field. Who else is there?

Of course you have to think for yourself! But shouldn't you, mostly, be guided by experts?

Bloom does write for mass appeal, but do did Feynman. They are both cases of leading experts extending their reach to help 'the mass' appreciate their subjects. Some hiring and promotion decisions in some universities are certainly influenced by political and ideological considerations, and by connections.

The consensus I describe reflects a consensus between leading writers, critics, journalists, and academics extending beyond the highly political landscape of modern academia. That's why I say - nothing can be determined for a hundred year at least.

The political landscape, trendy journalism, trendy award givers: all of these conspire to raise authors to an acclaim they do not deserve. Journalists praise their writer friends, academics praise the guy they went to school with... You need time... a lot of it... to get away from all that garbage.

That's a good quote from Twain, but it's more an argument for a 'proper' consensus, rather than against looking at consensus as always wrong. There is a consensus that Twain is a great writer - that looks like a proper consensus...




> You're making stuff up again. 
> 
> Stephen King has won and been nominated for lots of awards. 
> 
> And basically only Bloom seems to dislike King. Hardly a jury of critics.


These are not *literary* awards. They are mostly genre award. Others are very specific and reflect some kind of mass appeal which take insufficient account of absolute literary value:

"The Alex Awards are given to 10 adult books that are appealing to young adults." Should great literature be determined by what appeals to the average teenager? 

"Canadian Booksellers Association Awards" - booksellers like authors who make them loadsa money.

To just start the race for being considered as literature, surely King needs be winning things like the Booker, Orange, Pulitzer, and Nobel prizes.

This could be interesting this Friday, to those who can get BBC2 at 11pm GMT:

"In this Book Review Show, Kirsty Wark is joined by Germaine Greer, John Carey and Susan Hitch to discuss the latest novel from Umberto Eco, a previously unpublished work by Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Stephen King's latest sci-fi blockbuster. Kirsty also travels to New York to meet author Joan Didion."

That looks like a good jury of critics, and some serious competition for King! John Carey is generally highly supportive of literature that has mass appeal. So if any serious critic is likely to admire King, then it's him - note, though, he doesn't include King in his excellent book, "Pure Pleasure -a Guide to the 20th Century's Most Enjoyable Books".

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> These are not *literary* awards. They are mostly genre award. Others are very specific and reflect some kind of mass appeal which take insufficient account of absolute literary value:
> 
> "The Alex Awards are given to 10 adult books that are appealing to young adults." Should great literature be determined by what appeals to the average teenager? 
> 
> "Canadian Booksellers Association Awards" - booksellers like authors who make them loadsa money.
> 
> To just start the race for being considered as literature, surely King needs be winning things like the Booker, Orange, Pulitzer, and Nobel prizes.
> 
> This could be interesting this Friday, to those who can get BBC2 at 11pm GMT:
> ...


Genres awards are a type of literary award. Particularly good one is the World Fantasy, for which King has had novels and short stories nominated multiple times, but has only won twice, plus a lifetime achievement award. But even so, he had a short story that won the O Henry award, which mostly certainly is NOT a genre award.

He also won the National Book Foundation Award, which is NOT a genre award, and is given for literary merit, in addition to service.

He has won two major national awards and countless major genre awards. He now has multiple positive essays and dissertations written about his works by professors and graduating students from Ph. D. programs. He frequently publishes in mainstream literary magazines like The New Yorker. He was even invited to be an editor of the prestigious Best American Short Stories Anthology series. 

Ultimately, though, this is all silly criteria. The amount of awards an author has won and some short British book review show with a couple of critics won't decide anything. The real deciding factors will be whether some professors continue to teach King's work, whether his work continues to be included on school reading lists, and if he continues to be read after he's dead by the public.

----------


## mortalterror

> Ultimately, though, this is all silly criteria. The amount of awards an author has won and some short British book review show with a couple of critics won't decide anything. The real deciding factors will be whether some professors continue to teach King's work, whether his work continues to be included on school reading lists, and if he continues to be read after he's dead by the public.


I don't know if professors teaching his oeuvre will be the criteria in this case. I think he's definitely important to any survey of the horror genre, but then so is H.P. Lovecraft, Algernon Blackwood, or M.R. James and how often are they taught in higher education? When I look back on his stuff I definitely see some merit, especially in his early work. But after the seventies his creative output seems to have fallen off. I'd hold out more hope for The Shining, Salem's Lot, and The Stand becoming canonized than for some of his later more recent work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc7ZaZz4CoU

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I don't know if professors teaching his oeuvre will be the criteria in this case. I think he's definitely important to any survey of the horror genre, but then so is H.P. Lovecraft, Algernon Blackwood, or M.R. James and how often are they taught in higher education? When I look back on his stuff I definitely see some merit, especially in his early work. But after the seventies his creative output seems to have fallen off. I'd hold out more hope for The Shining, Salem's Lot, and The Stand becoming canonized than for some of his later more recent work.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc7ZaZz4CoU


True enough. I've always said his earlier work is his better work.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Stephen King's creative process, post 1970s.

----------


## mal4mac

> ... physicists make falsifiable predictions that can be tested... But literature is not physics, and authors works cannot be evaluated objectively.


I actually do approach literature by making falsifiable predictions that I test. I predict that classic, literary authors will be a better read than non-classic, non-literary authors. This prediction is born out repeatedly, for me! (Not all the time, taste in reading *is* more fickle than the Millikan oil drop experiment...)

I do read non-classic authors - mostly modern authors with literary pretensions - sometimes King and his ilk - and my prediction is, mostly, not falsified! 

When it *is* falsified I can see that it may be for non-literary reasons - the Bible is just too old, too much of a hotch potch - I can see it might overall be great literature but I'm not prepared to read most of it - it's just too difficult.

Joyce and Proust present similar difficulties - and the jury is still out on whether they are great literature or not (for instance, chief juror John Carey, like me, gave up half way through Proust's magnum opus, and doesn't rate Ulysses very highly...)

Of course, I only know that this is what happens when I read. For you the opposite might apply. And I cannot say that I'm a "better reader" than you because, you are right, there are no objective criteria here.




> So, you can mention that Bloom is a Yale professor all you like  its irrelevant in general, and its particularly irrelevant in literature.


It might be irrelevant to you, but it's not irrelevant to me. And because you say there are no objective criteria for determining 'what is literature', then you cannot say that Bloom is irrelevant 'in general'.




> Genres awards are a type of literary award. Particularly good one is the World Fantasy, for which King has had novels and short stories nominated multiple times, but has only won twice, plus a lifetime achievement award.


I'm trying to find the next great read, and looking at minor genre awards hasn't helped me much in the past. Looking at these awards might help you, if so fine. But they are of no interest to me.

----------


## LadyLuck

I sometimes wonder at the necessity of wishing to classify writings as literature or trash. I suppose that I find a need for both in my life, so that I have very little care of which category my reading falls in. 

As for Stephen King, I picked who cares, but truthfully I think his writing can be characterized as both. He has had fantastically written stories that will go down as greats and he has some that were not as well written. Perhaps my favored writing from King is actually an article he wrote about writing _Everything You Need to Know About Writing Successfully_. Overall I would say that most of his work can be classified as well written. Maybe it isn't as deep as the literature one thinks of when we think of classic literature, but then we're living in a different time and I doubt we'll ever see writing like that again. Another thing to remember is that a lot of the most renowned classic literature was fairly run of the mill in their time. It has become classic as much because it happened to survive rather than because it was truly genius for the time. King has the potential to go down in history, but he also could simply fade away like the many play writes who were writing similar tales as Shakespeare.

----------


## Ragnar Freund

gone.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I'm trying to find the next great read, and looking at minor genre awards hasn't helped me much in the past. Looking at these awards might help you, if so fine. But they are of no interest to me.


Aren't we all? But this is a red herring. We weren't discussing what you have personally found useful in selecting books. We were discussing the existence or non-existence of Stephen King's literary merits.

----------


## LeNoirFaineant

Sirs, just so you see I actually listen from time to time.

So, I read "Letters from Jerusalem" again. What exactly is the connection to "Salem's Lot", again?

Because the short story is clearly Cthulu-ish, while "Salem's Lot" is, 
from what I gather, a continuation of "Dracula". 

How do those two stories blend in?

----------


## mal4mac

> I sometimes wonder at the necessity of wishing to classify writings as literature or trash. I suppose that I find a need for both in my life...


Why do you feel a need for trash? This looks masochistic. Would you pay to go grubbing around in bins for leftovers if five-star Michelin snacks were on offer for the same price? 

Life's hard enough without choosing to grub for trash - you'll encounter enough trash anyway, if you want to know what trash is...

There are many modern writers who are easy to read, and who are generally regarded as producing great literature. 

Readers I've enjoyed, learned from, have found straightforward to read, and who have won Nobel prizes since 1980 are: 

DORIS LESSING
JOHN MAXWELL COETZEE 
V. S. NAIPAUL 
SIR WILLIAM GOLDING 

There are several others who I suspect would be equally great reads, and probably not too difficult, but I haven't read them yet. So why would I read King?

Some classic literature was considered fairly run of the mill in its time, but the vast majority of literature that was considered run of the mill *was* run of the mill.

Literature is not classic 'just because it happened to survive'. The dictionary definition of classic is "Judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind." 

I have found classics, mostly, to be "of the highest quality and outstanding" amongst the things that I read.

----------


## Alexander III

> Why do you feel a need for trash? This looks masochistic. Would you pay to go grubbing around in bins for leftovers if five-star Michelin snacks were on offer for the same price?


If I were a 16th century gentleman, most academians of the time would have told me the exact same thing, If I confessed that I enjoyed Ovid and Virgil and the great Roman poets, just as much as I enjoyed some trashy plebian contempory plays by a certain William something...

----------


## LadyLuck

> Why do you feel a need for trash? This looks masochistic. Would you pay to go grubbing around in bins for leftovers if five-star Michelin snacks were on offer for the same price? 
> 
> Life's hard enough without choosing to grub for trash - you'll encounter enough trash anyway, if you want to know what trash is...


It's simple, I read it as an escape  :Smile:  I fully know that it is poor quality and sometimes I'll even find typos and poor grammar. It's a lot like watching a b-movie for me. I'm not going to watch it for any sort of enlightenment or edification, I simply watch to turn my very tired brain off and be entertained. I enjoy the same thing out of books from time to time as well. When I sit down to read something that is truly great, I like to be able to give it the attention and due diligence of thought that it deserves. With two young children, this is hard to come by, and sometimes you settle for merely being entertained by a book. That isn't to say I don't get enjoyment out of the classics, I do, but if I wish to just have the charm of a book in my hands for a quiet night and minimal use of brain power then popular fiction fills that void. I guess for me it's the difference between sitting down to watch Dr. Zhivago or sitting down to watch Transformers. I enjoy both, but one takes far more effort to enjoy than the other.

----------


## mortalterror

> Aren't we all?


Not really. I'm less interested in finding the next great read than I am in finding _my_ next great read. I gots to get mine, Jack!

----------


## mal4mac

> If I were a 16th century gentleman, most academians of the time would have told me the exact same thing, If I confessed that I enjoyed Ovid and Virgil and the great Roman poets, just as much as I enjoyed some trashy plebian contempory plays by a certain William something...


That's why I keep on saying you have to give it a hundred years! Only then can you get sufficient distance from those '16th century gentlemen', and get enough genius-level critics to take a close look at William & compare him to Ovid & Virgil.

----------


## JCamilo

The truth is that you are seriously creating a dichotomy. Trash is just figurative, any serious critic must give even the nod that Dan Brown has some capacity. It is not sooo easy to put a novel, with the proper chapter flow (albeit this is a small merit and the best novels are those that stop you, not those that make you go fast), to put characters (as bad as they are acting). Stephen King then, is far better than Dan Brown, genre writting is not such a problem, because modern genres are made up for market and when you dismiss the genre reckonigtion, you dismiss authors who are commercial. (Chesterton, Stevenson ,Lewis Carroll, Hans Christian Andersen, Conan Doyle, H.G.Wells, Poe...heck, even Melville or Conrad will fall on Genre Writting if you want, because in the end, King has wrote more than horror stories)...

One could easily say: Why read Oscar Wilde if you have Yeats?

----------


## Scheherazade

*Mal ~*  Out of curiousity, do you ever eat burgers or deep fried fish and chips?

----------


## CarpeNixta

King it's not one in my favourites list, but I admit he has books I enjoyed reading.

That's the point of being one of the "best sellers" even if it's not considered literature you can still enjoy it.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Why do you feel a need for trash? This looks masochistic. Would you pay to go grubbing around in bins for leftovers if five-star Michelin snacks were on offer for the same price? 
> 
> Life's hard enough without choosing to grub for trash - you'll encounter enough trash anyway, if you want to know what trash is...
> 
> There are many modern writers who are easy to read, and who are generally regarded as producing great literature. 
> 
> Readers I've enjoyed, learned from, have found straightforward to read, and who have won Nobel prizes since 1980 are: 
> 
> DORIS LESSING
> ...


Gee, I don't know, mal, maybe it's because different people have different tastes, and some people _actually like_ Stephen King, as hard as that is for you to comprehend.

----------


## Oppei

Man, Stephen King is such a weird case.

My personal opinion is he is a seasoned writer that specializes in writing to a certain category of readers. Generally those readers like to read suspenseful writing, mixed with far fetched nonsense, and sometimes just flagrant horse manure mixed in.

In my opinion, this cocktail of writing is what he specializes in and he may enjoy doing it or enjoy getting paid for doing it.

What is kind of impossible to dismiss, is his short stories are of very strong caliber. If he wrote just short stories about non-coke induced topics like war,love, etc we would not have this conversation right now. But instead have a conversation on where does he figure in the best short story writers.

----------


## Vota

I think Francis Bacon said it well, "some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention."

I would place Stephen King's works into the swallowed category because that's kind of what you do when you read them. They are big, but fast reads that don't require too much critical thought, nor do they present challenging concepts to understand. Sort of like a Big Mac. Ya eat the whole thing and it is tasty, but the nutritional content isn't so great for you.

----------


## rubik

Haven't read a lot of King, but what I've come across I can't say I'm a fan, haha. I don't like the sometimes cartoonish divide of good and evil people. Characters should be able to sit on more diverse or even contradictory traits.

I'm also not a fan of the language or the style, or the story concepts. Or nothing, really. But I guess he's an effective story teller to some people, and that's fine.

----------


## EmptySeraph

He is but a petty scrivener. His work, his produced, fabricated books have no artistic sensibility about them whatsoever. Let us not be naive: if King had written literature, we could've compared him to Joyce, Beckett, Woolf, Nabokov, Faulkner and the other writer (true writers) of the last century. But for the nonce, we cannot, because it'd make for a flagrant lapse in taste. His only worth consists in that he produces books that permit lazy nonintelligent readers to imagine that they are ''reading'' when they run through his inane vulgar cogitations.

----------


## LadyLuck

> Why do you feel a need for trash? This looks masochistic. Would you pay to go grubbing around in bins for leftovers if five-star Michelin snacks were on offer for the same price? 
> 
> Life's hard enough without choosing to grub for trash - you'll encounter enough trash anyway, if you want to know what trash is...


It's simple, I read it as an escape  :Smile:  I fully know that it is poor quality and sometimes I'll even find typos and poor grammar. It's a lot like watching a b-movie for me. I'm not going to watch it for any sort of enlightenment or edification, I simply watch to turn my very tired brain off and be entertained. I enjoy the same thing out of books from time to time as well. When I sit down to read something that is truly great, I like to be able to give it the attention and due diligence of thought that it deserves. With two young children, this is hard to come by, and sometimes you settle for merely being entertained by a book. That isn't to say I don't get enjoyment out of the classics, I do, but if I wish to just have the charm of a book in my hands for a quiet night and minimal use of brain power then popular fiction fills that void. I guess for me it's the difference between sitting down to watch Dr. Zhivago or sitting down to watch Transformers. I enjoy both, but one takes far more effort to enjoy than the other.

----------


## mortalterror

> Aren't we all?


Not really. I'm less interested in finding the next great read than I am in finding _my_ next great read. I gots to get mine, Jack!

----------


## mal4mac

> If I were a 16th century gentleman, most academians of the time would have told me the exact same thing, If I confessed that I enjoyed Ovid and Virgil and the great Roman poets, just as much as I enjoyed some trashy plebian contempory plays by a certain William something...


That's why I keep on saying you have to give it a hundred years! Only then can you get sufficient distance from those '16th century gentlemen', and get enough genius-level critics to take a close look at William & compare him to Ovid & Virgil.

----------


## JCamilo

The truth is that you are seriously creating a dichotomy. Trash is just figurative, any serious critic must give even the nod that Dan Brown has some capacity. It is not sooo easy to put a novel, with the proper chapter flow (albeit this is a small merit and the best novels are those that stop you, not those that make you go fast), to put characters (as bad as they are acting). Stephen King then, is far better than Dan Brown, genre writting is not such a problem, because modern genres are made up for market and when you dismiss the genre reckonigtion, you dismiss authors who are commercial. (Chesterton, Stevenson ,Lewis Carroll, Hans Christian Andersen, Conan Doyle, H.G.Wells, Poe...heck, even Melville or Conrad will fall on Genre Writting if you want, because in the end, King has wrote more than horror stories)...

One could easily say: Why read Oscar Wilde if you have Yeats?

----------


## Scheherazade

*Mal ~*  Out of curiousity, do you ever eat burgers or deep fried fish and chips?

----------


## CarpeNixta

King it's not one in my favourites list, but I admit he has books I enjoyed reading.

That's the point of being one of the "best sellers" even if it's not considered literature you can still enjoy it.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Why do you feel a need for trash? This looks masochistic. Would you pay to go grubbing around in bins for leftovers if five-star Michelin snacks were on offer for the same price? 
> 
> Life's hard enough without choosing to grub for trash - you'll encounter enough trash anyway, if you want to know what trash is...
> 
> There are many modern writers who are easy to read, and who are generally regarded as producing great literature. 
> 
> Readers I've enjoyed, learned from, have found straightforward to read, and who have won Nobel prizes since 1980 are: 
> 
> DORIS LESSING
> ...


Gee, I don't know, mal, maybe it's because different people have different tastes, and some people _actually like_ Stephen King, as hard as that is for you to comprehend.

----------


## Oppei

Man, Stephen King is such a weird case.

My personal opinion is he is a seasoned writer that specializes in writing to a certain category of readers. Generally those readers like to read suspenseful writing, mixed with far fetched nonsense, and sometimes just flagrant horse manure mixed in.

In my opinion, this cocktail of writing is what he specializes in and he may enjoy doing it or enjoy getting paid for doing it.

What is kind of impossible to dismiss, is his short stories are of very strong caliber. If he wrote just short stories about non-coke induced topics like war,love, etc we would not have this conversation right now. But instead have a conversation on where does he figure in the best short story writers.

----------


## Vota

I think Francis Bacon said it well, "some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention."

I would place Stephen King's works into the swallowed category because that's kind of what you do when you read them. They are big, but fast reads that don't require too much critical thought, nor do they present challenging concepts to understand. Sort of like a Big Mac. Ya eat the whole thing and it is tasty, but the nutritional content isn't so great for you.

----------


## rubik

Haven't read a lot of King, but what I've come across I can't say I'm a fan, haha. I don't like the sometimes cartoonish divide of good and evil people. Characters should be able to sit on more diverse or even contradictory traits.

I'm also not a fan of the language or the style, or the story concepts. Or nothing, really. But I guess he's an effective story teller to some people, and that's fine.

----------


## EmptySeraph

He is but a petty scrivener. His work, his produced, fabricated books have no artistic sensibility about them whatsoever. Let us not be naive: if King had written literature, we could've compared him to Joyce, Beckett, Woolf, Nabokov, Faulkner and the other writer (true writers) of the last century. But for the nonce, we cannot, because it'd make for a flagrant lapse in taste. His only worth consists in that he produces books that permit lazy nonintelligent readers to imagine that they are ''reading'' when they run through his inane vulgar cogitations.

----------

