Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

[Pensive]

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

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? 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.