Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

[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

/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.

[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 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.

[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.
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.