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]

:D 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.". :lol: ;)

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 (http://www.carto.net/neumann/travelling/usa_westcoast_05_2002/02_mt_hood_14_19_05_2002/32_timberline_lodge.jpg).
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!! :rolleyes:

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 (http://www.carto.net/neumann/travelling/usa_westcoast_05_2002/02_mt_hood_14_19_05_2002/32_timberline_lodge.jpg).
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 ;)

[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:lol: 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. :D

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? :p 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;)


/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.

[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 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0105428/).

[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. :)

[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 (http://www.bookcouncil.org.nz/writers/steadck.html)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. ;)

[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.



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.

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. ;)

[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 (http://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Legend-Richard-Matheson/dp/031286504X/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-8192971-0229703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175480023&sr=1-2) 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 (http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Matheson-Collected-Stories-Vol/dp/1887368620/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-8192971-0229703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175479256&sr=1-3)

Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 2 (http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Matheson-Collected-Stories-Vol/dp/1887368795/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8192971-0229703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175479073&sr=8-1)

Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 3 (http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Matheson-Collected-Stories-Vol/dp/1887368817/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-8192971-0229703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175479256&sr=1-2)

The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson (http://www.amazon.com/Haunting-Hill-House-Penguin-Classics/dp/0143039989/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8192971-0229703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175480280&sr=1-1)

Dark Ladies by Fritz Leiber (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Ladies-Conjure-Wife-Darkness/dp/031286972X/ref=sr_1_11/102-8192971-0229703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175481337&sr=1-11)

The Other by Thomas Tryon (http://www.amazon.com/Other-Thomas-Tryon/dp/B000GE7NB4/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-8192971-0229703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175480569&sr=1-3)

Harvest Home by Thomas Tryon (http://www.amazon.com/Harvest-Home-Thomas-Tryon/dp/B000E4M33Y/ref=sr_1_3/102-8192971-0229703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175480800&sr=1-3)

The Auctioneer by Joan Samson (http://www.amazon.com/Auctioneer-Joan-Samson/dp/0380008424/ref=sr_1_1/102-8192971-0229703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175481124&sr=1-1)

[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 :)

[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
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.


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 :)

[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 (http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/) 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 (http://www.joehillfiction.com)

[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 (http://www.joehillfiction.com)

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%%^&&$ 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.:lol:

[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:)

[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!:sick:

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.:thumbs_up

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.:)

[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. ;)

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. :rolleyes:

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

[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 :lol:

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...:lol:

[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... :lol:

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).

Montaigne
Descartes
Thomas Aquinas
Galileo
Nietzsche
Freud
Marx
Darwin

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?

:lol: 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!!:lol:

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. :D

[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. :lol:

[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 (http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/) and Science Fiction (http://www.depauw.edu/SFs/recent_issues.htm). 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 (http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html)

The Novel 100: A Ranking of the Great Novels of All Time by Daniel S. Burt. (http://www.adherents.com/people/100_novel.html)


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.