Is Stephen King a standard writer?

[osho]

Purely from a literary lens. Writers write for a variety of purposes and they do out of inspiration at times to give something new, maybe a vision or an epiphany or a message or a prophesy. Right from Plato through Biblical products to the latest literary giants in the west and from the great Vedic sources in the east we have great many books and of course certain standards that qualify for literary genres. But there are other sorts that are thrillers or primarily written to entertain readers. The main flaw from a literary perspective in these kinds of books is they lack philosophical content. Not that none of these writers who are often bestsellers and writing for the mass does not have philosophical or literary standards. They do but these writers do not have a profound message to give and they are generally light reads.

Dan Brawn or J K Rollings are some of the pop stars in the literary world but I do not think they can attain something what we call literary, classical or profoundly philosophical genres. They earn acclaims but I do not think they rank with the rest of other genres of like Nabokov, Conrad and the rest.

[Delta40]

King wrote: I really have the heart of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk.

[free]

Every writer has his/her philosophy expressed in this form or another. It is readers that decide which form to accept as the right one for them. People, who you call 'mass', are not from the field of literature education and they consume the novels which do not make much fuss about wise discussions, but they still can gain some wisdom from them, the one that their ways of life require.

[Kyriakos]

I have read only a few short stories by King, from his collection "the night-shift".

I actually did like two of them, considerably. I still think he is not a refined author, but he does have (or at least did) the ability to write moving stories. Most of his work in that collection, though, seemed quite bad to me, and often very badly written, the form of the story also being inherently at fault.

That is King's problem, though, not of Horror literature. Surely Guy De Maupassant is one of the greatest- if not the absolute greatest- short-story writers of all time, and the later half of his work is dark and horror-related.
Lovecraft also has some good works, although less than De Maupassant. Same goes for Machen and a few of his works.

And the genre of "dark literature" also includes Poe and E.T.A. Hoffmann, two other very notable writers.

So the fact that King is nowhere near the level of those other writers i mentioned, does not mean much about the type of literature he writes.

PS: Afterall, the first horror story is the 9nth chapter of the Odyssey, where the cyclops Polyphemus makes his dreadful appearence :)

[JBI]

I have read only a few short stories by King, from his collection "the night-shift".

I actually did like two of them, considerably. I still think he is not a refined author, but he does have (or at least did) the ability to write moving stories. Most of his work in that collection, though, seemed quite bad to me, and often very badly written, the form of the story also being inherently at fault.

That is King's problem, though, not of Horror literature. Surely Guy De Maupassant is one of the greatest- if not the absolute greatest- short-story writers of all time, and the later half of his work is dark and horror-related.
Lovecraft also has some good works, although less than De Maupassant. Same goes for Machen and a few of his works.

And the genre of "dark literature" also includes Poe and E.T.A. Hoffmann, two other very notable writers.

So the fact that King is nowhere near the level of those other writers i mentioned, does not mean much about the type of literature he writes.

PS: Afterall, the first horror story is the 9nth chapter of the Odyssey, where the cyclops Polyphemus makes his dreadful appearence :)

Hoffmann is far more European than American, in terms of influence. The American tradition is far more Lovecraft-driven. IT seems that the American Gothic/horror Genre took Milton, and a few continental sources, and then re-infused them into an American Religion of sorts - the strange and fantastical tales that are popular in Europe are all a bit darker and more politically layered in the American equivalents.

[Kyriakos]

Hoffmann is far more European than American, in terms of influence. The American tradition is far more Lovecraft-driven. IT seems that the American Gothic/horror Genre took Milton, and a few continental sources, and then re-infused them into an American Religion of sorts - the strange and fantastical tales that are popular in Europe are all a bit darker and more politically layered in the American equivalents.

I have to say that i don't know almost anything about the current American horror writers. It is good that some of them sell a lot of books, but i don't know if their work is of high quality (in my view at least).
Lovecraft, i think, was quite an important writer, since he actually (judging from his letters) consciously tried to construct symbols in the stories that would be likely to cause horror or other uncanny emotional states.

Hoffmann was one of the most prominent figures of German romanticism. Most of his stories i have read are perhaps way too filled with literary adornments to function as more horrific. The Sandman did have many notable outbursts of the dark imagination of this great writer, but it was still written in a way that today seems to be archaic (i think, i read it from the English translation, back when i was in University).

Hoffmann influenced many other famous writers, like Theophile Gautier, and Dostoevsky (who appears to have at first tried to write in a similar vein, or his own type of it, as in the short stories The Crocodile, and Bobok).

De Maupassant, in my view, was far superior to all previous short-story writers in terms of producing an unsettling narrative, also because he was sinking into the vortex of his own insanity at the time, and in the end became a shadow of the genius he obviously was in the past.

I am interested in clearly psychological horror. Most new horror stories i have come into contact with (mostly through cinema) seem to be about so-called "cosmic horror", ie horror caused by supposedly real (not imagined) horrible beings.

Finally, some great authors did write a few horror-related stories, despite their work not being associated with this thematology. Borges (The Gospel according to Mark), Hesse (The man of the forest, also my favorite short story of his, The end of Dr. Knelge), and of course Kafka as well, although Kafka most probably did not mean to focus on horror, but used the horrible imagery as another way to keep lashing his own self).

[JCamilo]

The "problem" of americans may be Washington Irving fault's, he came with the gothic-dark romanticism of europe but was completely skeptical. Horror was too cynical to him. You have hawthorne, with the moralism. Poe is psychological, but no supernatural. Melville is able to do a lot of psychological tension with Benito Cereno and of course, Moby Dick. Latter Henry James could do the same. I would say Maupassant is in many aspects a product of Baudelaire's translations of Poe.

Anyways, Lovecraft influence looks a bit like all the genre tendencies in america, with Detective stories and all science fiction or fiction drawning from pulp magazines a lot, with more action, heavy description, bland characters and excess - either of violence, sex or Poe's impact principle with a plot that has impact but no need of much else.

[Calidore]

It's worth pointing out that Night Shift was King's first short story collection, and many of those would have been written when he was younger and less polished. Skeleton Crew also has some of these, but it also collects the bulk of the short stories he wrote during what I consider his peak, and Nightmares & Dreamscapes pretty much covers the rest of his good period. If you feel like it, you could give those a try.

[Kyriakos]

Thanks Calidore :)

The story "Gray matter" (which does seem to be some sort of wink to Machen's older story titled "White Powder", not only due to the titles, but a very similar progression of the plot) is quite good in my view. I liked his story about the girl falling from the final step of the wooden ladder even more. The rest i read of his (King's) were not as good though, and some had very bad parts in my view...

@JCamilo: not sure how much De Maupassant was influenced by Baudelaire/Poe. He even makes fun of Poe in one of his stories (iirc the phrase he uses is "some writer of fairy-tales like Poe"). An earlier story (the one about Schopenhauer's corpse) seems to be styled in mimesis of Poe. I like both writers, but De Maupassant was even more of a genius in my view :) Poe seemed far more focused in the actual form of the story, while De Maupassant had a set mood in his later half of literary production, a mood leading to his violent self-destruction...

[JCamilo]

@JCamilo: not sure how much De Maupassant was influenced by Baudelaire/Poe. He even makes fun of Poe in one of his stories (iirc the phrase he uses is "some writer of fairy-tales like Poe"). An earlier story (the one about Schopenhauer's corpse) seems to be styled in mimesis of Poe. I like both writers, but De Maupassant was even more of a genius in my view :) Poe seemed far more focused in the actual form of the story, while De Maupassant had a set mood in his later half of literary production, a mood leading to his violent self-destruction...

Of course, Maupassant is a naturalist, there is much of balzac and flaubert on his works as well (just like Chekhov who used to say Black Cat was a prime example of short story). This mockery (Poe excess were well know anyways, most of authors reckognize him) sounds like Voltaire mocking 1001 Nights as a women foolish night enterteiment and writting stories with the style of 1001 night. But it would be too much to expect, after the impact of Poe's translations, to see another short story writer treating horror as psychological, using the narrative point of view (which was pretty much unique at that time), talking about madness without considering Poe's influence. Maupassant in his essays pretty much reckon it, at some point he compares Poe and Hoffman, mentioning exactly the psychological narrative and madness of both. Also, he also identify Poe style to produce 'strangeness" with the contrast between the fantastic and natural, which is something Maupassant would also do.

We cannot exagerate, but to short stories Poe is Shakespeare, even his flaws taught writes like Henry James and Borges. Not everything is Poe, Maupassant fascination with madness is just a coincidence (or more like what draw him to Poe, rather than inspired by Poe) but there is good deal of influence there. Even in a sense, he saw Poe as a guy which imagination and genius drove him to madness, a bit like Maupassant himself.

[Kyriakos]

I definitely agree that Poe was a major writer, moreso of the short-story. A number of his works are very stylish, but sometimes it appears that the form he is making in the story seems to him to be more important than the actual plot (i am mostly thinking of He who was used Up, a great story, but written in a largely unrealistic form, something Robert Walser did later on too in his shorter works).
De Maupassant seems to me to be more analytical than Poe. Also sometimes his stories are even darker and more striking (my favorite short story of his, and perhaps my favorite short story of any writer, is the one about the Machine that causes sleep, that is kills one with no pain).

Moreover, obviously, De Maupassant had a vastly different attitude towards women than Poe did, and in his stories this is also very evident in contrast to Poe.

I just love De Maupassant more than Poe, although both authors were clearly very great. Having a somewhat similar background in one respect to De Maupassant (bad family, parents who divorced) i can identify with him more when this becomes a focus of his works, such as in the amazing short story titled "Waiter, a beer!" which has such a merry title, but in reality is possibly even his darkest masterpiece.

[JCamilo]

It is Poe, he wrote some brilliant stuff and some awful stuff. In this sense, that is why he can be admired by Baudelaire, Machado de Assis, Borges, Maupassant, Chekhov, Nabokov, Stevenson, a line of writers and pulp writers as King, Clive Baker, Jules Verne and cia. He has ammunition for both sides of the fence. I think the very best of Poe (Black Cat, Wilson Wilson, Pit and Pendulum, etc) are up with the best of Borges, Maupassant, Chekhov and Kafka. But his worst would make Dan Brown complain :D

[Kyriakos]

Some stories by Poe are indeed not that good in my view as well :/ Some of his less known stories can be quite interesting though, such as "The Sphinx". :)

On the other hand i love almost everything i have read by De Maupassant. So many amazing stories... Never tried the novellas though since by the time i really got interested in his work i had stopped reading larger books.

[JCamilo]

I got the feeling of monotone with maupassant , specially the most realistic-social stuff. A lot of repetitions of theme. This also happens with all great short story specialists (maybe less with Kafka), they have a handful of masterworks, a handful of good, unique stories but not there, many repetitions that is good but lack the originality of other works and finally, many forgettable stuff. It is comparable maybe to a sonet collection.

Poe had to produce to make money and was also brilliant essaist and a good poet, hence so many average short stories, with sometimes a fantastic idea but lousy execution.

[Kyriakos]

I agree that De Maupassant often has a reccurent pattern in the development of his stories. The endings too, almost always, are of the kind that reveals a hidden meaning in what was previously going on. Most of his endings are the apogee of the story they belong to.

However he uses many different situations, symbols, objects, backgrounds. He does have some persistent themes, such as somatic beauty and ugliness, vanity of life, the borders of logic with horror, death, and the low-state than humans can sink to forever.

I only recall one story of his that could reasonably be thought of as somewhat having a happy atmosphere (The Fly), and that story is not at all in my view among his good works, and was written very early - if i recall correctly even under a pseudonym.

He clearly was a writer with an obvious trauma, which never got treated, and in the end just swallowed him utterly. His ending itself was tragic by all accounts :/

[Lokasenna]

I find King a little tiresome, though that is based on exposure to only a very few of his novels. He is, though, certainly a better writer than Dan Brown!

He clearly does have some talent, even if (as mentioned above) he isn't the most refined of writers. I think one of the main issues with him is the fact that he does have a tendency to reuse the same plot elements over and over again - hence the famous 'Stephen King Drinking Game' (take a drink everytime Maine is mentioned, everytime there's an abusive husband, etc...). Whilst Lovecraft, whom I adore, is pretty much the epitome of idée fixe, I can't help but feel that his use of the same ideas is more effective and better handled than King's.

[JCamilo]

King breaks the Once upon a time, in a faraway land too much for someone who wants to create sort of a mythical america with Castle Rock and Derry, etc... that is why his repetitions cease to be real references and get in the "oh, again" territory. So when he have an idea, or even a character that may be interesting it is all dragged with the webbing of self-references. Entire side-plots are added so we feel a fantastic city is real...

[The Atheist]

Purely from a literary lens.

I'm already on record as saying that Stephen King is a great writer, and some of his works are pure genius.

He's a little like many of his own stories, two different people in the same head.

He can be brilliant - I think The Green Mile is as good as any American novel ever written - but he can also be appalling; Tommyknockers and The Regulators wouldn't even make decent toilet paper.

Some of his little-known work is among his best; Blockade Billy is a novella of real class. If you like baseball, you will love it, by the way.

I doubt his works will stand the test of time because he's despised for his success among much of the glitterati of the literary world.

C'est la vie; jealousy is such a pleasant emotion.

[Kyriakos]

Yeah, even in the collection part of which i read, the quality of the work is extremely variable. Gray matter is a decent story (with its problems, in my view, like the triple climax in the end), and then there are stories like "Smokers incorporated" which are little more than an episode of tales from the crypt (in fact i would not be at all surprised if tales from the crypt actually had an episode based on that story) :/

And the ending pages of "The mangler" are just pitiful.

[Helga]

I don't really like him, I read 'The Shining' this summer for a class I'm taking in Horror literature and movies and I didn't like it. The last 70 pages or so were interesting enough for me to want to read more and finish it but the ending sucked. I didn't like the characters at all. I didn't believe in the boy, the mom was weak and the dad simple, most of the times. A few of the extra characters seemed more interesting to me.

I can only judge by this one book so maybe he has some better work out there but I doubt I will ever give myself the time to read them.

[The Atheist]

... "Smokers incorporated" which are little more than an episode of tales from the crypt ..l.

I'm presuming you mean Quitters Inc, and good spot, because it was actually made into a segment of a collection of King tales in the film Cat's Eye.


I don't really like him, I read 'The Shining' this summer for a class I'm taking in Horror literature and movies and I didn't like it.

I don't blame you - it's a much better movie than book. Another problem King has is not knowing when to throw pages away. He's like The Rolling Stones - occasional brilliance padded out by miles and miles of filler. You just have to find the good bits.

Start off with Blockade Billy. It'll only take you a couple of hours.

[osho]

I'm already on record as saying that Stephen King is a great writer, and some of his works are pure genius.

He's a little like many of his own stories, two different people in the same head.

He can be brilliant - I think The Green Mile is as good as any American novel ever written - but he can also be appalling; Tommyknockers and The Regulators wouldn't even make decent toilet paper.

Some of his little-known work is among his best; Blockade Billy is a novella of real class. If you like baseball, you will love it, by the way.

I doubt his works will stand the test of time because he's despised for his success among much of the glitterati of the literary world.

C'est la vie; jealousy is such a pleasant emotion.
This is an unbiased comment. I always want a critic to make a just comment. Criticism is a difficult job but not as difficult as creativity. We more often than not become opinionated and do a lot of injustice to a piece of,artistic expression.

[LadyDedlock]

I've read quite a bit of Stephen King but I don't talk about what I think of him much. The last time I talked about him, I mentioned that I just finished reading The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and I was then accused (jokingly perhaps) of reading erotica. Not that I have anything against erotica, it's not my cup of tea, but you get what I mean. There are some King works I love and some I dislike. I tend to like those works of his that seem less "crass." English isn't my first language but somehow that word sums up works of his like The Tommyknockers, The Regulators, Black House, etc all of which I don't quite like.

[The Atheist]

There are some King works I love and some I dislike. I tend to like those works of his that seem less "crass." English isn't my first language but somehow that word sums up works of his like The Tommyknockers, The Regulators, Black House, etc all of which I don't quite like.

They are three truly appalling books.

I often find it hard to remember that the same man who wrote those also wrote The Shining, The Stand and It.

[qimissung]

I actually liked The Shining, Helga, but as I read it so many years ago and have not re-read it since, I really can't comment on it's quality. I found it absorbing, anyway. I've heard "The Stand" is good, but haven't read it.

I just finished "On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft" and enjoyed it very much.

[Calidore]

They are three truly appalling books.

I often find it hard to remember that the same man who wrote those also wrote The Shining, The Stand and It.

That's what years of hard drug and alcohol abuse will do to you. One wonders what King would be capable of now if he hadn't damaged himself so badly.

He could hardly do anything wrong up until It, which was about 3/4 of a fantastic novel up until the reveal. He was off-and-on, mostly off, from that point, and I gave up on him completely around the time of the Regulators/Desperation duo (though I did enjoy those for some reason).