Carrie was pretty good too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Night_Lamp
I think that it says a lot about King that he hated Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining, though.
Printable View
Carrie was pretty good too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Night_Lamp
I think that it says a lot about King that he hated Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining, though.
His non-fiction about the necessity of horror in this day and age, along with Drkshadow's point about Zeitgeist, are generally concieved as very important in academic circles.
PeterL's point is both impossible to prove correct, and very probably wrong altogether. There is NO telling if what he has written is "lasting" because it is still extremely contemporary. Furthermore, many writers--Shakespeare, Dickens--where frowned upon by the elite but lasted because of their popularity to become the cornerstones of the cannon. I've never read King and feel no compulsion to at this time, but to categorically dismiss him as having no affect on culture and history is about the stupidest thing I've heard.
Since this is not a thread about literary merit but rather about culture--i.e. the calculable affect on the public at large--it would be reasonable to say that King as the most published and most adapted modern novelist is THE most impacting living American author. I don't feel completely comfortable defending this claim completely, since some people with a slightly smaller fan-base but more readily seen influence might be more impacting. But my point is that he is certainly one of the most impacting writers on culture. How can you even defend the position that the most read author is not, in some sense, impacting the culture? It's not as if he is writing instruction manuals. King's novels don't, probably, affect each reader to the same extent as, say, Coetzee but what they lack in hugely influencing lives on the individual level, they make up for in slightly influencing the populous at large.
Stand By Me, The Green Mile and The Shining are often ranked in the top 100 American films. While the largest and most respected movie ranking site, IMDB, has Shawshank Redemption jockeying between 1st and 2nd place. That is not even the impact of his scores of books and hundreds of stories, but merely the impact of a FEW of his adaptations.
Add onto this, the influence of all the people and works influenced by his body of work...
Like him or not, he is HUGELY impacting in American culture.
To an extent; the question though is the evolution of American identity - not from a change within, but from an emergence amongst minorities like African Americans and Hispanic peoples. To me, he seems to capture the sort of Melville-geographic American horror - seems to continue the sort of New England rooted Gothic mode, but I think in terms of scope, that is limited now, in the sense that McCarthy really captures a different landscape, or Amy Tan tries to capture another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I would agree with you if King had the ability to flip his imagination, but to me, instead of capturing a sort of American darker self, he just seems absorbed in it. The clown in It does seem the embodiment of the evil within the town it takes place, but his resolution to the novel seems conflicted and stretched.
I guess my problem is he has an idea, but nothing particularly inspiring to get beyond it - there is no real development, unless you count his usual Deus ex Machina endings which undercut the often profound foundations of his work. This is excluding his large body of rather mediocre almost meaningless work, but even if we just focus on the best ones, he seems to discover the darkness, but is not able to move forward beyond there.
Basically agree with what Modest and Drk (and his essay) have said. In addition, I can recall reading a few of King's short stories and thinking that a couple of them had merit beyond the pleasures of the genre.
A lot of you guys sound like you shouldn't really be on the internet. You should just give up all of your worldly possessions and move into the woods and talk to each other and discuss reality.
I find reality to suck most of the time so I like to escape it and be happy.
I second that completely.Quote:
A lot of you guys sound like you shouldn't really be on the internet. You should just give up all of your worldly possessions and move into the woods and talk to each other and discuss reality.
I find reality to suck most of the time so I like to escape it and be happy.
I think writers do not have a moral responsibility to anybody, except maybe to themselves to get down in writing exactly what is in their heads. Be as truthfull as possible in other words.
Yeah, maybe some literature is intended to make the reader think and become a little contemplative, but at the same time we need entertainment, we need the writers that provide us with something to escape reality for awhile.
It is ridiculous to sit there and think that writers owe us anything or have a responsibility toward us, and it is even more ridiculous to look down on the writers that provide us with the literature to help us escape from our lives a little.
Quote:
Moral writing, which every real fiction writer strives toward, is a quest for beauty, truth, and the Good. I expect someone to come down on me that such a standard is too abstract or devoid of meaning to be a standard at all. So then, I offer here one simple way that we could determine the value of a given novel. Select any three books in the western literary canon---"the greatest works of artistic merit"---and place your selection with them side by side. For example:
Homer's Iliad
King's Carrie
Plato's Republic
Joyce's Finnigan's Wake
Now ask yourself: "Does it deserve to be among such great books at this time?" Screw the professors, the university database, the feminist whine. This is as good as it gets.
So, by your logic, lets just forget what some people like and enjoy to read. Who cares that - from the example you used - stephen kings book Carrie sold millions and that tonnes of readers read the book and liked it. Lets just forget that and if a book is not the best of the best, then it should not be published and it is not worth anything. Nice one jackass. You need to stop judging a books worth based on other books, or judging writers' worth based on other writers, and starting judging based on whether people actually like what has been written. I think that makes the book worthwhile, and the writer too.
Or go with your own judgmement, which is the most important.
I honestly think some of the great authors that get a lot of praise from the literary community would be sickened by their hardcore fans.
The river does not represent freedom it is just a river.
I am a fan of Stephen King's writing, not his subject matter usually, but his style. I have enjoyed much of his work (ex, Night Shift, Carrie, Salem’s Lot, The Shining, The Langoliers, The Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Dreamcatcher), in addition to his On Writing, he’s a gifted writer, in my opinion.
My only disappointment was IT, and I enjoyed the writing but did not care for the ending. I mean, really? (I don’t want to give any spoiler here so won’t go into why it disappointed me)
By the way, what is non-commercial lit? If it's for sale doesn't that make it commercial?
Regarding that maybe: let's compare the number of writers who belong in the category of literature with the number of writers who belong in the category of popular fiction. How many Kunderas, Kadares, Coetzees, Saramagos, García Márquezes, Roths exist in comparison to Rowlings, Kings, Browns, Meyers?Quote:
Originally Posted by breathtest
Maybe some literature is intended to make the reader think? I think we should rephrase that: so many books exist to merely provide cheap entertainment, that we should be thankful for the few writers that still invite us to reflect about life. A Rowling and Meyer can and will be replaced by the next franchise-making writer. José Saramago is irreplaceable in 20th century literature.
People complain that the poor popular writers are always under attack, but when we consider that they exist in greater number than great writers and that they make a lot more money, I wonder why there aren't equal efforts to complain about the poor great writers that no one reads and that live in obscurity for ages before being discovered, if they're discovered at all.
I prefer the great entertainers to the average entertainer. The entertainer who gave us a good story that was memorable and still had good characters and plot. Writers like dumas, bradbury, vernes, carrol, and shakespeare.
Shakespeare was a mix of someone who was both an entertainer and someone who gave us a lesson about life.
I like my entertainers to have legimately good. I don't like my stories for entertainment to have poor qualities. I don't demand an entertainment to be just another ordinary distraction , I want something good and memorable.
Have you ever read The Stand? It was epic!
I'm pretty sure Philip Roth is not starving or struggling in obscurity. Ditto quite a few of the other authors you named. Ironically enough, the Stephen Kings, J.K. Rowlings, and Stephanie Meyers of the world are indeed rare. Anyone going into writing to become a millionaire is going into the wrong profession. Just ask about any writer who decided to write a YA series for entertainment hoping to repeat Rowling's success and who managed to get their series published--I promise most of them probably didn't come remotely close to Rowling in sales, and most likely didn't come anywhere near Philip Roth in sales either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heteronym
One of the reasons no one complains about "the poor great writers that no one reads" is because none of the writers you named are obscure and in need of discovery; not to mention there are plenty of people who actually read them.
You truly believe that writers like Roth, Kundera and García Márquez are as widely read as Meyer, Rowling and Brown? And you truly believe that the proportion of great writers versus mediocre writers is identical?
It is not the quantity but quality!Quote:
Originally Posted by Heteronym
Obviously, people who read Roth, Kundera or Marquez, like ourselves, are, like, way superior intellectually to those who read Meyer, Rowling or Brown.
Thousand Marquez readers would be same as one million Meyer readers, I'd say.
Not only we read better stuff but probably understand the harder, more complicated stuff more thoroughly than those underlings.
What he said !Quote:
Originally Posted by spookymulder93
Seriously this discussion has transformed into a series of personal insults, which are quite saddening, considering this is a literary forum, if you insult someone, have some style at least, don't sound like just another kid.
King is an artist, his books are well written. Is he a great writer however ? In my opinion no, he is just a good writer, nonetheless there is nothing wrong with that and his ability to make millions of of his writing is a remarkable feat. At the end of the day a writer writes what he wants to write, the second a writer changes because he thinks that what he does is not right, is the day he is no longer an artist.
But it is a question of quantity. Many people complain that pop fiction writers are always under attack, that they're treated unfairly. But the truth is, there are lots of them. Truly good writers are so rare that they should be cherished because of that. The pleasure they can give is rarer, whereas the pleasure one gets from reading King is no different than the pleasure of reading twelve other horror writers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Re-read my previous post, and you'll see that's not what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heteronym
The specific writers Meyers, Rowling, and King (where did Brown come from?) certainly sell better than Roth, Kundera, and Garcia Marquez for the most part. However, so-called mediocre writers (by which I assume you mean genre fiction writers who write for entertainment) don't usually sell better than Roth and Marquez or other literary heavyweights.
If we're talking specifically about how much money they make, Meyers, Rowling, and King are flukes rather than representational.
Roth and Marqeuz are awful examples to prove your point. Roth's novels consistently make the bestseller list (you know, just like James Patterson, Dan Brown, J. K. Rowling, etc.). Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude was selected as an Oprah's Book Club read. They sold/sell in astronomical numbers.
Since 95% of writers lose money for their publishers, Stephen King, JK Rowling, Dan Brown, Stephany Meyers, James Patterson, and the like make the rest possible. They are like the rich upper class in America that pays the majority of taxes while the lower half have nothing and pay less than they get back in return. They keep the publishing houses afloat. The divas of literature serve a purpose, and provide opportunities to beginning authors. For every Stephen King worth $400 million, there are a hundred poets that made about $50 this year. Publishing companies would go out of business without their superstars and then nobody would get published.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
That's an interesting point you made, i never thought of that side of it.
Please show some data to support your theory, I have worked for a few years in the publishing business and I can assure you it doesn't work this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Well statistically only 5% of books make a profit, I read this on amazon I believe.
How else do publishers make money?Quote:
Please show some data to support your theory, I have worked for a few years in the publishing business and I can assure you it doesn't work this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by breathtest
Publishers want profits, readers have their tastes. Most publishers want to appeal to any and all demands.
Really? I never heard 95%. Are you sure that number is correct? Having talked to some midlist authors, most of them told me they do earn a small profit for their publishers on most books, usually enough to recoup costs and pay for someone's salary.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Here is a good article from a midlist author discussing her career.
-------------------------------
By the way, to those who think "entertainment" genre writers make more money than people writing serious literature. The midlist author in the article I linked to who claims to have been critically acclaimed and be writing serious lit made advances from $25,000 to $150,000 (and she complained about $25,000 being abysmally low), and remember this is someone who lost money in many cases for her publisher. Meanwhile, according to this survey conducted by SF writer Tobias Buckell, the average fantasy and SF writer with multiple books published gets a $12,500 advance for SF and $15,000 advance for fantasy. The average advance for your average SF and fantasy author is far less than the midlist author writing "serious" literature.
I agree with Alexander III that King is an artist and well written; although, I have no want to make a distinction other than the man can write and I like to read his writing. As I've stated I'm not always crazy about his subject matter, and I don't necessarily agree that a writer writes what he wants. Sometimes a writer has stories to tell and simply tells them, the stories are what they are. What I like to read and what I write are not the same.
It is also my opinion that Mr. King, as well as any other author, can make as much money as they care to and it will not affect my opinion of their writing or of their talent.
While it might be true that some formulaic authors who churn out the stories and make money, arguably without much literary substance does allow publishing houses to publish a wider variety of work. So, good one!
Well I'm 33 and I read Stephen in my teen years, eagerly trying to read alot of his stuff. I loved him then, but lost touch with him after a while. Partly because I realized he's been writing gibberish or he simply lost his touch.
Books I've read from those good old days:
The Stand
It
Misery
The Shining
The Dark Half
Needful Things (I think this was the book that made me move on from him)
The Tommyknockers (this one too)
Cujo
The Gunslinger
Eyes of the Dragon
Night Shift
Skeleton Crew
Nightmares & Dreamscapes
Four Past Midnight
Bag of Bones (this one sealed his fate)
But he's still writing and it's been years since I picked up any of his books. What are some his best, latest material. I'm looking at getting "Under the Dome" but it looks like it's one of his writing just to be writing overly long novels.
Thoughts?
dont go back, just dont...
I recommend the Duma key.Very well written with loving characters, touching,frightening....:):)
I disagree. I thought it was overly long and really, his writing has become really pedestrian; that is, why does he or his publisher think writing the equivalent of "Jack and Jill went up the hill, after making some small talk. Jack wanted to scream at the scary thing he saw there, but first, he scratched his butt like a character in a Bullwinkle cartoon, who's just inhaled a ****load of crystal meth and can't make up his mind what to do next, and actually Jill did this first (only after she made a call to her long-lost daughter who lived in Venezuela with a dog named Spot - not making that up), but then suddenly..." And on and on and on like that FOR 700 PAGES! :cuss:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElBennet85
His early stuff, though, was terrific.
always been a King fan as, even if his books might not be the most enlightening or traumatic or deep, they were always a place to go for an easy read that never failed to entertain me. sometimes i need that, and he never fails to deliver, unlike the films. :(
my suggestion is that you read his Dark Tower series, beginning with The Gunslinger, followed by (in order) The Drawing of the Three, The Waste Lands, Wizard and Glass, Wolves of the Calla, Song of Susannah and, finally, The Dark Tower. for me, these are the story that all his other stories have only been drafts of. here there are so many references, links, nods... The story follows the same set of people in various worlds running parallel to our own - and it's in these parallel worlds we see hints of his other tales, like the Cap'n Trips epidemic for example.
my only problem now is reading any more of his writing; The Dark Tower series seems to be what all the rest has been about.
if you did want to read individual King publications, not of this series, i'd recommend his 1996 Desperation and Black House (brilliantly co-written with Peter Straub).
I second Duma Key, Black House (pick up The Talisman first, also written with Straub and also brilliant) and his Dark Tower series.
Though, I liked Bag of Bones, haha.
Of all the King novels I've read (all except Thinner and The Running Man), I was enthralled with Bag of Bones, Hearts in Atlantis, Cujo, and Lisey's Story. I thought all of these showcased a solid writer with an amazing imagination and eye for detail. That being said, I haven't been impressed with the last couple: Duma Key and Under the Dome.
Wow, as always when discussing King, I'm reminded how overprotective and slightly obsessive his fans are. The only other person I've seen so protective is Bazarov about Dostoevski. That kind of loyalty is actually kinda sweet, I doubt I feel as strongly about any writer.
The only thing I can add to this is my personal opinion, which probably won't be either unique or revelatory. King is a supreme storyteller, I always listen with bated breath whenever he has something to say, be that in writing or in interviews. He also seems like a real swell guy, hilarious and unpretentious, if I had to befriend any writer I'd rather go with King than Tolstoi or that nutcase Dostoevski (that's probably unfair, both Tolstoi and D seems nutty). But as a writer, I find him lacking in what makes me love Tolstoi, Faulkner or even Cormac McCarthy. I don't marvel at the world or its inhabitants when I read King, even though I itch to turn the pages. The movie, Stand By Me is excellent however, a real gem. I haven't read the original story The Body, so I don't know what to attribute to King. Shawshank Redemption is classic Hollywood, but pretty stale imo, same with The Green Mile.
I think comparing King to Hemingway or Faulkner is laughable, there is no comparison in my mind. And if you feel that way, our parameters for great literature is so disparate that I doubt I could ever agree with you on anything literary.
I tried reading "The Mist" because it was part of the Dark Forces anthology but couldn't continue because I found the prose very bland. It also didn't help that days earlier I was reading short stories by Hemingway and Faulkner, and could not stop myself from comparing King with these writers. (I also read McCarthy's The Road more than a year ago and found it notable.) On top of that, I started reading a story from Isaac Bashevis Singer from the anthology just mentioned and enjoyed it!
About Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, I started reading the first in secondary school and Tolstoy in uni, and it helps that many of the other things that I learned, including modern philosophy, are strongly connected to their works. With that, I will very likely have less time to read King's works, although one day I might try Dolores Clairborne.
Is Stephen King an appropriate author to discuss on a literature forum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Abookinthebath
The Wikipedia page on King, in the 'critical response' section, has no positive responses from any literary academic or acknowledged 'gatekeeper of literature'.
But it has several negative responses.
Richard Snyder, the former CEO of Simon & Schuster, described King's work as "non-literature", Harold Bloom really disliked him: 'The decision to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.'
Even genre critics are harsh about him - Joshi argues that King's supernatural novels are mostly bloated, illogical, maudlin and prone to deus ex machina endings.
Joshi suggests that King's strengths are the accessible "everyman" quality of his prose, and insightful observations about the pains and joys of adolescence. That seems about right, and perhaps explains his popularity amongst a young audience who "know no better".
I did read a few King novels as an adolescent but gave up on him - for reasons that Joshi and Bloom explicate quite well - Tommyknockers was the final straw - what an awful book on every level!
Discussing King here would be like discussing cold fusion in a physics forum - maybe it would be safer to seek out a Stephen King fan forum?!
But I am now quite tempted to read "The Modern Weird Tale" by S. T. Joshi.
On this Forum we discuss homosexual tendencies of animals, video games, Twilight and Harry Potter as well as Faulkner and Coelho. It is open to discussion of all books and authors (as long as they are legal) and I am appalled by the suggestion that it is inappropriate to discuss this book on here.
Bath might be a young reader but has every right to read and discuss any book of their choice.
This is one of the books listed in BBC's Big Read, actually, and I haven't read it yet. If you give me sometime to acquire it, I will join you, Bath! :)
Many interesting points there, Mal, and I agree, to an extent, with some of it.
However, please understand, I am not a literary critic. I am trying to get into some of the more meaningful and classic texts, but equally, I enjoy a good story. And is the enjoyment factor not as important as the response of 'literary academics'?
I am open to suggestions of books to read that have a higher academic standing, indeed there are a few on my 'list'!
And I'll avoid the King fanboy forums for now!
Scheherazade - let me know when you have it!
(And for reference, I'm a 30 something guy, who is quite proud of his immaturity!)
Of course anyone has the right to read any book of their choice. But I also have the right to question whether a Stephen King book should be discussed in a forum that tags itself as a 'literature forum'.
Using 'define: in Google', we get the reasonable definition 'Literature - Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".'
I'm surprised to see you taking this forum to be about "the looser" definition - "Written works" - when most postings here seems to take the broader definition on board - "...those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit".
"The Big Read" is evidence for the dumbing-down of the BBC, not evidence for "literature of superior or lasting artistic merit". Looking at the list, I'd guess it was voted for mostly by Tolkeinists and seven year olds - two factions famous for spending too much time on the internet.
The BBC does still do some things well, of course. The Christopher Hitchens essay series on BBC Radio 4 at the moment is superb... and "Start the Week" has started well this season...
Mal, as always, one has the option of not taking part in any discussion that does not appeal to their tastes... And that starts by not posting in those threads.