Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaplin

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stieg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiculík

... 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.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickAdams

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THX-1138

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickAdams

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:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THX-1138

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

The elitists will never like anything that appeals to the general public.