Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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?

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.

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.

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?

I say Blaze is about 4 out of 5. Not the best but still interesting.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

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?

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

He is a master of syntax, of imagery, and of character. And I'll stand by that until the day I die.:thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Oh, this life hangs by a hair!

Quote:

---

I said that elitests will never like anything that is popular.

---

What a cheap rhetoric...