Printable View
Stephen King... oh, Stephen King...
I read one story I enjoyed, that being the short story 'The Langoliers'. I mainly enjoyed just... the idea of it, as it played off of some personal fears. However, his writing style is terrible, his ideas are... well, not at all horrific, or original. There are a few little things of his that I like though, such as the brackets of a characters thoughts vs. what they are actually saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
That's the same as saying that that it was okay that not a single US journalist or prime time anchor publicly spoke against the US decision to invade Iraq. I hope Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are not proud of that on their death beds.
Authors have a MORAL responsibility to educate and inspire their readership, not feed them junk all the time. Burger King, McDonalds, and Kentucky Fried Chicken do enough of that anyway.
And since when have the particular interest of a bunch of scholars demonstrated anything meaningful about a writer besides whose little a ss they're kissing at any given moment? It's trendy to write about King, like it was trendy for many colleges to offer Madonna Studies when she was the flavor of the month. C'mon. I love how you MLS guys go to your database for questions that are better answered with common sense. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by drkshw
Her tears fell with the dews at even;
Her tears fell ere the dews were dried;
She could not look on the sweet heaven,
Either at morn or eventide.
After the flitting of the bats,
When thickest dark did trance the sky,
She drew her casement-curtain by,
And glanced athwart the glooming flats.
She only said, 'The night is dreary,
He cometh not,' she said;
She said, 'I am aweary, aweary,
I would that I were dead!'
From Mariana by Tennyson
Where's the politics there? Though I agree with you, that in a way King doesn't really have any grounding in contemporary politics within his novel, necessary to make them immediately relevant, I do think that that isn't necessarily a problem.
In prose most certainly you need a tinge of political flare - it seems all great novelists have had such an insight.
Certainly though, the lack of female insight within his texts is a problem. And certainly, he is the status quo, mainstream American fiction writer, who doesn't address minorities much, or anything outside of his mainstream focalization, but I'm not sure if that is excuse enough to dismiss him.
He doesn't though, I will argue, have the creative inspirational capability to, to borrow Abrams metaphor, light a lamp on the world. I don't think he has the capacity to make one feel a sense of emotional overpowering, the way some of Munro's stories make me feel. He certainly doesn't have an innovation of technique, as exemplified in innovators like Munro again, and Marie-Claire Blais, or even mainstreamish figures like Philip Roth (who seems to bridge the Judeo-American style of Yiddish culture into the 21st century).
Character too seems weak. He most certainly isn't Zola, or Dickens in that regard (two authors just as popular in their life times as he is now).
To me though, coming from an ex-centric (to use Linda Hutcheon's term) Canadian position, he seems the epitome of the American consciousness at the current moment. And that sort of fuzzy lack of drive, that come with the mechanization of a culture after Vietnam.
On the other hand, he does get people reading, which is worth something. Perhaps they may go on to read books that will later in life help them realize King's mediocrity. I started off, strangely enough, when I was 10-11 reading Young Female Adult novels by a Canadian sci-fi author called Monica Hughes, and I moved on, so perhaps there is that (though, I moved on mostly by chance, stumbling upon a copy of Onegin, and giving it a try). There is that.
But my problem with him, I think, is that he really pushes people out of the way. So much shelf room is given to his books, yet so little to great authors, generally all ex-centrics. It seems there really hasn't been a mainstream acceptance of ex-centric authors, even within a society that preaches pluralism. Grisham, Roberts, Clancy, Brown, King, etc. all seem to be immensely popular, yet all happen to be mainstream American creations, and Mainstream American in appearance.
That being said, it isn't fair to bash him on those grounds. One should just leave him at mediocre, and say that he doesn't address real issues in his work, unless they are sensationalistically portrayed, and without much ground. Certainly he is not an academic, or innovative writer, and certainly he is more business oriented, I would argue, than craft oriented, though I think he imagines himself a great author.
The thing that bugs me the most though, is New York Times' insistence on printing his reviews of other mediocre novelists, from J. K. Rowling to Twilight. But, I guess they don't really review books to begin with, so what's the real harm.
That's an interesting perspective. Your view on the moral responsibility of authors seems a bit idiosyncratic, and I'm not sure I know what you mean by educating and inspiring the readership. It seems to me that the devotion of his fan base is evidence that he does inspire his readership, but obviously you mean something else by "inspire". As for education, I don't really find any other writer of fiction that is significantly more educational. I'm guessing that you don't mean to make writers like Tom Clancy (whose books can be quite educational about military technology) a model of fulfilling the moral responsibilities of authors, so I would guess you have something more specific in mind when you say "educate" as well. I'd be interested to know what exactly you mean by "educate and inspire" and why you think it is the author's moral responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
Again, this is an emotional appeal to play on people's opinions about a political issue and a poor analogy. There is no logical connection between the moral duties of an author and the moral duties of a journalist. One writes imaginary stories that are supposed to reflect reality, the other is supposed to accurately report on events happening in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
Not necessarily. As an inspiring writer myself I feel no moral responsibility to educate and inspire my readership, although it depends what you mean by that. However, I don't see my work as Dead Poet's Society lite. No one is going to finish reading one of my stories, jump on their desk, and start declaring, "Oh, captain. My Captain."Quote:
Authors have a MORAL responsibility to educate and inspire their readership, not feed them junk all the time. Burger King, McDonalds, and Kentucky Fried Chicken do enough of that anyway.
Now I'm certainly saying stuff about the world in my stories, but my primary purpose is still to entertain my reader and to hopefully make a few bucks for my time and effort.
I'm not only an MLS. I also have an English degree and a history background. And I clean windows!Quote:
And since when have the particular interest of a bunch of scholars demonstrated anything meaningful about a writer besides whose little a ss they're kissing at any given moment? It's trendy to write about King, like it was trendy for many colleges to offer Madonna Studies when she was the flavor of the month. C'mon. I love how you MLS guys go to your database for questions that are better answered with common sense. :rolleyes:
If read in context as a response to JBI, my comments all make perfect sense. He claimed that the only way King could survive is for academics to continue commenting on his work. Then he gave some names of genre authors he thinks may survive the test of time: LeGuin, Zelazny, or Lovecraft more. So it was worth pointing out that when one looks objectively at the number of scholarly works written about these authors, they are on par with the scholarly works written about King. Secondly, it was worth reminding everyone who likes to make broad comments like, "Academics reject King" that academics are not a hivemind that all agree with each other.
I wasn't just looking in those databases as some sort of librarian reflex response. What evidence do you have that King scholarship is a flavor of the week phenomenon. Most academics loathe him, but there are a cadre of academics who think he should be added to the Canon or at least should be studied in academia. According to the literature, this argument has been happening for 20 years ongoing. How is that a flavor of the week?
Besides if it isn't academics who get to decide, the average reader, or fandom, who exactly gets to decide what is sticking around?
As usual your comments are personal attacks against academics and librarians. You have no evidence for anything you claimed above. There really isn't much substance to it. Just quick little zingers: academics = brown-nosers, librarians = people who hide in their databases and lack common sense. Even as you yourself show little understanding for the reasons why I turned to the database and reported back what I did, which was explained above and is ultimately based on common sense: let's look at how much academics are in fact writing about King in relation to these other authors my interlocutor mentioned as worthy of academic attention and see if it is in fact true that academia is completely ignoring King.
It seems, from browsing bibliography, there are in fact, book length works on Stephen King.
The primary trend seems to be, that they all criticize him as popular fiction, and a large portion of them take a psychoanalytical angle to his more "horror" works. Generally, it seems most people are preoccupied with his horror books, with many titles comparing him to Mary Shelley. I, however, can't really find a critical work that really goes beyond that niche. I have read the word "double" too many times now, to know that there is some sort of onedimensionalism going on.
On another note, just from reading the titles, it seems a large majority of feminist critics are taking issue with him. Still reading in that Freudian vein though, you get interesting titles like this:
The Rape of the Constant Reader: Stephen King's Construction of the Female Reader and Violation of the Female Body in Misery
Cars Are Girls: Sexual Power and Sexual Panic in Stephen King's Christine
Stephen King's Misery: Freudian Sexual Symbolism and the Battle of the Sexes
On Stephen King's Phallus: Or, The Postmodern Gothic
Take Me for a Ride in Your Man-Eater: Gynophobia in Stephen King's Christine
The Face of Mr. Flip': Homophobia in the Horror of Stephen King
Stephen King's Dark and Terrible Mother, Annie Wilkes
Either way, none of these critics are really read critics from what I can tell (there may have been a few I missed), and, none of them seem to be making any canonical claims, or claims about his status (there is the odd one who writes a book called "The Art of Stephen King" or something). But I don't see an F. R. Leavis really championing his work, and the bulk of the criticism tries to put him in line more or less with other horror authors, despite the fact that he writes a large amount of non-horror texts. I think then, it is safe to say at least, there is somewhat a rejection of at least part of his oeuvre.
Either way, it is too early to tell - he is still with us. There was, of course, this much criticism written on Harry Potter, and on countless other big names. I don't, however, see much championing of his works, in terms of canonical thought. The bulk of these critics probably don't even believe in canons.
It will be interesting to see. One can already see an ebb in the popularity of his earlier work, and it would seem he has already become too much of a convention to grow anymore during his lifetime. I can't see him really lasting for more than 1-2 books, and even if he does, I can't see that coming at the expense of another author, given that there are so many great American writers today. I have yet to see a book title that calls him a great original - most seem to throw him in line with Shelley and Poe, which is disheartening, given that if you are so in line, you are, as I said, all fancy.
Is there an academic acceptance? Perhaps on one level - there are critics who write about popular fiction, especially American ones, and who jump upon the most popular book of the moment. The MLA Bibliography gave me hits on searches like Nora Roberts, and John Grisham, in addition to Tom Clancy, so he isn't alone (though I guess there has been more work done on him).
I don't particularly think he can really get out of an American context, and I'm not to sure he could possibly be canonized into another language or country's tradition. I stick by what I said earlier, about how he is the embodiment of the mainstream American consciousness. When that shifts however, I don't know what will be left.
It's quite sad really. The majority of adults that I know that read (which is pitifully few, unfortunately - and I'm talking outside of my university academic circles) tend to only read in the vein of Stephen King, which is unfortunate given that (if they are related to me) they have a relative who is relatively knowledgeable in the area of literature, and therefore should know better.
For some reason, however, people seem to be really put off when you tell them that what they are reading is trash. Oh well.
Interesting post, JBI. I just checked out Wiki and about 90% of King's work is classified under horror. How's about the title, Pop Supernatural Junk?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I hope on their death beds they regret every book they pawned off on the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbi
What will be left: pigeon doo.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbi
Thank you for raising the question. What is the moral responsibility of writers to their readers? Tom Clancy's writing has a moral basis. Even though I have zero interest in Clancy's books, reading small portions of them I have come across some mesmerizing prose and analysis about military technology and the government. It's the low bar set by writers like King, et al, whose ideas do little more than tickle mediocrity with their entertainment feathers and who are responsible for contributing to the birthing of a whole generation of little shi tface writers with MFA tassels looped around their middle fingers in golden Magna cum Laude peddling novel after imbecilic novel, which they know to be garbage, and justify on the ground Darkshadow does:Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
When you say things like this---that you have no moral responsibility to your readers---I don't see you as an inspiring writer. I don't see you as half a writer. You, Grisham, King, Roberts, are all vaudeville---and your snake oil is the idea of writing as a form of entertainment. Drink some and you're a writer too.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkshadow
You mean to tell me that after all the years I've spent studying fiction, that all I've been doing is reading imaginary stories?? :bawling:Quote:
Originally Posted by darkshadow
Look, when Daniel Pearl got his head chopped off, what if moments before the sword came down somebody had whispered into his ear that what he had been chasing all those years into dark musty caves with stick men shadows was only a perspective of the truth and not the truth itself? Similarly the fiction writer that his characters, setting, conflict, narrative, are just stories? No breath. No tongue, no blood. Fiction as temporary psychosis between the eyes with the occasional nosebleed.
As the journalist travels by foot so does the good fiction writer, and sometimes they leap over intersecting paths, and what the fiction writer doesn't travel in miles he's travelled inside his bones---because if the story is not an imaginative story as I believe it to be, but an imaginary story as you have it---then you'll have to convince me and every writer on the face of the earth that imaginary stories have no basis in suffering and growing up and love and invincible human power that mimics the self. Listen harder for the whistling in the lighted window, a grandeur of the surf.
**
Moral fiction goes beyond merely reflecting reality. Reflected reality is only what's been done, whereas moral fiction grapples with the could-haves and what-next---with what's possible in ourselves, in our communities, and the world. And text is organic and reading hermeneutical in that sense, with language bringing together a heterogenous set of sense perceptions that are culturally and socially transformative. But if fiction writing is only about entertaining, cheap forms or otherwise, the writer absolves himself of that self-reflective as well as collective responsibility. I reject that.
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.
Most of the people who graduate from MFA programs are writing pretty straight forward New Yorker-style "literary" fiction, which bears the influence of Hemingway and Faulkner more than it does Stephen King. In fact, genre fiction and writers like Stephen King are generally frowned upon in MFAs. So I am not actually sure what your point is here, unless you have some personal experiences you want to share?Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
Heh. I meant aspiring, my bad. As far as you personally not seeing me as a "real" writer, exactly who are you that I should care?Quote:
When you say things like this---that you have no moral responsibility to your readers---I don't see you as an inspiring writer. I don't see you as half a writer. You, Grisham, King, Roberts, are all vaudeville---and your snake oil is the idea of writing as a form of entertainment. Drink some and you're a writer too.
Writing for me is a mix between a hobby/career/passion. Of course I have something I feel is important to communicate to my audience beyond merely entertaining them, but I still feel it is my goal first and foremost to make my point in an entertaining fashion. If I simply wanted to get a moral truth or point across I could write a philosophical treatise or some kind of essay. Fiction isn't for edification and entertainment; it is edification through entertainment.
Uhm, pretty sure I covered that fiction has a basis in "suffering and growing up and love and invincible human power" when I said fiction is a reflection of reality (mimesis). It doesn't change the fact that fiction still uses an imaginary story to convey such things. Next . . .Quote:
what the fiction writer doesn't travel in miles he's travelled inside his bones---because if the story is not an imaginative story as I believe it to be, but an imaginary story as you have it---then you'll have to convince me and every writer on the face of the earth that imaginary stories have no basis in suffering and growing up and love and invincible human power that mimics the self.
Isn't that Science Fiction? ;)Quote:
Moral fiction goes beyond merely reflecting reality. Reflected reality is only what's been done, whereas moral fiction grapples with the could-haves and what-next---with what's possible in ourselves, in our communities, and the world.
As for the rest of your essay, my thoughts ranged from: "When did I step back into Grad School and into a theory class?" to "Okay, you're entitled to your opinion."
Great, it's nice to hear your theory of fiction. Other than that I am not really sure how to react to your post or what you actually want from me as an interlocutor. If you want to know my own theory of fiction, on reading, and what I believe the study of literature actually entails you can find them in a number of other threads on this forum or re-read my previous post more carefully. If you'd like to gouge my tastes or what it is I get out of the books I read besides entertainment you're more than welcome to click on the link to my blog.
Thanks for the response, and for expanding on what you believe to be an author's moral responsibility. I see that my guess was wrong, and your idea of morally responsible writing does not preclude authors like Tom Clancy. I'm still interested in knowing why what you described is an author's moral responsibility. Based on your insistence that an author failing your standard should be ashamed on his deathbed, I conclude that you're claiming this idea of an author's moral responsibility to be not just your own opinion, but some kind of universal idea that everyone should accept. You've made a distinction between "moral fiction" and "entertainment". Why must every writer produce what you call "moral fiction" and eschew "entertainment"? In fact, I can't help but wonder if what you dismiss as entertainment is inspiration to someone else. It's not clear to me that the features of moral fiction that you speak of -- grappling with the could-haves, cultural influence, self-reflection -- are not facets of that phenomenon we call "entertainment".Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
Surely you don't mean to imply that any writer whose work doesn't measure up to Homer's Iliad and Plato's Republic must consider himself a failure on his deathbed?Quote:
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.
What's your opinion on The Green Mile?Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
Stephen King seems to me, to be a writer who possesses a very twisted, chaotic, brilliant imagination. That's what he'll be remembered for.
I'd like to add, in this third little post of mine, that some people seem to have forgotten the joy of reading a novel for the simple sake of enjoying the story. The idea of reading heavy books day in an day out makes me feel a little sick. That being said, I find it really disturbing that novels that don't have, as it has been quoted many times in this thread "literary merit", are considered trash. They aren't trash. If I want a good thriller/horror i'm going to be running to the pile labeled what many of you consider "trash". I don't find novels that are of great "literary merit" of the horror/thriller genre, disturbing or interesting at all. The fact that so many literary works that couldn't make a baby shake, get labeled "terrifying" and "disturbing" is ridiculous.
Limes!
As far as moral responsibility, maybe try to think of it this way, as silly as it may seem: Writers do more than just write on pages that that get printed and bound and sent to the four corners. Writers quite literally put words in their readers’ bodies, a process which is physiological, and why that kind of writing is moral. Moral, not as a religious sense of duty, but moral as care.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
Yes and no. While art is a process that grows up ex nihilo, even the writers who remain true to their craft still have the capacity to shape and steer those emergent thoughts or impressions. Stephen King is like the Ancient Greece sophist concerned only with the intention of the message whereas the moral writer is concerned with both intention and content. In King’s case, he never once strays from the archetypes that work for him. Even in his On Writing he made sure to stay inside the entertainment-value frame, indulging in cheap witticisms and anecdotes that the reviewers in lockstep met with high praise, calling the book, ‘fun and practical,' which was just another way of saying it offered nothing new or insightful.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
I don’t think the entertainment value of a book has to be sacrificed at all. In fact, moral fiction, when done the right way, can instruct as much as entertain. One can’t help reading the last page of John Gardner’s Grendel without feeling the rush to go out and pick up a copy of Beowolf. The first time I finished The Iliad I picked up and started The Odyssey. Stephen King doesn’t do that for me. He doesn’t do that for me because his kind of fiction is so transparent that once I stuck my tongue clear through one of his novels and watched the letters slide off the pages onto the floor and into my cat's water dish. The cat used her paw to fish some out and started up a game of scrabble with the cat next door. The first word she spelled was "Brad." It concerns me. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
Limajean,
I agree with what you said about King's imagination. I would, however, point out that I think King does far more in his fiction than you give him credit. Carrie is one of the best novels about bullying, teasing, and harassment I have ever read, capturing perfectly the modern high school atmosphere. Certain imagery like the opening with the girls throwing tampons at Carrie and shouting at her when she has her first menstruation stick in your mind as the epitome of cruelty. The "horror" element of a deranged telekenetic matches well with the "reality" of the story. She suffers years of mental abuse, and she responds with abnormal mental powers that allows her to become the ultimate homocidal mass murderer.
IT is about a demonic clown that eats children. Of course as the story progresses we find out the clown is actually the town itself. The children protagonists all have family issues or abusive parents. The town literally swallows up its children. The metaphor speaks for itself. The horror elements in King's novel always match up with the screwed up reality the characters experience.
As one critic who has argued for King's Canonicity notes the people who occupy King's novels are always far scarier, far more malevolent, and more horrific than the supernatural elements.
I personally think King should be read in the American Gothic Horror tradition as a modern Poe. I agree with JBI that there is something distinctly American about his writing, and that thematically his writing is essentially about the darkness in the heart of America.
You must admit though, he is probably not the best at displaying it though - I think the obvious darkness of America author today would probably be McCarthy, but even then. I think the problem is that King likes to jump on sensationalist plots, rather than focus on less plot. And, as a writer myself, that goes against my aesthetic. Anybody can manufacture plots (and he has the worst endings, so I guess he can only half-manufacture them). As a Canadian reader (a very Canadian one, yes, I am aware that is somewhat of an oxymoron) I don't see particularly how he can possibly relate to me, or my tradition. Toni Morrison, for instance, used to create very strong portraits of the darkness of America, and I think those, notably Beloved and Song of Solomon, really capture something, but King? I'm not too sure.
Really though, I think a lot of my rejections of novels mostly seem to be rooted in the tradition I really belong to. Firstly, I grew up reading mostly female authors, and got started off, at around 9-10 reading predominantly Young Adult, female bildungsromans. After that, I moved on, when I was ending high school, to focus more on Canadian authors, as I felt that the American ones overrepresented, and clashing with my political sensibilities. A large amount of the contemporary Canadian players in fiction, also happen to be poets (many of them poets before novelists), Ondaatje, Atwood, Kroetsch, Carson, Hebert, etc. In that sense, I think my aesthetic has been molded somewhat to appreciate works of prose that have poetic elements, rather than conventional prose elements. So that, for instance, my favorite novel is Eugene Onegin, and my favorite American novelist is, like most people, Faulkner, who seems more influenced by poetry than most prose writers, and actually started as a poet.
King seems pure prose though, to the point where he relies purely on prose convention, and nothing else - I wouldn't be surprised if he only reads prose, and is really incapable of thinking metaphorically. The narrative tradition only goes so far, I think, and quite honestly, we have come to the point where, unless it is really manipulated and formed by other ideas, the contemporary novel cannot particularly flourish. The realist trend seems to have run out of steam, and quite honestly, one can see why.
King can, I would argue, only really manipulate one genre at a time, and seems rooted in rather mainstream, conventional genres. I personally like to see a bit more working of new, or different elements and traditions within my work.
It is interesting though - I think, as a genre, fantasy, and horror, really have been suffering from lack of attention to particularly good, innovative authors. The phrase "good old fashion prose" seems to be an excuse for mediocrity, yet gets used to justify the praising of works which in themselves aren't particularly bad, but are by no means worth much attention, or any real sort of critical admiration.
Good old fashion essentially means old fashion, and rubbish. If one does not move forward, they no longer are particularly important to the tradition. I don't think King moves forward - I think all his novels generally have the same traits, all of which were convention somewhat before his day.
The only real difference I think with him and other authors, is his sales, and that, if I were to attribute it to something, comes because he focuses on the American experience, without a) being too difficult, and b) criticizing it too much, the way someone like Dellilo does. Lets be honest, there is nothing particularly innovative in his work. Nothing that someone else could not have written. But he has found the perfect place - on one hand, he fits the American diagram perfectly, so his sales flourish, on the other hand, he is so successful that the critics of popular fiction support him, as he is somehow seen as "populist", attacking the "elitist" assumptions of academic critics. In essence, people get Ph. D.s in Stephen King, and eventually end up in a 500 person line to try and get a tenure-tracked position, or leave the field.
It's interesting to note though, that there really is no effort by academics to see the emergence of a fantastical genre in itself, with good authors. There are great authors who use fantastical elements, but I think the purer a genre becomes, the more it suffers. Autobiography of Red certainly has fantastic elements, but ultimately it fits better as a modern day bildungsroman than anything else. One could, presumably, write a thesis on Terry Goodkind, and his captivation of the racist, jingoist, radical Americanist, colonial imagination of today's (predominantly male) adolescent readership. But I'm unsure if that would go well, quite simply because I don't think anyone but adolescent male jingoist Americans (with a touch of misogyny thrown in) care anything about him. King on the other hand is such an American convention already, that there may be people interested in his work.
It's all the same anyway - these books will soon be unread, and this scholarship ignored. If someone is so uncreative as to work mostly on King, they probably will just end up standing in line with the others, hoping for an opening in Academic institutions. In truth, how far can a scholar of a text so mediocre, but so contemporary go? Academia is one of the most competitive fields, and contemporary American literature probably the most competitive in America, and I think, ultimately, the scholar of Chinese-American, or First-Nations American authors will probably have an easier time getting in - quite simply, because there is less competition.
I don't know - I confess, fantasy, and to a much lesser extent, horror fiction is a particular interest of mine, from a theoretical perspective. It is almost impossible to read most genre books, but even so, I am very interested in the concept, in the way I am interested in Maesterlink's Pelleas e Melisande. The genre itself, has tons of potential, as it seems the romantic variant of magical-realism, which would rely more on negative capability, and metaphor, and generally, the fairtalesque, than on symbolic realism. Ultimately though, I don't think readers would be interested in it anymore. Certainly though, if someone were to craft a decent verse-novel in it (or prose-poem-novel, how ironic) they could do very interesting things. But alas, realist stylistics, without any sense of realism.
Back to King though, I don't particularly think him worthy of my time, in the sense that I feel his "imaginative" creations as those pertaining to the aesthetic of middle-class-centric-male-America, something which I am not part of, and which I personally am a) afraid of, and b) somewhat repulsed by. I don't see King as really standing for much more - I think he is rooted in the 1970s, and that he can't break into a 21st century perspective, or a multi-cultural, or even a female perspective. I consider him on par with mass-media outlets, in his focus, and quite frankly, that's probably why he sells so well.
What's really alarming is that King is often slammed because he refuses to correct, or sometimes even discuss, his political views. I think a lot of people tend to forget , firstly, that writers are not somehow bound to political principles. They are neither religious leaders nor politicians. King is not Montaigne or Swift, nor has he aspired to be. Secondly, I recall T.S. Eliot's suggestion that a writer should not be read into his text. King may not have any agenda beyond what so many readers seem to want to associate with him. I suspect that much of the stereotyping, sexism, etc. that many readers see come from their own interpretation rather the source.
King is unpretentious, his critics often are not. The only honest criticism I can find regarding King is from Harold Bloom. Even then, Bloom's dislike is largely due to personal taste in prose style, and I don't think Bloom attempts to conceal this.
As for the people who lash out simply because King is a commercial writer, well all I have to say is that they had better come down from that Ivory Tower and have a look around. As far as comemrcial writers go, King isn't all that bad. In fact, he's a virtual Homer next to Mr. Midnight, Sweet Valley High and the Sophie Kinsella nonsense that is spreading like a plague amongst the new generation. In case these people haven't noticed, the high modernist project *failed*. Laypersons generally do not walk around with James Joyce or Virginia Woolfe tucked under their arm, and *never will*. If the end purpose of the modernist project was to make a universal literature, than King has come farther than either of those two (not that I discount their contributions).