Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

eric.bell makes a good point. Many authors we hold on pedestals today were writing commercial fiction. Dickens was mentioned earlier, and he was paid for each word he wrote. Not only was he writing to sell, but he was embellishing for the sake of money, not because it would enhance his writing. I'm not saying that Dickens was a bad writer or that King is a good one, but it's something to consider.

I have enjoyed a few King movies, because to me he is a good story teller, especially for the screen. But his writing style leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe he's just working with the wrong form?

About the debate on the rules of writing, I think both sides have a point. I don't you can give a set of rules and always follow them. If that were the case you could just write a computer program to follow these rules and randomly generate the details. But then we would lose the human element of literature, and that is what makes it touch our hearts and our minds.

That said, I looked over Twain's guidelines, and though I wouldn't sit down with a manuscript and check it to the list, I don't think I would find a reason to break any of those guidelines.

Frankly, I attempted to read a couple of Stephen Kings novels, and the bored me to tears.

I will say that Mark Twains List is extremely useful. Can you be a great writer and ignore that list? Yes. However, if you're not a "great" writer, and you can't use those flaws to your advantage in story-crafting, it is an excellent idea to read the list and check your writing against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katy North

I will say that Mark Twain's List is extremely useful. Can you be a great writer and ignore that list? Yes. However, if you're not a "great" writer, and you can't use those flaws to your advantage in story-crafting, it is an excellent idea to read the list and check your writing against it.

---

So what are you saying? Is King one of these writers? Should he go and read this "end-all be-all" checklist of Twain's and try to apply it? If you think so, why is that? (I really would like to know. I am not being just being facetious with you) But if it is simply your finding him boring that is what qualifies this, then apparently (according to oh so many on this site) Dickens should have been finding himself a list as well; because lots (of people on this site, myself not included) find him boring--to the point of tears.

I've read the first 4 parts to The Dark Tower series, mainly because i enjoy epic stories.

book 2-3-4 are pretty freaking enjoyable.

I will clarify... King has his place, and although I personally don't enjoy him, it is evident that many people do. Certainly he is doing something right. The same goes to Cooper, whose books are considered a classic now (I haven't read them yet, so I can't personally judge). I agree that following the list as a FORMULA would stint the growth of the art of literature and is generally a bad idea.

However, if you're just STARTING to write, or if you're trying to be published but are unsuccessful, it would probably be a good idea to go down Twain's list and see if there is something he has listed that can improve your story/novel. Using his list as a GUIDE would be very effective, especially to aspiring authors.

I've read both The Shining and The Gunslinger by Stephen King. I found The Shining to be very enjoyable with great characters. I couldn't bring myself to finish The Gunslinger.

As to the ongoing writer's argument, I personally believe there is no set formula to writing. There are plenty of superior authors to Twain (Tolstoy, Joyce, et cetera) who disregard these rules in favor of fashioning their own. Like said above, writing doesn't follow a set foruma; that's the beauty of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis_R

I've read both The Shining and The Gunslinger by Stephen King. I found The Shining to be very enjoyable with great characters. I couldn't bring myself to finish The Gunslinger.

As to the ongoing writer's argument, I personally believe there is no set formula to writing. There are plenty of superior authors to Twain (Tolstoy, Joyce, et cetera) who disregard these rules in favor of fashioning their own. Like said above, writing doesn't follow a set foruma; that's the beauty of it.

---

travis, i had the HARDEST time getting through the gunslinger, especially the first half of it. it's terrible, like - beyond atrocious - however, as the book itself was written over a huge time period, you can actually tell, specifically, where king gets a hang of the story, and a feel for how to write it - and the last part of the book is completely on another level.

if you are in the mood for some good entertainment reading, i almost promise you - you will find the end of if, and all of book 2/3/4 way, way better.

also - frank muller narrated the first few books of it before, tragically, his accident and eventual death - but i would highly recommend finding a torrent and downloading the books as read by him if you can find them.

I agree with eric.bell. I'm not sure Stephen King is a literary genius, but I think he's a talented horror writer whose work has a place in the "horror canon" so to speak. I also think he's writing in the same vein as Poe. I find his shorter books and short fiction to have more substance.

Carrie, for example, I think is a solid work.

I will put it this way. That he writes for money, is of no consequence, as many great authors write for money, and in truth, the vast majority of them write for money. That is not the problem I have.

The problem I have is he publishes everything, doesn't edit well, and doesn't plan what he is writing - he merely writes for the sake of publishing. One cannot deny his endings flop enough of the time to show that his method of no outline, no pre-planning eventually leads him to rather silly ends - the speed he churns books out at doesn't help either.

His work has an interesting motif, in that it uses horror/fantastical elements to try and show the darker aspects of American history, culture and society. In that sense, it has moments, but really, he could have perhaps been a great writer had he not had such a drive to publish everything, and had instead limited himself to more refined books.

The man writes trash, but only because he writes nonstop - he has the talent necessary to write great fiction, but not the drive to.

As for Poe, call this idiosyncratic or whatever but I don't think there is much there either - to me Poe's conceptualization is interesting, but not his delivery. He had a great mind of phantoms and dark images, but lacked the language to deliver them properly.

Poe's cemented place in the American literary tradition however is by necessity exaggerated by the fact that he is an American author, and not an English author. Longfellow is usually held up as a counter example (though Hiawatha no longer has for me any real interest as it did when I was younger) for the period, and a few more names, but Poe remains due to the fact that there wasn't an Eliot writing in the US in the period to have replaced him - compared to his English or French counterparts, he is undoubtedly lacking, but compared to his countrymen, well...

In that sense Poe, like King, is relevant in that his subject matter is that of concerning a country that doesn't like to read outside its own borders, and likes to play down hard on the early national pride, in the sense that it hammers its own early history into a sort of cultural mythology. Within that scheme though, you need American authors - you need at least one high school year of pure early America to play into the program, so now the trends require Poe.

In Canada it is different in that literature is taught in an international sense, mostly focusing on earlier English works, as well as American ones. Without the agenda then, we do not promote Lampman even though he is by my reckoning a better poet than Poe, and nobody today really reads the Confederation school or that hideously boring poet Sangster.

In that sense, the appreciation of King to me seems to at least really like to limit itself to his American mythologizing, and I don't know - that doesn't quite do it for me. Others see something else, but the whole tradition from Poe to King seems rather boring. But then again, I do not really read prose fiction that often anymore so perhaps it is just a genre-bias.

Title says it all.
How has Stephen King impacted the culture of America?

What Impact Did Stephen King Have on American Culture/History?

None beyond the mere sale of popular fiction. He has produced nothing lasting.

We did gain a couple of great movies from his books; like The Shinning and Salem's Lot.

Here is a great essay answering some of your questions.

For what King lacks in polish at times, he makes up for in his ability to capture the American Zeitgeist.

American culture as Harriet Beecher Stowe did with Uncle Tom's Cabin.

This is a really great question. I like dfloyd's comparison to to Stowe -- but the analogy is not that simple: I think in terms of vast popular appeal (and cultural influence) the two authors are similar. Stowe's book helped bring about an important social change, while King's, to my knowledge, have not.

But I agree with the comparison overall.

Drkshadow03 -- I'll have to read that essay. Thanks for the link.