Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spookymulder93

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.

---

What he said !


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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

It is not the quantity but quality!

---

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 Heteronym

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?

---

Re-read my previous post, and you'll see that's not what I said.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

If we're talking specifically about how much money they make, Meyers, Rowling, and King are flukes rather than representational.

---

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.

That's an interesting point you made, i never thought of that side of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

Since 95% of writers lose money for their publishers,

Publishing companies would go out of business without their superstars and then nobody would get published.

---

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.

Well statistically only 5% of books make a profit, I read this on amazon I believe.

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.

---

How else do publishers make money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breathtest

How else do publishers make money?

---

Publishers want profits, readers have their tastes. Most publishers want to appeal to any and all demands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

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.

---

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.

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....:):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElBennet85

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:

His early stuff, though, was terrific.