Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

always been a King fan as, even if his books might not be the most enlightening or traumatic or deep, they were always a place to go for an easy read that never failed to entertain me. sometimes i need that, and he never fails to deliver, unlike the films. :(

my suggestion is that you read his Dark Tower series, beginning with The Gunslinger, followed by (in order) The Drawing of the Three, The Waste Lands, Wizard and Glass, Wolves of the Calla, Song of Susannah and, finally, The Dark Tower. for me, these are the story that all his other stories have only been drafts of. here there are so many references, links, nods... The story follows the same set of people in various worlds running parallel to our own - and it's in these parallel worlds we see hints of his other tales, like the Cap'n Trips epidemic for example.

my only problem now is reading any more of his writing; The Dark Tower series seems to be what all the rest has been about.

if you did want to read individual King publications, not of this series, i'd recommend his 1996 Desperation and Black House (brilliantly co-written with Peter Straub).

I second Duma Key, Black House (pick up The Talisman first, also written with Straub and also brilliant) and his Dark Tower series.

Though, I liked Bag of Bones, haha.

Of all the King novels I've read (all except Thinner and The Running Man), I was enthralled with Bag of Bones, Hearts in Atlantis, Cujo, and Lisey's Story. I thought all of these showcased a solid writer with an amazing imagination and eye for detail. That being said, I haven't been impressed with the last couple: Duma Key and Under the Dome.

Wow, as always when discussing King, I'm reminded how overprotective and slightly obsessive his fans are. The only other person I've seen so protective is Bazarov about Dostoevski. That kind of loyalty is actually kinda sweet, I doubt I feel as strongly about any writer.

The only thing I can add to this is my personal opinion, which probably won't be either unique or revelatory. King is a supreme storyteller, I always listen with bated breath whenever he has something to say, be that in writing or in interviews. He also seems like a real swell guy, hilarious and unpretentious, if I had to befriend any writer I'd rather go with King than Tolstoi or that nutcase Dostoevski (that's probably unfair, both Tolstoi and D seems nutty). But as a writer, I find him lacking in what makes me love Tolstoi, Faulkner or even Cormac McCarthy. I don't marvel at the world or its inhabitants when I read King, even though I itch to turn the pages. The movie, Stand By Me is excellent however, a real gem. I haven't read the original story The Body, so I don't know what to attribute to King. Shawshank Redemption is classic Hollywood, but pretty stale imo, same with The Green Mile.

I think comparing King to Hemingway or Faulkner is laughable, there is no comparison in my mind. And if you feel that way, our parameters for great literature is so disparate that I doubt I could ever agree with you on anything literary.

I tried reading "The Mist" because it was part of the Dark Forces anthology but couldn't continue because I found the prose very bland. It also didn't help that days earlier I was reading short stories by Hemingway and Faulkner, and could not stop myself from comparing King with these writers. (I also read McCarthy's The Road more than a year ago and found it notable.) On top of that, I started reading a story from Isaac Bashevis Singer from the anthology just mentioned and enjoyed it!

About Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, I started reading the first in secondary school and Tolstoy in uni, and it helps that many of the other things that I learned, including modern philosophy, are strongly connected to their works. With that, I will very likely have less time to read King's works, although one day I might try Dolores Clairborne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abookinthebath

Hi All,

Still finding my feet here, so please tell me if I am posting this in the wrong place and prod me in the right direction!

I am about to start reading The Green Mile. Now, I am a bit of a speed reader and I feel that I am missing out on a lot of the detail and points that authors make. Hence me joining here!

So, Is anyone interested in having a bit of a 'book club' style discussion as we read through the book? Thinking of starting towards the end of this week.

I'm sure this book has been reviewed on here already, but would really like to hear peoples thoughts as they progress through the book.......

---

Is Stephen King an appropriate author to discuss on a literature forum?

The Wikipedia page on King, in the 'critical response' section, has no positive responses from any literary academic or acknowledged 'gatekeeper of literature'.

But it has several negative responses.

Richard Snyder, the former CEO of Simon & Schuster, described King's work as "non-literature", Harold Bloom really disliked him: 'The decision to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.'

Even genre critics are harsh about him - Joshi argues that King's supernatural novels are mostly bloated, illogical, maudlin and prone to deus ex machina endings.

Joshi suggests that King's strengths are the accessible "everyman" quality of his prose, and insightful observations about the pains and joys of adolescence. That seems about right, and perhaps explains his popularity amongst a young audience who "know no better".

I did read a few King novels as an adolescent but gave up on him - for reasons that Joshi and Bloom explicate quite well - Tommyknockers was the final straw - what an awful book on every level!

Discussing King here would be like discussing cold fusion in a physics forum - maybe it would be safer to seek out a Stephen King fan forum?!

But I am now quite tempted to read "The Modern Weird Tale" by S. T. Joshi.

On this Forum we discuss homosexual tendencies of animals, video games, Twilight and Harry Potter as well as Faulkner and Coelho. It is open to discussion of all books and authors (as long as they are legal) and I am appalled by the suggestion that it is inappropriate to discuss this book on here.

Bath might be a young reader but has every right to read and discuss any book of their choice.


This is one of the books listed in BBC's Big Read, actually, and I haven't read it yet. If you give me sometime to acquire it, I will join you, Bath! :)

Many interesting points there, Mal, and I agree, to an extent, with some of it.

However, please understand, I am not a literary critic. I am trying to get into some of the more meaningful and classic texts, but equally, I enjoy a good story. And is the enjoyment factor not as important as the response of 'literary academics'?

I am open to suggestions of books to read that have a higher academic standing, indeed there are a few on my 'list'!

And I'll avoid the King fanboy forums for now!

Scheherazade - let me know when you have it!

(And for reference, I'm a 30 something guy, who is quite proud of his immaturity!)

Of course anyone has the right to read any book of their choice. But I also have the right to question whether a Stephen King book should be discussed in a forum that tags itself as a 'literature forum'.

Using 'define: in Google', we get the reasonable definition 'Literature - Written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit: "a great work of literature".'

I'm surprised to see you taking this forum to be about "the looser" definition - "Written works" - when most postings here seems to take the broader definition on board - "...those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit".

"The Big Read" is evidence for the dumbing-down of the BBC, not evidence for "literature of superior or lasting artistic merit". Looking at the list, I'd guess it was voted for mostly by Tolkeinists and seven year olds - two factions famous for spending too much time on the internet.

The BBC does still do some things well, of course. The Christopher Hitchens essay series on BBC Radio 4 at the moment is superb... and "Start the Week" has started well this season...

Mal, as always, one has the option of not taking part in any discussion that does not appeal to their tastes... And that starts by not posting in those threads.

Um, Mal, if you care to have a look at the bottom of this page, you will find the 'Stephen King Trash or Literature' thread. Many opposing views there.

This discussion isn't why I started this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abookinthebath

I am trying to get into some of the more meaningful and classic texts, but equally, I enjoy a good story. And is the enjoyment factor not as important as the response of 'literary academics'?

I am open to suggestions of books to read that have a higher academic standing, indeed there are a few on my 'list'!

---

What's enjoyable about bad writing? There are many literary novels that are easily enjoyed, that have King's "Everyman appeal" - anything by Dickens. Tolstoy's shorter novels. R.L. Stevenson's adventures. H.G. Wells' science fiction, Philip Roth, ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Is Stephen King an appropriate author to discuss on a literature forum?

The Wikipedia page on King, in the 'critical response' section, has no positive responses from any literary academic or acknowledged 'gatekeeper of literature'.

But it has several negative responses.

Richard Snyder, the former CEO of Simon & Schuster, described King's work as "non-literature", Harold Bloom really disliked him: 'The decision to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.'

Even genre critics are harsh about him - Joshi argues that King's supernatural novels are mostly bloated, illogical, maudlin and prone to deus ex machina endings.

Joshi suggests that King's strengths are the accessible "everyman" quality of his prose, and insightful observations about the pains and joys of adolescence. That seems about right, and perhaps explains his popularity amongst a young audience who "know no better".

I did read a few King novels as an adolescent but gave up on him - for reasons that Joshi and Bloom explicate quite well - Tommyknockers was the final straw - what an awful book on every level!

Discussing King here would be like discussing cold fusion in a physics forum - maybe it would be safer to seek out a Stephen King fan forum?!

But I am now quite tempted to read "The Modern Weird Tale" by S. T. Joshi.

---

It seems that King is of little interest, which makes it very amazing the length to which you go about.

How would you guys compare this to King's other books? I like him a lot. My favorites are The Shining and It. I've attempted The Stand several times, but have yet to complete it. :brickwall

Not sure why people aren't supposed to talk about Stephen King on a literary forum. How is he not literature again? Just because he isn't high art doesn't mean that he isn't an author of literature. I find the elitism on this board sometimes frankly quite ridiculous. If you guys like this a lot, I might add it to my list of books to read. I liked the movie.

I'm currently reading the King James Bible, so it might be a while before I have time to read something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Is Stephen King an appropriate author to discuss on a literature forum?

The Wikipedia page on King, in the 'critical response' section, has no positive responses from any literary academic or acknowledged 'gatekeeper of literature'.

But it has several negative responses.

Richard Snyder, the former CEO of Simon & Schuster, described King's work as "non-literature", Harold Bloom really disliked him: 'The decision to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.'

Even genre critics are harsh about him - Joshi argues that King's supernatural novels are mostly bloated, illogical, maudlin and prone to deus ex machina endings.

Joshi suggests that King's strengths are the accessible "everyman" quality of his prose, and insightful observations about the pains and joys of adolescence. That seems about right, and perhaps explains his popularity amongst a young audience who "know no better".

I did read a few King novels as an adolescent but gave up on him - for reasons that Joshi and Bloom explicate quite well - Tommyknockers was the final straw - what an awful book on every level!

Discussing King here would be like discussing cold fusion in a physics forum - maybe it would be safer to seek out a Stephen King fan forum?!

But I am now quite tempted to read "The Modern Weird Tale" by S. T. Joshi.

---

We should determine discussion criteria based on the commentary of a whopping three critics? Why should critical acclaim even be a factor? It seems quite shortsighted to leave out any book not endorsed by a certain group of people. Not to mention incredibly close-minded, shortsighted, and pompous.

Oh, and that you based your argument there solely on what Wikipedia provided is quite humorous.