Wouldn't be too hard to guess what his major influence has been?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stieg
Looks like dad's given him some advice on internet marketing as well - very slick site.
Thanks
Printable View
Wouldn't be too hard to guess what his major influence has been?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stieg
Looks like dad's given him some advice on internet marketing as well - very slick site.
Thanks
I am Legend is one of my favourite books of all time - the ending chilled me down to my bones; Richard Matheson is an amazing storyteller. However, Robert Neville does not share a lot of similarities with the vampires being depicted in modern paranormal fiction, vampires which are more than cardboard sock-puppets. Matheson uses vampires as a literary device, they are cannon fodder; as the sum of parts they are a terrifying and canny bunch, but as individuals they are neither well developed nor distinctive - in effect, they are the antithesis of Mr. Barlow and Mr. Straker, and the Joshua Marshes, the Constantines and the Lestats that followed and continue on today in the form of Anita Blake and sundry.Quote:
King recreated the Modern Vampire. NOT. that is one of the most absurd comments I have ever heard. Haven't you heard of I am Legend by Richard Matheson by matter of fact.
Dan Brown has a long way to go before he can match King's sales figures. He's yet to become a grandmaster of his genre, his fiction hasn't stood the test of longevity and his output is neither consistent nor particularly inventive/original/distinct to be branded with anything.Quote:
Using your twisted logic, you rank Dan Brown, and Grisham amongst the most important/influential writers of the 20th century. What is importance? Importance means he has had influence/brought about some sort of change, whereas I pointed out already, there are so many other authors who are so much more influential.
Grisham's influence on court drama's in undeniable.
That's an extremely limiting definition of 'importance' and pretty silly in the current context. Importance extends from literary influence and fiscal influence to mass market appeal, pop culture allure etc.Quote:
Importance means he has had influence/brought about some sort of change, whereas I pointed out already, there are so many other authors who are so much more influential.
Chigurh,
Snappy one-liners are occasionally funny but righteous indigination really has no equal, no?
Quote:
The culture is going to continue to decay whether we waste our breath or not.
I didn't even look at this thread before, because I don't see any significant value in King's writing, but your comment caught my eye. I think that it is a gross understatement. I don't think that there has been any wholly original novel ever. Literature is built on what came before. All of the basic themes were included in the Enmua Elish and writing since then has development of those themes. I suspect that the Enuma Elish was built on earlier oral works, but those no longer exist. I think that the most original fiction in the last 100 years was by H. P. Lovecraft; "The Color Out of Space" was very different, and some of his other stories were almost as different.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
People have been saying things like that throughout history. Maybe they were right. Nicolo Machiavelli had an interesting comment about such comments in Discourses of the First Ten Books Of Titus Livius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chigurh
The Dark Tower series is great...up to around the middle of "wolves of the Calla"..then it just gets rushed up, contrived, silly and pointless. What was the point of Mordred?
Apart from that, I've read Christine (found it boring and not scary) Salem's Lot because of Fr. Callahan's importance in DT Book 5 (and was disappointed) the shining (was quite good, apart from the ending) and then for me The Stand and Imsomnia rocked my world. Misery and Gerald's Game: DON'T READ, unless you have time to waste
Lovecraft owes a substantial debt for his three tiered body of work to earlier horror authors, Edgar Allen Poe and others for his earliest stories, Lord Dunsany for his Dream Cycle tales, and Arthur Machen/Algernon Blackwood for his Cthulhu Mythos/Lovecraft Mythos.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Lovecraft's most scathing critics have accused him of being a hack writer. Nonetheless most know his influences yet can not deny that he is a leading name in 20th Century horror.
I've just finished King's collection of short stories Everything Eventual. All I can say is that this was far and away one of the biggest waste of time, money, publishing. What F%%^&&$ junk. King is worn out, and takes on some lame already done genre type. I've read much better here on the site. KING SUX!
You gotta read his early stuff. Somewhere in the nineties he sold out and started writing crap. But his earliest novels (The Shining, The Stand, Cujo, The Dead Zone, etc.) are actually pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Mental
I have read his early stuff tudwell, when it was fresh and new...that writer doesn't exits anymore. I read all of his books up to the Tommyknockers, and then I said the hell with it. I thought this one would be different, because it was short stories. He's published some good collections of short stories in the past. I still say he sux.
Anybody read "Cell", I'm thinking of picking that one up?
My biggest, and really only, criticism against Stephen King, and Dan Brown, and Tom Clancy etc. etc., is that there are so many better books available to read. I don't think that anyone would try to contend that King is a better writer than any of the greats of world literature, and thus, ideally, one should, if only the best is your goal, never read authors like King, purely because there are better books out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I read On Writing when I was eighteen and developing an intrest in writing. I think it is a good book when you know little on craft. I've read strong craft books since then: John Gardner's two books on craft, Norman Mailer's Spooky and Gotham's workshop book.
I've given up on three King novels in the past, discarding after the 100 page:
Desolation
The Stand
The Dead Zone
I have read 4 or 5 of his works. I enjoyed those books though i don't think that's art. First of all he doesn't give anything to me. He doesn't bring any message to us. Though he certainly have talent, he tells stories very good, but only talent isn't enough to be a great artist. If we clarify what's art, then we could tell more easy if he's a good artist or not.
Well...
I'm a fan of Stephen King. He's not a master of deep literature. He hasn't made a major contribution to change the structure or method of storytelling. But why should those facts make him less of an author? Also, grouping him with Tom Clancy and Dan Brown is sad. King is far more accomplished and skilled in both his concepts and his prose.
Read the Dark Tower series, Carrie, The Stand, The Dark Half. They're all great books. King's prose is clear, concise, and enjoyable to read. That's a virtue that most authors cannot claim.
On writing was great for anyone who doesn't feel sure of themselves in their writing. I know it helped me when I was starting out.
Anyway, don’t bash King because he doesn’t fit up to snotty lit-o-saur (a bearded fiendish monster who denounces others out of nostalgic contempt) standards. Its on its way out. Appreciating the old lit is important, but not at the expense of the present and future of writing.
(now I don't want anyone to think I'm saying King is the future of writing, just a contributor who will undoubtedly have some influence on others)
I agree. Maybe even an influence to a future Nobel Prize winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by cows
It took me nearly a year to read The Stand in 1990. Every time I would pick it up I got so sick. I was in the hospital twice. I just knew it was the book!Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
I like Kings short stories and his older books. But his new stuff :sick: . It seems like he's trying to sound like Steven King.
Not many folks know that a young Stephen King was awarded 1st place in a short story competition judged by Samuel Beckett.
I like Stephen King, but there's not really much to argue about. His novels don't make me think, admire his writing style, encourage me to think about philosophical concepts. Nor do they engage my brain in considering why their plots are constructed in a particular way. They just keep me entertained for a while. There are writers who are clearly much better in that they deal with much more complex topics and write in a much more elegant and admirable, intelligent style. However, I still like to read novels by King cos sometimes I can't be bothered with books that make me think, I just want to read a book I enjoy. Same as Harry Potter really. The novels I really don't like are those that are neither intelligent nor entertaining, those that are poorly constructed or just plain offensive. Or offensive just to shock. Or books that try to be clever when they're really not. At least King writes fairly well constructed stories that engage my attention right to the end. I really like when he deals with a simple, concise idea, like Geralds Game for example. I entered the short story competition in 'On Writing.' Didn't win. Oh well. Brings up another point; who am I to criticise when I clearly can't write as well as Stephen King, despite being pretty well read in the 'classics'?
Thanks for the varied comments!
Second the comment about putting Stephen King in with Dan Brown and Tom Clancy - that is harsh!
I do agree that he hasn't done himself any favours in recent years - he appears to have lost the plot quite severely. If he doesn't find something worth writing in the next few years he's going to be just another writer selling on his name alone.
from the atheis
I call it the KKK club, and link King, Koontz, and Klancy (Clancy)...by and by Brown is an honorary member.Quote:
Second the comment about putting Stephen King in with Dan Brown and Tom Clancy - that is harsh!
Not the King of the 70s and early 80s but the late 80s to present, yes, that could fit quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Mental
You want a better more literary class of modern horror try Shirley Jackson and Richard Matheson.
I've heard interesting comments about Cell which haven't enticed me to read it. One comment from one review said the novel seemed slapped together like a manuscript (... movie in the works?).
Want to read about zombies and not feel self-conscious about your choice literature I'd recommend World War Z by Max Brooks.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Mental
Oh, recommended reads of Jackson and Matheson, in print in North America...
Jackson:
The Haunting of Hill House
We Have Always Lived In The Castle
The Lottery and Other Stories (25 short story collection, wide range)
Come Along With Me (Jackson's incomplete novel written just before her death, 16 short stories many horror, and four essays including one on The Lottery)
Matheson:
I am Legend
The Incredible Shrinking Man
Hell House (Matheson's tribute/homage to Jackson, easily equal to Jackson's masterpiece)
Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 1
Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 2
Richard Matheson: Collected Stories Volume 3 (this edition contains Nightmare At 20,000 Feet the famous Twilight Zone episode starring William Shatner, Duel adapted into a Steven Spielberg film, and Prey featuring He Who Kills the Zuni fetish doll one of the three stories featured in the Karen Black Trilogy of Terror television movie. Avoid the Tor/Forge short story collections getting much less per the buck than the Edge Books 3 volume set.)
What do you think about the film adaption, in post-production, starring Will Smith?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stieg
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
True, and the literary capacities of nations has risen and fallen throughout history.
Uncertain, I mean, are we in for a farcical radical rewrite that's more CGI and action oriented or are we going to have a film that is going to be faithful to the book is going to make all the difference in the world. Sadly the former resounds because of today's commercialized mainstream cinema institution we aren't likely to get the artistic film this novel demands.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
Which reminds me, another film adaptation of Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House is due. Of course, Robert Wise delivered the previous horror classic The Haunting in 1963. What a task to bring Jackson's novel to film considering how deeply penetrating the book goes into the psychological realm and creeps up on the reader. He more or less succeeded despite failing to bring the scariest moments in the novel to the screen. Pales in comparision, nearly always the book is better and likewise probably the same applies with this new take as Will Smith film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Mental
Brilliant! I don't care for any of them because they are "story-teller" writers (probably Enneagram Personality 5's and 9's) while I prefer literary authors with substance.
The closest Stephen King ever got to subtstance was The Green Mile. In that, he actually approached literary status; unfortunately it was the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.
Oh, damn, shoot me. It's The Lottery that's enjoyed a recent remake not The Haunting of Hill House. I don't know how I got them mixed up especially since the latter suffered that 1999 debacle.
And I am Legend is being made by a music video director the same one that brought us Constantine starring Neo.
Interesting, originally Ridley Scott had the project in 90s that was going to star Arnold Schwarzenegger. Eh?!
Then Michael Bay and Will Smith had it but made Bad Boys 2 instead in 2003.
Wow, considering the production's recent history, my expectations are considerably low.
Actually, I think The Shining, The Dead Zone, Apt Pupil, Cujo, The Body, and Pet Semetary are all pretty 'literary'. They all (quite subtly, sometimes) deal with heavy themes (while still managing to be a darned scary story). The Shining probably shines the brightest as a 'literary' story; it's really just a deep introspection on the nature of addiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Countess
Everything from It and on, though, is pretty much crap.
Um, can i say that ya'll are strayin off the topic, lol...
I'm a King fan, and I know he's influenced by others, but I mean,
the guy can write pretty dag on good,
some of his books show it and some don't,
come on now, writers block, it gets to you,
and every writer has their winning streak and losing streak, it happens,
his books are choppy/random most of the time,
but they're wuite interesting...
You know what, Neo played a good Constatine too, so ha,
he's been around for ages and now he get's rcognized?
well they're making a Rush Hour 3,
in 2007 what a way to be late,
Jackie n Chris back in action...
And Rose Red was pretty good...just saying,
Are we speaking the same Constantine? It is a DC Comic titled Hellblazer quite dark and existential, noir even. And dealt with alot of adult themes but included magic and supernatural elements including many appearances by Lucifer, demons, and angels.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathAngel
The film was about an exorcist named Neo.
Yes, this has gone quite offtopic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaplin
Even although I don't think King is the best author in the world (though I like some of his novels very much), can't stand Brown and never red Clancy, I still dare to disagree. Who will decide who are great authors worth reading? For example, I don't think Austen or Dickens are better than King, though they are among "great" writers. Sorry Austen and Dicken's fans - but their novels never made me think, admire their writing style or encouraged me to think about philosophical concepts. Quite contrary - unlike King's novel (well, at least some of them) they are so boring it's lethal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyn
You might say that novels by Dickens and Austen have aesthetical values while King's don't. But please. What are those "aesthetical values" anyway? What do they evaluate, express? This is a question I recently asked several university professors. And after some thinking, they all came to surprisingly similar conclusion: that they express experience of beauty that reader has while reading. That's great answer, but the problem is: there is no definition of beauty. That means that different people can have different "experience of beauty" from different books.
And then there's another thing - it is often said that book should make you think. I agree with that, but... During my life, I met many people, who read only and exclusively classics Why? - because those are books that make you think (other people, critics, professors etc. said so, so it must be true). But when I asked them what they think about the book, I never got their opinion about it - it was exactly the same things one could find in cliffnotes and reviews etc. Yes, they actually read somewhere what should they think about the book. They read what are the aestetical values of the book. And still, they are proud with themselves for reading good, difficult and demanding books, - though they never actually thought about the books, nor had anything that might be called "experience of beauty" while reading it.
(I don't say that everyone who read classics does this, I just say I met surprisingly great number of such people).
I think the problem is that these people never read "low" literature. How can one know what is good if he doesn't know what is bad? How can one know the language is great if he never read books written poorly? How can one grow as a reader, or learn to think if you always rely on what other people say about the book? And what does "enjoying" in book mean anyway? If you enjoy it, you must like something about it, right? Pherhaps story, the way it's told, the way characters are described, language... Often it's "experience of beauty" my professors were talking about, but people just don't realise it. And if one sees beauty in King, there's nothing wrong with it. Even King or yes, even Dan Brown can make people think. And if it so, such reader can be actually on higher lever than the one who reads classics just because someone told him that what he's suppose to read and like.
And if a King's reader tries to pronounce what he liked about the book, to understand why he was enjoying it - and compares it with other books he reads, he can, gradually, by his own reading experience, become really experienced reader, and move to more demanding books. I know few people who now read most difficult authors with ease - and when you aske them about the book, its always fresh and original and full of ideas or facts that I haven't noticed, or that definitely can't be found in cliffnotes.
(Sorry for this being so long and sorry if it sound like I wanted to lecture you - that wasn't my intention.)
The film was about an excorcist named John Constantine, played by Keanu Reeves; Keanu Reeves stared as Neo in the Matrix films, which he is now know for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stieg
I read Da Vinci Code and hated it, but I came away with something. I learned what I dislike, which gives me a better understanding of my own writing style. I learned about the use of similies. Faulkner uses them well and Brown does not, but I learned for myself why and that is more effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiculík
I've also learned from King: how to start with a bang, but bring it down a bit. It's good to try extremes; it will eventually seep out of you, but the idea remains.
sorry i am going off topic here but i am curious what is your favorite Faulkner's?Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
i have three of his novels(Light in August,As i lay dying and the sound and the fury) to read during the summer so maybe you can tell me what to start first?
oh and what are the books by king that you liked?
I've only read two of Faulkner's novel: Sanctuary and Light in August.Quote:
Originally Posted by THX-1138
I think his short stories and Sanctuary was a good primer, but I think you can jump into Light in August with out a problem. It's the longest of the three you've mentioned, but it's not just a great book- it's quickly becoming my favorite. I've learned a lot about craft while being greatly entertained. I'm already planning on a second reading of it.
Trivia: There are some allusions to Light in August in The Green Mile.
I read The Stand, The Death Zone and Desperation to the 100th page. I lost interest I guess. I think Desperation was the most intense from what I'd read.
I read a little of Bag of Bones and wasn't interested.
King must have something though, because I keep going back to him. I'm interested in Hearts in Atlantis and Insomnia. Have you read them, are they good?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
i have Insomnia but i didn't read it yet i like the dark tower series and the shining the most ,i read carrie which was not bad i also read Different Seasons and i lost interest to complete it i liked Apt pupil though.i am planning on reading "the stand" and "it" i have them on my bookshelf,you know you described Stephen King's writing style accuratley in your previous post, i find it right i noticed that about him in his book the waste land he get your attension and at some point he loses it.When i think about the best books he wrote i got to say the gunslinger and the drawing of the three.
thanx i'll read light in august first:)
Let me know about Insomnia when you get to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by THX-1138
After reading Desperation, I wrote a bunch of outrageous opennings, but I couldn't do anything with them. With such a shocking beginning, the other parts become lacklustered.
He has to pull the slingshot farther, if he wants to launch such a large rock.
I think Faulkner avoids losing the edge by his non-linear approach.
I forgot: I did read some of the Gunslinger. I like it, but stopped only because they don't allow such books in the military.
The most Horror I felt while reading, came with Sanctuary.
I went to "my" used bookstore the other day, and picked out a couple of books. The first was Monkeywrench Gang, by Edward Abbey, and the other, Different Seasons by Stephen King. I got to the checkout, and the person looked over my purchases, and said with a rather unpleasant smirk, "Oh, I see you like a bit of trash with your Literature." Is Stephen King trash? What is the criteria that takes a book from the realm of the common, and exalts it to Literature?
Honestly, I think it's all in your personal preferences. If you can find something in a book that strikes you enough to make you read it, I consider it literature.
Stephen King is extremely modern and doesn't really tackle social or philisophical issues. I respect him as an author because his books aren't your typical horror- they play with the human psyche and I love the italics he uses when he's expressing a character's thoughts. Though I'm not really a fan, I wouldn't call him trash.
I'm not a fan of King, for one thing I don't like his style in writing, a bit boring, and his endings are just HORRIBLE!
But I gotta say, I have one book that I just LOVE, which is his latest, called On Writing, it's a memoir actually, but I loved every bit of it. So I think the only book I'd recommend with a clear conscience is On Writing.
I think that King is a genius, but the whole premise of some of his books becomes outlandish. Anything that gets people to read is Literature. Try Danse Macabre...pretty good if I remember correctly.