Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

You did compare Mozart to King. You said Mozart, one of the most prolific and greatest composers, known for being able to write out full symphonies without revising, known for writing complete masterpieces almost over-night, and meanwhile creating some of the most enduring and inspirational music ever written, is a comparison at how natural King writes dialog. I admit, King doesn't revise his books, but that really comes from being over-confident, money hungry, and lazy, as apposed to being perfect the first time. King's dialog is not the best, nor is it even top 100. The fact that he spits so much of it out is where the comparison to Mozart ends.

His dialog is rubbish. For dialog to be good, one has to both balance revelation through dialog, as seen in the works of Shakespeare, and Ibsen, in addition to believable sound (I.E. people actually would say that, and do talk like that). I don't think King is good at that, nor much else.

Regardless of this nitpick, the fact remains that even King's early work has begun to period-piece-afy before our eyes.

I'll start by adding I have not read all the posts in this thread. I read the first couple and the last couple.

I agree with JBI that comparing King to Mozart is ridiculous.

As far as King's merits, well I think from the little I read that people are making certain assumptions about "time." It's true that to a certain degree time chooses what stays and what goes, mostly time demonstrates what literature has staying power.

However, we've since entered a literary period that has broken into specific genres ("story types/fields" might be more appropriate if you subscribe to the group who don't like using the word "genre" because of its other meanings).

This is exactly the point that makes this argument a tad more complex. Not only is there a Canon of Great Literature as typically understood, but I think for lack of a better term there is also sub-Canons of particular genres. So horror fiction for example has its own "makeshift" Canon. Literally there are stories that would be recognizable within that field by the fans of that type of fiction as better and more important than others, relating to quality, originality, and influence. King was extremely influential and quite a few of his stories are fairly original whatever you might think of the writing itself. I suspect while the horror field exists and there are fans of horror fiction, Stephen King fiction isn't disappearing.

Evidence in favor of my view. Well, there are plenty of New York Times Bestsellers or whatever Bestsellers publishing in the Seventies popular in their day who most of us have never heard of. If I raised the name most of us would probably scratch our heads and ask, "who?"

Notice we are still talking about Stephen King. Most people know who Stephen King is, while they'll probably have no clue who those other writers happen to be. The response then might be to suggest that is because King is still publishing, thus people are reading his latest offering and he remains in the limelight. But this doesn't explain why people still purchasing Carrie, one of his first novels published in the 1970s in a way that people generally do NOT buy Bestsellers Thriller novels from the 1970s (they instead by the latest thriller by the next big thing).

This isn't to say Stephen King is the equivalent of a James Joyce or a William Faulkner. What I am suggesting however with the points I raised is that there is something to King's popularity and that his older books haven't disappeared into the nether that is worth thinking about, that I think corresponds to the nature of the horror genre itself and this idea of sub-Canons.

Not to mention King has written a few stories particularly in the short story realm to show he does have talent beyond what he typically displays.

Hmm, I'm skeptical about the thought on sub-canons. Sooner or later I think all genres will just become one, as they seem to be starting to do now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Hmm, I'm skeptical about the thought on sub-canons. Sooner or later I think all genres will just become one, as they seem to be starting to do now.

---

Evidence for this phenomenon?

I don't see genres converging at all. I think it's just the opposite. There is a way in which all genres began as one (as far as we know) and they've converged out into their own little sub-categories.

If they ever become one again I suspect it will be for two reasons: 1) People no longer read books at all of any genre literature or not. 2) The idea of a Canon in the first place has been dismantled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Hmm, I'm skeptical about the thought on sub-canons. Sooner or later I think all genres will just become one, as they seem to be starting to do now.

---

It will be good when the artificial subdivision of fiction will come to an end. Even these fifty, or so, years have been too long. There are people who are afraid to read some good literature, because it is outside of their preferred sub-genres. Oh for the days when there will be two types of fiction: good and not quite as good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Hmm, I'm skeptical about the thought on sub-canons. Sooner or later I think all genres will just become one, as they seem to be starting to do now.

---

In academia, the opposite is actually occurring: rather than having a unified, single Canon (capital C), there are instead propositions for alternative canons, and feminist canons, and gay/lesbian canons, and so on and so forth. Thus, although you're a skeptic of sub-canons, and I see the merit of your skepticism, I can't foresee one agreed on and unified canon in the foreseeable future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teejay17

In academia, the opposite is actually occurring: rather than having a unified, single Canon (capital C), there are instead propositions for alternative canons, and feminist canons, and gay/lesbian canons, and so on and so forth. Thus, although you're a skeptic of sub-canons, and I see the merit of your skepticism, I can't foresee one agreed on and unified canon in the foreseeable future.

---

This is different. We are using sub-canon in different ways. I was alluding to a genre sub-canon, such as the Fantasy Canon, etc. Which, because of modern trends in writing, seems to be breaking with the destruction of the genre walls created in the 20th century, and the influx of mixed styles, as seen by magical realist and other post-modern movements.

The gay, female, racial, whatever canons aren't really sub-canons, they are more like critiques on the traditionally perceived canons, and desired additions by those academics who believe in that sort of critical approach. The feminist critic is still required to have a thorough grounding in non-female letters.

I can only talk from my experience, but the programs offered at my university (University of Toronto) don't allow for an undergraduate to only take feminist, or queer theorist courses. The program requires certain selections of courses, involving things like 1 Canadian/indigenous North American course, 1 theory course, 1 introduction course (only ones offered are the history of narrative, the Western Tradition, The Study of Literature, and The Performance of Literature, each of which take from a variety of sources. It is inevitable that a Canon will exist within these confines, and it is also inevitable that specialist courses will vary in the definition of the Canon from the traditional Canon.

These however, are not sub-canons, but rather sub-aspects of the Western canon. The specialist courses in certain genres seem less popular, each, according to the course calendar in front of me, only available in one course, (one for sci-fi, one for mystery, one for fantasy, etc.) and not really focusing on the genre canon, but the genre relative to the western tradition and canon. And even then, these specified courses (according to their reading lists) deal with cross-over works that fall both within the western canon, and the perceived sub-canons. The theory of a canon headed by writers like Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks doesn't really exist within academic thought, and probably cannot exist, since it would most surely fail within 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

This is different. We are using sub-canon in different ways. I was alluding to a genre sub-canon, such as the Fantasy Canon, etc. Which, because of modern trends in writing, seems to be breaking with the destruction of the genre walls created in the 20th century, and the influx of mixed styles, as seen by magical realist and other post-modern movements.

---

I should point out that I was also bringing in fandom and average readers into the equation, not only what academia chooses to study. It is misleading I think to assume a work is Canonical simply because academia studies it. I would argue the first and most important definition and test of Canonical status is if a work has stood the test of time (literally are people still reading it twenty, thirty, a hundred years from now).

Believe me I could probably write a paper analyzing Jordan's Wheel of Time and Brooks's Shannara series and get it published in a scholarly journal. If I wanted to I could probably teach a course on those books as well. So I think it is a mistake to put too much stock in what is getting taught. Either way it doesn't prove Jordan and Brooks have such a sub-Canonical status or that they do not. Personally, I think they'll both disappear after awhile, whereas I think King might last (emphasis on the word: "might").

I actually agree with you that the genre sub-canons that I mentioned don't get taught on a frequent basis. They exist more among readers of the genre. If you went to a genre convention for example most of the readers there would know what you're talking about if you mentioned those books. The same can also be said for much older works of genre fiction that were published forty/fifty/sixty years ago. This is an important hole in people's analysis on this topic I think because I doubt too many professor types attend genre conventions.

Ironically, what originally led me to this site was my frustration at the disconnect between academia and what the average reader actually reads and how they read. It's partly why I am here among many other reasons (such as I enjoy the intelligent conversation here, sometimes far more intelligent than anything you'd find in academia sadly enough).

My hypothesis is that a hundred years from now readers of that genre will STILL know what you're talking about when you say Stephen King. Can I prove that for certain? No. A hundred years has to pass and we'll both probably be dead. Might I be wrong? Sure. Thus why I am presenting it as a theory.

In addition, it should be noted that many genres books that aren't taught in the class room frequently do in fact have some presence among scholars who are specifically interested in those genres. One need only read scholarly books dealing with genre to see that there are certain books that are constantly mentioned (hence a de facto Canon), and often the discussions do NOT deal with such books' relationship to the broader Western Canon.

Then again, sometimes they do.

I also think it is a faulty assumption that feminist critics necessarily have a thorough background in "non-female" letters. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. This is not meant as a libel against feminists as many of them are very strong and effective scholars, but I've also met many a feminist critic who could care less about "non-female" letters and the value of such works, except for the purpose of exposing sexism.

All of this intimates a more problematic assumption underlying your words: that literature professors necessarily have a thorough background in the Western Canon, whatever that might be, rather than their very narrow and very specific specializations. There is plenty of debate centered around this very topic. You could read Camille Paglia, E.D. Hirsch, and many others who claim I think convincingly from my own personal experiences that most professors and students have very little knowledge outside of their narrow niches.

From my own experience most of my fellow graduate students, including myself in certain cases, did not have a very good background and understanding of literary periods, countries, or regions outside of our specialized areas. The same could be said for many of my professors (I focused on 19th and 20th century American, much broader than most people advised I should); I got the impression from talking with a lot of my American lit professors that few had much knowledge about British literature outside of the most rudimentary understanding.

This is one reason for example that Master students with a strong background in American literature struggle on the English GRE, which is British heavy.

You remind me a lot of a person I used to debate with on these very same topics over at the Other Fantasy section of Wotmania.com. He was also from Canada. I wonder if you're the same person. Probably not. :lol:

Internet fandom canons aren't Canons. The term western Canon refers to a list of cross-genre books that are required reading in academic life, and study of literature. A person's 100 best novels lists don't count for anything, and don't count as a Canon. They simply are lists, being that they don't stand the test of time. The canonic traditions require that it be the foundation and accepted works of a specific group It isn't fair to say that Dan Brown is canonical literature amongst readers, despite his sales. I would say however, James Joyce is a canonical writer, despite his rather small readership, relative to other writers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Internet fandom canons aren't Canons. The term western Canon refers to a list of cross-genre books that are required reading in academic life, and study of literature. A person's 100 best novels lists don't count for anything, and don't count as a Canon. They simply are lists, being that they don't stand the test of time. The canonic traditions require that it be the foundation and accepted works of a specific group It isn't fair to say that Dan Brown is canonical literature amongst readers, despite his sales. I would say however, James Joyce is a canonical writer, despite his rather small readership, relative to other writers.

---

Who said anything about internet Canons? Where in any of my posts have I spoken specifically about internet canons?

Anyway if you're done putting words into my mouth and making strawman arguments, you'll notice what I actually referred to was larger fandom, not specifically internet fandom. There is no denying that a de facto Canon exists among fans of science fiction and fantasy. There are some works that are simply known by all serious fans, that are of a higher quality, that are more important (you know typical criteria for a Canon). It is also no coincidence that many of the works I would place in such a genre Canon are the ones being studied by scholars (read: academics) in Scholarly Journals of Fantasy and Science Fiction. So scholars and fans often have the same understanding of what constitutes the important works within genre.

Gee, I don't know sounds like a Canon to me.

You have no evidence that such works haven't or will not stand the test of time (certainly many of these works are equally as old if not older than certain literary works that have been Canonized such as works by Philip Roth, Don DeLillo, Ernest Hemingway). The point here is that there are quite a few works pushing 50+ years that both scholars and general readers interested in the field STILL read, and are considered seminal works in the field.

As far as top 100 lists in general. Sure, Joe Schmoe's top 100 favorite novels list posted on the internet shouldn't be understood as any sort of official list. Of course I never actually said that, but that's beside the point. However, there are many literature top 100 lists that quite obviously are meant to be taken as Canonical and authoritative.

Modern Library's Top 100 Novel list

The Novel 100: A Ranking of the Great Novels of All Time by Daniel S. Burt.

Quote:

---

The canonic traditions require that it be the foundation and accepted works of a specific group

---

Precisely! That's EXACTLY the point! Most works that would probably belong on a Sci-fi Canon (some obvious ones): Frank Herbet's Dune, Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game, Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle, Joanna Russ's The Female Man fit this criteria, foundational works within the genre, accepted by both fans, readers, and scholars working on genre fiction as their area of specialty (hence a specific group).

Notice you also use the word, "traditions" (emphasis on the "s" at the end). What I've been suggesting this whole time is that certain genres have not only interactions with the larger Canon (as you stated yourself), but also intertextuality within their own genres and their own specific histories and play around with their own intra-genre tropes.

I think Science Fiction, Fantasy, and horror in particular are different from Romance and thriller genres partially because they do in fact deal with deep ideas and issues (even, though, a great deal of those stories are also "gee whiz look at the neat gadget pulp adventures"). Many of them are in fact doing more than just trying to be entertaining or make money (why someone would turn to genre to make money is beyond me as it generally pays poorly) and have some very thought-provoking ideas in a way certain other sub-genres simply do not.

I'm NOT saying they are part of THE Canon. I am not saying there aren't certain works that are better than others between Canons and within Canons. I am NOT saying Philip K. Dick is superior to James Joyce. I am NOT saying that a great deal of genre work is in fact poorly written. What I am saying is it seems quite obvious that a de facto Canon of genre works does exist hidden behind all the popular works at the moment (a core set of books that have stood the test of time within the genre thus far), and while these genres exist those de facto Canons will remain and the works that make up those lists will also last.

Now if you truly believe genres are disappearing and these works will disappear because those genre histories will become meaningless from this process, you may in fact be right. I am not so sure that is really happening however. I think the genre interaction has opened up quite a bit and let a lot of writers into the fold who wouldn't have found a place for their work a few years back (too literary for some genre fans, too genre for typical literary readers), but I also see Magic Realism as its own special phenomenon, not necessarily evidence that genre fiction is going the way of the dodo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

As a fiction editor, I think genre fiction is alive and flourishing. Though I only edit literary fiction, most of the fiction that comes in is genre fiction. Some large and small houses handle only genre fiction. There's a great demand for it, much more so than literary fiction.

---

It's interesting that you are an editor of literary fiction, but do see the value of genre fiction generally, and King's work specifically.
Can you foresee a time when genre fiction won't be scoffed at because it is indeed "genre" fiction? Also, there are some good examples of writing that transcend the latter and become a part of the former: Ursula K. LeGuin and Harlan Ellison immediately come to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teejay17

It's interesting that you are an editor of literary fiction, but do see the value of genre fiction generally, and King's work specifically.
Can you foresee a time when genre fiction won't be scoffed at because it is indeed "genre" fiction? Also, there are some good examples of writing that transcend the latter and become a part of the former: Ursula K. LeGuin and Harlan Ellison immediately come to mind.

---

Ellison is extremely hit-or-miss. His best work is timeless, in my opinion, and is some of the best short fiction ever written. However, about 90% of his short stories that fill out his collections tends to feel horribly dated and overly "gee whiz! Ain't that neat!" pulp adventures.

But I agree that when Ellison is ON, he is really ON in his fiction.

What's the big deal about him? I haven't read any of his books, but I want to know if in your opinion, his works have literary merit, and if not, why he receives so many accolades.

Thanks.

He is popular because he understands working class pragmatism, and respects it, in the same way that Henry James understood the Victorian upper caste. King's work endures because his fantasy credibly upends the no nonsense working class sensibility. You can see this in all of his protagonists. Carrie is the outcast who satisfyingly takes revenge on the high school pecking order. Cujo is the everyman's dog who is supposed to be a loyal friend, not a demon. Pet Sementary is about that same American everyman who gets sucked into an immortality which may not be a very good thing. The janitor in the green mile (I think) gains power which challenges what he had been certain of as an old man.

The problem with King, even at his best, is that he is oversimplistic about good, evil, and messianic triumph--and he wrote (and may still write) a lot of trash which probably only gets published because he is the author of Carrie and Salem's Lot.

I've had enough, and working class though I be, prefer the enduring riches of an aesthete like Henry James.

You guys are probably going to ostracize me :lol:, but I've actually liked the few books of his that I read.

I know there's been some sort of controversy going on about King since someone (I think it was Harold Bloom) objected to his being admitted to the American Writers' Association, or being awarded some distinction, or something like that (as you can see, I'm not clear about the specifics :lol: ).

But I agree with an assertion I read somewhere, that the originality or merit of his works (which are not the ordinary horror fare) lies in that he perverts the American middle class world, turns it upside down (this has been already mentioned by Jozanny), and makes commonplace people and things become sinister. And this never happens suddenly, as might be expected of a lesser writer - creepiness and evilness are built little by little, by accumulation of details and little events... and tension also builds slowly but steadily... Maybe that's what's so interesting about King: his ability to show us the American dream gone horribly wrong.

That said, I must admit I wouldn't like to sleep in the bed of a guy who can think up such hair-raising stuff :alien:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pecksie

You guys are probably going to ostracize me :lol:, but I've actually liked the few books of his that I read.

---

I really think that's with any author. A lot of works can be hit or miss, whether it's Stephen king or Charles Dickens.
My opinion is try him out, it won't hurt. I'd start with his more popular and well known novels before really exploring the rest. Trying Salems Lot, Carrie, Pet Sematary, ect. You can even look him up on amazon and see what books people rate better then others.
Personally, I like him. I wish a lot more people would stop being so pretentious about his work and just try him.

I will admit that I genuinely like one King shorter story, The Long Walk. It is well paced, and I found it a credible alternate reality that did not rely on the usual bag of tricks that King shakes up for his output, but the end of it was a kind of sputtering mea culpa which was a tad confusing.

Carrie, is a minor commercial masterpiece. Misogynist? Perhaps. I argued that in another forum, but the story works, scared the wits out of me when I read it at 14, and Sissy Spacek made the role her own, but like I indicated in my first post, King publishes too much material that is utterly ridiculous, and doesn't know when to quit.

The Stand, which his fans ooo ah and goo goo about, is nothing more than an overwrought retelling of apocalypse followed by creationist rebirth. I hate it. All those characters developed for what? To battle a devil and win and woohoo, humanity gets a second shot.

And with some of his novels, you are better off leaving for classic cartoons like Bugs Bunny. Far too many to list.

Even though King is the only famous person from my state, I must admit that I haven't read anything by him since I was in high school. I do respect him, though, because he has given a lot back to Maine. He's donated millions to the state university system, art and reading programs, and public libraries.

If I could change one thing, I would probably wish Stephen King to be a normal writer than a horror writer. King is a talented writer, unforutantely most of his stuff is supernatural.
However some of the movies based on his books are great movies. For e.g. Shawshank Redemption , Green Mile , and Hearts in Atlantis.
I read green mile. There is a little bit of supernatural stuff, still it is a good book.
I abolutely don’t like horror , sci-fi, travelling into past/future literature. However King has a good style. His book – On Writing is a nice book. I want to give him one more try.
Could any one suggest me his normal books (no horror/no super natural)?

I think this is one of the problems with the publishing world you can easily get 'stuck' in a particular genre, you build up a fan base and all the publisher is interested in is when the next horror novel is ready. I guess though that he has enough money to break from the genre and write what he wants, should he so wish, but I doubt he would sell many copies should he announce to the world that his next book is a romance!

It is a long time since I read anything by Stephen King, over ten years, but I seem to recall (at that age) I thought he a fair enough writer, though his plots would soon turn crazy in order to conform to the wants and constraints of the genre - shame.

Different Seasons is good, it is a collection of four novellas including The Body and Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redmeption, which are both excellent. I am reading Blaze right now, and although its not as well written as some of his later stuff, it has a really good story and I am really enjoying it.

There is nothing wrong with horror and there is nothing wrong with a writer choosing to write in the horror genere, or any other genre, just becasue one person might not like it , does not mean they should not write in that genre anymore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ravilobo

If I could change one thing, I would probably wish Stephen King to be a normal writer than a horror writer.

---

I think, perhaps, the problem with your statement is twofold. First, why would you classify horror or the supernatural as abnormal? Horror happens around us everyday as does a belief in things supernatural (consult your favorite religion). Writing about those things isn't abnormal.

Secondly, I think it's difficult to classify 'horror' as a genre. What makes a horror book? Generally, a horror book is like any other book in that there is a theme, there are characters, there is a progression of story and there is an outcome. The horror aspect of any given work is fleeting and momentary. Would you consider Dicken's A Christmas Carol a horror book, for example? What about Puzo's The Godfather? Certainly horrific things happen in either of those books.

One could create quite a long list of King's work that has nothing whatever to do with the supernatural. The same could be said for his work that probably shouldn't fit into the common perception of what a horror novel is comprised of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkullFarmer

I think, perhaps, the problem with your statement is twofold. First, why would you classify horror or the supernatural as abnormal? Horror happens around us everyday as does a belief in things supernatural (consult your favorite religion). Writing about those things isn't abnormal.

---

I think to defend the threat starter though he did state that he didn't like horror novels "I abolutely don’t like horror, sci-fi, travelling into past/future literature". With it he is not necessarily attacking the genre (however you define it) but merely stating personal preference.

For me too I have read and seen some films based upon King's novels and feel that they are weakened at times by some bizarre supernatural encounters, reminds me a bit of X-files. At times you have a fairly good episode involving a serial killer and then it turns out to be a bounty-hunting alien who can transform appearance at will!

Thank you for saving me Neely.

I don’t have anything against horror /sci-fi books. By choice I don’t like them. Harry Potter is a widely famous series. However that is not my cup of tea.

I don’t want to totally ignore King, because he is a talented writer. Since I have a taste for non-horror/ non sci-fi literature, I am looking for the ones written by King.

Sorry, didn't mean to come off as prickly as I did. :)

Dolores Claiborne and Misery are good ones, neither are supernatural but one is scary (Misery).

The Shining does have supernatural elements but it's primarily about a man's battle with himself.

Cujo isn't supernatural, but has some horror elements.

Gerald's Game is a good one too, nothing supernatural there.

I think King's literary Kung-Fu is really that he understands people and every one of his characters are interesting. I would agree that sometimes the stories themselves turn south but his characters are always fun to read about.

King has a lot of short stories too that would possibly fit your criteria. They are probably further and fewer between though and you'd have to buy 10 you wouldn't like to read one that you might like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkullFarmer

Dolores Claiborne and Misery ....

---

Thank you for suggesting - Dolores Claiborne and Misery. They look like my kind of books. I read the review on Amazon, the books have been appreciated by non-regular- King readers.

On the other hand I am skeptic about -Gerlad’s Game. I will finish the other two first and comeback to this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ravilobo

Thank you for suggesting - Dolores Claiborne and Misery. They look like my kind of books. I read the review on Amazon, the books have been appreciated by non-regular- King readers.

On the other hand I am skeptic about -Gerlad’s Game. I will finish the other two first and comeback to this one.

---

Yeah, Gerald's Game is an odd one. If you were to read it casually it might not seem all that brilliant. If, on the other hand, you were to picture yourself in the place of the protagonist and apply your own experience as you go, you might come away with a better picture of yourself than you had prior to reading. I've personally never strayed far from the idea that reality is very thin... particularly the reality constructs of society, the illusion of safety etc.

The other two are quite brilliant in a different way. Be sure you catch Dolores Claiborne on DVD if you get a chance (after reading of course). There is an inspired cat and mouse game going on that underpins the entire plot. The film catches it and really brings it to light but perhaps in a more salient way to those who have read the book.

Happy reading!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkullFarmer

Happy reading!

---

My office is right across – Borders. Just bought both the books. (Misery, Dolores). I am also reading at the moment – Hearts in atlantis. Even that one is good. I loved the movie.

Thank you again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ravilobo

Hearts in atlantis. Even that one is good. I loved the movie.

Thank you again.

---

That one is a small part of the much larger "Dark Tower" series. It almost stands on its own but a real understanding of who the low men are would ...

never mind, shouldn't say too much if you're not done yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkullFarmer

That one is a small part of the much a real understanding of who the low men are would ...

---

I have seen the movie. The low men don’t really make much difference. Somewhere I had read that in the movie low men refer to – intelligent agency like FBI or CIA.

But the in the book version they are aliens or similar things.

I am sad that low men had to be aliens (where as the movie version looks more real).

The book has 5 stories. Is any of them has –horror/sci-fi/aliens? Please tell me, so that I can skip it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ravilobo

I have seen the movie. The low men don’t really make much difference. Somewhere I had read that in the movie low men refer to – intelligent agency like FBI or CIA.

But the in the book version they are aliens or similar things.

I am sad that low men had to be aliens (where as the movie version looks more real).

The book has 5 stories. Is any of them has –horror/sci-fi/aliens? Please tell me, so that I can skip it.

---

They are not aliens. King's Dark Tower series presents an alternative universe that exists alongside the one we live in. Odd occurrences, unexplainable phenomena etc are sometimes the result of the universes overlapping (as it's germane to the canon of this story). The low men have a specific function and it's far afield from what you've said you're interested in.

That being said, I don't think Hearts in Atlantis goes very far at all into explaining who or what they are (been a while since I've read it). That story focuses mostly on Bobby & Brautigan if I remember correctly. There will be some things that will remain unexplained to you at the end of the book, low men included.

I havn't read the dark tower series but I read Hearts in Atlantis and the only story that I remember having aliens or whatever the low men are is the first one. The second story, the one called Hearts in Atlantis, is great and realisic. Its my favorite thing Stephen King has written and really worth reading.

Thank you guys.

Eye of the Dragon was pretty good - or was that Talisman? both were more on the fantasy side though.

Hey! I'm reading Cell by Stephen King right now and I thought it'd be cool if there was a Stephen King discussion here.... =)