Printable View
I really, really, really do not understand the comments made in this thread about King being a "story teller" therefore he is not an "artist".
A story teller isn't an artist?
.... is this a joke?
I'm a sketcher. Am I any Da Vinci? uh, no. But I am still an artist.
King may not be my Steinbeck, but how very narrow minded you all are to consider him anything less than an artist. His imagination is a work of art itself.
I think writing about King can come from different angles. Magistrale seems to have a firm intellectual grounding in American Gothicism, while some of the others looking at their scholarship seem interested in Popular fiction. While others seem interested in the idea of Genre fiction itself (horror, detective, etc.), which I suppose can be considered an off-shoot of studying Popular Fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
So I suspect they aren't so much King scholars, but people with experitise in American Gothicism or Popular Fiction who have written work about King because they feel he is an important writer who fits into their niche of study. Obviously these people are studying more than just King. Interestingly the only to have written multiple book-length works on King is Magistrale who happens to have the highest-ranking job of the bunch (state university as opposed to community colleges).
I'm not sure academia is decreasing. In some areas enrollment is down certainly because of the economy, but I believe the trend has been increased enrollment. The real problem seems to be that the full-time jobs are decreasing and being replaced by adjunct and part-time positions to save money. Administrators love this situation because you can pay adjuncts significantly less money and they have to teach more classes than a normal full-time professor to survive, plus if your student enrollment decreases they can simply lay you off.
It's true as you said that the further you go back in your area of focus, the less the competition for a job. Instead of fighting with 300 people for that American job, you can be one candidate of 100 for that Medievalist position. One of the reasons for this I suspect is that those areas are more specialized. You have to learn Old English, have a larger grasp of criticism, etc. It makes me glad that I've given myself other options to choose from besides academia. But good luck to you when you go out into the job market eventually JBI; if anyone deserves an academic position, I think you do, because I can tell you've put a lot of work into your studies.
People are more adrift in mental space than every before, and Stephen King lit only ensures we'll continue to lose sense of ourselves and the world of organic experience by offering little to no room for self-reflection and growth, contemplation or discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
Stephen King is far from being literature but everyone has to admit that he is a major influence on book culture.
I've read quite a bit of his work and am of two minds. One is that he writes for money, like a businessman. Very little of King's work has any philosophical value. My other mind says that he writes what he feels (everything he feels) and that is kind of the definition of an artist, even if what he feels relates to baseball, 50's rock and bodily functions. He also goes a long way to inspire other artists which is very admirable.
Literature does not have to have any more philosophical value than a Stephen King novel. It can get by on aesthetic value. But King's novels don't have much aesthetic value. They might pass the time when you don't want to work too hard, but Dickens can do that for you, and much else. I wouldn't want to chance reading more King after reading "Tommyknockers", which is part vomit-inducing and part more boring than watching paint dry.
Stephen King's writing has no aesthetic or intellectual value. He is a hack, an entertainer.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I used to read a lot of Stephen King before I became much more interested in classic literature (although, I still have a broad range of what I enjoy to read; for example, Moby-Dick is my favorite book, but I still enjoyed The Short-Timers by Gustav Hanson). I agree with mal4mac in that his books are good for passing time, but if you want to really get something out of a book than he's not the author for you.
But if you just want a book that can kill some time and capture your interest (most of the time) than Stephen King would probably do fine.
I've read enough of King's work to know that I don't like it, and it he is not a very good writer. He isn't bad, but he usually breaks several of the Rules for Good Writing that Twain gave to the world. I don't think that he had 114 offences out of a possible 115 in the space of two thirds of a page, as Cooper did, but he usually has a handful to a score on a page.
Bolded - Oh knock it off. Do you honestly think that "good" writing follows some sort of formula?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I think his 70s stuff is good. And all of the vampire lovers should check out
Salem's Lot; it is really scary, with no emo-vampires. Most of the later stuff I have read didn't really strike me as very good, and was overly cliche and predictable. I did read and really like the first three books of the
Dark Tower series and think this is the best work of his I've read in a long time. Can someone who's read it all tell me if the other novels in the series are worth it?
Grow up and learn something. If you don't like them, then ignore them and write badly.Quote:
Originally Posted by wat??
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt
I have to agree to "knock it off." Anyone who thinks good writing has to follow some established rules made by one guy (even if it is Mark Twain, who I think is overrated) is extremely closed minded.
I don't think Stephen King is a great writer, and definitely not a very deep writer, but he is still one of my favorites. He is a writer who wants to entertain people, nothing more than that, and I don't think anyone can deny that he is very imaginative and creative. And I think he is a very good writer. I still haven't read anyone who can paint a picture as clearly and vividly as SK, whether it be something obscene and gory, or something as simple as a character desc4iption. Plus, any writer as prolific is going to have good books and bad books, much like most other authors.
I read a few of his books just to see what he was like. I read three or four including his On Writing. Now I can hardly remember their titles. Some, like Thinner, weren't bad, but an Edgar Allan Poe he is not.
I've read a good many Stephen King books, he is very good dragging me into the story and creating characters that are relate-able (did I just make that word up?). As with any other writer I didn't care for a few of his books but those I just tossed aside.
Best line of any book:
Nadine, Don't mess with my Disco.
I dob't really think anyone has claimed he is, though. I'm pretty sure even SK himself has said he isn't trying to be a great literature artist, just writing what he likes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
So before Mark Twain wrote this what did people do?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I really like the movies that have come from the Stephen King novels. I love alot of his ideas and he is an easy read when I have that little break at work or have a few minutes before bed; unfortunately, I get really irritable with his anticlimatic endings...the screen writers repair this.
I have to agree with you here. Formulas are for those who lack the self-confidence to do it their own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by wat??
In Misery (his best book in my opinion) the protagonist, who happens to be a novelist, says that he writes two kinds of books: the best sellers and the good ones. Though this isn't entirely true is King's case, it is a good way of putting his writing style. Some of the books he writes because HE likes them (ever read the Dark Tower series? <shudders> I feel dirty now), the others he writes because he knows what the people (or shaved cows trained to walk upright and read novels like people) like.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Cough*
"1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But the
Deerslayer tale accomplishes nothing and arrives in the air."
See J.D Salinger for frequent breaches of this "rule".
"They require that the episodes of a tale shall be necessary parts of
the tale, and shall help to develop it. But as the Deerslayer tale is
not a tale, and accomplishes nothing and arrives nowhere, the episodes
have no rightful place in the work, since there was nothing for them to
develop."
In this context what exactly does necessary mean? If necessary means getting from point A to point B in a story then what isn't unnecessary?
"They require that when the personages of a tale deal in conversation,
the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human
beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances"
Maybe things were different in 19th Century Russia but as far as I can tell people do not speak in long uninterrupted monologues when conducting arguments. Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky are all guilty of breaking this "rule".
"They require that when the author describes the character of a
personage in his tale, the conduct and conversation of that personage
shall justify said description."
Anna Karenina anyone? Tolstoy breaks another one.
"12. Say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.
13. Use the right word, not its second cousin.
14. Eschew surplusage.
15. Not omit necessary details.
16. Avoid slovenliness of form.
17. Use good grammar.
18. Employ a simple and straightforward style."
These seem more of less like common sense for good, technical writing, not rules set in stone. It looks like James Joyce and many other celebrated authors may have ignored number 18.
I've only made up a few examples and they might not be very good ones; but the fact is that there's not a single one of those rules which hasn't been broken (besides maybe some of the minor rules at the end) by a great or celebrated author at one time or another. Telling me to "grow up and learn something" is childish.
On, your idea, WAT?, many authors through time have attempted to create guidelines to be followed when writing (Poe, Orwell, King and Twain, come to mind immediately). This usually stems from the inquiries that a successful writer, or any other type of professional for that matter, will receive; 'what's your secret?' or 'any advice for beginners?' They will then expound upon this idea in the form of an essay which is promptly gobbled up by aspiring professionals of that field.
Though usually the ones who attain the holy grail are those who have paid little to no heed to the advice of the greats and instead have analyzed the works that made them great, which was not the essay on how to write.
Anyone will naturally begin to dissect their own method of working, especially when it is their life's work their dealing with. It is also natural to wish to bestow this wisdom on others, thus multiplying one's influence by the number of pupils. And influence is, after all, one of the primary goals of the artist.
The same as most people still do: They suffered through bad writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wat??
So those old greats who weren't yet aware of Twain's rules (you can't blame them as he hadn't yet been born) were suffering through bad writing?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I'm confused... The rules are clearly broken fairly often, by very celebrated authors no less.
Hi8s endings are weak. Though not always. I loved the ending to The Dark Tower.
Do you people know anything about E.A. Poe? It would seem that you do not. Poe was to his time what King is to ours, although King has had more commercial success (note: I am a Poe fan). Poe is infamous for selling out. He would write about whatever was popular and selling at the time. And I don't blame the man one bit. He was poor and needed what little he did get. I am glad that Herman Melville and later on Nathaniel Hawthorne (those now known as his contemporaries) did not, in fact, sell out. Moby Dick was a commercial disaster in its time and broke Melville but is now considered to be a masterpiece (by myself included). With that said, Poe could write circles around most any writer; he was an artist.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
King on the other hand writes whatever it is that he wants to write and makes no apologies for his doing so. I think that his The Shining, Roadwork, and The Green Mile (especially The Shining) could someday, scratch that, will some day be considered classics. King in my humble opinion is an artist but also is more of a story spinner/weaver than a novelist (much like Neil Gaiman, another of our day from the horror/fantasy genre that I believe will some day be recognized as great). King writes of real people for real people and, like Hemingway, writes in a simpler and more easily understood manner, but could write (and some of his short stories show this) as well as a classicist.
I will make note that I am a classics reader and 90% of the books on my shelves (some 300+) are the accepted classics. I just despise snobbery, especially ill-placed snobbery.
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis_R
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.