Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

[inbetween]

literature or trash.. does the one really exclude the other? I'm not sure

[LeNoirFaineant]

literature or trash.. does the one really exclude the other? I'm not sure

Oath, bro.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

literature or trash.. does the one really exclude the other? I'm not sure

For the purpose of this poll, I think it does, or is meant to.

[Sancho]

Lit.

But hey, El Sancho is a plot junkie.

[TheChilly]

About to be giving "Insomnia" a shot sometime soon.

"Cell" was one of the better novels I've read from King (despite being kinda minor for me), and I still have yet to give "It" and "Lisey's Story" another shot after having to put them down.

School. -_-

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Insomnia was one of my favorites. Has heavy connections to his Dark Tower series, but good even if you can't connect the two.

Also, I just learned he's releasing a new, stand-alone novel set in the Dark Tower universe.

[naluneabezshapk]

I love Stephen King, his stuff is great, albeit I'd say if all all you read is Stephen King you might be missing the big picture. (although you are probably enjoying yourself immensely.)

I'm of the opinion that it is out of line to say that what Stephen King does isn't literature, just because you do not enjoy it.

[Delta40]

Doesn't being good enough to get continually publish go some distance to calling it literature or am I missing the point on what constitutes literature?

[mal4mac]

In physics you look to great physicists to say who the other great physicists are. Just because Isaac Asimov (at one time) was a best selling, popular physics author doesn't make him a great physicist - in fact, he isn't a physicist at all!

So, surely, it is the expert academics who get to say what is great literature. Who else would you have doing it - Xlktl from literature forum, or a vote from McDonald's customers? Stephen King has only won one prize that is sometimes mistaken for a worthwhile literary award:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/bo...phen-king.html

But, overall, he is not at all admired by the literary establishment, so how can he be said to write literature? You might argue that, as King is a modern author, the jury is still out - but the sounds from the jury room don't sound too good for the accused. He might be walking that green mile pretty soon...

[Alexander III]

In physics you look to great physicists to say who the other great physicists are. Just because Isaac Asimov (at one time) was a best selling, popular physics author doesn't make him a great physicist - in fact, he isn't a physicist at all!

So, surely, it is the expert academics who get to say what is great literature. Who else would you have doing it - Xlktl from literature forum, or a vote from McDonald's customers? Stephen King has only won one prize that is sometimes mistaken for a worthwhile literary award:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/bo...phen-king.html

But, overall, he is not at all admired by the literary establishment, so how can he be said to write literature? You might argue that, as King is a modern author, the jury is still out - but the sounds from the jury room don't sound too good for the accused. He might be walking that green mile pretty soon...

When you say literary establishment who do you mean? Critics, Academics? Sorry to break it to you but look at the winners of the Nobel Prize - half of the names most literary students don't know - Academics are a good source for further understandinmnet of canonical texts but on predicting what is great and trash contemporary art? Their odds are 50-50 - I mean if you think King has a bad rap, wait till you see what was the academic consensus in regards to Impressionism, or Symbolism - Heck Fitzgerald spent most of his life knows as the equivalent of a one time best-selling trashy writer for kids.

I say all this without ever having read a word of King. Maybe I will like him, maybe I would think he is trash, but I am not foolish enough to think my opinion will be the same as that of my children.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[mal4mac]

The comparison of a physical science to literature is a standard false argument used by those who try to "scientificate" the humanities. Great physicists make falsifiable predictions that later withstand experimental tests. No equivalent procedure exists in literature.

I was not trying to "scientificate" the humanities. I did not suggest that literature professors should make falsifiable predictions that withstand experimental tests. You are arguing with a straw man, not with me.

Surely you should try to be consistent even when you use false analogies. According to that analogy, it is great authors, not literary critics, who should judge what great literature is. Why do you defer to academics?
But, how would you know who the great authors are unless you have other great authors to tell you that? An infinite regress ensues.

The only literary critics worth considering *are* great authors - at least of literary criticism. They may also be great authors in other respects.

Trust can stop the infinite feedback - you may trust the academic consensus that Dickens is a great author and King is not - and then have a much enhanced reading life by reading more Dickens and less King (that was my experience... which is why I tend to trust the gatekeepers of literature... they usually know what they are talking about.)

[mal4mac]

When you say literary establishment who do you mean? Critics, Academics? Sorry to break it to you but look at the winners of the Nobel Prize - half of the names most literary students don't know - Academics are a good source for further understandinmnet of canonical texts but on predicting what is great and trash contemporary art? Their odds are 50-50 - I mean if you think King has a bad rap, wait till you see what was the academic consensus in regards to Impressionism, or Symbolism - Heck Fitzgerald spent most of his life knows as the equivalent of a one time best-selling trashy writer for kids.

The Nobel prize is only one signifier of literary greatness, you need many more, before something like a consensus is reached. And there is consenus over many authors - those usually to be found in the "classics" section of the book store.

Reading anything that hasn't been around at least a century, i.e. something that hasn't had much of a chance to reach a critical consensus, should be looked at as a sacrifice you make to the gods of literature, a sacrifice performed to keep literature 'alive' - but it's a sacrifice because you are chancing a trashy experience (reading Stephen King, say) when you could be having a great one (reading Walter Scott, say)

At least read widely in modern authors - King has enough money...

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[Drkshadow03]

In physics you look to great physicists to say who the other great physicists are. Just because Isaac Asimov (at one time) was a best selling, popular physics author doesn't make him a great physicist - in fact, he isn't a physicist at all!

So, surely, it is the expert academics who get to say what is great literature. Who else would you have doing it - Xlktl from literature forum, or a vote from McDonald's customers? Stephen King has only won one prize that is sometimes mistaken for a worthwhile literary award:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/bo...phen-king.html

But, overall, he is not at all admired by the literary establishment, so how can he be said to write literature? You might argue that, as King is a modern author, the jury is still out - but the sounds from the jury room don't sound too good for the accused. He might be walking that green mile pretty soon...

You're making stuff up again.

Stephen King has won and been nominated for lots of awards.

And basically only Bloom seems to dislike King. Hardly a jury of critics.