Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

[The Atheist]

If popularity and readership is the earmarks of a literary giant than yes King is certainly a literary giant otherwise there are too many other writers in the horror and not that preceed him with great margin.

Nope, I don't think popularity has anything to do with it. I just don't think being successful at it precludes authors, either.

Again, every writer you can name has precedents which moulded the shape of the finished author. I once asked C K Stead what made a great author.

His answer was telling: "A great reader".

I'm pretty sure I have read most of those whose style and content could be said to precede Stephen King, but I can't put many of them in the same league as him.

[EAP]

Stephen King is undeniably one of the most important authors of the 20th century. His influence is enormous and his readership is gigantic and unlike most of his contemporaries/rivals, he is actually readable and a excellent storyteller.

[Stieg]

Stephen King is undeniably one of the most important authors of the 20th century. His influence is enormous and his readership is gigantic and unlike most of his contemporaries/rivals, he is actually readable and a excellent storyteller.

Do you realise how many 20th century horror writers fit these same parameters even deservedly more so? Really Stephen King hasn't contributed anything original and he can't hold a candle to most of them. Horror is a bigger ballfield. Saying King is the most influential is equivalent to saying J.K. Rowling is the most influential fantasy writer in the 20th Century. A matter of the level of personal pleasure one gets out of his novels.

Check out "Richard Matheson: Collected Stories" Volumes One, Two, Three at amazon.com published by Gauntlet Press. He beat King to it by 20-30 years. Great reviews there too likewise these other authors and books I mentioned.

[The Atheist]

Really Stephen King hasn't contributed anything original...

I'm sorry, but that's just a trite comment. I could correctly, but pedantically, argue that there hasn't been a wholly original novel for well over 100 years. If you can find another horror story which bears more than a passing relationship to It, I'd be keen to know about it. On the other hand, you could try to tell me that 1984, The Old Man and the Sea, Lord of the Flies or Brave New World were wholly original concepts.

...and he can't hold a candle to most of them.

That's personal opinion and yours is welcome. Personally, as one who has read much of the same literature which influenced King, I beg to differ. Lovecraft, in my opinion, is but a candle to King's Kleig.

I'm sure he'd take a couple of books back if he had the chance, but I think most authors would.

I'd suggest that if any literary society made a "Literary Giants" list, there would be unanimity on very few authors.

[papayahed]

I don't know if literary giant is a good description but you can't deny his popularity. I have to give credit to Stephen King in that he kept me reading during my high school and college years. During that time i had too many other things to do and reading was not on the top of the list but I always would go back to a King book.

I liken Stephen King to Marijuana; He's a gateway drug (Even though I don't buy Marijuana being a gateway drug it fits the analogy). He's the guy that drew me in and kept me around until I was ready for the harder stuff.

[Morrisonhotel]

As regards King's standard and style of prose - attempting to dismiss him on that basis is ignorant, condescending claptrap. When stream-of-consciousness blathering can count as literature, King's prose certainly can. He uses a vastly larger vocabulary than most of his peers, be they literary geniuses or Jackie Collins

Being a budding academic, I can't possibly see how you would justify writing that. One of the tenets of the practice of literary criticism (and, for that matter, the basic judgment of whether a piece of writing is, for the want of a better word, good) is engagement with the stylistic qualities of a piece of literature. It isn't condescending in the slightest. If anything, it is the continuation of a practice, in academic circles, of over a hundred years of study.

For my part, I would dismiss his writing (and I do dismiss it) for the same reasons I would dismiss any other literature that I would deem to be insufficient in regards to the stylistic properties of a piece. That is to say, in layman's terms, he can't write for toffee.

[The Atheist]

Being a budding academic, I can't possibly see how you would justify writing that. One of the tenets of the practice of literary criticism (and, for that matter, the basic judgment of whether a piece of writing is, for the want of a better word, good) is engagement with the stylistic qualities of a piece of literature.

No. Unless the style is some incomprehensible gibberish, the style is far less important than the work - unless you're a believer in style over substance, which I think has been shown to be a fairly shallow view.

The point I was getting at is that King is no Orwell, but hardly anyone else is, either. I don't see his style as being so lacking that it detracts from his other qualities. To me, his style is far better than almost all of his contemporaries in popular fiction.

For my part, I would dismiss his writing (and I do dismiss it) for the same reasons I would dismiss any other literature that I would deem to be insufficient in regards to the stylistic properties of a piece. That is to say, in layman's terms, he can't write for toffee.

Now that's more like it! Honest opinion - I can deal with that, even if you are wrong.

[JBI]

The problem with King really isn't his prose, or his originality (though I personally detest his plots, and find his prose BORING) it's his editing and his endings. His work needs a decent chop, and his endings need a little more thought. Basically from my experience with him, it seems to me that he just takes an idea, writes it down, and sees what comes out of it. He doesn't stop to think about where the story is going, and therefore creates junk endings.

I would not say he is anymore influential on the literature world than lets say someone like Grisham. Though not the worst author I have read, I do not deem him worth reading in the future.

As for you EAP, it appears that on every thread there are about three authors who you like, specifically Stephen King, George R. R. Martin, and Ursula K. LeGuin, whereas you dismiss the majority of literature as inferior. You should really get out more and think who really has influences on literature, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or Stephen King or George Martin. Though by preference you may prefer King's work, you must agree that he is far from the most influential writer of the 20th century. (note, the use of the examples of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were used simply because of the fact, having read a previous post by EAP minutes before, these names were at hand for authors who he loathes).

[EAP]

As for you EAP, it appears that on every thread there are about three authors who you like, specifically Stephen King, George R. R. Martin, and Ursula K. LeGuin, whereas you dismiss the majority of literature as inferior.

I like more than three authors, but yeah, the majority of the literature I have read is definitely inferior to that written by the above three. [or in King's case, his better works]

You should really get out more and think who really has influences on literature, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or Stephen King or George Martin.

Tolstoy's and Dostoevsky's influence on literature definitely eclipse's Martin's - Stephen King, on the other hand, is a totally different story.

Though by preference you may prefer King's work, you must agree that he is far from the most influential writer of the 20th century.

I disagree, and I believe I have outlined the reasons behind that in earlier threads. Besides, you haven't read much in the fantasy and horror genre if you think Stephen King's work isn't influential.

(note, the use of the examples of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were used simply because of the fact, having read a previous post by EAP minutes before, these names were at hand for authors who he loathes).

Please don't go about putting words in my mouth. I said I find Tolstoy and Dostoevsky to be 'over-rated', which is a far cry from saying I hate them - Dostoevsky is one of the best writers of the 19th century, IMO.

[Morrisonhotel]

No. Unless the style is some incomprehensible gibberish, the style is far less important than the work - unless you're a believer in style over substance, which I think has been shown to be a fairly shallow view.

The point I was getting at is that King is no Orwell, but hardly anyone else is, either. I don't see his style as being so lacking that it detracts from his other qualities. To me, his style is far better than almost all of his contemporaries in popular fiction.

I disagree. I believe that the style intrinisically and implicitally marks all possible arguments in relation to a text. Moreover, I believe that an individual's enjoyment of a text relates to how they relate to the style. Take modernist poetry for example: a recurring word in regards to the style of modernist poetry is disjointed. Now that disjointed style, for me, is a difficult one to enjoy and a difficult one to critically appreciate.

Anyhow, I would rate, in terms of style, Alasdair Gray as the finest living novelist. Lanark is a sublime piece of writing.

[JBI]

I like more than three authors, but yeah, the majority of the literature I have read is definitely inferior to that written by the above three. [or in King's case, his better works]



Tolstoy's and Dostoevsky's influence on literature definitely eclipse's Martin's - Stephen King, on the other hand, is a totally different story.



I disagree, and I believe I have outlined the reasons behind that in earlier threads. Besides, you haven't read much in the fantasy and horror genre if you think Stephen King's work isn't influential.



Please don't go about putting words in my mouth. I said I find Tolstoy and Dostoevsky to be 'over-rated', which is a far cry from saying I hate them - Dostoevsky is one of the best writers of the 19th century, IMO.

To start I will address your last few words, assuming that you truly believe Dostoevsky to be one of the best writers of the 19th century (which I personally will agree with), it would appear that you dismiss all nineteenth century literature as overrated in itself (him being deemed by you one of the best, yet being called overrated can mean nothing but this, assuming you don't wish to contradict yourself)

If you want to look at the influences on the horror genre, you are better off looking to authors like H.P. Lovecraft, or Edgar Allan Poe who had a far greater influence on horror than King ever will (besides which, Kings' influences must be taken into account as well, seeing as he didn't exactly invent horror, nor perfect it (in my opinion)) In terms of fantasy, hands down we can easily say, without question, that Tolkien is by far the most influential fantasy author of the 20th century. Following that, there are authors like Robert E. Howard, C. S. Lewis, and other giants of fantastical literature who greatly influenced fantasy far more than King ever could and will.

Perhaps you haven't read much horror or fantasy to assume that King is so influential, considering the fact that his first book came out in 1974, well after many, many fantasy and horror authors began doing their work. He is no more influential than lets say Stephen R. Donaldson, to put it into terms you can understand.

Besides which, despite your common beliefs, fantasy and horror make up but a fraction of literature. There are many other genres, who have many influential authors that appeared in the 20th century. To even suggest that King is one of the (I assume you at least mean top 50) or even top 100 most influential writers of the 20th century is actually quite humorous. I can respect that you like King's work, as do many others on these boards. But don't try to pretend he is any Lovecraft, or any Poe.

[Scheherazade]

A reminder:

Please keep in mind that we are all entitled to our opinions on authors / books as well as our likes and dislikes

and

do not personalise your arguments.

[EAP]

it would appear that you dismiss all nineteenth century literature as overrated in itself (him being deemed by you one of the best, yet being called overrated can mean nothing but this, assuming you don't wish to contradict yourself)

What you are insinuating is nonsense. I can believe someone to be an excellent author and still find them over-rated; it is more a judgement of the general preception of an author's worth then a comment on the actual writing itself. Dostoevsky is generally overrated by most people on this forum, just as Martin is often overrated by people around different fantasy fora. Your entire reasoning is based around faulty inductive logic.

If you want to look at the influences on the horror genre, you are better off looking to authors like H.P. Lovecraft, or Edgar Allan Poe who had a far greater influence on horror than King ever will (besides which, Kings' influences must be taken into account as well, seeing as he didn't exactly invent horror, nor perfect it (in my opinion))

The whole paragraph is irrelevent as far as this thread is concerned.

I posted the following in this thread,

Stephen King is undeniably one of the most important authors of the 20th century. His influence is enormous and his readership is gigantic and unlike most of his contemporaries/rivals, he is actually readable and a excellent storyteller.

I didn't even bring the word 'influence' into the discussion - the importance of an author's corpus extends beyond their literary influence.

Regarding Poe and Lovecraft, of course their 'influence' is undeniable, Poe basically invented the english horror/detective genres and Lovecraft helped pave the way for authors like Lord Dunsnay, Clark Ashton Smith and several others - you wont hear any arguements from me about their influence. But this thread is not about literary influences, its scope is much broader.

Perhaps you haven't read much horror or fantasy to assume that King is so influential, considering the fact that his first book came out in 1974, well after many, many fantasy and horror authors began doing their work.

Stephen King's influence lies in the fact that he made horror a profitable genre to invest in, the unprecdented success of his early novels allowed horror to bloom as a seperate genre, get its own shelf space in bookstores instead of merely being lumped in with either fantasy/sci-fi or forgotten among the multiludes of mainstream books. In Salem's Lot, he re-created the modern vampire, facets of which have been copied by a lot of writers currently invested in writing paranormal fiction. Books like Pet Cemetery, Misery, The Long Walk and Rage helped the horror genre to expand beyond the long established cliches of vampires, monsters and werewolves and proved that modern psychological mind****s focusing on ordinary humans and without the traditional elements could be as scary, tense and chilling as the giant rats, bloody thirsty vampires, exotic magic and other conventional tools of the trade. This influence extended beyond the horror genre into thrillers and to some extent into mainstream crime fiction.

Stephen King wasn't the first author to do a lot of these things, he was however the most important one in bringing them into widespread attention - he was to horror what Tolkien was to high/epic fantasy.

He is no more influential than lets say Stephen R. Donaldson, to put it into terms you can understand.

I didn't laugh.

Besides which, despite your common beliefs, fantasy and horror make up but a fraction of literature. There are many other genres, who have many influential authors that appeared in the 20th century. To even suggest that King is one of the (I assume you at least mean top 50) or even top 100 most influential writers of the 20th century is actually quite humorous. I can respect that you like King's work, as do many others on these boards. But don't try to pretend he is any Lovecraft, or any Poe.

Stephen King is among the top three best-selling authors of the modern times - that alone is enough to cement his place in the 'most influential/most important' list. Consider this funny or a huge joke but it is money that fuels the publishing industry, money that encourages the publishers to take chances with newer authors and Stephen King has been one of the greatest funnelers of money into the publishing industry for over twenty five years; the facts speak for themselves and no amount of literary pretentiousness can blind them.

He is neither Lovecraft nor Poe, he is Stephen King and more popular than both.

[The Atheist]

Good discussion going here - I thought there might be a little polarity on the issue!

Just to cover off on the "influence" of King, I submit that we won't really know how much influence he has had for another generation yet - to give time for those who have grown up with him. I'm more in the camp at the moment that his influence has extended to create a living genre of horror rather the little side-show it had been.

(And why, oh why, has nobody mentioned one of King's biggest influences, Shirley Jackson?)

As regards inconsistency, I see those complaints as a little spurious. I can't imagine any serious author who hasn't written at least one complete bomb - critically speaking. Lots of Orwell's early efforts are considered to be lightweight rubbish, but do we devalue Orwell on those, or praise him for others? I repeat - I'm sure King would take a few of his books back, and yes some of them do have an ill-planned, contrived feel to them. Hanging a man's literary reputation on the basis of a couple of misses doesn't work.

Nice to see that a couple of people would join me in rating On Writing as an excellent work as well.

[JBI]

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.

And by the way, saying on one hand someone is one of the best 19th century authors, then on the other hand calling him overrated is saying either a) 19th century literature is completely over rated, or b) I don't know what I'm thinking, I just contradict myself and try to act smart. . Take your pick.

Just on a note, I will read your reply, but don't expect one from me since, despite my longing to continue this argument, there are forum rules and I don't crave a banning.

Judge not an author by how many books he has sold, but how good the books he sells are.