Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

[The Atheist]

And Stephen King's second child, Joe Hill aka Joe Hillstrom King, has written published short stories many collected in 20th Century Ghosts and just released his first full length novel Heart-Shaped Box that is being adapted into a film.

Joe Hill Fiction

Wouldn't be too hard to guess what his major influence has been?

Looks like dad's given him some advice on internet marketing as well - very slick site.

Thanks

[EAP]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Grisham's influence on court drama's in undeniable.

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.

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.


Chigurh,

Snappy one-liners are occasionally funny but righteous indigination really has no equal, no?

The culture is going to continue to decay whether we waste our breath or not.

[PeterL]

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.

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.

The culture is going to continue to decay whether we waste our breath or not.

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.

[dyingflame]

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

[Stieg]

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.

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.

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.

[B-Mental]

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!

[tudwell]

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.

[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.

[papayahed]

Anybody read "Cell", I'm thinking of picking that one up?

[chaplin]

Three major criticisms were made of Stephen King as regards his literary status:
His books are "pulp fiction".
He was influenced by other authors.
His prose is not of the required standard.

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.

[NickAdams]

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

[Turk]

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.

[cows]

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)

[NickAdams]

(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.

[motherhubbard]

I've given up on three King novels in the past, discarding after the 100 page:
Desolation
The Stand
The Dead Zone

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!

I like Kings short stories and his older books. But his new stuff . It seems like he's trying to sound like Steven King.