Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

[Trillian]

I think, on the topic of literary examples, perhaps King should be given credit for the short stories that he has written. I believe a prime example of that would be his dystopian story, The Long Walk. Not only gripping, but a bit prophetic as well, when you consider the direction television is going with "reality" shows. Too, The Breathing Method was a bit of a social commentary as well as a story about the supernatural, and Mrs Todd's Shortcut... Well, okay, other than the character study in the story, it may not be the best example of literary excellence, but it made me teary in a jubilant way.

[Ryduce]

His actual writing may not be what we classify as great literature,but I respect him very much for his extensive knowledge on literature and his endless pursuit of becoming a better writer.He is really quite humble and almost childlike when he speaks of Dostoevsky and Lovecraft among others.He obviously has great reverence for them.

His nonfiction book On Writing is great,and IMO a must read for many aspiring writers.

[The Intended]

Oh, this life hangs by a hair!



What a cheap rhetoric...

Hmm, debates like this always bring to mind wether or not the naysayers have actually picked up a book and read it through, rather than relying on word-of-mouth, late-night sci-fi movie specials or the high-browed chic of denouncing what is popular.

King is original, and has managed to combine three worlds: science fiction, horror, and the supernatural. The last person to do it was H.P. Lovecraft, and the last to do it well was Algernon Blackwood. King has always had inventive, original ideas, and though I do admit his style is sometimes simplistic, I have never read an author who was able to evoke as intense emotion in the reader as he, or stir the thrill to read in people who would otherwise bask in a culturally stagnant society.

Other than J.K. Rowling, but that's a different debate.

The title of 'fiction-mill' should be reserved for 'woman-dectective/lawyer-stalked-by-a-serial-killer-she's-investigating' books or dime-store romance novels set in the 18th-19th century with no respect for the culture or prose of the era. King is the author that impressed upon me the love of reading and the love of writing, and I will always defend his work.

[kirkwars]

King is okay,but Koontz is better .Nothing really compares to the classics though.

[Etienne]

Hmm, debates like this always bring to mind wether or not the naysayers have actually picked up a book and read it through, rather than relying on word-of-mouth, late-night sci-fi movie specials or the high-browed chic of denouncing what is popular.

King is original, and has managed to combine three worlds: science fiction, horror, and the supernatural. The last person to do it was H.P. Lovecraft, and the last to do it well was Algernon Blackwood. King has always had inventive, original ideas, and though I do admit his style is sometimes simplistic, I have never read an author who was able to evoke as intense emotion in the reader as he, or stir the thrill to read in people who would otherwise bask in a culturally stagnant society.

Other than J.K. Rowling, but that's a different debate.

The title of 'fiction-mill' should be reserved for 'woman-dectective/lawyer-stalked-by-a-serial-killer-she's-investigating' books or dime-store romance novels set in the 18th-19th century with no respect for the culture or prose of the era. King is the author that impressed upon me the love of reading and the love of writing, and I will always defend his work.

Guess what: yes I have read some Kings from Cover to back and guess what - I found it was utterly cheap. That you like him, I don't mind that, but why are people trying to find excuses for others not to like it? I can find excuses for the fact that you like it like: "Oh that's because he can't read literature, he can only keep to best-sellers,..." but I don't say or think that. I have great friends who love books - or many other things - that I hate, what do I care?

Respect of opinion goes in two ways: You have to respect that I think his writing his cheap, without having to hear such things as "elitests (sic) will never like anything that is popular." and "the high-browed chic of denouncing what is popular." I don't HAVE to like him, do I?

That he is "better than nothing" in a "culturally stagnant society" is also none of my personal literary concerns.

[jon1jt]

Yeah I think it was a cheap shot by 'The Intended' against ol Etienne. C'mon Intended, Steven King is a money-making scoundrel. He produces crap books about monsters and dream worlds that any novice writer could have cooked up on a drunk Friday night with a good editor.

[Etienne]

Yeah I think it was a cheap shot by 'The Intended' against ol Etienne. C'mon Intended, Steven King is a money-making scoundrel. He produces crap books about monsters and dream worlds that any novice writer could have cooked up on a drunk Friday night with a good editor.

I wouldn't go as far as that, but again, that's not the standards I use when it comes to my literary tastes

[jon1jt]

I wouldn't go as far as that, but again, that's not the standards I use when it comes to my literary tastes

Okay, fair enough. But you have to admit that Steven King writes first and foremost for the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I just hope Steven King doesn't get hit by another car because what would the world do without his stories about the boogie man? Yea boogie man!

[Nico87]

Has anyone here read Duma Key? My mum bought it for me the other day and by the look of the reader reviews of it on amazon.com, the book seems really interesting.

[islandclimber]

Hmm, debates like this always bring to mind wether or not the naysayers have actually picked up a book and read it through, rather than relying on word-of-mouth, late-night sci-fi movie specials or the high-browed chic of denouncing what is popular.

King is original, and has managed to combine three worlds: science fiction, horror, and the supernatural. The last person to do it was H.P. Lovecraft, and the last to do it well was Algernon Blackwood. King has always had inventive, original ideas, and though I do admit his style is sometimes simplistic, I have never read an author who was able to evoke as intense emotion in the reader as he, or stir the thrill to read in people who would otherwise bask in a culturally stagnant society.

Other than J.K. Rowling, but that's a different debate.

The title of 'fiction-mill' should be reserved for 'woman-dectective/lawyer-stalked-by-a-serial-killer-she's-investigating' books or dime-store romance novels set in the 18th-19th century with no respect for the culture or prose of the era. King is the author that impressed upon me the love of reading and the love of writing, and I will always defend his work.

yes he is totally a genre writer which for the most part excludes him from literature anyways... as I said, I have read a few of his books too, and they are for cheap thrills... ensnaring story, but no literary merit worth praising...

and you say Stephen King is the author who can inspire the most intense emotions in a reader???? isn't that taking it a little far... I mean, have you never read a piece of tragic literature that has made you cry, read literature that has made you feel as though you were inside the story... I have...

I wouldn't call Stephen King an inspirer of emotion besides maybe anticipation as to what happens next, for that is how he captivates... but real emotion... not in the slightest when I read it... Even for a modern writer... go take a look at say, Rohinton Mistry's "A Fine Balance"... there is a book that can make you truly feel... and there are so many other great writers who draw real, genuine emotion...

cheers

[The Intended]

Guess what: yes I have read some Kings from Cover to back and guess what - I found it was utterly cheap. That you like him, I don't mind that, but why are people trying to find excuses for others not to like it? I can find excuses for the fact that you like it like: "Oh that's because he can't read literature, he can only keep to best-sellers,..." but I don't say or think that. I have great friends who love books - or many other things - that I hate, what do I care?

Respect of opinion goes in two ways: You have to respect that I think his writing his cheap, without having to hear such things as "elitests (sic) will never like anything that is popular." and "the high-browed chic of denouncing what is popular." I don't HAVE to like him, do I?

That he is "better than nothing" in a "culturally stagnant society" is also none of my personal literary concerns.

And yet you must remember that it was you who struck the first blow in insulting my intelligence . . . my words were not directed specifically towards you, rather than the group of people I most often find the critics of King. And I would appreciate if you wouldn't pull arguments from others and put them in my mouth.

I do respect your opinion, and understand that King is not for everyone, and I wouldn't exactly tie you to a chair and force you to read The Stand. It would be the same if instead of denouncing King it were James, or Joyce, or Dostoevsky: there are people that like them, and people that don't, and between them they are likely to squabble on the reasons, which doesn't mean that they don't have merit. (And please, spare me the 'OMG, she just compared Dostoevsky to King!', it's an example) I just happen to be one of the people who feel very passionately that people short change King a little too often.

islandclimber - I couldn't sleep after reading The Shining or It. Any book can make you cry, but make you afraid . . . I think that's something special.

[Etienne]

I simply think that his syntax, imagery and character are objectively not the product of a master. I mean his syntax, really?

If you want me to concede that his stories are good, that's a more contestable point...

Oh and - I can't talk for James - I can completely understand someone not liking Joyce or Dostoevsky. Now I'll have a hard time understanding someone who doesn't like some other writers, but those two are quite understandable (even if I like them a lot).

[islandclimber]

"it" was scary... why? make believe isn't really scary.. reality maybe at times, but fantasy, why? same with "the shining"... demons and spirits are a little too much for me... not really all that scary.. and King lacks the power of imagery as well to make these fantasies beome even slightly real for me... I guess having emotions and feelings inspired within you is more dependent on what you're like, than what you're reading...

I found the movie "the shining" was far better than the book... for King writes in a way that can make an entertaining movie, just not a piece of literature, or a good book....

[JBI]

I simply think that his syntax, imagery and character are objectively not the product of a master. I mean his syntax, really?

If you want me to concede that his stories are good, that's a more contestable point...

Oh and - I can't talk for James - I can completely understand someone not liking Joyce or Dostoevsky. Now I'll have a hard time understanding someone who doesn't like some other writers, but those two are quite understandable (even if I like them a lot).

Not liking, and acknowledging merit are different. I can say Dostoevsky writes boring books, but that doesn't mean he has no literary merit. The fact that so much work, and philosophy has been shaped off his work is proof enough of his merit, whereas with King, the debate is possible. I can also argue that I like his novels, but don't think he has literary merit.

Not liking something, and acknowledging their literary merit are two different things. Ezra Pound, horrible person, who wrote some disgusting things in his Cantos, yet he I acknowledge for his literary merit. Same with T.S. Eliot to some extent.

The point is, I feel the only thing I gain from reading a King book is the loss of hours. If I read Joyce however, not only do I have a linguistic experience, a cultural experience, and an in depth portrayal brought to me of the human psyche, I also am challenged with working to solve a literary puzzle, working to understand a complex story, and working to understand most of his 30,000 words (speaking of Ulysses. Finnegans wake is a different story).

With King do you come even close to getting the same worth out of a book as other contemporary writers, such as Cormac McCarthy? Does one get the same experience from reading Poe as they do from reading Emily Dickinson? not even close. Some things yield more worth than others. Some authors have more merit, whereas some authors appeal to more fans. The fact remains that King is every inch a pragmatic author. Appealing to the most fans is his goal.

You see this in the movie industry at a more clear level. All the "best" films of the year tend not to sell as well as the rest of them. Why is that? because not everyone has the desire to appreciate good film, or good art.

[islandclimber]

by the way, (as I said before on this thread) I'm not saying King's books have no merit in any way, I think they can be entertaining, I just don't think they could be called good literature, by any stretch of the imagination... entertainment, not literature...

JBI says it well above...