Stephen King: Trash, or Literature?

[mayneverhave]

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.

This is, sadly true. I wrote a research paper dealing with this phenomenon and found that for the most part, it works both ways. There are plenty of films that are critically lauded and also box office winners (The Godfather, for example), while there are critically acclaimed box office busts (say, Raging Bull).


As for literature, it is rare for a writer to achieve critical acclaim while also appealing to a wide audience. The most prominent example of this is probably Byron.

[ZoeyJuly]

Not to take the path of least resistence here,but hey... literature is defined as "writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays." if that helps anyone... i really think everyone is taking this thread way too personally... which is odd for me to say because im in law school...

[Etienne]

@JBI:

This is all very well said.

[mehihco]

Stephen King is in no way a writer of 'Literary fiction' we know this because in 50 years when he is dead and we're all older or also dead, nobody, but maybe the older us, will care about him or read his work.

This isn't because he's "trash", but becasue he is a 'popular fiction' writer. Stephen King is as good as any writer out there. His mere popularity is proof enough. If his work was badly written, even the uneducated would find it unattractive.

But he's not Shakespear, or Poe or Wilde. He's not the father, the inventor, or a revolutionist of anything. He writes what he writes well, but it isn't really new. That is why he isn't a 'literary genius', but I do believe he appreciates literature and writes very well.

It offends me what has been said here, because people need to relax. Because in 50 years, just like Stephen King, this conversation, along with writers like Dan Brown, J.K Rowling, John Grisham, Jodi Picoult, J.R.R Tolkien, and so many more won't matter.

Just because you don't like Stephen King or don't understand the hold he has on the market, doesn't mean he's 'trash', it just means you should ignore him.


Literature is entertainment, do you think anyone would read it if it was boring?

The ability to entertain is the gift of literature itself.

:P One last thing,
"The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde

[Big Al]

It offends me what has been said here, because people need to relax. Because in 50 years, just like Stephen King, this conversation, along with writers like Dan Brown, J.K Rowling, John Grisham, Jodi Picoult, J.R.R Tolkien, and so many more won't matter.

J.R.R. Tolkien won't be remembered in 50 years?

[islandclimber]

Literature is entertainment, do you think anyone would read it if it was boring?

The ability to entertain is the gift of literature itself.

entertainment is only one part of literature... would you call the "see spot run" books for 5 year olds good literature? cuz they entertain the 5 year olds.... if you do, well you're idea of literature is different than mine... the only part Stephen King has going is in the entertaining department, and maybe the ability to think up a story that will be exciting to people in love with fantasy horror! a mediocre genre in the first place besides a couple exceptions...

King won't be remembered because he is a mediocre writer... you can't call him as good a writer as anyone out there right now... he just doesn't have the ability, and his work is great evidence of that... Tolkien, though I am not really interested in his writing, has already been around for quite some time... If King lasts that long, I will be surprised... though I guess anything is possible with the way the world is... people did elect George W. twice so I'm sure anything is possible...

A writer doesn't have to be an inventor, father, revolutionist to be good literature, or a literary genius... there are many writers who have followed others stylistically, but still found their own voice that is beautiful and amazing... Look at all the writers who followed in Dostoevsky's footprints, there are alot of great writers there... or in Kafka's footprints... That's where Nabokov started... even writers in the Magical Realism school like Borges, Marquez, etc... owe something to Kafka... but no one would say they are not good literature.. King just has none of the qualities of good literature, same with Dan Brown, Tom Clancy, JK Rowling, etc...

but don't tell us to relax and then jump right into it, and tell us we're being offensive...

anyways, I'm done with this... everyone has their own opinion, and I respect that, whatever it may be... I have to say this was quite interesting...

cheers

[Etienne]

Literature is entertainment, do you think anyone would read it if it was boring?

The ability to entertain is the gift of literature itself.

Certain people don't see literature as simply entertainment, maybe that's where a line is drawn. Actually one can call this entertainment, but on a different level perhaps, than what you mean.

[mayneverhave]

I could see King being remembered in years to come, but perhaps only in Cultural studies literature classes

[JBI]

J. R. R. Tolkien's popularity greatly diminished until the movies rebooted it. The fact remains that I'm certain that it is the emperors new clothes bit going on with his popularity, and I am also certain that many who say they like him have only seen the movies.

Like I said though, much earlier, the Shining was a great movie, yet mediocre book. That shows Kubrick's genius, not Kings.

The same with Tolkien and Peter Jackson's team.

[Big Al]

J. R. R. Tolkien's popularity greatly diminished until the movies rebooted it. The fact remains that I'm certain that it is the emperors new clothes bit going on with his popularity, and I am also certain that many who say they like him have only seen the movies.

Like I said though, much earlier, the Shining was a great movie, yet mediocre book. That shows Kubrick's genius, not Kings.

The same with Tolkien and Peter Jackson's team.

I am an enormous fan of Tolkien's meticulously-crafted poetry, but I hated the movies. Peter Jackson should have continued to make films like Bad Taste and Braindead.

In what way are you measuring Tolkien's alleged popularity drop? The Lord of the Rings is consistently named by critics as one of the most excellent examples of fantasy writing, and it usually ranks at the top of any science fiction or fantasy fan poll. His work may not be remembered quite as well by general reading audiences, but then again, how popular would Faulkner or Conrad be with those same people?

I think you're mistaken in your assessment of Tolkien's work. Like any great literature, it's timeless and will always be remembered -- by whom is a different story, however.

[JBI]

There was a huge spike in Tolkien popularity. His career bloomed in the 60s and 70s as a result of counter-culture acceptance, than sort of fell out except amongst fantasy readers until the movies. I didn't comment saying he hasn't had influence, I just said he had a popularity drop.

And as for critics accepting him, he has had mixed reviews since first being published, and has as many, if not more, detractors than fans. Many, many critics have criticized his work.

Quit pretending like he is an untouchable godly literary figure. Read some criticism on his work before you talk.

And P.S., the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works, is regarded by most "literary" critics as not being literary. What fantasy readers deem the best fantasy book isn't necessarily what general or literary readers deem the best book. Distinction in audience.

[islandclimber]

There was a huge spike in Tolkien popularity. His career bloomed in the 60s and 70s as a result of counter-culture acceptance, than sort of fell out except amongst fantasy readers until the movies. I didn't comment saying he hasn't had influence, I just said he had a popularity drop.

And as for critics accepting him, he has had mixed reviews since first being published, and has as many, if not more, detractors than fans. Many, many critics have criticized his work.

Quit pretending like he is an untouchable godly literary figure. Read some criticism on his work before you talk.

And P.S., the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works, is regarded by most "literary" critics as not being literary. What fantasy readers deem the best fantasy book isn't necessarily what general or literary readers deem the best book. Distinction in audience.

I think Tolkien is one of the best of the fantasy genre and his books may survive for quite some time, be remembered.. but he isn't great literature either as JBI says...

Genre writing for the most part, when talking about literature, is not considered literature... at least in the eyes of most "literary critics"...

[Big Al]

There was a huge spike in Tolkien popularity. His career bloomed in the 60s and 70s as a result of counter-culture acceptance, than sort of fell out except amongst fantasy readers until the movies. I didn't comment saying he hasn't had influence, I just said he had a popularity drop.

I'm not questioning that fact that the books recieved added popularity from the films (although I wonder whether or not its popularity in the 60s and 70s was a result of the counter-culture movement, or the fact that it hadn't been available in paperback until then). However, your assertion that it just sort of "fell out except among fantasy readers" is ludicrous. In 1999 in an Amazon.com customer poll it was voted the favorite "book of the milennium." And I realize that it's actually three books, but that's just nit-picking.

And as for critics accepting him, he has had mixed reviews since first being published, and has as many, if not more, detractors than fans. Many, many critics have criticized his work.

Really? An author having critics, and whose works receive "mixed reviews?" My God, this must be completely unheard of in the literary world!

Name me an author or a book that hasn't received any negative criticism. Hell, I've read scathing criticisms of the works of Shakespeare and Dante. For a more modern-day equivalent, Blood Meridian, which is now widely regarded as one of the greatest American masterworks of the 20th century (and no, I'm not just saying that because I recently finished it and proclaimed it to be my favorite book) received some immensely harsh reviews upon its initial release. There's no accounting for taste, apparently...

Quit pretending like he is an untouchable godly literary figure. Read some criticism on his work before you talk.

Why? Do you think the notion that he has critics never crossed my mind? He's an author I greatly love; why would I go out of my way to read criticisms of his work? Did you go out of your way to read reviews by Tolkien proponents before you made this post?

And P.S., the fantasy genre in general, with the exception of a few works, is regarded by most "literary" critics as not being literary. What fantasy readers deem the best fantasy book isn't necessarily what general or literary readers deem the best book. Distinction in audience.

Now this is interesting...Specifically, which critics hold this viewpoint? I find it extremely elitist and narrow-minded to judge a book's literary qualities on its subject matter (though I actually thinks it's worse to pigeon-hole a book into a given genre in the first place), and I would hope any literary critics whose work I would be reading would feel the same way. And why "fantasy" but not science fiction? What qualities are inherent in fantasy somehow make it "un-literary?" Perhaps you could provide me with some sort of list of genres ranked in order from "most literary" to "least literary." I'd be interested to know so I can spend the majority of my time reading works from that exalted genre.

[Big Al]

I think Tolkien is one of the best of the fantasy genre and his books may survive for quite some time, be remembered.. but he isn't great literature either as JBI says...

Genre writing for the most part, when talking about literature, is not considered literature... at least in the eyes of most "literary critics"...

"Genre writing," eh? What is "genre writing," exactly? After all, one could assign a specific, narrow-minded genre to any book.

Writing a book that could theoretically fit into a given genre is only bad if one assumes that the genre is inherently bad, or "un-literary," in which case I would ask that person what specifically is wrong with said genre.

[Etienne]

Now this is interesting...Specifically, which critics hold this viewpoint? I find it extremely elitist and narrow-minded to judge a book's literary qualities on its subject matter

You are turning his point into something it is not. It does not say fantasy literature is not literary. What it says is that most of it does not fall under the, perhaps academic definition of literature, or Literature. And so, to say that it is ranked high among fantasy literature really, in the end means absolutely nothing in the great scheme of Literature.

Science-fiction doesn't hold much credibility in the literary world as a genre, but that doesn't mean that there are works that are held in esteem, Herbert's Dune, for example, only to say that Dune is one of the best Science-fiction work would tell squat about it's literary merits.

And what exactly is wrong with elitism, mind you?