People are more adrift in mental space than every before, and Stephen King lit only ensures we'll continue to lose sense of ourselves and the world of organic experience by offering little to no room for self-reflection and growth, contemplation or discussion.Originally Posted by bluevictim
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
Stephen King is far from being literature but everyone has to admit that he is a major influence on book culture.
I've read quite a bit of his work and am of two minds. One is that he writes for money, like a businessman. Very little of King's work has any philosophical value. My other mind says that he writes what he feels (everything he feels) and that is kind of the definition of an artist, even if what he feels relates to baseball, 50's rock and bodily functions. He also goes a long way to inspire other artists which is very admirable.
Literature does not have to have any more philosophical value than a Stephen King novel. It can get by on aesthetic value. But King's novels don't have much aesthetic value. They might pass the time when you don't want to work too hard, but Dickens can do that for you, and much else. I wouldn't want to chance reading more King after reading "Tommyknockers", which is part vomit-inducing and part more boring than watching paint dry.
Stephen King's writing has no aesthetic or intellectual value. He is a hack, an entertainer.
The answers you get from literature depend upon the questions you pose.
- Margaret Atwood
I used to read a lot of Stephen King before I became much more interested in classic literature (although, I still have a broad range of what I enjoy to read; for example, Moby-Dick is my favorite book, but I still enjoyed The Short-Timers by Gustav Hanson). I agree with mal4mac in that his books are good for passing time, but if you want to really get something out of a book than he's not the author for you.
But if you just want a book that can kill some time and capture your interest (most of the time) than Stephen King would probably do fine.
Oh, Time, Strength, Cash, and Patience!
I've read enough of King's work to know that I don't like it, and it he is not a very good writer. He isn't bad, but he usually breaks several of the Rules for Good Writing that Twain gave to the world. I don't think that he had 114 offences out of a possible 115 in the space of two thirds of a page, as Cooper did, but he usually has a handful to a score on a page.
Bolded - Oh knock it off. Do you honestly think that "good" writing follows some sort of formula?
I think his 70s stuff is good. And all of the vampire lovers should check out
Salem's Lot; it is really scary, with no emo-vampires. Most of the later stuff I have read didn't really strike me as very good, and was overly cliche and predictable. I did read and really like the first three books of the
Dark Tower series and think this is the best work of his I've read in a long time. Can someone who's read it all tell me if the other novels in the series are worth it?
Grow up and learn something. If you don't like them, then ignore them and write badly.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt
I have to agree to "knock it off." Anyone who thinks good writing has to follow some established rules made by one guy (even if it is Mark Twain, who I think is overrated) is extremely closed minded.
I don't think Stephen King is a great writer, and definitely not a very deep writer, but he is still one of my favorites. He is a writer who wants to entertain people, nothing more than that, and I don't think anyone can deny that he is very imaginative and creative. And I think he is a very good writer. I still haven't read anyone who can paint a picture as clearly and vividly as SK, whether it be something obscene and gory, or something as simple as a character desc4iption. Plus, any writer as prolific is going to have good books and bad books, much like most other authors.
One thing you can say about King: he is prolific ...
I read a few of his books just to see what he was like. I read three or four including his On Writing. Now I can hardly remember their titles. Some, like Thinner, weren't bad, but an Edgar Allan Poe he is not.
I've read a good many Stephen King books, he is very good dragging me into the story and creating characters that are relate-able (did I just make that word up?). As with any other writer I didn't care for a few of his books but those I just tossed aside.
Best line of any book:
Nadine, Don't mess with my Disco.
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
I dob't really think anyone has claimed he is, though. I'm pretty sure even SK himself has said he isn't trying to be a great literature artist, just writing what he likes.
So before Mark Twain wrote this what did people do?
I really like the movies that have come from the Stephen King novels. I love alot of his ideas and he is an easy read when I have that little break at work or have a few minutes before bed; unfortunately, I get really irritable with his anticlimatic endings...the screen writers repair this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote