quote:

---

Told of Mr. King's selection, some in the literary world responded with laughter and dismay. "He is a man who writes what used to be called penny dreadfuls," said Harold Bloom, the Yale professor, critic and self-appointed custodian of the literary canon. "That they could believe that there is any literary value there or any aesthetic accomplishment or signs of an inventive human intelligence is simply a testimony to their own idiocy."

---

quote:

---

Last year the critic John Leonard wrote a lengthy appreciation of Mr. King in The New York Review of Books, calling him "a high-school English teacher who may have hit it big with `Carrie' in 1974 but had never stopped reading the serious stuff." Mr. Leonard found in Mr. King's works traces of Thomas Hardy, Daphne du Maurier, T. S. Eliot, J. R. R. Tolkien and even Shakespeare.

Some in the literary world just shrugged about the award. "The words `distinguished contribution' are a little bit puzzling, but he is a good writer as popular writers go," said Jason Epstein, the former editorial director of Random House, who won the foundation's first medal. "I am not sure this was the original intent of the prize, but who knows about original intent?"

---

 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Harold Bloom???? The guy who hates Harry Potter?!?!?!

All I feel is pity for every person who bases their opinion of literature on that man's desperate attempts to shore up the self-congratulatory walls of his marshmallow ivory tower.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Note: The above statement does apply to Fellow Zal.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Well, that is just rude. I think King's writing is awful. I like the stories, I just hate the words he uses to tell them.

[edit: above comment was aimed at the article and not at kat or Zal. ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

"I am not sure this was the original intent of the prize, but who knows about original intent?"

---

This is my favorite line. *snickers in a lit-major fashion*
 

---

Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
 
It's really a shame when fluff authors like King and Rowling are assumed to be good just because they sell lots of books. I don't agree with Bloom on a good number of things, but his "penny dreadfuls" comment is right on the mark.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I don't like Stephen King, except I do read the the first 2/3 of the The Stand every time I get the flu.

But you're wrong about Harry, Dante.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 


I think some of Stephen King's short stories are the best ever written. Really.
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
It's really a shame when terrible authors are considered good because they are inaccessible to the unwashed masses who won't bother decoding them.
 

---

Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
 
huh. I think it's kind of sad when people dismiss authors out of hand because they're popular.

Ni!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Slash! You're alive!
 

---

Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
 
Hmm. To speak as if King was a quack is just wrong. The man has some huge accomplishments.

Literature evolves just like any other art form. Those who condemn King's work by accusing him of lacking any "inventive human intelligence" are just jealous. And rightfully so.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 

quote:

---

I think some of Stephen King's short stories are the best ever written. Really.

---

Agreed.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
What is a "Fellow"? I know what a feller' is, but I haven't been one of those since I left southern Utah.

And: when I get a chance I'll write the definitive post on this topic.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
King is one of the most talented authors currently alive -- and Bloom, as we all know, is an idiot. Look for a moment at the list of what Bloom LIKES to read.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
*looks*

tom...davidson...
 

---

Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
 
kat, I don't think Rowling is a bad author. She's just only about, oh, one-hundredth as good as her hype (which actually still makes her pretty good). I think we do a disservice to authors like her--and authors of literary classics--by assuming that "popular" equals "great."

I wouldn't dismiss a book simply because it is popular any more than I would assume something is good just because a lot of people read it.
kwsni, if your comment was directed at me, let me assure that I don't dismiss anything "out of hand."

quote:

---

King is one of the most talented authors currently alive

---

Tom, at first I was surprised by this comment...then I remembered what sort of poetry you like and dislike. <snicker>

Dante/who is content to be elitist
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
Out of curiosity, Dante, are there very many, or any, authors or stories in the realm of children's/young adult fiction that you do consider great?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Zal:

fellow = academic fellow = zal the english scholar = sounds like shallow = (sorta) equals phonemic reference to Shallow Hal = kat trying to be funny. Win some/lose some. I tried.

[ September 19, 2003, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Ah. Very clever. For once my pop culture storehouse failed me. I got the first parts of the chain. I think it was the phonemic change that hung me up because I have heard of the movie.

Actually, Fallow Zal would be more on target.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I was trying NOT to imply that about your possible opinion.

Edit: But having looked up EXACTLY what fallow means, it doesn't mean exactly what I first thought, and considering your current contemplation of whether or not a return, it is very appropriate. *steals nickname for personal use*

[ September 18, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
 
Ok, so this is why I don't post in serious threads, even ones I care about. I never say what I mean, and someone takes it wrong.

Dante, I didn't aim that at you, or anyone. I was just commenting that the literary community seems to think a book isn't any good unless it sells under a thousand copies.

Ni!
 

---

Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 
Dickens was a "popular author" in his time, and cranked out serial chapters for magazines (later compiled into books--I believe Tale of Two Cities was one of them).

Of course, I hate Dickens.

Crap, I just totally destroyed my argument.

But that doesn't mean that he isn't a valid example.

Hehe.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I agree with Tom.
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 

quote:

---

Dante/who is content to be elitist

---

The problem with being elitist, is that only other elitists will care. It makes for a small circle of friends, and may help explain your dating troubles.



[ September 18, 2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The simple fact is this: there are few authors out there who can convey character and setting in as concise and note-perfect a manner as King, particularly when he's playing to his strengths -- extended metaphor, lost innocence/childhood, and the creepy tendency of pop culture and nostalgia to sour when recollected.

Compare, say, the description of Susan's death in Wizard and Glass to ANY passage of equivalent length in the God-awful Confederacy of Dunces and you'll rail yet again at the ridiculous craniorectal inversion of the Pulitzer committee.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
OMG Tom, I don't think I have ever agreed with you so thoroughly.


 

---

Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
 

quote:

---

The problem with being elitist, is that only other elitists will care.

---

quote:

---

It makes for a small circle of friends, and may help explain your dating troubles.

---

quote:

---

Dante, I didn't aim that at you, or anyone. I was just commenting that the literary community seems to think a book isn't any good unless it sells under a thousand copies.

---

quote:

---

[U]nlike most authors, King isn't afraid to kill off what you may think of as the main character, or any characters that you really like.

---

quote:

---

King writes in the language of his audience, never above or below them.

---

quote:

---

Most have been written with a level of honesty that most writers could never achieve, his characters are there warts and all and sometimes the best ones die.

---

quote:

---

You mentioned Rushdie; he's a PERFECT example of what I consider bloated, pedestrian, fumbling that, due some pseudo-philosophical rambling, gets elevated to "literature" without having any actual merit.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, one of the big weaknesses I do find in his work are some of the endings, and It fell to this fate, in my eyes. Over 1000 pages developing this story, and less than 50 to conclude it. I was crushed.

---

quote:

---

ae, Taalcon's statement does not need defending. It is patently true. Most authors of popular fiction don't have their protagonists lose.

---

quote:

---

AE, I'm not actually sure what point you ARE making, to be honest

---

quote:

---

kwsni:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dante, I didn't aim that at you, or anyone. I was just commenting that the literary community seems to think a book isn't any good unless it sells under a thousand copies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Me:) Salman Rushdie has sold quite a lot of copies.

---

quote:

---

especially since you seem convinced that it's important.

---

quote:

---

Are you simply pointing out that most so-called "literature of merit" nowadays considers it trendy to end with their protagonist beaten down and victimized by the system?

---

That is a separate issue, wherein I pointed out that the attribute of King's which Taalcon claims is unusual is, in fact, not so.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Clearly my point there is that it isn't true that the literati only favour people who don't sell many books."

Ah. *nod*
I'll refine my statement, then, to one that's probably more accurate:

The literati only favor people who don't sell many books before they've been well-reviewed by snooty intellectual types, and even then who only sell books to the right KIND of people, mainly urban professionals who purchase these novels because they'd feel silly being caught reading science fiction on the plane to Paris.

It's certainly the case that books which appeal to the "common man" -- regardless of the actual quality of the book -- are generally disqualified as "literature" by the editors of the New Yorker. I can only assume that people like Tina Brown walk around small boutique shops to make sure that no one wearing a baseball cap buys the book they're considering recommending.

Rushdie's sales are an interesting case, since certainly his books fail to merit their popularity; I personally believe the unique circumstances of his life intrigued people who would never have otherwise purchased his work, and who probably never made it past the first agonizingly dull chapters.

[ September 19, 2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
What a discombobulated jumbled mess of a thread.

Some quick opinions o' pod:

Harun and the Sea of Stories is an awesome Rushdie book.

I find i largely agree with Lead's characterization of King's work, although, having had much less exposure to his work (since i never finish books i don't like), i can say that he's definitely written some very entertaining and interesting books. I, as many others, -really- wish he would finish the Dark Tower Series, however i do certainly agree with Bloom on one fact. King does in fact write what would be concidered penny-dreadfuls in years past. That is not to say however, that that is all that he writes.

Dante:

I don't think Slash is particularly concerned about being classy, which would fit very well with his point, making an interesting counter-meta (what is the opposite of meta?) demonstration of the situation.

And really, being discriminating isn't wrong, particularly if you can explain and justify it well, its just when one drifts away from reason and reality with one's tastes, then you just become an asshole.

It's called having your head far far too far up your arse.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Tom:

quote:

---

I'll refine my statement, then, to one that's probably more accurate:

The literati only favor people who don't sell many books before they've been well-reviewed by snooty intellectual types, and even then who only sell books to the right KIND of people, mainly urban professionals who purchase these novels because they'd feel silly being caught reading science fiction on the plane to Paris.

---

quote:

---

It's certainly the case that books which appeal to the "common man" -- regardless of the actual quality of the book -- are generally disqualified as "literature" by the editors of the New Yorker.

---

quote:

---

Rushdie's sales are an interesting case, since certainly his books fail to merit their popularity

---

quote:

---

I personally believe the unique circumstances of his life intrigued people who would never have otherwise purchased his work, and who probably never made it past the first agonizingly dull chapters.

---

quote:

---

From where I stand all of King's best books are the non-horror ones.

---

quote:

---

I share in the low opinion that many here seem to hold for the literary elite. For me there are two primary motivations to read: for knowledge and for enjoyment. If a book provides neither of these then I see no reason to read it.

---

And of coruse we all know that the literary elite gain neither knowledge nor enjoyment from their reading.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

What would you count Firestarter?

I thought that book was brilliant, i -really- enjoyed it.

---

quote:

---

You're clearly an anti-horror elitist.

---

quote:

---

And of coruse we all know that the literary elite gain neither knowledge nor enjoyment from their reading.

---

quote:

---

And you are clearly being ridiculous. I enjoyed King's non-horror immensely more than his horror. For me the horror aspected masked the laudable attributes of his writing. The same is not the case for other authors.

---

quote:

---

I care not a whit what the literary elite gain from their reading. I was talking about what I gain.

---

quote:

---

Nearly every "critically acclaimed" book I have picked up has seemed to me to be mere intellectual masturbation meant to convey nothing more than the author'sown assumed cleverness.

---

quote:

---

Well, in all seriousness, what knowledge or enjoyment can be found in Confederacy of Dunces or Bonfire of the Vanities?

What "truths" about life are revealed here? Did Bonfire teach its readers something new about, say, the business world? Did Confederacy make it easier for its readers to imagine what it must be like to be fat and useless?

How can EITHER of these books, just as examples of their genre, be favorably compared to, say, IT?

---

quote:

---

Well, let's look at THAT redeeming quality: even assuming that Bonfire of the Vanities is remarkably funny (an assumption that I'll grant for the purposes of this thought experiment), why is it "better" on some empirical level than Dave Barry Slept Here, another amusing book? Or a collection of Fox Trot strips?

---

quote:

---

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
Date: 1569
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism
- em·pir·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Source: M-W.com

---

quote:

---

Sopwith:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King writes in the language of his audience, never above or below them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trick question: name one writer who does not write at exactly the level of his audience.

---

quote:

---

Some sneer for lack of academic credentials, forgetting that if something is academic, it has little bearing on real life.

---

That the word academic has been burdened with that connotation is sad.

[ September 19, 2003, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Thank you, Irami, for providing an island of sanity (though I still don't like Wolfe).

Really, must the reaction to snobbery always be reverse snobbery? I don't see how it's an improvement.

Sopwith:

quote:

---

Hmm, H.P. Lovecraft could send a tenured English lit prof scrambling for his dictionary. Hemingway struggled to write below the level of his audience in word choice and sentence structure. Faulkner did the same, writing low to achieve lofty goals. Even the Bard himself, Shakespeare wrote for the groundlings while speaking to scholars of his day and ours.

---

quote:

---

H.P. Lovecraft could send a tenured English lit prof scrambling for his dictionary.

---

Within reason, I don't know if that's such a bad thing. I could see how throwing around jargon is distasteful, but I like being spoken up to as opposed to dumbed down to. Language serves a powerful and decisive function in story-telling, why dull the tools we use?

Edit:

Right now, I'm reading a book of Raymond Carver short stories. I don't know. He does make me uneasy in all of the right ways, but his writing lacks the energetic lilt and stirring imagery in the name of brevity and economy. His stories are powerfully plotted, but I like a little asthetic beauty in my prose. Simplicity percipates shallowness or blandness in cases like his.

[ September 20, 2003, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Don't worry AE, I don't mind, it wasn't that clever nor that circular.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
I didn't say it was clever. I said it was silly.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Irami: Heretic.

Don't you understand that all good young American writers should slavishly imitate Carver?
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

I, as many others, -really- wish he would finish the Dark Tower Series

---

Well, he DID finish it. Book 5 will be out this November, Book 6 will be out in the Spring, and Book 7 will be out November of 2004

As for my ascertation of writers afraid to kill off important and well-loved characters - asking for examples of authors who don't kill them off is like asking to point out in a room of a million people every single person who is NOT dying of Brain Cancer. It's much easier and quicker to point out the ones who are the exception to the rule than those who follow it.

So I once again turn the question to ask you - when was the last time (apart from King and Rowling )you read a story where a major, well loved character was in peril, and you actually fretted, and believed that in fact there was a possibility the character might actually die? And, if you have read a death scene of a major character you liked, how did it resonate?

And trust me - I'm not saying that killing off a major character is a sign of greatness. What is more effective for me is actually being able to worry about the outcome when a perilous situation comes up. I have read MANY good works in which the main character is in trouble, and the suspense relies solely on HOW that character will get out of it - not IF. King makes you ask both - "How will they get out? Or will they just not get out at all this time?" - and I care about BOTH. THAT is what I see as great. Not only that I can actually worry about the outcome, but the fact that I'm involved enough with characters to worry about anything at all.

-Taal

[ September 19, 2003, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Taalcon:

quote:

---

So I once again turn the question to ask you - when was the last time (apart from King and Rowling )you read a story where a major, well loved character was in peril, and you actually fretted, and believed that in fact there was a possibility the character might actually die?

---

quote:

---

I honestly think this whole thing is pretty ridiculous. De gustibus est non effing disputandum. I don't like King and I don't like Wolfe, but for people who like that kind of thing, that is the kind of thing they like.

---

But see, that is exactly the point. Go back to the first post and see it. King was recognized for being a great writer, and a couple of critics said "No, that's WRONG. He's a HACK." The whole tangent of whether or not academic literature is pretentious garbage is simply a matter of putting the shoe on the other foot. Sadly, though, we're letting this turn into a literary turf war, and we can't possibly make any progress under those terms.

Let's not argue about what is good and what is garbage, because there is no point. It might be interesting to compare notes (you actually liked that piece of garbage?) but it is absolutely fruitless to argue the point. Ultimately, such a debate must resort to each of us concluding that the other is either poorly educated or an idiot. After all, how can you fail to see the Truth of my literary views? You must be a sucker and a poseur. How can I fail to see the truth of yours? I must have failed to understand the greatness of the works you love, or I must not have been exposed to enough true quality, if I could possibly mistake King for it.

The real question here is where do these people get off stating that King is a lousy writer as if it's a fact? You could say that they are entitled to their opinion that King is, in fact, a hack, and they're simply expressing it. But their expressing of their subjective opinions as fact is just as ridiculous to those of us who think King is a modern day great as the disparagement in this thread of academic-style literature is to you.

Here are some opinions and some personal experiences. Opinions are not facts and they are not valid arguments. They are incapable of showing you are wrong, and so you need feel no obligation to refute them: I was a lit major as well as a math major in college, and before I decided to teach math, I planned to pursue literature. I went to grad school for lit, not for math. After four years of college literature classes and two years of the same in grad school, I came to the realization that I had stopped reading for enjoyment and reading had stopped being a hobby for me, that my writing was stilted by my attempts to be "literary" (or rather, pretentious), and that I had enjoyed very little that I had read for the past couple of years. I decided to exit that world rather than try for a Ph.D. But for years I played the game and I was good at it. I could snob with the best of snobs. Boy howdy could I ferret out hidden symbolism. And I became convinced that everyone else was playing the game as well, because they enjoyed appearing to be intellectual.

So I have what appears to me to be fact: fiction intended to be literary rather than entertaining is masturbatory and empty. Your view of things contradicts that reality. Who am I to say whether you truly do get enjoyment from literary fiction or are just pretending? Who knows? As you say, it's absurd to argue this point.

Can we simply agree, then, that this is a difference of opinion as to what's good, that neither of us is wrong when we say somebody is a very talented writer (because obviously we found evidence for that statement), and that neither of us is right when we say someone is a hack (because obviously somebody else found value in his or her work)? On the basis of that, then, could we agree that Bloom is wrong when he calls the people who granted this award idiots and says there is no merit in King's work?

-o-

Your point on writers writing above or below their audience is a good one and cleverly put.

Sopwith, it seemed to me that you responded with unnecessary vehemence to that point.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
It is clear to me that we differ in how we judge the merit of a book, though. For instance, I don't think time is any kind of meaningful litmus test. I think all that matters is my own opinion, and I don't need a great deal of time to tell me what my opinion was, or whether it was right or wrong.

Maybe that would make an interesting topic for discussion, but I'm afraid I don't have the energy right now.


 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 

quote:

---

Don't you understand that all good young American writers should slavishly imitate Carver?

---

I fully believe that prose can be charming without falling headlong into ostentation. Simplicity is important to getting the story across, but I'm of the camp who thinks there is a place for beauty, too, even if it takes a few more words and a good forced rhyme.

[ September 21, 2003, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
Dante:

See, we are going to miss out on the irony, due to short life spans. You like old literature. You poo on the modern stuff.

Sadly, we won't be here a hundred years from now when King is the only 20th/21st century author anyone remembers.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Icarus:

quote:

---

The real question here is where do these people get off stating that King is a lousy writer as if it's a fact? You could say that they are entitled to their opinion that King is, in fact, a hack, and they're simply expressing it. But their expressing of their subjective opinions as fact is just as ridiculous to those of us who think King is a modern day great as the disparagement in this thread of academic-style literature is to you.

---

quote:

---

The real achievement is that he's getting people to read for pleasure, which appears to be a dying pastime in this country (there was a thread some weeks back about it that made me wish didn't live in America).

---

Does anyone have any statistics comparing the reading habits of Americans vs the rest of the world?
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
There was a thread about reading habits of Americans some weeks ago. I don't remember what it was titled. I don't think it compared America to the rest of the world, but it doesn't need to. If I remember correctly, 40% of households in America have not bought a new book for pleasure reading in the last three years.

Anything to help that number increase is a good thing. Even if the books they're reading are, in some people's eyes, completly expendible.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Bet that's changed after Harry Potter V.


 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Tom:

quote:

---

So why do you find it ridiculous to call King a "modern-day great?"

---

quote:

---

Whom WOULD you call a "modern-day great?"

---

quote:

---

What objective standard makes THESE "great" books

---

quote:

---

or was Cunningham's Pulitzer just as "ridiculous?"

---

quote:

---

You like old literature. You poo on the modern stuff.

---

quote:

---

Great literature means only one thing to me: it must take my breath away. I don't care what genre or what lists it fits into. If it makes me care, if I weep or laugh aloud, or if I put down the book thoughtful, then it is great literature.

---

quote:

---

See, Jenny. You're just another member of the lowest common denominator.

---

And yet again Slash, not surprisingly, misses the whole point. If our own reaction is the only standard we use to judge a work's merit, then there is no merit. I just don't believe that. I think that there are things that actually make a literary work good or bad: style, diction, pacing, authenticity, dialogue, profundity of thought, understanding of literary tradition, novelty, etc.

By the "if I like it, it must be good" standard, Hustler, with millions of copies bought, must be sheer genius. Right, Slash? After all, if all those men like it...

Actually, wait. I don't think I want your answer to that.
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Um, no Dante, if the rubric is as Jenny has stated it, it would be a relativistic rubric, however, it would indeed still be a viable constraint as to what is "good".

You may not like relative, but that doesn't mean its not a criteria for good

And besides, i think you've missed the point of slash's point. The fact that he's dubbed Jenny Gardner as part of the lowest common denominator has nothing to do with his opinion of what classifies works as good, he's simply stating that Jenny, with her criteria for good, is part of the driving force behind lowest common denominator creatorship.

And i'd agree with him (and that's not a criticism for Jenny, whatever makes her happy, makes her happy), if people don't have other standards, then you do end up with rather... substanceless pandering.

[ September 20, 2003, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Pod ]
 

---

Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
 
Does it really matter? You enjoy a certain type of book. I enjoy another. We can call eachother morons, and elitists, and all sorts of names until we turn blue in the face...but it's not going to change anything. What's the point, really?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
What is the purpose of writing a book?

Any book?
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
And you guys are missing the point. Great literature, by my definition, literature that affects a reader, must share certain characteristics. How does the author make one care? If an author does not apply the techniques that make literature powerful, how can it be great literature? Playing with language alone does not guarantee greatness. Writing an interesting story does not guarantee greatness. But a story that shines in both the tale and the telling is great literature. Why does it have to be on a particular list to be classified as such?
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
Well said, Jenny.
 

---

Posted by Nymeria (Member # 1467) on :
 
Has anyone here read An Experiment in Criticism by C.S. Lewis? He does a really interesting job of turning around the debate over whether there are objective standards for literary greatness. I find it non-judgmental and closely aligned to the process by which books survive over the centuries and are deemed great by history. Here's the Amazon.com description:

Book Description
Why do we read literature and how do we judge it? C. S. Lewis's classic An Experiment in Criticism springs from the conviction that literature exists for the joy of the reader and that books should be judged by the kind of reading they invite. He argues that 'good reading', like moral action or religious experience, involves surrender to the work in hand and a process of entering fully into the opinions of others: 'in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself'. Crucial to his notion of judging literature is a commitment to laying aside expectations and values extraneous to the work, in order to approach it with an open mind. Amid the complex welter of current critical theories, C. S. Lewis's wisdom is valuably down-to-earth, refreshing and stimulating in the questions it raises about the experience of reading.

Oh, and just to throw my own two cents in on the original debate - I think Stephen King has written some great works (esp. some of his short stories, as someone else has mentioned) and he's also written a lot of unmitigated crap, sometimes under the influence of drugs. He's admitted this himself. But I think he has the ability and the potential to be a great writer, which puts him ahead of a lot of others.

As for JK Rowling, another maligned popular writer, I personally love her work and admire her craftsmanship. I think it's too early to tell if she's a great one, though. For me, much will depend on how she wraps up the Harry Potter series. But I wouldn't be surprised if she pulls it off.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
I second Slash's prediction that King's work will, like his finance- and audience-geared popular predecessors Shakespeare and Dickens, endure beyond that of his more pretentious contemporaries.
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
Dante:

I clearly touched a nerve with my dating problems jab, as you are attempting to jab back long after I have stopped.

I'm not going to engage in this sort of thing with you, Dante. It was a mistake to start, and I refuse to continue. You lack any ability to hurt my feelings, and clearly I have hurt yours. I do not wish to hurt them further. So, feel free to leave my name out of any future attempts to be witty and biting. You are a nice guy, you are not good at being mean, and it screams through in every attempt you make. I'm sorry that I made you feel like you needed to try.

However, on the original topic, I do think you are missing an important point.

People like myself, David Bowles, Tom Davidson, and others who are commenting on liking King are very well read. We've read the 'classics' as well as the modern stuff. I can even quote Dante, if pushed to it, though I dislike his work.

If you honestly believe that we like an author like King because he has sold a lot of books, then you are truly mistaken. I don't think you actually believe that, and are just repeating it because you think it is an effective attack. The truth is, we like his work because we think he is an excellent author, who writes stories with feeling, meaning, and true character to them. The second highest selling author is Jackie Collins, and I can honestly say that 8 words into one of her books, I am ready to vomit. I also am not a Harry Potter fan, so clearly volume of sales is not the issue here.

And here is where the elitist blinders come in. See, by not being elitist, I can read King and Shakespear, and have both sitting on my shelf next to each other. None of my friends will care. In the rarified air of the literati, how many of the (surely) many fans that King has there will openly admit to it? Come on, admit it. The 'highest common denominator' puts much more peer pressure regarding likes and dislikes than any 'lowest common denominator' does.

And that was my point.

[ September 21, 2003, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
BTW, Richard Russo wrote Empire Falls -- and I like Russo a lot, too.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Icarus, I believe that the be the most succinct post on this topic that I have ever read.

Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
Man, Slash, I know you're making an attempt to pass an olive branch of sorts, but even within that there was some harshness.

I'm not sure Dante was actively trying to be mean.

Before you say I'm just trying to suck up, I totally agree with all of your points and the premise. But Dante is my friend, and that first comment of yours caused me actual pain.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Icarus, perhaps my response was a bit more vehement than even I had wished for. The fact is, I admire King quite a bit for his accomplishments both as a publishing writer and on literary merits.

Sure, he has dashed out some books that weren't that good, but he has touched genius more times than the vast majority of writers out there. And he did it in a genre that most literati sneer at. He's in the same boat as most science fiction and fantasy authors as well. There are some great, truly astounding works in the genre fields, but prejudices often keep the books from being described as literature.

A few of our own host's novels could certainly be counted among the best of the last century in my opinion, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much support for that statement among the academic circles that take on the burden of determining what is literature and what is not.

I just hate to hear anyone leveling the word "hack" at an author who is working and striving to reach an audience and make a living. It's also not just a slam on the author, but their entire audience as well.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Tom, I'm waiting for a response. You've put words in my mouth; kindly take them back out.

Sopwith:

quote:

---

I just hate to hear anyone leveling the word "hack" at an author who is working and striving to reach an audience and make a living.

---

• OSC is a lot closer to the canon because of the crafting of his novels. Ender's Game is well structured with very prominent themes. Definitely better than most if not all of SK's work.
• Why do SK's movies always suck more when he has more control over the production? (e.g. The original The Shining was soooo much better than the remake by him, and The Shawshenk Redemption ruled)
• I thought the Eyes of the Dragon was quite possibly the worst adult fantasy book I have ever read because of the sheer vapidity of it. I just had to say this because I saw that someone else praised it and I was horrified. Sorry if it offends!

 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Perhaps that's because you missed the part where Eyes of the Dragon was written as a juvenile fantasy book. And it was one of the best juvenile fantasy books I've ever read. *grin*
 

---

Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
 
Well, that explains a lot! Still, Lloyd Alexander wrote better juvenile books. Even Judy Blume wrote better juvenile books. Maybe SK stopped writing juvenile books because he realized he sucked at it. And why wasn't Eyes of the Dragon over in the juvenile section like it was s'posed to be?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Even Judy Blume wrote better juvenile books."

I was with you until this point, and then you lost me.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Eyes of the Dragon was written for juveniles?

What with all the phallic symbols at the beginning?


 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*grin* I can only assume that King's assessment of what's appropriate for juveniles doesn't necessarily mesh with many other people's.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Sopwith & JonnyNotSoBravo - your posts seem to summarize my feelings pretty well. I can agree with most everything you say there.

ae: it's not that there are no hacks, but that we are incapable of judging with absolute certainty who they are. To know for certain you would have to know both the heart of the author, to kow how seriously he or she took the art, and you would also have to know whether it succeeds in conveying what he author wanted to readers in the intended audience. It's impossible to have that knowledge, which is why we all seem to be agreeing that you can't judge with any level of objectivity. I believe that is Tom's point (as it is mine) which you keep throwing back at him without apparently realizing that it's his point.

Scott:
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
I strongly suspect King will be considered a popular hack by intellectuals until about 10 years after he dies, at which point they will begin complaining about how the new writers of the time don't live up to him.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Well said Tres!
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
And as far as that goes, I really enjoyed 'Salem's Lot. I've yet to read anything of King's that comes close.

Except for the Talisman. Which was a collaboration. Man, that was a good read.

I do understand the literary community's chagrin-- King is so wholly 'other' than what they're accustomed to. That said-- the liberal arts community has touted itself as edgy and envelope-pushing for years; it has proclaimed itself the over-guardian of things new and strange. Very ironic that they seem stuck in using one mold on this particular topic.

Could a fantasy/sci-fi author EVER be looked upon as beneficial to academia? I mean, before his death. . .
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Ursula Le Guin is fairly well respected in the academy.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*whispers*
Because she has an agenda....
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Sure. But that wasn't the question.
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
What about Neil Gaiman? Who here likes Neil Gaiman?

(blatantly trying to cheer things up/change subject)
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
I don't think that I've ever started a thread that went to three pages. Or one that inspired some vigorous opinion.

I will attempt to rejoin the flow of the conversation later, but first...

Bloom has become a caricature of himself -- and much of that is because of his willingness to play the media game. If the NY Times are any other national publication needs a quote from a cultural reactionary, they dial his number. Just like if they need something from a cultural relativists and postmodernist, they call up Stanley Fish.

Two more points:

1. What I don't understand is, considering Bloom's fascination with the American spirit or geist (or whatever you want to call it), why he can't clue in to the fact that books like _The Stand_ and those of the DarkTower series seem to me to reflect the individualism combined with pragmatism with a touch of mysticism and the supernatural that permeates many of the indigenous American religions.

2. Bloom may have become a shrill reactionary, but I still have to give him props for his lit-crit work _The Anxiety of Influence_. It's really not useful as a literary theory that can be tested and extended to other texts, and really it's more like a piece of creative writing, but the book is full of energy and poetic prose and forces you to see certain works of literature and certain authors in a different light. It's a masterpiece.

Next:

quote:

---

Last year the critic John Leonard wrote a lengthy appreciation of Mr. King in The New York Review of Books, calling him "a high-school English teacher who may have hit it big with `Carrie' in 1974 but had never stopped reading the serious stuff." Mr. Leonard found in Mr. King's works traces of Thomas Hardy, Daphne du Maurier, T. S. Eliot, J. R. R. Tolkien and even Shakespeare.

---

quote:

---

Some in the literary world just shrugged about the award. "The words `distinguished contribution' are a little bit puzzling, but he is a good writer as popular writers go," said Jason Epstein, the former editorial director of Random House, who won the foundation's first medal. "I am not sure this was the original intent of the prize, but who knows about original intent?"

---

quote:

---

"Even Judy Blume wrote better juvenile books."

I was with you until this point, and then you lost me.

---

Yeah, I might have went too far with that 'cuz it's been too long since I read her books. They're kind of hazy in my memory but I know they had a dog, some girl named Ramona and someone named Beasely and this kid who caught a fish by wading out into the surf and picking it up. Still, EotD was so bad I'm sure they couldn't have been worse. How 'bout I replace the Judy Blume comment with "J.K. Rowling writes far better fantasy books for juveniles than SK does" which is true even if I think she borrows too heavily from popular mythology. And besides we had comments earlier comparing SK and Rowling before so it seems more relevant.
 

---

Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
 
I really liked that post, Zal.

What I don't understand is, considering Bloom's fascination with the American spirit or geist (or whatever you want to call it), why he can't clue in to the fact that books like _The Stand_ and those of the DarkTower series seem to me to reflect the individualism combined with pragmatism with a touch of mysticism and the supernatural that permeates many of the indigenous American religions.

'Cause he hasn't read 'em. He's busy parsing Macbeth or rereading Henry James. Bloom's stuck in a rut, which is why in every book he publishes Shakespeare become more and more godlike. (I own two of them.)
He's got a list in his head of who's worth reading and who's not, and King's not on it. Period. Plus, the American zeitgeist has already been established by the Gnostics and nineteenth century evangelicals.
And Cormac McCarthy.
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
I still don't get why academics are so obsessed with Cormac McCarthy. In this class where we had to read All the Pretty Horses, the professor talked it up like it was the crowning jewel of his syllabus, and when we finally got to it, it was a huge letdown, easily the most boring and forgettable thing I read all term. And I usually like literary fiction. ( )

Jonny: Ramona? You sure you're not thinking of Beverly Cleary?

[ September 23, 2003, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
 

---

Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
 

quote:

---

The real question here is where do these people get off stating that King is a lousy writer as if it's a fact? You could say that they are entitled to their opinion that King is, in fact, a hack, and they're simply expressing it. But their expressing of their subjective opinions as fact is just as ridiculous to those of us who think King is a modern day great as the disparagement in this thread of academic-style literature is to you.

---

The real question here is where does Tom get off stating that Rushdie is a lousy writer as if it's a fact? You could say that he is entitled to his opinion that Rushdie is, in fact, a hack, and he's simply expressing it. But his expressing of his subjective opinions as fact is just as ridiculous to those of us who think Rushdie is a modern day great as the disparagement in this thread of popular or genre-style literature is to you.

See, now, that's a silly comment. Just a few things to suggest:

1. "Genre" is something applies to every text so I often cringe when people hold up, say, fantasy or sci-fi as some kind of repressed entity because it is "genre" fiction. I think genre applies to Coetzee, Rushdie, Coover, Allende, Faulkner, Cunningham or pretty much any other author you care to name.

2. Whether a book is good or bad is subjective. For Pete's sake, people argue about the criteria for what constitutes a good or bad text all the time - and have done so since people told stories in Ithaca, no doubt - so its ridiculous to suggest that King or Rushdie are crap. Tom saying that Rushdie is "certainly" crap is just as ridiculous and childish as Bloom saying the same thing about King. Tom can say "I think Rushdie is crap" all he wants but he'll have a very, very hard time convincing me of the fact. Contrary to his opinion, I've found many of Rushdie's characters to be rich and vibrant and they have resonated with me long after I finish reading. I'm sure Tom feels the same way about King's work. Oh, wait, I must be WRONG about how I feel - it's patently obvious to me now that Rushdie is not, in fact, one of the best authors I have read (in, of course, my opinion) but is, in fact, pretension, shallow and a waste of time. Sorry. My bad.

3. My bookshelf features Rushdie, Coetzee, Pynchon and Eco. It also features Kafka, Joyce, Faulkner, Conrad and Naipaul. And Dante, Shakespeare, Homer and Beowulf. Oh, right next to those are Tolkien, Tad Williams, Neal Stephenson, Kim Stanley Robinson and Orson Scott Card. I happen to like them all. I think that Tolkien is great literature, even though his writing is occasionally poor. I loved Cryptonomicon and La Morte D'artur. My favourite books, off the top of my head, include Foe, In the Skin of the Lion, The Ground Beneath Her Feet, As I Lay Dying, Memory Sorry & Thorn, The Lord of the Rings and The Mars Trilogy. Eeek. Incompatibilty error... Or do I just happen to think that a wide variety of works can constitute greatness? I also happen to think the canon is bunk, that Bloom is a twit and that the idea of an exclusionary list of great works is just silly. I also happen to be wary of cultural studies and bothered by the fact that Friends can be studied for final examination in the last yeaf of high school in Australia.

4. I'm an English major and have studied literature through many theoretical and non-theoretical frameworks. None of them have been perfect.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
At the risk of sounding petty, it pisses me off no end when people put words in my mouth and then leave it at that, refusing to respond to or even acknowledge my replies. Particularly so when the person doing this is respected and supposedly reasonable.

There's a lot of interesting stuff that's been posted since I last did, but I'm too annoyed to respond to it. I think I'll just add a name to my shit list and bow out.

Cheerio.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
AE, I think you did a perfectly reasonable job of explaining that you think I misinterpreted you. What do you believe I would have contributed to that process by posting?

Frankly, I think you're too emotionally invested in a thread -- and a topic -- which is, at best, completely irrelevant to everyone here; that everyone has spent pages ADVOCATING its complete irrelevance, in fact, makes it pretty obvious that we're all on the same page, and so I'm bemused by the thought that your "credibility" could be damaged by something so forgettable.

In other words: don't sweat it. If you feel that I've misconstrued or misunderstood your arguments, say your piece -- as you have -- and shrug it off, man. I seriously doubt the New Yorker has scouts watching this thread, looking to pick out rookie critics.

---------

"Rushdie, Coetzee, Pynchon and Eco. It also features Kafka, Joyce, Faulkner, Conrad and Naipaul. And Dante, Shakespeare, Homer and Beowulf. Oh, right next to those are Tolkien, Tad Williams, Neal Stephenson, Kim Stanley Robinson and Orson Scott Card."

What's amusing about this is that my bookshelf has pretty much the exact same list, minus Coetzee, but I don't put 'em anywhere near each other. I keep a buffer zone between my postmodernists and my classics, for some subconscious reason. I don't keep such a zone between my classics and my genre fiction. I wonder why.

[ September 23, 2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Because subconsciously, you're an elitist snob-- you lump all the old ideas with all the bad ideas, and leave the postmodernism to stand alone and aloof.


 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 


EG, why can't you see that you're making my point? We have been saying that it's subjective! That's Tom's point in asking for objective criteria by which King can be judged inferior. All Tom is doing when he comments on Rushdie being garbage (or all I was doing when I commented on my feelings at the end of grad school, for that matter) is putting the shoe on the other foot:

This thread began as an expression of outrage over the casual dismissal of King's body of work by some academics . . .

. . . some people posted agreeing with the opinions of these academics . . .

. . . those of us who like King point out how easy it is to dismiss the favorites of many academics in quite the same way . . .

. . . those of you who like these authors are outraged--just like we were by the slamming of King!

Point taken?
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Yeah, I get it. You're all just evil robots sent from the future to disparage my favorite authors.

Really, though, I don't see why it's so childish for Bloom to say a particular author sucks. You can say he's stodgy or elitist or just plain wrong, but to say he shouldn't be saying it seems a little silly. He's a critic, after all. That's his job.

[ September 23, 2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Not that he shouldn't be saying it. That's his right.

Just that we disagree, and think he's an idiot.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Which of course is what you expose yourself to when you take it upon yourself to publicize your opinions.

We can't argue with him in a forum in which he participates, so we vent our frustration here.
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Yes, but earlier you seemed to imply that your big objection was with not what people said about King but how they said it:

quote:

---

The real question here is where do these people get off stating that King is a lousy writer as if it's a fact? You could say that they are entitled to their opinion that King is, in fact, a hack, and they're simply expressing it. But their expressing of their subjective opinions as fact is just as ridiculous to those of us who think King is a modern day great as the disparagement in this thread of academic-style literature is to you.

---

I don't have a problem with people bashing literary fiction (though I am annoyed by some of the snide remarks in this thread about the motives of those who read it). I have my own issues with the academy, and I will readily admit that there's a lot of boring, pretentious crap out there that only gets read because it's stylistically or ideologically en vogue with the literary crowd. So I do sympathize with what you're saying here to some extent, since we all know that whenever anyone with academic clout says anything, thousands of college students will record it in their spiral notebooks as fact. That's the trouble with what Rene Girard calls "the cult of expertise." But on the other hand, I don't think everyone should have to preface everything they say with disclaimers about how this is only their opinion. It's a subjective value judgment; of course it's an opinion. It almost seems a little arrogant to me when people go on as though they assume anyone would think otherwise.

[ September 23, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Of course, the primary objection there is that Bloom doesn't usually concede that his opinions are, in fact, merely opinions. But YMMV. *grin*
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
I think Bloom is being an idiot because he is spouting off on an author he doesn't really know in the most public print-based forum in the U.S. [the NY Times]. That's not being a public intellectual or a defender of the canon -- that's being a media whore. I'm not saying that academics should only comment on authors or topics that they've published papers or written books on, but a little discretion is always wise.

Of course, this is also bad reporting on the part of the Times. How come no one bothered to figure out that there was a Michael Collings out there and contact him for a comment on King's strengths and weaknesses and place in American society and culture? In other words, try to kind of understand the phenomenon. I suppose the literary world is aghast angle is more interesting, but it wasn't for me because it's so damn predictable.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Deirdre, the key is in the last sentence in that quote.

Of course you can express an opinion. If you do it on an online forum, you may be disagreed with with varying levels of politeness; ideally, it will be in proportion to the politeness you show in expressing your opinion. If you are a high profile "authority" on literature, you are even fairer game, by virtue of your position as an expert. The quotes in question here are pretty rude, and so many of us are responding with a commensurate amount of scorn.

Several people now keep posting that bit and responding to the beginning without realizing that the answer is in the end.
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 

quote:

---

Of course, the primary objection there is that Bloom doesn't usually concede that his opinions are, in fact, merely opinions. But YMMV. *grin*

---

Of course. But since we all* agree that they are, why should that matter?

(YMMV? )

*with the possible exception of the above mentioned college students

[ September 23, 2003, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
YMMV = your mileage may vary
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Thanks. My knowlege of internet shorthand fails me yet again.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
But EG, in the literary world as presently constituted i.e. the awards and fellowships given out, the books reviews in the "top-tier" publications, the course offerings at the "best" colleges, the emphases of creative writing programs, this:

quote:

---

"Genre" is something applies to every text so I often cringe when people hold up, say, fantasy or sci-fi as some kind of repressed entity because it is "genre" fiction.

---

quote:

---

Several people now keep posting that bit and responding to the beginning without realizing that the answer is in the end.

---

I think I do understand your point, but I still object to it for the same reason ae did. I see it as hypocrisy, not fair play.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Hypocrisy?!?!

Strong words . . .
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
It's only one word, actually, but I'll let that pass.

How about "double standard"? Is that better?
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Never mind. We've been through this all before, several times now. I just happen to be surrounded by sci-fi/fantasy fans IRL, and I’m tired of people implying that I’m boring, stuffy, and pretentious because I like literary fiction. So I vent my frustrations here.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
<----boring, stuffy and pretentious

My motto: provincialism is provincialism no matter how cosmopolitan the provincials think they are.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
Deidre - You're totally boring, stuffy, and pretentious. I only hang out with you because you've got such a nice rack.

Oh, wai-
 

---

Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
 
Whoa! I think the real issue to be addressed here is the apparent disarray of everyone's personal libraries...

Slash:

quote:

---

...I can read King and Shakespear, and have both sitting on my shelf next to each other.

---

I mean, that's a frontal assault to everything orderly and logical!


 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
J. Peder Zane has some advice for Stephen King.

caveat:

quote:

---

Let me state upfront, I do not agree with those who dismiss your work. I think you take your writing seriously. I believe you strive for excellence. Those who contend that you write schlock have probably never read you. It is because you care about good writing that I hope you will take my plea seriously.

---

quote:

---

It is clear that you are being used. The National Book Foundation hopes to kindle new interest in its programs and in reading in general by honoring you. I cannot predict what good might come from the effort, but the dangers of the precedent are clear. What is at stake -- not completely, but in part -- is literature's standing as one of the last poles in our culture where prestige is based on performance, not popularity.

---

 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Wow.

Dang. The Book award as the Emmy's. That is really sad.

----

I'm sympathetic to Dante - I went through a three-four year period that may not be completely over of refusing to read anything less than fifty years old. That way, I got to read Steinbeck and avoided most of the crap.

It's like oldies stations. Are most of the songs on Oldies stations good? Yes, actually.

Is that because they wrote better music back then? Possibly, but I doubt it.

Why then? Because the crap has dissapeared and we are left with the refined gold.

Hype, the machine, and laziness prodded by Oprah can and does make a book popular now, but it won't a hundred years from now. Books that are still loved - not taught, but loved - a hundred years afte their author's death usually have something worthwhile about them.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Wow, Zane offered a left handed compliment there, delivered by a mailed fist. Sweet of him.

So basically, he just says they want you for your popularity because you and I know you really aren't good enough.

He forgot to add "Bless your little heart" at the end of that.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Dang it, is there any profession or field anywhere that isn't tainted by politics and bickering and posturing? Anywhere??
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Nope. I had heard that morticians were a non-political, mutually supportive lot, but that industry has changed in the past decade.

--------

To follow up on MattB's remark about Bloom and Cormac McCarthy and Kat on Bloom and Rowling, I give you this op-ed piece.

I've heard a lot about Delilo's _Underworld_. Out of curiousity, I'm going to give it a try and see how it matches up with _The Stand_ and the Dark Tower series.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
He's 73. That explains a lot.

quote:

---

In a lifetime of teaching English, I've seen the study of literature debased. There's very little authentic study of the humanities remaining. My research assistant came to me two years ago saying she'd been in a seminar in which the teacher spent two hours saying that Walt Whitman was a racist. This isn't even good nonsense. It's insufferable.

I began as a scholar of the romantic poets. In the 1950s and early 1960s, it was understood that the great English romantic poets were Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Wordsworth, Lord Byron, John Keats, William Blake, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. But today they are Felicia Hemans, Charlotte Smith, Mary Tighe, Laetitia Landon and others who just can't write. A fourth-rate playwright like Aphra Behn is being taught instead of Shakespeare in many curricula across the country.

---

This part I actually agree with. I tried to major in literature because I wanted to know what was great, I wanted to learn what made those things that were great, in fact, great. I didn't get that. I got the White Men are Jerks class (Nineteenth Century Sentimental Literature - you can imagine the horror) and, forgive me Zal, James Joyce, who I consider to be more of an experimenter than a storyteller. Yes, very pretty pictures Joyce, now, are you party of the stories we tell our selves or not? What the freaking heck is this? *holds up Ulysses*

Hmm... I don't know. I do think he's missing the point of Harry Potter, and I doubt if he's read past the first book. Harry Potter becomes fabulous with the third book, and it becomes Great with the fourth. And they are getting better. That's nice to see. Rowlings rocks, but I'm not even really upset about what he said about her as a writer, since at every level, she's getting the last laugh.
 

---

Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
 

quote:

---

Jonny: Ramona? You sure you're not thinking of Beverly Cleary?

---

- Deirdre

You're right. I was thinking of Cleary. I must have picked up Blume because Bloom was mentioned. Thanks for keeping me in line.
 

---

Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
 
Hey, no problem. Anytime.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Tom: I am not flustered or bothered by what's happening in this thread. I merely find your behaviour annoying and rude. Very annoying, and very rude. Much like Bloom's.
 

---

Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
 
Icarus,

My comments weren't directed at anyone in particular (althought I picked on Tom in the first bit, heh). They were just some general observations about literature that related to the thread. Sorry you took them personally or saw them as worthy of .

I got the point. I'm not, contrary to popular belief, an idiot. In fact, I fail to see how you could have taken my comments personally. If Tom had been irritated I would have accepted that... I just don't see where I was being obnoxious enough to warrant the condescension in your post. Next time, I suppose I'll keep my thoughts to myself - even when it's a topic I care about and have spent much time both thinking and reading about.

[ September 24, 2003, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: Ethics Gradient ]
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I keep all my classics on the shelves with my genre fiction, my penny dreadful authors(King, Poe)...and whatever else.

Mainly because seeing a bookshelf not organized by book size drives me into a murderous rage.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I organize my books by color and font type.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
I used to organize my bookshelves by fiction/non-fiction and then alphabetically. Then my kids came along. The two-year-old's favorite pastime is to pull my books off the shelves and scatter them on the floor. I stopped trying to replace them in order more than a year ago.

Btw, Stephen King is pretty darn good (sometimes), but I don't think he's great. I've read The Stand about four times, but only because it's lots of fun. I'm not crazy about the actual writing. And I really didn't like Eye of the Dragon or The Running Man.

UofUlawguy
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 


Where did I express any thought that you had taken me personally? Where did I say you were an idiot? Where was I condescending?



I am truly and profoundly sorry that I have given you offense. From my perspective, only people on your side of this issue have gotten hot under the collar. I was not bothered by anything I saw (other than being labeled a hypocrite over my views on literature by somebody else) in this thread.

The wallbash graemlin was in mock frustration over the fact that I've basically been saying "it's subjective," and you come in and refute me, saying "it's subjective." Consider it frustration over my own inability to communicate clearly. I won't restate my point, because all I'm concerned with here is this rudeness you perceive to be coming from me.

*sigh*

Obviously, I lack communication skills, so I don't know how to express what I'm feeling.

I'm just going to make several independent statements. You will either believe me or think that I'm a liar. Or that perhaps I am delusional. *shrug*

1). I have not taken personal offense at anything you have written in this thread.

2). Nothing in this thread has seriously upset me until now.

3). I meant absolutely no condescension or insult in my post to you.

4). I do not think you're an idiot, nor have I ever intended to say anything along those lines.

5). I too care about the topic and have spent much time reading and thinking about it.

6). I am truly bewildered by your post.

7). I am not numbering statements in order to condescend, but to make them discrete enough in my own mind, so that I at least am clear about what I have said to you.

Now, as to the wallbash icon: looking again at the post I was responding to. First you quote something from an earlier post of mine, and say:

quote:

---

See, now, that's a silly comment. Just a few things to suggest:

---

*frown* I began this thread very much wanting to apologize for oviously giving you offense and wanting to make things right. If I now criticize anything at all that you said, I fear I will derail that attempt and just spiral this into a fight. But I'm again bewildered at how you could feel that there was condescension in my post while not noticing the clear dripping condescension in this sentence--not just calling my post silly, but offering suggestions.

Alas, them's fighting words, and so now you'll respond with mountains of evidence that I'm a jerk.

Next, you talk about how use of the word "genre" makes you cringe, although that word was not used in the section you quoted.

In the next paragraph, you say that Tom's criticism is ridiculous because worth is subjective, and add:

quote:

---

Oh, wait, I must be WRONG about how I feel - it's patently obvious to me now that Rushdie is not, in fact, one of the best authors I have read (in, of course, my opinion) but is, in fact, pretension, shallow and a waste of time. Sorry. My bad.

---

The whole point in slamming Rushdie was to point out how an intelligent and well-read person might possibly have opinions diametrically opposed to Bloom's, and so his belief that anybody who saw value in King's work is an idiot is out of line.

Next you point out how well-read you are, and that you value a wide variety of work, and that you believe the canon is bunk. These are points I had been making! Not that there was no such thing as a distinction between quality and its lack, but that the line wasn't as thick and dark as Bloom would like it to be. And finally, you point to your academic credentials. I too have academic credentials.

The wallbash was infrustration with my inability to convey to you that you and I and Tom are on the same side here!! (In general, of course, and not on the question of, say, Rushdie.)

*sigh*

I don't know if I'm making anything better here at all.

-0-

In my time at Hatrack, I have worked to be as polite as possible. The only times I have ever been impolite to anybody are when they insulted somebody first, or when they insulted the whole board by being vulgar or spamming the board.

I have emailed people to compliment them on things they posted. I have welcomed new people with a smile and perhaps a joke. I have sought out meetings with other members of the community in real life. I have stood up for unpopular people when I thought they were being wronged, on multiple occasions. I have tried hard to be a maker, as I understand it.

I thought I had been here long enough to have a little bit of credibility on that point. I thought I had backed down enough times and heen even-handed enough that people on both sides of issues would trust me to state my opinions but not take sides on the basis of personal politics.



I was not mad at you when I posted, and I was not trying to insult you or talk down to you.

If you decide that I am simply lying when I say this, I would ask you what you have seen in my time at Hatrack that would lead you to believe that I am either a liar or a malicious person.

EDITED to fix spelling and further refine a couple of points.

[ September 26, 2003, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
 
Icarus, my sincerest apologies for being such a goober in my post. You certainly didn't deserve it (and never do) and I am really, really sorry that I made your feel that way. Here's a copy of the email I sent you...

-------------

Hey Icky,

Sorry. I read your apology a couple of days ago but have been working flat out (and haven't had my hatrack password).... Mmmm... 15 hour shifts.

I think I'm the one who owes you an apology. I really snapped when I shouldn't have. I think you got me on the end of a really bad day. I never intended to be such a dick when I started responding - your post certainly never warranted it.

As for your posts in general and whether you have cause for concern - bah. You're one of my favourite posters because you are so clear, so well considered and so straightforward, honest and egalitarian. I can't even recall a post of yours that has come off condescending - including the one I just called exactly that. It was a really unfair thing to say and not warranted at all by what you had written.

Thank you for responding in the way you did - it made me feel both embarassed and regretful of having misconstrued you so badly. When I then re-read your post I felt even more ridiculous. And deservedly so.

I really will endeavour to do a bit of a sanity check on my general mood before I respond so vehemently in the future.

Again, I am the one who owes you the apology. Friends?

Best regards,
Michael aka EG
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Friends?

---

Absolutely.

I felt so miserable when I thought something I had written had made you upset. As I said in my e-mail, you have always been one of the Hatrackers that I have an enormous amount of respect for. I can't tell you what a relief it was to read your classy post.

(((EG)))
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 

quote:

---

In the 1950s and early 1960s, it was understood that the great English romantic poets were Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Wordsworth, Lord Byron, John Keats, William Blake, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. But today they are Felicia Hemans, Charlotte Smith, Mary Tighe, Laetitia Landon and others who just can't write. A fourth-rate playwright like Aphra Behn is being taught instead of Shakespeare in many curricula across the country.

---

In High School, I studied ALL of the first list, and NONE of the second. Exactly what curricula was he examining, anyway?
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
Reactionary multicultural.
 

---

Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
 
Ick:

Ditto and stuff.
 

---

Posted by Her Royal Sweekiness (Member # 5747) on :
 
Check this out and scroll down a spell

I think it was Card that also said (jokingly) that when he writes the real literary stuff that's in his head, he'll use a psudonym until he gets the pulitzer.

[ September 29, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Her Royal Sweekiness ]
 

---

Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
 
OSC is right guys, Secondhand Lions really is a great movie.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Bah.

It's just a coming of age movie. Next he'll tell us to go watch Mary Kate and Ashley movies.

That he could believe that there is any cinematic value there or any aesthetic accomplishment or signs of an inventive human intelligence is simply a testimony to his own idiocy.

:-p

::prepares for banning::

(Actually, I haven't seen it yet. Looks good though. )

[ September 29, 2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

In High School, I studied ALL of the first list, and NONE of the second. Exactly what curricula was he examining, anyway?

---

In college lit classes, I studied most of the first list and none of the second.

However, I'd studied the second in high school. Go figure.
 

---

Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
 
I want it on record that "oogly-boogly" is one of my new favorite words.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
National Book Awards ceremony was held yesterday:

Stephen King's comments (as reported by the Toronto Star.
 

---

Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
 
By the way, Secondhand Lions really was a good movie.


 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

King said he has no patience "for those who make a point of pride in saying they have never read anything by John Grisham, Tom Clancy, Mary Higgins Clark or any other popular writer."

"What do you think?" King asked. "You get social academic brownie points for deliberately staying out of touch with your own culture?"

---

quote:

---

At the book world's version of the Oscars, King, who's suffering from pneumonia, urged publishing's elite to "build bridges between the so-called popular fiction and the so-called literary fiction." And he took aim at those "who make it a point of pride" to say that they've never read best-selling authors such as John Grisham, Tom Clancy or Mary Higgins Clark.

"Do you think you get social brownie points for staying out of touch with our culture?" he asked.

---

quote:

---

At the beginning of the evening, the National Book Foundation presented the Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters to Stephen King. Some writers and editors have criticized the choice, a reaction that Mr. King acknowledged in accepting the award. He spoke of two camps in publishing, those who believe popular and literary fiction can be wedded and those who do not.

"You know who you are and where you stand," Mr. King said, "and most of you here tonight are on my side."

---

quote:

---

King’s speech was interesting. He was clearly moved by the honor—he choked up. He was funny and unpretentious when paying tribute to his wife and talking about the "vulnerability" to self-doubt of poor, struggling authors (such as himself when young). I suspect he was the first National Book Award laureate ever to say "Oh, shit!" in his acceptance speech (he was describing the way an honest author might portray a terrified character in extreme circumstances). And he was simultaneously a bit defensive and more than a little bit aggressive when he informed the crowd that they’d be making a mistake if they treated their decision to give him the prize as an act of "tokenism." He said (repeatedly) that he didn’t write for money, that genre fiction deserved to be taken seriously, and that the judges of the National Book Awards had an obligation to read the best-selling books that are shaping American popular culture (I’m paraphrasing from memory, but that was the gist of his complaint). "Bridges can be built between the so-called popular fiction and literary fiction," he declared, and to that end he supplied us with a long reading list of popular novelists whom he commended to our attention, among them Elmore Leonard and John Grisham. (He also mentioned Patrick O’Brian.)

---

Also: If you didn't know it already, ArtsJournal is great. Check the whole site out.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
One more comment on the subject:

Mmmmmmmm. Stew!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*hungry*

Zal, what's up?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Wow, a thread where I agree with both TomDavidson and Tresopax. Who'd a thunk it?
 

---