posted
Stephen King, as many of you may have heard, is winning a lifetime achievement award as part of the National Book Awards.
From the New York Times:
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
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
posted
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.
posted
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.
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 ]
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with being elitist, is that only other elitists will care.
Possibly. Of course, the whole point of being a "populist" is to take pride in a community of mediocrity; it's okay to be so-so because everyone else is, too. It's a head-nodding, back-slapping, safe way to live, and if that floats one's boat, great.
quote:It makes for a small circle of friends, and may help explain your dating troubles.
posted
I think the distinction between elitist and mediocrity is a false one. Or rather, I think equating being a populist with being mediocre is specious. I don't think OSC strives for mediocrity. I think he believes that there is mediocre literature and quality literature. I think that when "populists" deride "elitists," they are talking about artificial standards of what is good. In other words, not saying "I don't agree that anybody should try to be excellent," but rather "I disagree with what you classify as excellent."
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing is that most of the people who brush King to the side for writing what they call 'penny dreadfuls', are the ones who have only seen the (bad) films based on the novels - films mae by filmmakers who took the stuff they thought was 'cool', and left out the stuff that made the novels truly great (IE, the character development, humor, and yes, the LANGUAGE.)
The effects of the filmic adaptations and the books themselves are completely different - whereas the point of a horrific scene as depicted in a film version may be to gross you out, or to make you go 'cooool!', for the most part, when these same things happen in the books, we're horrified that these things are happening to characters we love.
Because, unlike 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. Reading his books are scary because he gets you to care so much about characters (and he can do it so damn QUICKLY!) that it's almost painful to see them go through the emotional and physical torment that they do.
King's major theme in his books isn't horror and death - it's Hope, Love, and Moral Dilemma. You may scoff at that, but if you've read any number of King's works (think especially Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, The Stand, The Talisman, The Green Mile, Eyes of the Dragon, The Dark Tower novels, etc) - and it'll become apparant. Dark things happen, but in the end, either there is a victory made possible by those perservering with those virtues, or either a defeat caused by a distinct lack thereof (think Carrie for this).
Not only do I love King's stories, above all it IS his language which I think make King stand towering (double pun not intended) over all.
I would LOVE to see The Stand become required reading in literature courses. And I have a feeling that someday...it will be.
posted
I would not conclude that an author is great just because he is popular, however, an author's popularity is an important factor in my evaluation of whether I want to start reading his work.
Yes, I know some of you will think that makes me "lame" or somehow "uncool." But I think popularity is important because when viewed in the right context, it is an indication that the author's book has expressed something deeply universal that everyone has been hungering for but had not received until that particular author came along.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on what I've read of his writing, Harold Bloom's problem is that when he had to read King for his series on American authors, he picked Carrie and Salem's Lot. I guess us King fans can be happy it wasn't something from his mid-80s crap period like Needful Things or The Dark Half, but it's still like judging Shakespeare based on Titus Andronicus and Timon, Prince of Athens. Also, the only living American author Bloom seems to respect is Cormac McCarthy.
saxon - I'm pretty sure Dante would say Lloyd Alexander.
Anyway, "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption," "The Last Rung on the Ladder," "The Reach," Hearts in Atlantis, and The Dark Tower may be many things, but fluff they are not.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about King receiving the award, but for some reason King-bashing always gets my hackles up just a bit.
Don't get me wrong...I don't for one minute contend that King always writes brilliant pieces of literature. In fact, I can think of quite a few that I found dreadful, including Tommyknockers and Needful Things. And even many of his novels which I did enjoy, like The Stand or the Dark Tower novels, I find have weak points. I remember very clearly reading It when it came out. I was in awe. At a hundred points throughout the novel I could see where most other authors would have stopped the plot development and carried it through to conclusion. But King just kept wrapping it tighter and tighter. 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. But even in the midst of some of his worst novels, I have found little tidbits of brilliance. Even in Tommyknockers (which may actually be my _least_ favorite piece of his I've ever read) there were some of King's usual narrative gems. The fact is that the man can do character sketches like pretty much no one else out there. When King is done introducing you to a character, you KNOW the person.
And therein lies one of the problems, actually, for the translation of his work to film. This is most especially true of King's horror. It simply can't be taken to film well, because you lose the narrative. Part of what makes King's narratives and character sketches so powerful is what he leaves out. There is just enough detail, often not of a specific physical sort, that you "know" what he's saying, but it's in your mind. And each of us, if we were to compare notes, would have differing ideas of just what it was he's described. When these stories are committed to film, they simply lose that fluidity that makes King's works feel so real at times. It doesn't come through. We're left with the filmmakers' interpretations, which often are not much in keeping with our own.
Now, when you get to King's non-horror, his more purely philosophical or straight-fiction pieces, these seem to translate much better to film. (I am of course thinking primarily of "Stand By Me" -- based on the short story "The Body" -- and the nearly perfect "The Shawshank Redemption" here.) I don't know if these are better because they were simply better stories -- they were, in my opinion -- or because they lack the supernatural flavor that makes so many of them hokey, or because the directors were just better. Except that "The Green Mile" does have a bit of the supernatural in it, though it isn't that bit that makes the story so incredibly moving. Perhaps Reiner and Darabont are just the only directors who seem to be able to pull off King's work. I don't know for sure. "Misery" isn't entirely bad either, come to think of it, but that's Reiner again, if I recall. Maybe it's just the inclusion of an actual narrator in the films that helps so much. Anyhow, I don't have the answer to these successes, in light of all the dreadful failures, but I can't dismiss King as _just_ a "penny dreadfuls" author. Shawshank remains one of the best things I've ever read (and I've read a LOT of short stories over the years), as well as perhaps my very favorite movie ever. (When I don't feel it's my very favorite, it still always lands in the top three.)
Yeah, the man has produced some real crap over the years. But sheesh, look at the volume of work. Of course there's some crap in there. How could there NOT be? I still see a good body of good works, a portion of which cross the line into excellence. A few of these may indeed become classics down the road. I'm always a bit sad to see King dismissed as "just a horror writer" when he can and is at times so very much more than that. I don't think he can be dismissed for the genre in which many of his works land, or because his work is popular.
posted
And Bloom keeps forgetting that some of the greatest works of literature in the past share so many qualities with King's works.
King writes in the language of his audience, never above or below them. His stories have some of the best characterizations you'll find anywhere. 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.
He also takes microcosms of our lives and skewers them like a bug meant for biological display. He works his way into the snippets of existence, shows us how they could turn this way and that and never, ever forgets to show you which end of the stick is pointy.
Also, especially in recent years, no one is better at the overall story of good vs. evil. No one else can show evil at its most base the way he can or how good can come from any single human if they are but strong enough. He also shows how many folks actually fall just short of the demarkation line of good.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, Dante, you make the standard elitest mistake.
By limiting yourself in this way, you too create a warm and fuzzy zone for yourself to live in. It's just smaller. The difference is, you get to feel superior to the masses. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Some feel warm and fuzzy surrounded by the largest crowd possible. Some feel warm and fuzzy shaking their fists at the crowd, and thinking themselves superior.
Some prefer to sample from both platters. It's more fun, and you don't have to follow the rules. King and Steinbeck sit quite comfortably next to each other on a bookshelf, you know.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Salman Rushdie has sold quite a lot of copies.
Taalcon:
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.
"[U]nlike many authors"? Fair enough, but. . . which authors?
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: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.
Related to my question to Taalcon: of which writers could this not be said?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. I feel that way about MOST anointed "literature" from the last four decades, actually; Tom Robbins, for example, is another person whose abrasive, bleating nonsense has been somehow enshrined as "worth reading" by people who would never in a million years pick up a "genre" novel.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dante, I don't think Slash was trying to score a point. I'm pretty sure he only points out that kind of thing if he likes you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
That's very nice (though I disagree), but it has absolutely nothing to do with the point that I was making.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keeping in mind that we're talking personal impressions, here, can you give me a SINGLE Rushdie character that's believable and interesting, that doesn't exist as a "type" to be shoehorned into a larger examination of what he thinks is the "human condition?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before going on this tangent, can I first have your assurance that you acknowledge the point that I was making?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
I totally agree! The only weakness I repeatedly see in King is his cop-out endings. He shrouds it in all sorts of attitudes about problems with people's expectations, but I think it may be rooted in the fact that he doesn't plot before writing. He just writes until he's "done." When I used to do that, I had the experience of writing myself into a corner. I think when King does that, the story just ends, as quickly as possible.
But other than that, I think he's a terrific writer. What you say about characterization is absolutely true. Nobody does it better than King and Card.
ae, Taalcon's statement does not need defending. It is patently true. Most authors of popular fiction don't have their protagonists lose.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AE, I'm not actually sure what point you ARE making, to be honest, especially since you seem convinced that it's important. 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?
posted
Taalcon's points (as I see it) is that King shares qualities with "literary" writers that Bloom doesn't perceive, because Bloom automatically lumps him with genre writers. So I think his point is that King's writing is unusually good for a popular writer (not that all writers are created equal.) That is my feeling about King and about Card as well.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:AE, I'm not actually sure what point you ARE making, to be honest
I quote:
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.
Clearly my point there is that it isn't true that the literati only favour people who don't sell many books.
Did you even read my post?
quote:especially since you seem convinced that it's important.
Not really. It's just that I'm not really a fan of people making as if to rebut something I've said only for their counterpoint to turn out to be a total non sequitur.
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.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Coudl you translate this for me? I don't speak Hyperbolese.
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.
Who is this common man who people are always talking about? I've never met him.
quote:Rushdie's sales are an interesting case, since certainly his books fail to merit their popularity
I'm glad you feel able to make such statements with certainty. I'd be more glad to see you make them with support, though, and even then I'm not sure how "certainty" is to be achieved in an inherently subjective medium.
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.
What unique circumstances are these?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
