FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » King a blooming idiot? Or the dark vs. ivory tower (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: King a blooming idiot? Or the dark vs. ivory tower
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
He's 73. That explains a lot. [Smile]
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. [Smile] 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.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JonnyNotSoBravo
Member
Member # 5715

 - posted      Profile for JonnyNotSoBravo   Email JonnyNotSoBravo         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Wink]

Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deirdre
Member
Member # 4200

 - posted      Profile for Deirdre   Email Deirdre         Edit/Delete Post 
Hey, no problem. Anytime. [Wink]
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ae
Member
Member # 3291

 - posted      Profile for ae   Email ae         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ethics Gradient
Member
Member # 878

 - posted      Profile for Ethics Gradient   Email Ethics Gradient         Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Wall Bash] .

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. [Roll Eyes]

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

Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I organize my books by color and font type.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UofUlawguy
Member
Member # 5492

 - posted      Profile for UofUlawguy   Email UofUlawguy         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
[Confused]

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

[Confused]

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. [Frown]

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.

[Frown] [Cry]

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 ]

Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ethics Gradient
Member
Member # 878

 - posted      Profile for Ethics Gradient   Email Ethics Gradient         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Friends?
Absolutely. [Smile]

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)))

Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post 
Reactionary multicultural.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ethics Gradient
Member
Member # 878

 - posted      Profile for Ethics Gradient   Email Ethics Gradient         Edit/Delete Post 
Ick: [Smile]

Ditto and stuff. [Group Hug]

Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Her Royal Sweekiness
Member
Member # 5747

 - posted      Profile for Her Royal Sweekiness           Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 59 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fitz
Member
Member # 4803

 - posted      Profile for Fitz   Email Fitz         Edit/Delete Post 
OSC is right guys, Secondhand Lions really is a great movie.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile] )

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

Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hazen
Member
Member # 161

 - posted      Profile for Hazen   Email Hazen         Edit/Delete Post 
I want it on record that "oogly-boogly" is one of my new favorite words.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zalmoxis
Member
Member # 2327

 - posted      Profile for Zalmoxis           Edit/Delete Post 
National Book Awards ceremony was held yesterday:

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

Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Megachirops
Member
Member # 4325

 - posted      Profile for Megachirops           Edit/Delete Post 
By the way, Secondhand Lions really was a good movie.

[Smile]

Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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?"

I like that. I believe it, too.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
Does that mean I can't take any pride in never having seen a Jennifer Lopez movie?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
That isn't culture. It's torture.

*hangs head in shame* I saw Maid in Manhattan. *lifts head up* But OSC actually liked it.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zalmoxis
Member
Member # 2327

 - posted      Profile for Zalmoxis           Edit/Delete Post 
Of course, the most social brownie points comes for those of us who are secure enough in our knowledge of 'high' culture to be able to flout conventions and *also* express knowledge of and love for 'low' culture.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fitz
Member
Member # 4803

 - posted      Profile for Fitz   Email Fitz         Edit/Delete Post 
So, has anyone read Wolves of the Calla yet?

I have 100 pages left, and it's enjoyable. Certainly it's the best book he's written in the last few years. I'm expecting revelations aplenty in the last 100 pages, and I'm looking forward to the last two parts.

I'm glad he pretty much decided to ignore Bloom and his comments, as any comebacks would probably only serve to inflate Bloom's vanity.

Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
*waves hands wildly* ssshhhh... You're shutting down the high road...
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zalmoxis
Member
Member # 2327

 - posted      Profile for Zalmoxis           Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting (but not surprising):

Here is USA Today's coverage.

Here's a good quote:

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.

And here is the NY Times article.

NY Times devotes most of its space to the other winners, but ends with this:

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."


Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zalmoxis
Member
Member # 2327

 - posted      Profile for Zalmoxis           Edit/Delete Post 
Terry Teachout's ArtsJournal blog about King's speech -- wow did the mainstream media really mess this one up. Oh, they got parts of it to varying degrees, but to me the most important idea is where Stephen King says that he didn't start out writing genre fiction for money. I mean, sure, a cynical "yah, right!" is called for, but this whole myth that writers who write literary fiction aren't in it for the money (or the money is only secondary) whereas genre writers *have* to be in it for the money (or else why wouldn't they be writing literary fiction? [or the sub-subtext that they shouldn't be writing at all]) is not only completely stupid, but I think that it harms the field of literary criticism and studies as a whole. King is right -- more critics, authors, and academics should be reading at least *some* popular fiction.

The most salient section:

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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zalmoxis
Member
Member # 2327

 - posted      Profile for Zalmoxis           Edit/Delete Post 
One more comment on the subject:

Mmmmmmmm. Stew!

Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
*hungry*

Zal, what's up?

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, a thread where I agree with both TomDavidson and Tresopax. Who'd a thunk it? [Razz]
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2