Posted on 09/16/2003 7:36:17 AM PDT by dead
When they call the roll of the great figures of modern American literature — Bellow, Miller, Morrison, Updike, Roth — they can now add a name: Stephen King.
Yes, the Stephen King who wrote "Carrie," "The Shining" and "Christine," not to mention "The Dark Tower" books, I through V. The National Book Foundation, which hands out the prestigious National Book Awards, has decided to bestow its annual medal for distinguished contribution to American letters on the man who bestowed pig's blood, homicidal jalopies and ax-wielding nurses on our libraries.
You're probably tempted, as we were at first, to work up a sputtering head of indignation about this . . . this . . . indignity. But hang on a second. Ray Bradbury got the medal in 2000, and while he can now be painted as a man who gave a popular genre a literary flair, were they saying that when "The Martian Chronicles" made its debut in 1950?
Mr. King will get his award at a ceremony where the host will be Steve Martin — remember him from the Oscars? And he will be feted by the same publishing world where Madonna is being touted as a children's book writer.
Mr. King has certainly contributed — a lot. The foundation's Web site claims the 70 films, television movies and miniseries made from his work as a Guinness world record. He has created a subgenre that is said to have drawn in readers who may otherwise not have been inclined to pick up a book at all. He has also done something that many other National Book Awardees have not done: made a pile of money. The publishing industry would very much like to figure out how he does it. As would we all.
"If it's popular, it can't POSSIBLY be any good. . . "
Yeah, but ever since I saw him and his wife marching in an anti-war movement while his wife was wearing a "Bush is a Terrorist" t-shirt i've gone right off all Steve-o.
You are absolutely right. Despite his politics, I've read almost everything he has written.
In the past I liked clowns but, after reading It, I am now skeptical of them until I figure out their motives. ;o)
Here's a horror story. At an outdoor festival last weekend, PETA had a booth. One of the folks--I use the term loosely--at the booth had a T-Shirt that announced she was a member of "Clowns Against Animal Cruelty." Honest. I am not making that up.
She didn't try to hand me any balloons. But, like you, and since "It," I walk a wide circle around clowns. In particular, I don't take balloons from strange clowns.
Yes...clowns are NOT to be trusted...
especially those with balloons.
Not to mention those pesky vampires or a certain 1958 Plymouth Fury...
Frankly, that is a list of the LEAST influencial most pompous self-important unreadable poops in literature today. To be fair, though, I haven't read Toni Morrison so I shouldn't include her in my description.
Steven King is not a great "writer" but he is one hell of a story teller and that at least is something that can't be said about the above list.
She has real talent.
Thanks for the heads up. I think I have that book, I'll check it out.
King is overly loaquacious and boring. I have read a couple of his books and guess what? They all take place in Maine. If that isn't boring, what is?
I know it's just my opinion.
In many of Barker's stories, the theme is a sort of transformation from one being to another- specifically at times, from one sex to another. It is as if he is portraying and trying to come to terms with his own sexuality- a man with the urges of the opposite sex- and at times this is very interesting and well done (reference the sexual organ of the Glyph in Imajica- it could be anything it needed to be to please any sex) but at times it is just vulgar (copulation with open wounds/injuries, with alien/demonic creatues, representation of homosexual fetishism, necrophilia etc). Clearly, his own mind is full of such images and it is difficult for me to divorce myself from this awareness when reading Barker's work. Like de Sade, the page is for Barker, a tool he uses to sop up the ejaculate of his inner torment. To his credit, he has picked a good genre with which to do this: horror/fantasy.
It doesn't matter to me whether you like King or not. I like Barker's writings. Never said I didn't. I just took issue with you saying he put King to shame. He has rich imagery but sometimes an overbearing manner of writing (Barker) that borders on the pretentious (although, admittedly, the man has a highly developed grasp of the English language).
King, however, has a better ability to capture what it is to be an American- something Barker would not be able to do because he is British. Some of King's best stuff doesn't even take place in Maine or if so only partially. The Shining- Colorado. The Stand- the entire US. The Dark Tower series. Eyes of the Dragon. Misery. The Talisman...
But I don't think the fact that many of his books are set in Maine should disqualify them. One of the first rules of being an effective writer is to "Write about what you know". King does that. He is from Maine, it makes sense that he should write about it. There's nothing wrong with Maine. Every place is boring if you get right down to it and every place has a rich life if you know where to look. A good writer can make a good story out of nothing and/or out of the most unassuming settings. One need not create new worlds or go to exotic places to explore the inner workings of the human heart.
For what it's worth, I hardly noticed that the Green Mile (for example) was set in Maine. Or that The Body (Stand By me) was. What was compelling about the tales were the stories of the characters themselves. I find it very easy to find a bit of myself or people I know in all of King's characters- this is what makes him a good writer. He makes his readers feel as though he is writing about them.
King's work could properly be included in that category of things labelled "Americana". He understands the American experience. It's part of him. He has a nostalgic generational appeal to baby boomers because that is the America in which he grew up and one that, sadly, has passed into history forever.
Plus, there is an entire body of work in film (memorable films at that) devoted to King's writings that illustrate his ability to produce a captivating story that translates well to visual imagery. I think if anything, when we take King's work and the films based upon it, he stands head and shoulders above just about everybody in contemporary fiction whether he is liked in all quarters or not. It is extremely hard to deny the impact King has had.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.