[Prodigal Son]

Of course I've read Weaveworld. Much of Barker's homosexual symbology is very subtle. You'd be apt to miss it in Weaveworld but in Imajica, for instance, it is very overt. If you go back and read Barker with that in mind, you find a lot more. Much of his imagery is disturbing as well. He explores the perversions of his own soul through his writing. Think of some of the examples. In Rawhead Rex, we have one demon-like male character urinating into a male priest's mouth. In Imajica we have a grown male sodomizing a young boy (and he portrays the boy as begging for it). Gay characters having sex openly in fields- In the Hills, Cities. In one short story of note, the character is stricken with an affliction where he cannot govern his sexual urges- copulating with everything in sight including a man and a hole in a brick wall (I find that to be a not so subtle reference to the gay "Glory Holes").

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.

[raybbr]

I agree about Barker's homosexuality in his later novels. I could not finish Imajica. It was horrible. I did not notice it at all in Weaveworld, The Great and Secret Show, Cabal, et. al. I just find that I am much more involved in Barker's story rather than King's. I have read several of King's books. He just doesn't draw me in anymore. His earlier books (Salem's Lot, The Other Half) were good. They just don't have the same after effect that Barker and Straub have.

Have you read Algernon Blackwood. Now, there is a horror writer. Read The Wendigo or The Willows and you will never think about nature the same way. I personally feel that King is overrated. Maybe I was a little too vehement in my criticism. He just does not involve me.