The National Book Foundation, which bestows the annual National Book Award to such authors as “John Updike, Arthur Miller, Philip Roth and Toni Morrison” is honoring Stephen King this year.
Has he earned it, through a lifetime of writing what the people want to read? Or is this the lamest lunge for a wider audience appeal since . . . well since I don’t know when? (Sorry; dried up there.)
[
Affecting stories are art. Doesn’t matter if they’re not almost totally inaccessible or not. If they deem his stories affecting, they have ground to grant him an award. King puts themes and morals into his stories, so just because they aren’t “literary fiction” (what the hell does that mean?) they are still works of literature (obviously… really… “literary fiction” is a genre unto itself with no overlapping now?).
So some literary snobs have to enter the 21st century. Boo-freakin’-hoo.
I don’t see a big problem with this. King is not the greatest writer ever, but he’s not without talent, and has done a lot to encourage reading and book sales.
As for Earl of the CC. Affecting stories are not necessarily art: if I made you throw up, that would be affecting, but it woudl not necessarily be art. And the same goes if I told you to be nice to strangers because some day you might be a stranger yourself.
Oh no you DIDN’T! Yeah, you went there.
If you produced something–a painting, a film, a gesture–that made me throw up, that would indeed be art. I mean, c’mon: by dismissing art that makes you vomit, aren’t you coming perilously close to dismissing Stephen King himself? (He’d be the first to agree, cf. his narrator’s first short story in “Stand by Me.”)
So-called “literary fiction” blows. God, how it blows. To whomever decided that if something could and would be read by regular Joes that made it not art:
I wish I could resurrect Verdi, Dickens, and Shakespeare to kick your ass! With bells on!
Erm.
Julie
He deserves it too. For The Shining, Dolores Claiborne, Hearts in Atlantis, (well, most of it anyway) and especially On Writing which was hilarious and the best book on the creative process I’ve read since The Triggering Towns by Richard Hugo.
Hmm. Nobody wants to weigh and lament the downfall of the National Book Foundation?
Indeed not. In fact I laud them for recognizing that King has made a contribution to the world of books. He has gotten people to read, and anyone who can do that does deserve a medal.
I had a friend who hated to read. Once, while watching *The Shining * with her, I mentioned that the book was even better, and started describing what was in it. She was intrigued, and asked if she could borrow my copy. Before long, she was slowly reading her way through my King collection. Since then, she’s moved on to other authors, and I fully give Stephen King the credit for getting her “hooked” on reading.
Will some elitists bemoan it? Sure, but for me, the award should be given not only to those of flowery prose, but to those who contribute to in the masses to the joys of the written word.
Same here… King deserves recognition for writing stories that have made millions want to read, and for having a strong influence on many writers of his generation and later generations. Love him or hate him, King has certainly been a force to reckon with in the world of modern letters.
In addition to that, when King is on his game he’s a top-notch writer. I’m about 50 pages from finishing my re-read of all four Dark Tower books so far, and it truly is some excellent work – some of the best fantasy fiction I’ve ever read, by any writer. Strong characters, a powerful story, a new and extremely engaging. King’s career has its low points (Dreamcatcher, Tommyknockers), but it also has many very high points.
Kudos to the NBF for recognizing it.
The OP presents a false dichotomy. Popular literature is art. All literature is art. Any piece of written material that isn’t written for purely functional purpose (everything other than pornography and instructions) is art. Hell, even most porn is art. It may not be good art, and one may want to question whether the quality of Mr. King’s prose qualifies his writing as important or respectable art (IMO, it does), but there is no doubt whatsoever that it is art.
He deserves it, just for having written The Shining. The fact that he turned out some other smashing books and short stories is just gravy.
Way to go, Steve! I’m so proud of you…(sniff).
The Literary Establishment has slowly been realizing that Stephen King may be a major American author.
I mean, he’s had stories in The New Yorker. You can’t get a better proof that he’s being accepted as a literary author.
I’ve got no beef with the NBF choosing King. I’ve only read two of his books (Different Seasons and The Stand), but thought they were both pretty good. I’m certainly not qualified to opine about King’s merrits.
But…
Come on people. Are you really saying that anything that moves people is automatically good? In particular, Lissa says:
Er, so are you saying that anyone with wide appeal is making good art? If so, I’d challenge that statement. I agree that it may have merrit (albeit of a different kind), but it doesn’t mean it’s good. I’m sure that there are thousands of women out there who read Cosmopolitan, or Elle, or whatever all the womens’ magazines are that are out there, and for some it may be all they read. Should the editors of said publications be lauded for ‘getting women to read’?
Or, Danielle Steele for example. She’s always on the best seller list (even more than King, I would imagine, though can’t say for sure). Should the NBF give her this award as well?
I guess my point is just that there is a difference between mass appeal and artistic merit/quality, and I think the real question of the OP is: is the NBF foundation giving an award for artistic merit, and if so, does King deserve it?
Um, 6? Search my posting history on art; you’ll find that I would never say that it’s not art. The OP was intended to bring a debate which is already going on in “literary circles” to the Straight Dope.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that instructions are art.
You have a very good point. I think I would start a one-woman riot if Danielle Steele ever got within shouting distance of a NBF award. I’ve seen better writing in a bowl of alphabet soup.
I think that King is somewhat different from a Harlequin Romance writer. Some of his books, especially the earlier ones, have moments of pure artistry. I think his writing style has a unique flavor-- it sort of makes me picture an old man, a good story teller, spinning yarns on the back porch.
I doubt if Danielle Steele’s works will pass the test of time. King may.
So, in essence, the fact that he’s getting people to read is laudable, and his works actually have merit. Is it great, highbrow literature? No, probably not-- but it’s good story-telling.
They may not be making good art, but they aren’t automatically making bad art.
I’ve heard people denounce JK Rowling, Billy Collins, Stephen King, essentially because they are “popular,” and if they are popular they can’t be good. That really isn’t anything but snobbery, and it also ignores the history of literature and other arts.
It makes me cranky.
Julie
All wide appeal writing is not art. But some is. Stephen King is an extremely good writer, and deserves recognition for it. He can write. The fact that he is most known for horror is a very popular misconception. He writes fantasy and even non-fiction books too.
Yes. But artistry–and you mean craft, I think, which one can rarely fault King for (though when he’s bad, he’s baaaaaaaaad)–does not a great artist make. See the debate on Leni Riefenstahl, elsewhere in this forum. There’s no doubt that she was a consummate craftsperson, but the jury will ALWAYS be out the net artistic value of her work.
Personally I think King’s writing is toxic: it’s so gummed up with self-loathing and misanthropy that I always require recovery time after reading one of his books; he makes the world a dark and nasty place.
Now that’s impressive, but I’d hesitate to call his stuff valuable, on that level, though I’ll grant the non-readers he’s innoculated with the printed word–my sister among them. The trouble is, she reads very little else, and she’s a cruel unhappy person who will eventually lose her children, if there’s any justice. Not to say King did this to her; but he’s certainly not providing her a leg up out that darkness. And no; not that he should be required to do so; just that there are writers who DO, whose work I consider more valuable as “art.”
As I said, I don’t really feel qualified to comment on King’s worthiness to receive this award, but I also agree that just as wild popularity doth not an artist make, nor does it mean that one is a two bit hack.
As jsgoddess says, there are many people who feel free to denounce authors and artists based only on the fact that they are popular. I certainly don’t think that that is a fair and unbiassed way to critique anyone. There is, though, a tendancy for people to rabidly assert that someone is ‘great’ just because they like and author, and millions of readers can’t be wrong. But, something can be a great book but not great art. I’d say JK Rowling is a very good writer (I’m reading Harry Potter III right now), but I would never classify her as a ‘great’ writer in the same way I might talk about Shakespeare or Joseph Heller, to give two examples.
One might say, “but I find Shakespeare dull or boring,” but the counter-argument is that your personal response and/or ability to enjoy the piece of art isn’t necessarially related to its artistic merrit. Perhaps one might need to do a little bit of work to understand the artistry in a certain piece, or understand the context in which it was written.
So, what elements of King’s writing qualify it as ‘great’ art? How does his writing go beyond the mere telling of a story (albeit very well, from what I’ve read of his work) to the shaping of a tale with his style, word choice, and choice of theme?