I’m still trying to figure it out. Who’s Kate Bush? Did her song actually have anything to do with *Wuthering Heights * or was that just the title?
Forgive me, but I haven’t listened to popular music in a very long time.
THAT’s no excuse! Kate Bush’s “Wuthering Heights” was a single 24 years ago (or, “How to make lissener feel really, really old”).
I envy you. I never got to see the video!
Hi,
I agree in some stories (Pet Sematary, Cujo, Gerald’s Game are good examples) there isn’t a whole lot of redemptive value to the story or characters. They make wrong choices and pay for it- nothing good comes from it. However, I think focusing on those stories is ignoring the larger part of work where at least one or two characters DO prevail. Shining’s Jack Torrance may be a self loathing, manipulative character- but his son battles his own demons and survives the hotel- bringing at least one parent out alive. Dolores Claiborne brings up the question whether it was the right choice for her to take care of her husband molesting her daughter in the manner she did. I think thats an interesting question- and the character Dolores isn’t just motivated by concern for her daughter- but also there’s a healthy dose of revenge/rage just for the husband getting the better of her. Not a perfect character- doesn’t make all the correct choices she could have- but the story is better for the wrong turns. It doesn’t come out all good in the end- but it is redemptive in its way. I don’t know why no one has mentioned “Rita Hayworth & the Shawshank Redemption”. From the ugly world of prison, King crafts a real story of hope- I think he deserves an award based on that story alone. “The Body” as well- flawed characters- flawed children nonetheless- not battling anything supernatural but simply battling the process of growing up. The Stand & It is a good example of many characters prevailing over evil based on faith and imagination. Those characters also make good and bad choices- just as we do in real life- sometimes the right choice doesn’t work out to be the best choice either. There is alot of less than inspiring King writings out there- I think Dreamcathcher was horrible, so was The Regulators- Desperation was only passable because it was set in the kind of Nevada town I’m well familiar with.
To the person who read the Gunslinger and didn’t like it- neither did I. In fact I still don’t like it that much- but its not that necessary to enjoy the rest of the series- which I really love. Give the Drawing of The Three a chance, I’m very glad I did.
For what it’s worth, King himself says that the Dark Tower books don’t really find their voice until Drawing of the Three, so you’re in good company (whatever lissener may think).
Drawing of the Three is my favorite part of the series so far… truly one of King’s finest books.
But what these “better” works have in common with the nastier ones is that I get such a sense of voyeuristic relish from King as he wallows in their agony; that’s why I used the word “pornographic” above. I’ve come to the conclusion that King creates characters simply to torture them: that if he didn’t have imaginary people to relieve his sadistic urges, he’d be a very dangerous man indeed.
Moby Dick is anything but tedious, if you’re obsessed with fish. (Melville’s original title for the novel, which thankfully his publisher talked him out of, was Fishy Fish Fish Fish, and the Fish they Fish Fish Fish: A Fish Story.)
MORTIFIED!
wrong thread. please ignore.
That was around the time that he was really into drinking and doing coke. In his book On Writing he admits that there are 3 or 4 novels that he has little to no memory of writing, and freely admits that they are fairly poor pieces of work. Pet Semetary is one of them.
The best thing that I have read by King was a non-fiction piece he did on Little League baseball that was first published in the New Yorker. It is stunning. Not because I didn’t think King could wirte that well, but I didn’t think he could make the transition form fiction to non-fiction.
Oh how I laughed! 
Now you tell me. I had worked up an elaborate understanding of your meaning and you’ve dashed it.
Wah!
Julie
Ah yes… “Head Down,” which can can be found these days (I think) in the collection Nightmares and Dreamscapes. I remember being deeply moved by the story as well, and it holds up to multiple re-readings. One of his best short pieces, gorgeously written.
lissener, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think the “conclusion” you’ve drawn about King here is WAY off-base. You should give his work a more careful reading. His characters are often put to the test, to be sure, but the fact that they most often endure and are better than they were at the end than at the beginning is what makes these redemptive stories, for the most part. To dismiss them as “pornography” tells me you haven’t been reading very carefully.
But even if you’re right (and, to be clear, I think you’re dead wrong), then so what? Does what you say make him a bad writer? Is Kurt Vonnegut a bad writer because he puts his characters through hell and draws cartoon assholes in his books? Was Henry Miller a bad writer because his stories verge on the pornographic? Was John Steinbeck a bad writer because he presents his characters (in at least one book) with the most difficult choices imaginable, and gives them no good way out? Was Tolkien a bad writer because his characters have to suffer so much?
My point here is that, even if you’ve characterized King correctly, it doesn’t make him a bad writer, and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve the award that started this thread. The fact that he’s affected you so much suggests to me that he’s a very good writer, but simply not one that aligns to your tastes. Which is fine – I’ll be the first to agree that King’s not for everyone. Hell, he’d be the first to agree with that (or the second, after me).
The fact that you don’t like King does not mean he is not a good writer. It just means you’re not into what he does.
King has written a large body of work, he has shown extraordinary growth as a writer, he has proven capable of a broad range of writing, and he has been deeply influential on the last 30 years of fiction writing in general. I hope that the responses to this thread have shown you at least this much. Do you dispute any of these things? If so, on what basis? If not, why do you have a problem with King receiving this honor?
But what these “better” works have in common with the nastier ones is that I get such a sense of voyeuristic relish from King as he wallows in their agony; that’s why I used the word “pornographic” above. I’ve come to the conclusion that King creates characters simply to torture them: that if he didn’t have imaginary people to relieve his sadistic urges, he’d be a very dangerous man indeed.>>>lissener
I guess I can’t draw that conclusion- how boring would it be to write about only good things that happen to people? I think King even said something about how his stories are often about “bad things happening to good people”. That has to be much more interesting than good things happening to good people. If King’s characters never perservered over the bad things in their lives- I could see your point. I definitely can see it with Pet Sematary- its as voyeuristic as Reality TV is these days- the characters in PS and in most reality shows are shallow and they aren’t exactly rocket scientists. Ditto for Gerald’s Game- although it was an interesting predicament. However, those are exceptions ,part of a small collection of works that even King wishes he didn’t write. The majority of his stories- there is some redemptive quality- there is a reasoning behind putting characters through the fire. Usually that reasoning has something to do with showing the strength of moral fiber, integrity or faith. Find me a reality tv show that does that :).
Or a porno (unless you count Orgazmo- not quite porn though 
)
It may be a question of taste too- I tend to like books about hard times, tragedies, the bottom feeders of life. How many good classic books are very cheerful? Contrast that with a Danielle Steele or otherwise minded book about the troubles of the “poor” rich girl or some crap like that. Boring Boring Boring- give me an Irvine Welsh novel and a Prozac any day :).
Another author that puts his characters through hell is Larry McMurtry (try Dead Man’s Walk) … but I don’t think anyone would accuse him of being pornographic because his characters suffer (and often far worse fates than King’s).
It’s not a matter, as you know, of “correctly” or “incorrectly,” and it’s not up to me–nor yet you–to declare conclusively if he–or anyone else–is a “good writer” or not. To me he is a writer who lacks humanity.
I don’t dispute the factual gist of your points, and I never claimed to be discussing this on a factual level; nor do I need the responses of this thread to see them. Just as someone can say they don’t think Marisa Tomei deserved her Oscar*, I can say that Stephen King’s works don’t belong in the same “class” as the authors who have traditionally been given awards by the National Book Foundation, and frankly this award makes me feel toward the foundation about the same way I felt about the Chicago Film Festival when it named Tom Cruise the “actor of the millenium,” or whatever it was a few years ago. Popularity does not preclude artistic merit, but absent artistic merit, popularity is not enough to make someone a great artist.
I understand that many of the people who read these boards disagree on this–disclosure: I don’t muchThe Princess Bride, and I loathe Douglas Adams (hope I don’t get banned)–but my opinions on King are about 25 years in the making; for ten of which I’d’ve named him as my favorite author, if asked. Since then, the more I’ve read–of his works, and others’–the more toxic his stuff has come to seem to me.
*They’re wrong, of course.
I honestly am not gonna repeat this again, so everybody who’s gonna continue their participation in this thread please read it: I NEVER SAID I only wanted to read good stuff about good people. My favorite artists have always been dark artists: Books, movies, paintings, music–dark, dark, dark, dark–but the ones I stick with are the ones whose journeys through darkness gets me somewhere; moves me forward. King’s darkness is self-indulgent and sadistic and voyeuristic and pointless and hollow and flat and just plain moves me more backwards then forward. YMM, of course, V.
My favorite authors are Beckett and Hoban and Laxness and Lagerkvist and Hamsun; you can’t GET any darker. My favorite album of all time is probably Kate Bush’s “The Dreaming”–NAME a darker album. My favorite directors are Verhoeven and Von Trier and Sirk and Hitchock and Lynch–dark and dark and dark and dark and dark.
For a long time, when I was in photo school, my favorite photographer was Joel Peter Witkin. But eventually his stuff just got old. He’s the Stephen King of photographers: extremely popular and successful, but ultimately his darkness is hollow and meaningless: talk about sadistic and voyeuristic:
warning: graphically disturbing images
–so please stop trying to make this a debate about darkness, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with my feelings toward King.
Ok then… no need to be defensive- but can you at least give some credit where its due? When you use the word “voyeuristic” that suggests that the author is only observing characters screw up or get screwed without giving them the opportunity to show their strengths and to overcome the obstacles thrown at them. You suggested that the characters King creates have the sole purpose of existing so the author can torture them and watch without redemption of either himself or the characters. There is a difference between putting characters in difficult situations for the purpose of telling a story and putting them in difficult situations just to make us squirm- just for the sake of shock value.
I wonder if his ability to make the good characters so believable and sympathetic is at “fault” here. Dean Koontz makes his characters suffer plenty but I couldn’t care less about them- sometimes I’m cheering for the villian- who is most likely more interesting than the victims. Usually I can sum up my personal comparison of the two often compared authors in this manner- can’t remember a single Koontz characters name, but can rattle off quite a few of King’s characters’ names- even from less admired works.
Maybe King is so good at creating real characters that you are pissed off when he puts them through hell?
Sorry; no. King’s only ever created one character, he just changes its name from book to book, and from one side of a dialogue to the other.
Admittedly, I decided King was irredeemably sadistic and voyeuristic after Gerald’s Game, but since I’ve come to feel that way none of his stuff–new or revisited–has inspired me to revise that opinion. The last thing I read was Bag of Bones, and that was such a one-way ticket to nowhere I’ve never gone back.
I might still read him occasionally; like going on a roller coaster, just for the adrenaline. And he’s the all-time master at manipulating you to NEED to know what’s on the next page; I read IT in one sitting. (Granted, I did some of that sitting at the dinner table, and some of that sitting on the toilet.) But if I read too much back to back, I start to hate myself and the world around me. YMM, of course, V.
That’s the point, though… are you really saying that King’s work is completely devoid of artistic merit? If so, once again I suggest that you haven’t read it carefully enough, or you haven’t read a broad enough spectrum of it.
I think the point has been made, however, that many people do see that King’s work has artistic merit, and some of those people just gave him an award. I don’t think youhave to look much farther than this thread for evidence that many people have come to recognize that King is an artisitically worthy writer, not just a popular one. You don’t have to agree, but I really don’t see why you’re questioning the NBF’s decision.
You know, I honestly think I see what you’re getting at… I get the same feeling from the musician Tori Amos. I was once a huge fan of hers, and had all her albums. However, I found that listening to her music for any extended period of time (more than 30 minutes, say) put me in a pretty foul mood. I would snap at my family for stupid reasons, and I would sink into a deep blue funk that took some time to crawl back out of. So, a few years ago, I recognized this and I sold all of her albums. I still listen to her occasionally, but she does still have the same effect on me… and yet, I still deeply admire her talent and “like” (perhaps a better word is “appreciate”) her music, in a sort of perverse way.
My point in mentioning this is that, despite the fact that Amos’ music generates unpleasant feelings in me, I still recognize the artistic merit and skill that goes into making it, and I still admire her as an artist. I’m not sure why you can’t or won’t do the same for King, but I think the comparison is interesting.
Again, the fact that King affects you on that sort of level suggests to me that his work does indeed have artistic merit.
Sorry, forgot about this…
Again, this suggests a very shallow or incomplete reading of King’s work. One of King’s strengths is his ability to create all sorts of different characters, and make the reader believe in them and care for them. He’s not the best at characterization, but he’s a far cry from the simplistic nonsense you assert above. Try reading From a Buick 8 and tell me that you honestly feel that all the characters in that book are the same. Try telling me that Dolores Claiborne is like any character he’s ever written before or since.
I really lose all respect for what you have to say when you say things like this, lissener.