I won’t go so far as to say he has no artistic merit, but only as a technicality. Danielle Steele is popular, but few people here would object if I said the same of her. In any case, as much as I enjoy the challenge of trying to express my feelings on this stuff (as long as gobear stays away :embarrassed: ) this is really not anything that can be objectively debated; proof or evidence doesn’t come into it at all.
BTW, I stopped listening to Tori Amos for much the same reason: the more I learned her music, the more there just wasn’t anything there. Went from loving her and giving her stuff to everyone I knew, to shuddering at the sound. But that’s for another thread . . .
Sorry; didn’t this smiley: :eek: used to be written as :embarrassed: ?
Anyway.
First of all, :rolleyes:
Second, yeah, overstated. But still, his characters are about the hollowest I know. I reread The Stand a couple year ago, and was more and more appalled, with each turn of the page, at how empty and cliche and artificial every single character in that book was. It really gave me pause to remember how much I had loved that book, what, 20 years ago. Truly some of the most spectacularly bad writing I have ever, ever come across. And the worst of it was the characterization.
Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you, but I think that art can easily arise out of that which is “functional.” Craftsmen who create furniture can (IMO) be also considered to be making art. They are investing their Selves into the piece, it is taking on an intelligible form thought of by the maker, and in many ways it can be aesthetically pleasing (or un-pleasing).
Also, architecture is a prime example of art in functionality. Although the building is created for “purely functional reasons” it can be aesthetically pleasing, especially when the architect takes the time to use the building as a medium for expression, such as with Anotoni Gaudi (as opposed to Mies van der Rowe - can’t stand his architecture, or the school of architecture developed from his work). Anyway, I wouldn’t be so quick to label that which is functional as automatically excluded from the realm of “art.”
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.
>>lissener
And which character is that? Besides the Dark Man, how could you overlook the scope of King’s characters? Some have things in common, usually those also have things in common with King ( he has quite a few writer-characters, but many authors do)- but many of his characters are utterly unique in his writings.
Another interesting thing about his writings are the connections many of his characters make across works- maybe its a cheap ploy to an inside joke but it makes reading King even more rewarding when you hear Mr. Denker/Dussander refer to his “wife killing banker” or have Halloran show up in Derry history. His abiliity to create those memorable characters (granted you only have to remember Dufresne from one story to the next ) and have them pop up contradicts your assertion that his characters only change names and not personalities/character.
I don’t follow; if he didn’t identify them by name or by some piece of their history, you wouldn’t know them from one book to another. The ability to mention a character name from another book is hardly the hallmark of a great writer.
Anyway, we’re not gonna agree on this, so I’m not really gonna be receptive about why you think my opinions on this subject are wrong.
Happy to hear why you like him, or try to express why I don’t, but I’m kinda bored with the whole “contradicts your assertion” stuff.
I’m not one of those tweedy snobs who’d never DREAM of reading genre fiction because it’s all trash. I’ve read almost everything he’s ever written, much of it more than once, so I have earned the right to my opinion. As far as not having read him carefully enough, I could be just as patronizing and say the same thing; say that perhaps I’ve read him too carefully and I see more of what he’s doing than you do. But I wouldn’t say that.
Anyway, if anyone here is interested in my take on GREAT dark writing, how bout a little reading circle? I always love recommending The Dwarf, by Par Lagerkvist. Truly the most misanthropic, vicious, DARK book I’ve ever read, but somehow still a GREAT book. Short too. Any interest?
The point was that they were memorable to begin with-the name or piece of history opens up another level of understanding. I never said that made him a great writer in itself- but that it made reading his works rewarding- a bonus if you will. If Dean Koontz tried to do that (and I’ve read many of his books), I doubt it would work because I can’t remember who was who in any of his books- talk about the same characters doing the same thing most of the time.
Yes, you’ve earned your right to feel however you want to feel about King. There, I said it- feel better?
Hope this wasn’t too boring a post ;)…?I’m back from a long break from message boards in general- forgot about the ulitimate “defense” mechanism of boredom.
lissener is dead wrong about King only having one character. I can name at least three different characters: There’s the unrealisticly precocious child, there’s the saintly hanidcapped guy, and there’s the wise old black person who Knows What’s Really Going On. These characters are so strong and well rounded that King includes them in just about every book he’s ever written.
That said, I get where lissener is coming from. It’s not about what King does to his characters, it’s how King goes about doing it to them. Citing “This great book does things that are way worse. Do you think that it sucks?” is pointless, because he’s talking about technique, not content. Comparing Pet Semetary with, say, MacBeth is like comparing… Fuck, I dunno. The Story of O with Sorority Spanking Sluts Seven, just to keep with the pornographic theme. Or Psycho with I Spit on your Grave. Some writers can take horrible themes and use them to elevate the human spirit. King, at least in lissener’s opinion, is not such a writer.
Personally, I think King can take pedestrian themes and raise them to mediocrity, but maybe that’s just me. I don’t know wether or not that means he deserves an award from the National Book Foundation, but that’s only partly because I don’t know who the National Book Foundation is, and don’t really care who they think I should or should not be reading. It’s not going to be Stephen King, though. I liked him well enough when I was in high school, but have since added him to the pile of writers I used to love but now find tedious to the extreme. Except for his non-fiction. I still find Danse Macabre to be fascinating, and am strongly considering picking up his new book on writing.
I agree with pretty much everything you say here. My statement was that the “purely functional” is not art. My generic beige monitor is purely functional–no attempt has been made to make it otherwise. Most architecture and furniture, however, is designed to be both functional and to fit well within a certain environment, or to have a certain effect on the environment beyond it’s function. That makes it a form of art.
I don’t have a problem with it. King’s work is very light reading, but I enjoyed it immensely as a child. I stopped reading his stuff by the time I was a teenager, but I still have good memories of The Stand, The Dark Half and a few others.
As something of a book nerd, I follow all the major literary awards and I respect the National Book Award more than any other literary prize for the authors who’ve won the award in the past: Thomas Pynchon, Cormac McCarthy, John Barth. Especially after McCarthy won the award for All the Pretty Horses and was voted the Pulitzer Prize, only to have the Columbia board revoke it and give it to E. Annie Proux’s The Shipping News because McCarthy’s novel didn’t exemplify the spirit of the award (some crap about celebrating American values).
Thanks, Miller, Rainbow; I was beginning to feel like a Stephen King character myself . . . howling into the shrieking wind, alone in the desolate darkness . . .
For what it’s worth, I began to lose respect for the NBF when it awarded McCarthy, whom I cannot stand: 9th rate faux Faulkner, IMHO; hillbilly Joyce. But I think we have different tastes, though we both like John Barth; I cannot stand Thomas Pynchon, either. But what do I know. (I do like Proulx, though I’ve rarely met anyone else who does.)