I noticed much the same thing years ago when I had to do some extensive research on Tennyson for a class. In many ways, he reminded me of King.
Agreed. King captures growing up in rural, working-class America better than just about anyone. I moved from prosperous suburbia to a rural town in Vermont which was at that time just starting to move from a poor, largely agricultural community to a bedroom town. Our school still “tracked” students into one of two classes, and it worked out that one class was mostly “woodchucks” and the other class was mostly “flatlanders”. King’s working-class teenagers are dead-on accurate.
True, dat, but there’s a needed qualifier. SFX are the last thing to get done on a series. I can seriously believe that King wrote in the script:
FX: A big ball of fire that looks a bit like a hand appears and goes into the bomb.
… and left it at that. When it came round to completing the effects shots, King’s duties on the project had been completed weeks before, and by the time he saw what they’d done it was too late.
I disagree. I think King’s closest literary analog is O. Henry. Very prolific writer, good storyteller, tells the stories from viewpoint of the middle class, wildly popular in his day.
As with O. Henry, I think future generations will be aware of King, but not many folks will read his work, and it will not be regarded as great literature.
Kudos, brother. (Or sister.) One of the main reasons I can no longer stomach King was because I was so monumentally sick of all his fictional counterparts (the guy from It, the guy from Dark Half, et al) complaining that no one took them seriously as artists.
It just underscores my belief that once a writer has written his/her second book in which the main character is a writer (allowing everyone their one indulgence), he/she should be made to get a “real job” for one year, and return to writing with some fresh experience. (The same is true for English professors writing about English professors.)
Um … I have a different recollection of It than you seem to. Bill Denbrough complains that his college professor and others take literature too seriously. In fact, at one point his college professor says something along the lines of “Are you seriously suggesting that people like Shakespeare were just telling stories?” As opposed to infusing their works with all known truth, as the professor seemed to believe.
Denbrough answered that he felt that’s exactly what they were doing some of the time. The professor replies “I suggest that you have a lot to learn.”
I get the impression that many people are forming opinions on King’s work based on a precious few examples, or that they’re (intentionally or not) incorrectly remembering things King wrote/said.
King has killed a small forest solely to produce some truly crappy stories. He has also immeasurably enhanced the reading experience for millions of people. When he’s on, he writes truly accessible, knock-your-socks-off stuff. When he’s off, he’s really, really bad. I think CalMeacham said it best earlier in this thread.
I also submit that anyone trying to form an opinion of King’s (or anyone’s) work based on movies or television shows should be forced to read Pat Conroy novels for the rest of his/her life. If you’re gonna offer an opinion on something, read the frickin’ source material – don’t view the idiot’s version of Cliff’s Notes and think you understand it.
Actually, I believe it was Brian who ran over Koontz
It was Bryan Smith who ran over Stephen King, and damn near killed him. King gives the details in the last chapter of “On Writing.”
King is really living on borrowed time.
Stay with us, Annie. We’re discussing whether ir was Brian (the talking dog) or Stewie (the matricidal, possibly gay, possibly talking baby) who runs down Dean R. Koontz in an episode of The Family Guy.
I’m pretty sure it was Brian. Stewie doesn’t drive, aside from his trikie.
Back to King. I like him, though he has had some dogs.
My recollection is that Denborough submits a story in one of his workshops and has it returned to him with “PULP” scrawled across it in red ink. Denborough then adopts this as a badge of pride. Regardless whether that is technically a “complaint” or not, I think the point stands that King’s writerly protagonists are wont to wrestle with their status (or lack thereof) as “artists,” and I for one got sick of it. Having gone through creative writing programs throughout my college years has made me very intolerant of writers fixating on the hardships of their chosen calling.
Assuming that’s directed at me, I read every King novel from Carrie through The Dark Half, omitting only Salem’s Lot and the Dark Tower stuff; I’ve also read Night Shift and Skeleton Key. I don’t deny that King’s earlier work can be very effective and powerful. Likewise, I don’t think it unfair to say that after a time, he simply ran out of things to say; it would be miraculous if someone of his productivity did not.
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. Denbrough proudly decides that his writing isn’t pretentious, and that it has no deeper hidden meaning; he’s content just “telling stories.” This is the exact opposite of the point you seem to be making. Nowhere in It does Denbrough bemoan the fact that he’s not cricitically accepted as a writer, that I can recall. In fact, as part of the overall plotline in It, he (along with the rest of the Loser’s Club) are very successful in their chosen careers. Denbrough doesn’t have any “hardships in his chosen career,” because it’s gone uncommonly well for him.
It’s possible that I’m forgetting something, though.
I strongly encourage you to read the Dark Tower saga. It contains some of his best work, in my opinion. Likewise, Salem’s Lot is widely considered to be one of his best novels. I rank it right up there with The Shining. For what that’s worth.
I wasn’t directing the remark at you, specifically. Stephen King, as noted above, seems to raise some sort of ire in people. I dunno if it’s because he’s successful, or because he’s mainstream, or what. God knows he’s written crap. He’s also written very good novels and short stories. Why people seem to feel a need to vilify the man is beyond me.
And my recollection is that both of those things (yours and the one you quoted) happened. It’s the same professor.
The Dark Tower series and Eyes of the Dragon are wonderful books by King…
I wasn’t thrilled with The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon. Nor did I appreciate The Talisman and Black House was OK but I am not a huge fan of Straub so that may have tarnished my enjoyment of those books.
I have every book he has ever written and have read them all more than once. When he is good he is very very good but when he is bad he is horrid. And the film adaptations with the exception of The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redeption have made things worse!
I haven’t seen too much said about his short stories so I wanted to submit a few of my favorites - The Mist, Crouch End, Survivor Type, The Langoliers, Mrs Todd’s Shortcut, Dolan’s Cadillac, Umney’s Last Case…
“There are also books full of great writing that don’t have very good stories. Read sometimes for the story, Bobby. Don’t be like the book-snobs who won’t do that. Read sometimes for the words - the language. Don’t be like the play-it-safers that won’t do that. But when you find a book that has both a good story and good words, treasure that book.” – Ted Brautigan from Hearts in Atlantis by Stephen King