Stephen King Vs. 'Literature'

[degsy]

There's a couple of Stephen King threads current at the moment. The odd comment seems dismissive, not the - not my sort of thing, too scary, but the slight whiff of yeah he does sell books but it isn't 'Literature'

If it isn't, what is? - where's the line between 'popular' and 'literature'

Or is it a case of - stories of imagination tend to upset those without one?

 

[wm02]

It's literature in the same way that a painting of dogs playing poker is art

 

[summerisle]

There's a couple of Stephen King threads current at the moment. The odd comment seems dismissive, not the - not my sort of thing, too scary, but the slight whiff of yeah he does sell books but it isn't 'Literature'

If it isn't, what is? - where's the line between 'popular' and 'literature'

Or is it a case of - stories of imagination tend to upset those without one?

Just listened to a new Stephen King short story on 'Fright Night' on R4 this week : Cookie Jar. Not your usual horror tale, thought it was quite effective. Haven't read any of his novels so can't really comment except that Dickens was both popular at the time and is now classed as literature.
Anyway, Cookie Jar, have a listen, 3 episodes, each 15 mins.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zylgx

 

[degsy]

Just listened to a new Stephen King short story on 'Fright Night' on R4 this week : Cookie Jar. Not your usual horror tale, thought it was quite effective. Haven't read any of his novels so can't really comment except that Dickens was both popular at the time and is now classed as literature.
Anyway, Cookie Jar, have a listen, 3 episodes, each 15 mins.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zylgx

Dickens was exactly who I had in mind

 

[summerisle]

Dickens was exactly who I had in mind

Shakespeare.

 

[degsy]

@summerisle; just finished it. he does tell a good tale. going to start drilling into the site to listen to more, take pot luck, see what's in Book at Bedtime Cookie Jar.

 

[degsy]

Shakespeare.

So does time makes 'Literature'?
The Bard ( and now we are told Bacon was a co author on some ) definitely wrote for money and for the masses.

 

[Naisy'sCharitableLeanings]

I think King's output is 'literature', as is that of Rowling, Archer, Hornby, Dickens, etc. Quality is then in the beholder's eye - sure, the 'better' works will have longevity and will attract critical acclaim, but it's all 'literature'.

 

[SerenityNigh]

There's a couple of Stephen King threads current at the moment. The odd comment seems dismissive, not the - not my sort of thing, too scary, but the slight whiff of yeah he does sell books but it isn't 'Literature'

If it isn't, what is? - where's the line between 'popular' and 'literature'

Or is it a case of - stories of imagination tend to upset those without one?

Does it contribute to society/culture/literary history? Will it last? Hitchcock has produced work worthy of preservation. Rowling too, despite having serious flaws, has produced work that will last.

 

[The Cowboy]

Does it matter?

 

[magicjuan]

Read a lot of King's stuff when I was young, some, like 'It' were compelling but ended disappointingly, others like 'the Stand' were long winded and dull, but I read nonetheless and that is important enough.

There are some awful writers and some regarded as genius. But it is just opinion. I think Shakespeare is convoluted guff and that gives pretentious Sewell-ites ammunition to sneer and elevate themselves at my expense. Does it matter? Of course not.

As someone else pointed out it will come down to longevity. If 'It' survives as the only piece of literature post apocalypse, what future generations will base their belief systems on will be a malevolent clown, maybe they already have.

 

[Caolam]

Of course it is literature; it is just very good literature.

 

[Prevenger17]

If it isn't, what is? - where's the line between 'popular' and 'literature'

There is no line. There's a tiny cabal of self-absorbed hipsters out there that will put an asterisk beside anything remotely mainstream. Most Stephen King isn't my bag, but he's definitely a great writer who has tapped into something universal. It's effing literature FFS

 

[Tony Draper]

Not to my taste, but plenty gobble it up.

Stephen King is to literature what "beans on toast face" was to football.

 

[The Cowboy]

Read a lot of King's stuff when I was young, some, like 'It' were compelling but ended disappointingly, others like 'the Stand' were long winded and dull, but I read nonetheless and that is important enough.

There are some awful writers and some regarded as genius. But it is just opinion. I think Shakespeare is convoluted guff and that gives pretentious Sewell-ites ammunition to sneer and elevate themselves at my expense. Does it matter? Of course not.

As someone else pointed out it will come down to longevity. If 'It' survives as the only piece of literature post apocalypse, what future generations will base their belief systems on will be a malevolent clown, maybe they already have.

The thing I don't get about Shakespeare is the fact that its primarily scripts for plays. Anyone who has ever read a script will know this stuff never really works until it's spoken aloud in an actual play.

It should be confined to the drama class with all other scripts.