Stephen King Vs. 'Literature'

[degsy]

Does it matter?

No it probably doesn't (does anything on here)

But the question in the title piqued my interest (mattered) enough for me to put the question out there. 75 views but less replies, shows it matters more to some than others

You replied, so it mattered to you, maybe not much, but enough.

 

[COYBL25]

Does it matter?

Spot on.

It is what it is - fiction and horror for the masses.

 

[Woolverhampton_Blue]

The fact that Bob Dylan has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature shows the threshold is pretty low. I'm sure Stephen King qualifies.

 

[Tubey]

It's like Little Mix compared to, I dunno, Fleetwood Mac.

Yeah, they're both music, but one is more popular than the other despite being objectively technically worse because of the tropes and mechanisms used to construct it.

So like lots of pop music being popular rather than actually good, Stephen King is also popular rather than being actually good. He's a product of amplification through media, and so be it - it's the world we live in. If you are mediocre but tap into a formula that works and people want to buy it, good on you.

For me, I find him actually unreadable, but I can see why others like it, as the books are paint-by-numbers and easy to follow.

 

[Groucho]

where's the line between 'popular' and 'literature'

I don't think there should be a line.

You like what you like, and if something gets people reading then that's great.

 

[Prevenger17]

It's like Little Mix compared to, I dunno, Fleetwood Mac.

Yeah, they're both music, but one is more popular than the other despite being objectively technically worse because of the tropes and mechanisms used to construct it.

So like lots of pop music being popular rather than actually good, Stephen King is also popular rather than being actually good. He's a product of amplification through media, and so be it - it's the world we live in. If you are mediocre but tap into a formula that works and people want to buy it, good on you.

For me, I find him actually unreadable, but I can see why others like it, as the books are paint-by-numbers and easy to follow.

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

 

[dholliday]

i made that comment, tho' i made it as a fan of King's work.

having studied English Lit way back when i differentiate thus:

literature: says something profound about our society or about our nature in timeless ways.

genre/popular fiction: entertainment/escapism/telling a good yarn.


King is comfortably in the latter, doesn't make him better or worse than those in the former. It's just a way to differentiate. The snobs are the ones who automatically look down on one group. This is silly and limiting.

I had a recent conversation with someone about this: we found we had both read two unrelated novels and both agreed one was literature while the other was entertainment. Both were outstanding. Am talking about Frank Schätzing's Der Schwarm (The Swarm) and Patrick Süskind's Das Parfum (Perfume).

Der Schwarm was a breathtaking action sci-fi which had weighty themes like the environment and marine wildlife. Themes which we're familiar with at a contemporary mainstream level.

Das Parfum had things to say about man's innate lust for women and how this can be skewed in strange ways by strange individuals. It was profound for it said things we instinctively understand yet wouldn't normally read about. Also a popular book with women, it's like gaining a little insight into the nature of man (and not all bad by any means).


Rarely do you get genre-fiction classed as literature, but Das Parfum was fantastic enough to also be classed as 'fantasy'. 1984 and Master & Margarita are classic examples of literature using sci-fi/fantasy templates to say something profound.

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?

 

[gonetomorrow]

I suppose King 's output is formulaic and that demeans him in the eyes of literary types. It's still literature though.​

 

[Tubey]

i made that comment, tho' i made it as a fan of King's work.

having studied English Lit way back when i differentiate thus:

literature: says something profound about our society or about our nature in timeless ways.

genre/popular fiction: entertainment/escapism/telling a good yarn.


King is comfortably in the latter, doesn't make him better or worse than those in the former. It's just a way to differentiate. The snobs are the ones who automatically look down on one group. This is silly and limiting.

I had a recent conversation with someone about this: we found we had both read two unrelated novels and both agreed one was literature while the other was entertainment. Both were outstanding. Am talking about Frank Schätzing's Der Schwarm (The Swarm) and Patrick Süskind's Das Parfum (Perfume).

Der Schwarm was a breathtaking action sci-fi which had weighty themes like the environment and marine wildlife. Themes which we're familiar with at a contemporary mainstream level.

Das Parfum had things to say about man's innate lust for women and how this can be skewed in strange ways by strange individuals. It was profound for it said things we instinctively understand yet wouldn't normally read about. Also a popular book with women, it's like gaining a little insight into the nature of man (and not all bad by any means).


Rarely do you get genre-fiction classed as literature, but Das Parfum was fantastic enough to also be classed as 'fantasy'. 1984 and Master & Margarita are classic examples of literature using sci-fi/fantasy templates to say something profound.

Agree with most of this, but apart from the "doesn't make him better or worse" part - because it does; he's technically worse. Yes, that's not a bad thing as if people like him, so be it, but it should still be recognised because it means certain works are held up for their excellence rather than their popularity, so standards are maintained.

For example, J.K. Rowling is worse than J.R.R. Tolkien, as in objectively worse. That doesn't mean I'm "looking down" on people who like Harry Potter etc., rather it's a statement of fact.

It's the same with any artistic medium - some things will be more popular than others despite being worse.

 

[gaino92]

Agree with most of this, but apart from the "doesn't make him better or worse" part - because it does; he's technically worse. Yes, that's not a bad thing as if people like him, so be it, but it should still be recognised because it means certain works are held up for their excellence rather than their popularity, so standards are maintained.

For example, J.K. Rowling is worse than J.R.R. Tolkien, as in objectively worse. That doesn't mean I'm "looking down" on people who like Harry Potter etc., rather it's a statement of fact.

It's the same with any artistic medium - some things will be more popular than others despite being worse.

Just like @chicoazul is a poor imitation of @bizzaro but more popular because he calls people scruffs and virgins

 

[dholliday]

Agree with most of this, but apart from the "doesn't make him better or worse" part - because it does; he's technically worse.

For example, J.K. Rowling is worse than J.R.R. Tolkien, as in objectively worse. That doesn't mean I'm "looking down" on people who like Harry Potter etc., rather it's a statement of fact.

no mate, on both counts...there is no objectively better or worse, it's merely differentiation: just as the genre horror isn't objectively better or worse than sci-fi.

 

[Tubey]

no mate, on both counts...there is no objectively better or worse, it's merely differentiation: just as the genre horror isn't objectively better or worse than sci-fi.

Incorrect. That would be comparing apples with oranges - Star Trek would be objectively a better sci-fi than The Shining, obviously. There's such a thing as comparing two like-for-like things and one being better or worse than the other.

Otherwise, you'd never have 'good' anything, you'd just have 'different'. Shaddapa Yo Face being just 'different' to Vienna; a splodge of paint by a toddler being 'different' to a Picasso. That's why I noted J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien - both fantasy novelists, one is objectively more technically proficient than the other. If you were to hold an example of 'what good looks like' and for that genre and had the choice between the two, you'd choose Tolkien.

 

[dholliday]

your argument makes no sense...literally.

The Harry Potter series is arguably more 'technically proficient' (if you mean coherent, consistent and structured) than Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien is not literature. Neither is Rowling. Which one you prefer is up to you. Personally I'd read both over Dickens or Shakespeare any day of the week.

Incorrect. That would be comparing apples with oranges - Star Trek would be objectively a better sci-fi than The Shining, obviously. There's such a thing as comparing two like-for-like things and one being better or worse than the other.

Otherwise, you'd never have 'good' anything, you'd just have 'different'. Shaddapa Yo Face being just 'different' to Vienna; a splodge of paint by a toddler being 'different' to a Picasso. That's why I noted J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien - both fantasy novelists, one is objectively more technically proficient than the other. If you were to hold an example of 'what good looks like' and for that genre and had the choice between the two, you'd choose Tolkien.

 

[jaycee]

All subjective,some great books arent aknowledged as such until generations later,as with most art forms,how many painters died in poverty only for their work to sell for millions later,as long as people read,are encouraged to visit libraries,then does it matter if the author isnt to certain peoples liking? How many people run out and buy a book because it won an award? Does that automatically make it a better book?
Is Tracy Emin an artist because some hipster thinks a messy bed is art?

 

[dholliday]

All subjective,some great books arent aknowledged as such until generations later,as with most art forms,how many painters died in poverty only for their work to sell for millions later,as long as people read,are encouraged to visit libraries,then does it matter if the author isnt to certain peoples liking? How many people run out and buy a book because it won an award? Does that automatically make it a better book?
Is Tracy Emin an artist because some hipster thinks a messy bed is art?

aye, the question what is art is even more convoluted than what is literature: at least with the latter question you can categorise (as in genres) without necessarily ranking in terms of quality. For example Bram Stoker's Dracula I wouldn't class as literature even tho' it's one of my favourite novels, but plenty of learned folk probably would class it thus, based on its age and wider influence.


With art if you are to consider a work not art then you immediately condemn it as unworthy.


I'd go with your conclusion to be fair: it's all subjective and those saying otherwise are only offering their subjective opinion (be they Nobel boardmembers or some bloke on a forum).


Lest we forget, these things plenty of influential people class as 'art':