Stephen King Vs. 'Literature'

[dholliday]

You said:

there is no objectively better or worse, it's merely differentiation

Then quoted a discussion from a panel discussing whether certain types of literature are better or worse. Objectively. To win an award.

For what it's worth, obviously Tolkien didn't deserve a Nobel prize for it, as there are far better books than that on a technical level - but that's my point; some things can be technically better than others, not just 'different'.

There is still no 'better or worse', there can't be. It's not possible unless we're all unthinking automatons with a collective consciousness bound by the same critical thoughts.


Salman Rushdie is an extremely technical author but have you ever struggled through one of his books? See also Will Self (tho' his Great Apes was actually quite good).

Let them win technical honours if they like, doesn't make them 'better' than a Koontz or King novel. Also doesn't necessarily make them 'literature', very much depends on what the book is saying, how it's saying it and how it's been received by the readership. Saying that, I'd agree that Satanic Verses and Great Apes could be classed as literature.


In the music world, see also jazz musicians. You've got the extremely technical Tim Berne and then you've got Miles Davis.

Which one is technically better? Which one is actually better? Cast the net wider so it's more like Literature vs Fiction: Tim Berne vs The Strokes. Sia vs PJ Harvey. Pink Floyd vs AC/DC. You can class the bolded ones as the musical equivalent of literature, you could class them as technically more proficient, but can you really class them as "objectively better"?

 

[Prevenger17]

Of course, but that's a different discussion - all I'm saying is that literally can be better than a comparable piece, not just different. That can be acknowledged without 'looking down' on people who enjoy something that is popular rather than good.

And back on topic, my view is that King is popular rather than good, which is the same as any amount of movies, music and other artforms. Loads of people will like The Room - but that doesn't make it a good movie. And just because Honey G in X Factor gets so many votes to stay there every week doesn't mean she's remotely good at what she does either. Exact same principles, and that's fine - if that's what you like, so be it.

Still think it's fuzzier than you're describing. Ulysses by Joyce is lauded as a literary masterpiece but there's plenty of critics and writers who would tell you it's effing garbage

 

[wm02]

There is still no 'better or worse', there can't be. It's not possible unless we're all unthinking automatons with a collective consciousness bound by the same critical thoughts.


Salman Rushdie is an extremely technical author but have you ever struggled through one of his books? See also Will Self (tho' his Great Apes was actually quite good).

Let them win technical honours if they like, doesn't make them 'better' than a Koontz or King novel. Also doesn't necessarily make them 'literature', very much depends on what the book is saying, how it's saying it and how it's been received by the readership. Saying that, I'd agree that Satanic Verses and Great Apes could be classed as literature.


In the music world, see also jazz musicians. You've got the extremely technical Tim Berne and then you've got Miles Davis.

Which one is technically better? Which one is actually better? Cast the net wider so it's more like Literature vs Fiction: Tim Berne vs The Strokes. Sia vs PJ Harvey. Pink Floyd vs AC/DC. You can class the bolded ones as the musical equivalent of literature, you could class them as technically more proficient, but can you really class them as "objectively better"?

Have you read Rushdie's Midnight's Children? That's my favorite work of his- the first 100 pages are exquisite

 

[dholliday]

Have you read Rushdie's Midnight's Children? That's my favorite work of his- the first 100 pages are exquisite

Just Satanic Verses, which I didn't even finish. Also liked the first 100 pages or so but his wordy writing style became an absolute chore and I gave up about halfway through. Did he calm it down a bit for Midnight Children?

I'm a big fan of Orwell's writing style, no need to over-complicate things, it's possible to write deeply about complex themes with common language.

 

[Khalekan]

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?

I have just read King's 22/10/63 and it was as enjoyable as any literary novel I have read this year.

I have a very broad, catholic taste in literature and my bookshelf contains a very eclectic mix of books waiting to be read.

From James Joyce to Val McDermitt........from Henry James to Jo Nesbo.....from Nathaniel Hawthorne to Simon Scarrow.

Book snobbery is for the birds and the sales of popular mass market paperbacks are what allow the more literary authors like Donna Tartt the freedom to take twenty years to write four novels.

To quote someone somewhere.

"I hate literature.....but I do enjoy a good book"

 

[Tubey]

There is still no 'better or worse', there can't be. It's not possible unless we're all unthinking automatons with a collective consciousness bound by the same critical thoughts.


Salman Rushdie is an extremely technical author but have you ever struggled through one of his books? See also Will Self (tho' his Great Apes was actually quite good).

Let them win technical honours if they like, doesn't make them 'better' than a Koontz or King novel. Also doesn't necessarily make them 'literature', very much depends on what the book is saying, how it's saying it and how it's been received by the readership. Saying that, I'd agree that Satanic Verses and Great Apes could be classed as literature.


In the music world, see also jazz musicians. You've got the extremely technical Tim Berne and then you've got Miles Davis.

Which one is technically better? Which one is actually better? Cast the net wider so it's more like Literature vs Fiction: Tim Berne vs The Strokes. Sia vs PJ Harvey. Pink Floyd vs AC/DC. You can class the bolded ones as the musical equivalent of literature, you could class them as technically more proficient, but can you really class them as "objectively better"?

You answered your own question with the bolded red text.

You have a different definition of "better" to me - I'm describing technical proficiency; some things are done better than others. I'll reverse it - some things can be "better" at being more popular, and you could "objectively" look at sales stats to prove as such, but I'm obviously not referring to that. I'm talking about technique and artistry. If you have a critic of the prose, then they are looking at technical aspects of writing to judge it, not the popularity, and that's the point.

 

[Eggsyblueskin]

Popularity breeds contempt.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

Still think it's fuzzier than you're describing. Ulysses by Joyce is lauded as a literary masterpiece but there's plenty of critics and writers who would tell you it's effing garbage

No one who has read Ulysses thinks it's effing garbage. .
Plenty of folk who haven't read it, or tried and failed to read it, think it's effing garbage.

I've read a few (younger) critics trying to take it on and disparage it, but that's just like Tony Bellew acting up to try and sell a fight. Not to be taken seriously, just trying to put food on their table.

 

[Prevenger17]

I'm describing technical proficiency; some things are done better than others.

Michael Bay is apparently one of the most technically brilliant directors in history and practically wrote the book on modern action sequences

 

[Prevenger17]

No one who has read Ulysses thinks it's effing garbage. .

They're lying to themselves in a desperate effort to look smart

 

[Tubey]

No one who has read Ulysses thinks it's effing garbage. .
Plenty of folk who haven't read it, or tried and failed to read it, think it's effing garbage.

Yeah pretty much this. Something like that is technically sublime, but utterly inaccessible for the majority of people. So something much "worse" than that will enjoy much greater popularity and enjoyment from a wider audience.

I think that's what confuses people - enjoying something doesn't make it good; it just makes it good for you. But in reality there has to be a more objective measure of aptitude that is beyond subjective taste, and that's what I mean by measuring what's good and what's not.

I'm not even saying I enjoy objectively good things only - I'd take beans on toast over a poncey little Michelin star dish nine times out of ten - but the acknowledgement has to be there that, technically, one is obviously better than the other.

 

[dholliday]

It is literature, horrors and thrillers aren't my cup of tea though so I can't speak to its quality but it surely can't be worse than the dirge that Dan Brown gets millions from/

I actually really enjoyed Da Vinci Code. A proper page-turner. Was gripped by it.

Granted, once it was done it left my soul rather quickly. It was pure entertainment, like a good popcorn flick where you just enjoy the thrills and suspense and don't think much afterwards about it.

As I enjoyed the experience I'd rate Da Vinci code better than say Hard Times from Charles Dickens, which was a dull chore to wade through.

Good post. Haven't read Der Schwarm but read Das Parfum in grad school and would definitely classify that as literature given the broader themes and what is conveyed about the human experience. Took a course on America in the German Imagination and we read Karl May as one of the earliest authors to reference the States. A lot of debate on whether or not his works would be labeled as literature

Aye, Das Parfum is some profound stuff. The film was quite good to be fair, tho' couldn't pull of any of the weighty themes.

Not familiar with Karl May. Just had a quick search, sounds like genre fiction to me but I'd have to read it myself. I know some academics class literature based more on age & influence rather than deeper existentialist/societal themes so maybe why Karl May gets put in the literature camp by some.

 

[Prevenger17]

I think that's what confuses people - enjoying something doesn't make it good; it just makes it good for you.

Exactly. The quality of something is a fluid concept so there can be no absolutism when it comes to something as subjective as art. When awards are being dished out for books and films, they are works that are good to the selective few who define the criteria for those awards.

 

[dholliday]

Yeah pretty much this. Something like that is technically sublime, but utterly inaccessible for the majority of people. So something much "worse" than that will enjoy much greater popularity and enjoyment from a wider audience.

I think that's what confuses people - enjoying something doesn't make it good; it just makes it good for you. But in reality there has to be a more objective measure of aptitude that is beyond subjective taste, and that's what I mean by measuring what's good and what's not.

I'm not even saying I enjoy objectively good things only - I'd take beans on toast over a poncey little Michelin star dish nine times out of ten - but the acknowledgement has to be there that, technically, one is obviously better than the other.

You have to put emotional response high up in any categorisation of what is better.

If Ulysses is a chore akin to hard work, while the latest Robert Harris is a thrill ride, then there's no issue with claiming the latter is better.

 

[Prevenger17]

If Ulysses is a chore akin to hard work, while the latest Robert Harris is a thrill ride, then there's no issue with claiming the latter is better.

Yup. I think Revenge of the Sith is a better film than The Force Awakens, I don't give an eff what anyone says