King on Being Popular

[LitEditor]

In 2003, Stephen King was honored by the National Book Foundation -- the body that presents the prestigious National Book Awards. In his speech, he addressed the gap between popularity and literary respectability:

"I salute the National Book Foundation Board, who took a huge risk in giving this award to a man many people see as a rich hack. For far too long the so-called popular writers of this country and the so-called literary writers have stared at each other with animosity and a willful lack of understanding. This is the way it has always been. Witness my childish resentment of anyone who ever got a Guggenheim.

"But giving an award like this to a guy like me suggests that in the future things don't have to be the way they've always been. Bridges can be built between the so-called popular fiction and the so-called literary fiction. The first gainers in such a widening of interest would be the readers, of course, which is us because writers are almost always readers and listeners first. You have been very good and patient listeners and I'm going to let you go soon but I'd like to say one more thing before I do.

"Tokenism is not allowed. You can't sit back, give a self satisfied sigh and say, 'Ah, that takes care of the troublesome pop lit question. In another twenty years or perhaps thirty, we'll give this award to another writer who sells enough books to make the best seller lists.' It's not good enough. Nor do I have any patience with or use for those who make a point of pride in saying they've never read anything by John Grisham, Tom Clancy, Mary Higgins Clark or any other popular writer."

Do you think the gap between the treatment of "popular" fiction and "literary" fiction is as dramatic as King makes it out to be hear? Do you think that this is changing, or will change? Who are the "popular" writers you believe should earn more critical respect?

[Eliza]

I really think this is interesting, I had no idea that this existed among authors. I love both popular and literary fiction. I just love to read and discover good books. If a book pins me to the couch for an entire day until I've read all 1000 pages, I feel lucky that I found it, I don't care who wrote it. I'm also sort of curious about Stephen King being made to feel that he isn't "in the club". With someone who's created such masterpieces, how could anyone make him feel like he wasn't "up to par". Is it just because he writes so often about horror/fantasy? I think it's about telling a good story. Sometimes I want a "girly" book, sometimes I want a murder/mystery, sometimes I want to revisit a "classic" from 11th grade english, sometimes I want to read something "fantastical". That being said, I've come across sci-fi/horror novels that were dreadful. King is a master in his own right as an author. I am actually very picky about male authors because sometimes it comes across too much in their writing, that they are men. I never get that with King. You know, I suppose I'm suprised that he would even care weather or not he was "in the club".

[Curt42]

I think that Stephen King has a very valid point. There is an elitist attitude among some book critics and "experts" that if a book is popular or even boader some author then the book is not true literature or the author is a hack. At the end of every year I always like to look at the list of "best" books of the year and I have heard or read about maybe one or two. Very seldom have I read any of them. Why? Well most of the books are obscure tomes or by authors that are swooned over because they are incomprehensible. Mario Puzo when he started wrote too highly acclaimed books, "Dark Arena" was one and I can't remember the other. He received great praise - and did not make a lot of money. He then wrote "The Godfather" and di quite well financially, but lost the support of the critics and reviewers. King has always been considered a hack since his early days if for no other reason of his large output. The critical theory is a great author can not be that prolific. He even had to write under the name of Richard Bachman because his publisher did not want to make him appear that prolific. The strange part is that a lot of the authors that we hold now as being classic writers - Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, and even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - wrote for the masses. I was not a fan of King at the start (I was not into horror that he wrote in the early days), but I started reading him with "The Green Mile." I have read about twenty five of his books and with a couple of exceptions have liked what I have read. King should be taken more serious by the current reviewers and critics.

[Stephanie]

Curt,

Well put! It's amazing to think that King isn't more highly regarded - it is so obvious that he's not a hack, once you've seen his craft. I do know that one of the things that keeps him from being used in the classroom is his language. I wonder how much that and the horror genre have held him apart also.

Stephanie

[Curt42]

Several things have worked against King. First is that he started off in the horror field. With the exception of Poe and maybe Saki and Lovecraft, horror writers have never been really respected. Add to this that the first movies made on his books were all horror. That is the general perception of King. It is hard to convince people that this is the same man who wrote "The Body" (Stand by Me), "The Shawshank Redemption", "The Green Mile", "The Eye of the Dragon", "Misery", "The Running Man" (a Bachman book), and so on. All well written, well crafted, non-horror stories" On reading his book "On Writing", one thought that I came away with his King's understanding of people, his ability to create characters, and his strong use of the language in his dialogues. My favorite King novel is "It" not for the horror element which is very strong, but for the relationship between the main characters, both as children and 27 years later as adults. As stated in my previous post, his large volume of work is looked down on. Some "experts" seeminly think that a great writer can produce one thin volume about every five years, not epic tomes every six or eight months. King seeminly has so much in him for stories. In the explanation of "From a Buick 8" he tells that he was on a turnpike in Pennsylvania and a strange looking man stopped, got out of his car, went behind the building at the stop, and seeminly disappeared. How many people could write a novel from such a simple, strange premise. Since King "retired" with the completion of the Dark Tower series, he has produced three books and one novella that I know of. As stated above, King has sold an incredible number of books, so according to the "experts" he can not be very good because what do the people know.

[Eliza]

As I read over this one thought from my first post sticks in my mind. I'm suprised Stephen King cares. That's what's interesting to me. I understand the situation and the reasons that it exists. And we all seem to agree that it's ignorant. I'm just suprised that Stephen King would care.

[Cammy]

I think this is a very interesting discussion. Popular writers definitely do not get the accolades that they should. I challenge anyone who looks down their noses at him to pick up a few of his books and actually read them. There is almost no one else in the literary field that can draw me in and keep me interested as immediately as Stephen King always does. That's what I think authors should get credit for..As someone else noted, I've picked up books off of the "must be read lists" and "greatest things ever written" lists and they've bored me to tears. If a writer has a message but bores you, what's the point? Might as well just pick up a dry dissertation....

I deal with this all the time as I work in the legal field and you should see the looks I get when I walk in toting my horror and fantasy novels! I even discussed them in an interview once when someone made the mistake of asking me about my hobbies and then felt the need to ask me what I read. I got the job, but was also immediately told not to mention it in my next interview with the DVP

[Stephanie]

Cammy,

I see nothing wrong with stating in an int4erview that you read Stephen King! I think that while King is often referred to as a writer for the masses, the reasons you stated are the facts - he's interesting and timely (much like Dickens was in his time) and his writing is certainly excellent. Personally, I think people are jealous that they don't have his imagination. Or perhaps, his nightmares.

[Vampyre]

"I think people are jealous that they don't have his imagination. Or perhaps, his nightmares. "

This is what I think as well. SK is one of the best modern authors ever. He has shown that he is not limited to horror stories. He can pretty much write about anything he wants to. He's not limited like so any other authors are. It's much easier to write a scathing review or critique than it is to write a good book.

[klavim]

In one of the creative writing classes I took in college, the teacher asked us which were our favorite authors. I replied: "Stephen King". The teacher frowned and said that she didn't consider SK to be such a good writer.
Many of the creative writing classes I took were simply awful. People stiffled each others creativity, themes were dark and boring, and it seemed to me that some people enjoy the opportunity to criticize other people's work so they could tear it down under the pretext of being honest.
Stephen King is a great writer. Come to think of it, I don't remember ever seeing any of my creative writing teachers' names on a published book. Not even on the 50 cent sale bin at Half Price Books.
Long live the King.