Well, Katy, no more off the track than the last fifteen posts. So let me chime in to say that I think Stephen King is a serious writer. He is true to the tradition of Lovecraft, Poe, Conan Doyle et al., and he writes convincingly of his method in books like 'On Writing'. He is poetical, innovative, versatile and psychologically astute. At times he delivers some excellent social satire. His short stories are where he shines, the longer works being unashamedly commercial ventures, and I will readily admit that these have many faults. He IS extremely verbose at times, and this, along with his enormous production, clouds his talent for many readers. Although he always has a smattering of unusual phrases, he DOES use clichés with happy abandon. And all too often he works to a formula with a happy ending and has difficulty maintaining suspense in the last few miles home.
But I suspect some people of not actually having READ King's work, judging him a) from films they've seen, and b) from the negative criticism he has received in academic circles, which one suspects is more a negative reaction to the huge sales figures than any reflection of the quality of his work.
One can be a serious writer AND a commercial writer. Most serious writers have to be commercial, but many find it difficult. Should we prefer Herman Melville to Stephen King just because Melville was unable to win popular success? Seems potty to me.
Talking of potty and while I'm here - Tom - I don't know what your idea of a teacher is, but when I teach literature I am first and foremost a student of literature. Why is studying literature bad for a writer?
Duncan
|