Huge lumps of fuck in the stockings of the HTers absent in this discussion.

ho ho ho!

I love to read all types of fiction, and I admit to reading much more trash fiction than literature. It's similar to eating candy bars rather than getting up and preparing a meal, in the way that you are satisfied with it afterward.

"Huge lumps of fuck"

Not sure exactly what that is, but it sure doesn't sound good.

Who knows though, the offhand BC comment of one day -- could be great literature -- in the future!

It could happen!
: )

It's certainly comment of the day material.

I had some trouble coming at this from a literary standpoint because as I said I am not the well-read person that perhaps I should be.

Make this discussion musical (as Mark eludes to) and I would feel more comfortable or in my element.

On a more serious note -- and without knowing proper delineation 'tween literature and popular fiction -

I have found examples in parts of stories, or whole stories that moved me. Dean Koontz's From the Corner of his Eye is one in particular. Something about that book hit me on a very profound level. He usually writes on the basic 'good vs evi' theme, and this is no different, but the whole manner of storytelling in this particular story was very effective.

Stephen King's The Stand had a similiar sort of flavor, and not just the 'good vs evil' thing, but the way he told the story.

Great literature? Why not?

"It's certainly comment of the day material."

Heheeehe - let the lobbying begin!

Why not!

There's definitely room for both types of books in our lives. There are works which seek only to entertain us, and works which seek to nourish our souls and enlighten us. This is true for most forms of art, I think, and I wouldn't want to give up one for the other, because they both have their places.

Having said that, the books I return to again and again tend to be of the more sustaining variety. A beach read is a beach read, and once is usually enough.

great article, Mark; people can be real snobs about what is literary. The whole debate reminds me of "flowers" versus "weeds." Weeds are simply what somoneone finds undeseriable in their garden - but they're still flowers if you want them. Sounds stupid, but is analagous...

thanks for this piece.

s.

thanks sadi. the snobbery thing reminds me of the time i read "The Gutenberg Elegies" by sven birkirts.

i was really looking forward to the topic (the fate of reading in the electronic age) but was really, really, REALLY put off by his snobbery.

made me want to go out and read some danielle steele.

"Having said that, the books I return to again and again tend to be of the more sustaining variety. A beach read is a beach read, and once is usually enough"

Lisa - I like the way you put it. That, along with the whole post in general, is a good way to express the difference between literature and popular stories

I like the "weeds and flowers" analogy too!

yes, i return to the first five pages of Ulysses once a year or so. ;-)

I suspect that being younger than probably everyone commenting on this board, it's kind of ridiculous for me to be even sharing this advice. But, I think you all might appreciate it, and since it originally came from an old and wise man (he has a beard to prove it), it's not from some snotty kid.

He told me, "a writer is influenced by everything they read, consciously or subconsciously, it's all there. Often, it's less about quality and more about quanity." He told me he believes someone who wants to be a professional writer needs to attempt reading a little bit of everything, so they can learn what engages an audience and form new ideas. Literature teaches a writer to write for an eternal audience, but the popular fiction of today ala Koontz and his comrades also reminds an aspiring writer of what they also need to be accessible to the audience of today, not just the audiences of tomorrow.

So, I don't know about what literary snobs need, but I honestly believe a well-balanced diet of grocery store novels and literature (and throw in a smidge of poetry too) is exactly what any writer needs to grow and gain skill in their craft.

very true megan.

Looks like I'm the literary snob of the Mondo group. Ha! This anti-snobbery has got to go. I wonder if this were a musical discussion if the tables would be turned a little.

Like if I was to say Mozart was a hack and Miles Davis was a pinko commie not to mention those stupid Ramones. But Britney Spears is a freaking musical genius where would this discussion go?

Really though if it moves you in some way then that's fantastic, no matter who wrote it.

I really do read all kinds of books, but I'll agree with Lisa M in that the books that really sustain me are usually lumped into that Literary category.

And definite huge lumps coming to the absent HTers if they don't start commenting asap.

Mat, I think it's reasonable to say that longevity plays a part in whether we consider a thing to be 'art' or something for popular consumption. In your music example, we've already been listening to Mozart forever, I suspect that the same will be true for Miles, and I'm guessing that Britney will be all but forgotten in a generation.

None of which says anything about people's tastes, of course!

i can't even begin to compare music to books.

Weren't at least some of The Ramones Republicans, rather than Commies?!

Personally, part of the issue is the lofty head-up-their-own-arsedness of the literary and broadsheet press who seem to be the diviners of What Is Literature.

Proper literature has been incredibly boring IMHO - I'd much rather read King than Dickens any day. But had I a choice I'd much rather read some Burroughs or HS Thompson or somesuch.

As far as I can see, in modern fiction there's an awful lot of unnecessarily pretentious purple prose and high-minded plots. Zadie Smith and the rest of The New Literary Movement can just fuck away off.

This is a really great edition, guys, even if it was a bit thin on the participation (I'm in favor of the huge lumps of fuck only if it involves someone distasteful doing the distributing, otherwise, how is it a punishment??).

When I first started seriously chasing publication creds, I had a hard time figuring out what "literary" fiction is, exactly. You see the divisions there for anyone who's ever read one of the Writer's Market books:

Needs: literary, mainstream, slice-of-life vignette....

And I would be all, wtf? What IS that, anyway? I challenged the writers and editors I knew, and wouldn't you know, I got as many different definitions as answers.

I think the definitions vary from person to person, and trying to set some standard up as a bar by which one measures anything is just false snobbery. After all, if we were discussing this when Pride & Prejudice were first published, would it be considered "literary," or just a throwaway novel about society? In eighty years, will Stephen King be considered literary?

Great point, Alisha. Shakespeare was writing the contemporary entertainment of his day - I doubt that he was thinking of longevity while he was doing so.

Exactly. I think that's why "literary" fiction fails to connect with the masses in these modern times. It is by nature somewhat dry and emotionless (not all of it, and not always in my opinion, but from the opinion of those who don't like it) because the writers are trying to create something that will last instead of just writing.

there was a book reviewer incident that i should have worked into this...

i was on vacation and was watching a book review panel on cspan2. man, i wish i could remember the name of the reviewer but the way he spoke just about defined 'snobby reviwer'. they were all talking about The Lovely Bones. his turn was full of things like "when one reads a novel such as 'the lovely bones', one must remember that one might...".

blah, blah, blah.

i bought a copy of The Lovely Bones the next day just to even things out.

I just emailed Mark noting that I had submitted my own sub-standard take on this subject, but it obviously was lost in transit.

Ah well, not much of a loss. These guys pretty much say it all anyway.

Cheers!

Bennett..you trying to avoid the 'lump of fuck'?
: )

It doesn't get much more distasteful than me. Listen to my podcasts if you don't believe me.

yup! Heard your podcasts - and if I could quote that line from A Christmas Story...when the narrator is describing his dad's talent for swearing... I would.

Ya got flair !

Mary, that might be the second or third greatest compliment I have ever been paid as a podcaster. It is sincerely appreciated and just know... I have listened to some demos for Episode 9: there is more where that came from! =)

UPDATE: some text was lost in the ether between canada and mark is crankyland. thus, Bennett Dawson's response has been appended.

Time certainly plays a factor in these things. Some artists who were originally considered masters, with time have been forgotten and frowned upon. While others who were ignored while alive have grown in recognition.

Admittedly I can see how people would be turned off by some of the new "literature" and its pretentiousness. Admittedly again I haven't read all that much of it.

Greag, I think Joey Ramone was libertarian, but he tried to keep it quiet. And I rather like Dickens, or what little Dickens I've read which ammounts to about two novels. While certainly isn't action packed, I found Tale of Two Cities to be quite enjoyable.

Okay, Mark, you really picked a good one here. My take is that literary fiction is like a foreign film with subtitles. You need to concentrate more, to be more involved, and really pay attention. Popular fiction is fine too, but it is more entertainment and less work.

Just my take on it. Thanks for a great post!

Mary - avoiding it like the devil! Even if I hadn't flung that bit of nonsense off to Mark days ago, I would have scratched something together tonight and faked it.

No lumps a fuck in my stocking!

Please!

Matt#29: Johnny Ramone was a Republican and he wasn't quiet about it, even going so far at an awards show--as the Ramones were getting honored--to yell out "God Bless George Bush!" in order to counteract the vitriol spouted by nearly everyone else. I'm not a big Bush supporter, but I must say it was a refreshing change.

On the matter at hand: I go back and forth between popular and literary, while staying away from the more extreme hazards of both--the sloppily-tossed together junk and the abstract, cold and experimental, um, junk. I wouldn't want to read now some of the the pretentious, experimental crap I had to read in college, but it did instill some critical, discretionary, and discriminating faculties so that I can be more judicious in my popular reading choices (mostly mysteries and police procedurals like Dennis Lehane, Michael Connelly, etc.). The best, and the hardest thing to do is find that middleground, where "popular and literary intersect" as DJ Radiohead put it. But it can be done: A novel like Ian McEwans "Atonemnt" only seems to be experimental--playing around with narrative styles and such--but it is still intriguinely compelling throughout up to the emotional didn't-see-that-coming wallop at the end, a surprise not for surprise's sake, but a twist that says, in this case, a lot about the power of imagination and the writer's craft. A year or so after having read it, that book still resonates--like the best of literature and the best of popular fiction.

So I won't belabor this any further than to say: the reason me or you or anybody should read--or scan--criticism or reviews is just to see what is being said about plot, themes, and characters. To at least get the gist of the book, a flavor or promise that you would find the book entertaining or enriching to you, and you alone.

I'm sorry, one more thing, practical advice, that touches upon the more fringe element of both the literary and popular aspects: Stay away from Martin Amis' "Yellow Dog"--worst piece of pretentious crap I've ever read. On the other hand--although I enjoy Stephen King, for chrissakes somebody force this man to use an editor! He probably thinks he's too established for that but "Dreamcatcher" is the biggest piece of kitchen-sink-and-all popular-fic crap I've ever read. Two hundred pages could've been slashed-and-burned for a better more suspenseful read. And a mention like "since the peanut farmer was president" was cute and amusing for one go-around, but when it pops up again 127 pages later as something newly-minted, well, that's just inexcusable.

sorry, but just a nit-picky non-imperative correction in my comment #33: I meant to say that the college Literature studies helped instill more judicious, discretionary faculties--not the reading of pretentious crap, which remains a lot of time I'll never get back.

Um, my Joey Ramone is a libertarian was a joke. I don't have the slightest ideas what any of the Ramones political affiliation is or was, nor do I really care.

I guess it was a poor joke at that. But that's an interesting anecdote, GoHah.

#34-sorry, Mat--I've been spending too much time at the "Fatima" post with Mary the Reborn Literally, and I can no longer discern fantasy from reality.

Oh No - The virus is spreading into different threads!

hey, did you all know that i created chex party mix?

no wait...i created literature. yea, that's it.

I thought you invented the Internet, Senor Saleski.

It is alright GoHah, it wasn't a good joke, and looking at it in context it seems quite literal.

Saleski hasn't invented crap. He did createDJRadiohead though.

Stephen King ripped off Dreamcatcher from me! I was eating Chex mix and reading Playboy at the time, so that's where the idea about the 'lusting in his heart' Peanut Farmer came from.

Oh and Jane Eyre was me.

Oh and btw - DJ stole 'lumps of fuck' from me! I invented that! I used to tell those brats back in the old, musty, depressing English manor house - that they'd get those lumps in their stockings. Then they'd rant some nonsense about their mommy being locked away on account of being a freakin' lunatic or something. Yeah right..BoofreakingHoo!

Well I was thinking about saying something sorta smart like about the topic until I got to the end of the comments and watched them descend into a kind of freeform abstract realism based on some neo-postmodernists idea of classicaly oriented humour...don't we all miss decontstructionalists and their fun way with words.

No one writes for posterity, they write because they have a story to tell. It will last if people read it and it strikes a universal chord with people through out the ages. Critics can go and on about such and such being a clasic or literature, but if you have to force someone to read it, how good can it be.

Sure some of the older stories are written in a manner or a dialect that is alien to a contemporary audience, but realisticly that's never much of an impediment to a reader. That's just part of the charm of the book.

I personally don't like Stephen King or some of the other popular writers mentioned, but I also read books that others wouldn't consider literature either. I think literature is an arbitrary category created by academics to keep themselves in tenured positions, so they can write learned essays on the use of commas in Dickens unitl Oliver gets his second helping.

Who cares how a novel or story is desiganted? I don't. I'm writing a story in the hopes that people will read it, enjoy it, and maybe think about a few things. Anything else is really beyond my control as an author. I'm too busy writing to worry about shit like whether some academic will consider it literature, fiction, science fiction, fantasy or whatever.

Just send me the goddamd royalty checks and you can call it what you like.

gypsyman

Gypsyman says:
"Who cares how a novel or story is desiganted? I don't. I'm writing a story in the hopes that people will read it, enjoy it, and maybe think about a few things. Anything else is really beyond my control as an author. I'm too busy writing to worry about shit like whether some academic will consider it literature, fiction, science fiction, fantasy or whatever."

Gypsyman - I think this sums it up. And what you said about people who write, because they have a story to tell.

If Saleski created DJRadiohead then he's got some 'splaining to do because the results are terrible.

...and I have gotten "lumps of fuck" copyrighted. Mary, the RIAA will be contacting you soon. I have been infringed. INFRINGED, I tell you!

sorry, i was hungover, tired and listening to Elliot Smith that day.

Those are the reasons you got as much right as you dide, Saleski. We'll discuss my many flaws and your hand in them at a later date. There are ladies present. ;-)

yes, and while I do appreciate your sensitivity DJ, half the time I get treated like 'one of the guys' prolly cuz I'm either hanging out with guys from the dojo, or the guys from cubscouts. Thank God (no pun intended) for my church friends (nice polite ladies) they keep me in line. : )

Heh. It was all just a sad attempt at dick humor. It's still early here. The jokes tend to get better as the day and week roll along. Check with me about 3pm and the material ought be at its peak.

"The jokes tend to get better as the day and week roll along"

Oh - they better get better young man! I'll be checking...

now..i'm going to take a page from MRL's book and demand that you all LEAVE ME ALONE!

I have almost no concern whatsoever what people read, or even if they read. I think it's great if people enjoy reading, but I'm sure you can lead a happy life pursuing other interests. Having said that, personally I never read popular fiction because it's boring, and I never do it unless I absolutely have to. The way I look at it is there's so much stuff of literary value that I'll likely never get around to before my last breath, so why waste time with uninteresting mass-market shit? Why spend time with anyone who doesn't have an interesting literary style? Reading popular fiction also takes too long; it gets boring so very easily, and then I keep setting the book aside -- or just giving up on it altogether.

I love both kinds of fiction: Science Fiction and Fantasy.

Aye, there's the rub,"The way I look at it is there's so much stuff of literary value that I'll likely never get around to before my last breath, so why waste time with uninteresting mass-market shit? " I spend too much time reading the latter, too little on the former.

Popular fiction, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Westerns, all of them are entertaining, but true literature, "the classics" really move you, and have a lasting almost inspirational quality.

I have read only one book that springs to my mind as a "moodern classic" that is, a book written in the last 20 years or so that could stand the test of time and stack up against those that have gone before. The book is "Soldier of the Great War", the writing is so good, I enjoy it more every time I read it.

a few comments:

1) art "genre" & "categories" (literary, popular, sci-fi, etc) are arbitrary and meaningless;

2) I'm just kinda thrilled to know that some of my fellow domesticated primates actually READ;

3) Too much brain candy causes synapse cavities

4) Refusing to read [do] something just because it's "Difficult" is an excuse for being a lazy motard; sometimes 'difficult' is good for ya.

5) I'll dispense with "literary" and "popular" -- but I reserve the right to call *crap crap -- regardless.

*koontz, s. king, poe, faulkner, hemingway, et al?

6) Tomorrow's "classics can ONLY be derived from "Today's "pop".

7) re. music -- in the orchestral realm, tomorrow's "Mozarts" won't come from the standard classical music fare -- but rather from today's film composers <--(guantlet tossed at somebody's feet...?)

8) Nobody knows nuthin'.

xxoo
Shark

And everything you know is wrong.

Shark's comment#6 that "sometimes difficult is good for you" is really valid. There are rewards if you push yourself a bit: Joyce's "Ulyseus" becomes enjoyable as an update on Homer's "Illiad" if follow the parallels.

And, though I didn't realize it much then, the time I spent as a teen independently delving into non-required and relatively difficult literature, really built up my vocabulary (especially from, oddly enough, the Russian Vladimir Nabkov, who seemed to write English much better than English-speaking writers).

When is the street date for DJRadiohead 2.0 Saleski? The bugs on the original version are driving me mad.

I'm sorry as hell for missing out on this week's edition, kids. (Takes his lumps like the double-plus half-man he purports to be...)

Great work as always -- I love this topic!

What boils down to me is this: story is story is story. It all comes down to story -- I don't care if it's literary or pop or what, so in that sense I agree with Senor Shark.

That said, I tend to gravitate toward pop fiction or genre simply because I smell more story and less belly gazing half-drivel meant to Amaze and Delight and Confound and Perplex the self-important schmucks down at the monthly Lit Circle.

maybe it's because i'm more of a plain language speaker, but i've always enjoyed reading things that used sparse, plain language....a great example is when i discovered annie proulx. cripes, i blew through the shipping news and just loved it.

i'm sure that there are great things to be take away from things like ulysses, it's just not for me.

I personally enjoy both for what they are, but I agree that it's ridiculous how snotty some critics are, and not even just with novels, but when it comes to movies and music as well.

oh, hey--speaking of artsy-fartsy Literature with a capital la-di-da "L", I just heard about an exciting new debut work by someone named Mary Revisited Literally. Anyone ever heard of her?

I am not sure if I understand the meaning of this comment " {Literary fiction} by nature somewhat dry and emotionless".

As for Shark's "Sometime difficult is good for you" I 'd agree in along the lines of the nutritious meal/junk food analogy; the better written works are more difficult to take in because they have more substance. On the other hand, junk food tastes so good.

How can someone figure Literary Fiction is dry and emotionless? o__O If anything I would think someone would it's the other way around.

the words "by nature' say more about the speaker than about literary fiction; that's just someonme who associates good books with eating gruel.

i just found a lump of fuck in my stocking!!

owing to a buncha diabolical crap, i was unable to contribute to this most wonderful Hot Topic. I'll offer a response here and now, along the lines of Bennett done summed it up for me;

"If you learn something from the book, then it was worth reading. If the words capture your imagination and transport you to a different world, then it's a book worth owning. Nothing else matters."

This is undoubtably true. But in saying that, I gotta admit that a good story will not neccesarily hold my attention very long. Naked Lunch, for example, is one of my favourite books, an 89% of the time i ain't got a damn clue what way up the thing's suposed to be. but the language used, that brilliant imagery, the eyes don't ever wanna leave the page. Same goes for The Atrocity Exhibition by Ballard. Sir Fleming was kind enough to fling me a lend of it a while back, an it immediately became one of my favourites, but holy shit. plot-wise, i have a very very rough idea whats going on, but probably nothing that couldn't be summed up in the blurb on the back. For me the joy a that number, in particular, is the invention on display. the way the tale, whatever it might be, is related. the story unfolding in paragraph headings, for example, while the core prose is about something else entirely. it's magical. incantory, i think, is the word. as in "incantation", in case i used the wrong word entirely just now.

but one of my OTHER favourite books is Misery by Stephen King, which i guess counts as "popular fuction". far as i'm concerned if a book's good it's good, much like Bennett says. Everytime i think of this i wind myself in circles. if it has a story i can follow, it better be brilliant, and if not, the writing better be astounding. either way i'm happy. and if it manages both, as Chuck Palhuniuk and Will Self do of an occasion, then all the better. And i think Stephen King does too, most of the time. Misery is an incredibly intelligent novel, as is The Dark Half, which gets extra points by being brilliantly disgusting.

That's a good point, Duke. You can have the best story in the world, but if you tell it poorly then you're really ruined it. But a great author can make a rather dull story, or in some cases no story at all, into something beautiful. Sometimes its not really what the author is saying, but how he/she is saying it.

Honestly, I don't always get Shakespeare, I'm no scholar and won't pretend I understand all the meanings and subthemes in his works, but the man could pen a phrase. The language is beautiful.

Although on an average day I'm more apt to pick up something easier to read like Palhuiuk's Fight Club than say A Winter's Tale.

My thoughts exactly Mat. A good writer will carry a lousy story, a great one'll maybe even have you forgettin there was a story to begin with, so lost is a fella in the language.

And i was thinkin earlier, sometimes i tend to want somethin especially easy-going. For some odd reason, i find gettin all obsessed wi high-brow themes an so on to be an especially depressing experience after a while, i've never worked out why. Some things i just don't like dwelling on, and sometimes the whole "literature" tomfoolery has me feelin really cold or somethin. Then i need to go pig out on a couple weeks worth a trash. It's the same with any medium for me. I'll watch a loada Eisenstien an lap myself into a frenzy about the intellectual concerns and so on (and also the jaw-dropping beauty of something like October, for example) and then feel really really removed from any warmth or, i dunno, heart i supose. i need to spend a lot of time with some wonderfully vacant telly and a buncha fun but empty pop songs to come out of that detached feeling. maybe somethin for some sorta PHD to work out in the future, who knows? Or maybe as sure a sign as any that folks like me are suposed to be workin in factories where the workload is so crippling and the work itself so grindingly monotonous that i don't have time to dwell on the in's and out's of whatever trivial nonsense i'm frettin about this week. meh. who knows?

I don't like the idea that some suggest that something that is considered Popular Fiction can't be a great piece of work. Does something have to be bogged down with pretentiousness and gratuitous complexity in order to be considered an excellent novel?

Reminds me that every story that it's possible to tell has already been told, you know? What do they say there are, seven plots or something?

It's all in the telling. The best writers will spin their web and have you entranced and whisked off even and especially when you absolutely know what's coming.

Is that what great books are, Chris? "Bogged down with pretentiousness and gratuitous complexity"? Sounds to me like the opposite of great.

That's my entire point, Rodney.

How many excellent novels have you read that are dull and pretentious?

Another coffe-spitter! "How many excellent novels have you read that are dull and pretentious?"

I have to admit, I have never successfully completed Dickens' "David Copperfield", it actually put me off most of Dickens' other works.

The biggest problem is that much of what becomes "Classic" does not do so immediately; wil Stephen King be taught in schools the way Shakespeare or Dickens was? Should he be?

A lot of it is subjective, and there is the fact that mass market fiction means fewer of the majority will read any one book; even a century ago most books were expensive with bookstores and libraries less readoily available, so more people had fewer books to read without going to greater expense. IN this way some of these works became recognized as great works and have stood the test of time.

...When did I use the word dull?

Stephen King is popular but he is also crap, because his writing is awkward and unreadable and if extended to novel length it becomes tedious and overblown as well.

But there ARE mass market writers who are genuinely good writers. I think John Grisham is underrated as literature, though obviously not overlooked in the marketplace. Dean Koontz also has flashes of brilliance when he's not just being goofy and retarded or rewriting the same story over and over again.

What I suspect is that the great writers who will be lauded by future generations are the ones who straddle the line between enormous popularity and good writing. Ones who are straight forward enough to be readable, but creative enough to be literary as well. Contemporary writers who I think will stand the test of time:

Patrick O'Brien
Charles de Lint
Dan Simmons
James Herbert
Robert McCammon
Gregory Keyes
Tim Powers

Yes, I know I lean towards fantasy and horror, but each of these writers transcends genre classifications - except Patrick O'Brien who's just the best historical novelist since Sabatini, no more no less.

Dave

What do you guys think of Joyce Carol Oates?

Nalle,

1) It's spelled "Patrick O'BRIAN"

2) O'Brian [Master of the World...zzzzzzzzz...] is not worthy of anointing Sabatini's feet. Sabatini wrote some of the greatest novels in history, regardless of 'genre'. In addition, they were often deep philosophical, politicial, and socialogical commentaries -- disguised and/or mistaken as merely "swashbucking adventures" --

so... DO NOT BLASPHEME THE GREAT SABATINI.

======

Dear Ski & other Dickens haters:

try "GREAT EXPECTATIONS" -- it's almost impossible NOT to like it, methinks.

======

Dear Duke De Mondo,

After reading yer praise of Naked Lunch, I was gonna recommend MALDOROR [by Lautreamont] -- but then again, I decided not to; recommending this book to anyone is sorta like handing a loaded pistol to a hyperactive chimpanzee.

...so nevermind...

======

re. Joyce Carol Oates --

hmmmm... let's see, should I read some Oates... or spend more time with my insane, psychotic, frustrated, sick, dysfunctional middle-class suburban family?

Life's full of tough choices.

I don't hate Dickens, I did enjoy Great Expectations, and Nicoals Nickleby.

Only Joyce Carol Oates I've read is Foxfire. It was ok. The movie was better but that's just because it had plenty of Angelie Jolie boobies.

I'd say I have read some novels that are really good, but also rather dull. Joyce's Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man comes to mind. I found it very difficult to read and quite boring, but I also understand, to an extent, why it gets praised so much. The plot is dull and there is way to much religous dogma, but his voice is original and sometimes profound.

I actually think Stephen King will be studied at university in years to come. Not in the manner that Joyce or Faulkner is, but as a writer of 20th century popular fiction. And I flippin hate John Grisham and Dean Koontz. I had to stop reading Koontz in high school because he kept retelling the same story over and over. And there is only so many court room dramas that I can handle in a lifetime for Grisham.

king's writing is 'awkward'? gee, why am i not surprised to disagree with mr. nalle?

"Stephen King is popular but he is also crap, because his writing is awkward and unreadable and if extended to novel length it becomes tedious and overblown as well."


Damn strange universe you live in, Dave. With such a grip on these things, you'd think there would be a Dave Nalle best seller out there.

No?

Oh, you were just trying to be controversial?

I keep all my bestsellers in a drawer in my office, Bennett. The world is safer with them there in manuscript form.

And it's not a crime to dislike Stephen King. He writes at the level of a smart 6th grader. I guess that makes him approachable for some people, but for me it just makes him painful to read.

And Shark. Sorry for misspelling O'Brian's name - and I didn't say he was BETTER than Sabatini, just the best we've had since then - or do you have a better entry in the historical novel field? Perhaps Newt Gingrich?

Dave

Heh! C'mon Dave, self-publish! You can advertise right here on BC!

Some of King's work is as you describe, but there are also gems like the novella "Hearts In Atlantis", and shorts like "Doolin's Cadilac" that stand alone as testament to his talent.

Granted, the short novels of Steinbeck are on a different level all together. "The Moon Is Down", "Cannery Row", and "Of Mice and Men" are three that stand out in my opinion.

On the other end of the spectrum, I can't stand Koontz. He starts out with an interesting idea, the same one over and over it seems, but then comes up with some cheap excuse for an ending that is guaranteed to disappoint.

Shark, agree with everything you have said so far (quelle surprise).

Yes, todays popular fiction is tomorrow's literary fiction, so you can't really make any determination yet anyway. As someone who has worked in publishing my entire career at literary presses (ie., The Atlantic Monthly etc etc), we considered certain work more "literary" thana others and that generally had to do with the subject matter. if it were more serious in nature, if it had been handled more professionally and if the author had a true gift for writing, then it would be, by those rules there, more "literary."

"Pulp" fiction is written quickly, is often, more often than not, formulaic (a real sign of pulp or popular), and is almost always what we could consider "ilght reading." That's not to say that literature should be hard to read, but the fact is that afor the most part, it is. But there ARE cross over writers whose work is easy to read and who are literary at the same time;

a few:

Harry Mathews (one T please)
Ian McEwan
Philip Roth
Saul Bellow
Henry Miller
Jim Harrison

and right now i can't think of any women, but thee are many such as poet Sharon Olds who is amazing and gifted... i could probably make really long list if i had more time.

Has this helped a bit? or are you all going to boo me now?

Well in any case, i've tried to contribute as someone who does this every single day.... i have to make editorial decisions about what to publish every day and so does my husband. AS both editors, it's hard. i ran my own literary/book press for years and sorting the "slush" from the good stuff is very hard. It's a fine line and i don't think you'll ever resolve it here or anywhre else, but i like that you are trying. I think it's a great topic.

Cheers all, and thanks for the lively discussion...

rock on.
s.

Relating Stephen King's writing to that of a "smart sixth grader" is to state a truly worldclass falsehood.

Take aside the fact that the man has written millions of words that are bought and enjoyed around the planet, by the average and by the literary elite. The writing itself is wonderful -- not always, occasionally sloppy like all prolific writers -- but often it's great and sometimes even transcendent.

He makes it easy because he's a natural storyteller. His work spins the reader in who is open to exploring new worlds. It's as simple as that. King's characters are often what keep me coming back, actually, as he's a fine observer of human nature.

History will be very kind to Mr. King as an author. I've said before that he's the Dickens of his generation. They really do have a lot in common.

Heh! C'mon Dave, self-publish! You can advertise right here on BC!

Now there's a good way to flush a great deal of money. I did take one of my novels and excerpt some sections as short stories which I sold to a variety of magazines, but that's as far as I want to go with it for now. Someday the fiction bug may bite me again, but frankly it's a hell of a lot of work which I just don't have the time or patience for.

Some of King's work is as you describe, but there are also gems like the novella "Hearts In Atlantis", and shorts like "Doolin's Cadilac" that stand alone as testament to his talent.

I'll agree with you here. King's short fiction is much better than his novels are. They don't suffer from the same sloppiness and lack of coherence and sheer rambling pointlessness.

On the other end of the spectrum, I can't stand Koontz. He starts out with an interesting idea, the same one over and over it seems, but then comes up with some cheap excuse for an ending that is guaranteed to disappoint.

He has his good and bad moments. The less he tries to do with his novels and the less seriously he takes what he's doing the better the result tends to be.

Oh and I forgot to mention Neil Gaiman earlier - his work will endure.

Dave

I believe the short story is entitled "Dolan's Cadillac." In any event, it's absolutely brilliant, a taut thriller of a short tale about vengeance on a desert highway. If loving that kind of well penned, expertly executed tale makes me pedestrian or an admirer of "sub-par fiction," I could care less. Of course, I disagree with any such assessment!

Thanks for the title correction Eric, and yeah, I agree. It's a great story.

But at the same time, "The Stand" is a great read, "It" is an amazing saga, and books 2 and 3 of the Gunslinger series are truly inspired. King has given me hours and hours of entertainment, how can I not praise someone who has done that?

Of course! The Stand, the first (revised) edition of The Dark Tower (The Gunslinger), and The Shining are, in my view, absolutely classic pieces of American literature that can stand up with just about any other work of storytelling.

Okay, I started to read King's "IT" a few years ago, and I was really excited to see it because I had seen and loved the movie. But let me just say, I got to page 50, and wanted to kill myself. To get through his books, you have to have the patience of a fucking Kindergarten teacher at an inner city elementary school. I'd been reading for an hour...and I was only on page 20...and still NOTHING had happened. He's entirely too descriptive, and spends too much time rambling about things that the reader thinks they need to pay attention to and absorb that they later find out was pointlessand arbitrary.

However, I read "Secret Window, Secret Garden", and it was almost like I was reading a completely different author. It was great, he was concise, he was clear, and everything made sense. I just think his shorter works are more readable.

I also think, as being discussed before (Plot and ideas vs. writing style), Stephen King is much better at his ideas and plotlines and characters than he is at the actual writing himself. I've seen many of the movies based on his books, and they are all really great. But when I try to read the novels, I can barely get through them without giving up because I feel like I'm not getting anywhere.

First, it's important to note that King "means" a lot of things since he's so prolific, has such a long career, and is not simply a "horror" novelist.

That said, It was the first really long novel I can remember reading, in the mid '80s or so. I loved it, transported me another world, etc. Since it is such an epic, you really do have to give it time to work on you.

Overall, I find his writing to be outstanding, though I can agree that he does go heavy on description from time-to-time. Last, I have to disagree on his films -- overall I'd say that the average King book is good to great while the average King film is good to awful.

It is an amazing study of the difference between children and adults, and how much we change over the years. It's a book worth wading through the few slow parts to get a grip on the bigger picture.

I'm with you Eric, about the movies. The Stand mini-series is an exception, and is really well done.

Obviously, Shawshank Redemption is far and away the best movie ever made from a King story.

I'd love to see more of his short stories hit the screen, as long as Mr. King has nothing to do with the production...

Agree on Shawshank and agree King does not have the magic touch when it comes to film. The adaptation of The Langoliers was very good, so maybe mini-series are the way to go in adapting King's work...

Oh man, I just thought of this -- imagine if Peter Jackson would take on The Dark Tower? That would be seet.

That WOULD be great.

so dave, which king books have you read?

I've read the original version of The Stand, Salem's Lot and The Shining all the way through, part of Eye of the Dragon and part of It. The only one I thoroughly enjoyed was a collection of his short stories with a wind-up monkey on the cover which I can't recall the title of. Eye of the Dragon was particularly, cringingly awful.

Dave

That's a lot of reading (a few thousand pages worth) of a "smart sixth grader's" work, no?

By the way, rating writers by reading level is a strange comparison as most newspapers claim to publish at some age-level (9th grade, 6th grade, one of those).

My wife was reading Stephen King a lot and I had nothing else to read, Eric. My ongoing problem is that I'm selective in my reading and it takes a while to find new authors I like. So I tried out some King in my desperate boredom. You should see some of the OTHER crap I've read.

Dave

King was also an addict during many of his wriitng years, might account for the uneven story telling.

Wow, Dave you've read more King than me, and I like the guy. King is someone I'll read if one of his books is laying around, but not someone I really go out of my way to seek out.

He's a good storyteller, and I think he will leave a lasting mark on literature, but there are so many other authors to read.

Dave - It should be noted that The Eye Of The Dragon IS a book intended for sixth graders!

You should get any or all of his short story collections, they do not disappoint!

Hearts In Atlantis
Graveyard Shift
Everything's Eventual
Night Shift
and
Four Past Midnight

Are the ones I can remember offhand...

I actually envy you folks, so many gripping and well written tales lie ahead.

Bennett, several of the collections you mention hold novellas, not short stories... but they're all great!

I absolutely love Eyes of the Dragon -- it's a wonderful fantasy with a real beating heart.

I get the feeling that I've read the most King round these parts!

Nah Eric, I've read everything he's put out, even the ones as Richard Bachman (The Long Walk!) and have almost everything, in paperback or hard cover sitting on the shelf.

Seriously.

Since this has turned into a tretise on Stephen King I guess I should confess: I have only read one work by King. "The Green Mile." Loved it. Don't know why I haven't been back for more. I guess it's the whole "horror" thing. Not my bag. Anyway, that's all I have to say on King. Carry on.

wow, bennet's read everything kind has written!

didn't you realize it was written for sixth graders?

hoooboy, are we stooopid or what?!

;-)

I reckon so. Attributed to the lack of a silver spoon up my ass, no doubt.

Too bad this entry isn't under "BOOKS" heading, eh?

BTW: Seems BC needs a thread where we can just casually discuss ANY books, authors, recommendations, etc?

Seems that when that sorta takes over a thread -- there's a lot of action.

We could give it a cute/clever title... and serve drinks, maybe?

Shark's "Carnaval De Livres"

Martini, up.

Bennett, while I appreciate the romantic and literary aspects of "Carnaval De Livres" -- I'm afraid most of our semi-literate readers will assume it's a foreign film review.

How bout something simple and descriptive like "READERS BOOK TALK"


teguila, straight.

How about:

"Abortionists, married homosexuals, death penalty advocates and B5 with Little Ricky talk about books"

That would bring in the commenters like crazy.

Quantity, but seriously lacking in quality.

"Reader's Book Talk" sounds good.

Beer and a shot.

Shark -- There's an open comments area in every section (including books) where people can talk about anything they want, but for whatever reason they don't get utilized all that much.

Nice to see this particular HT breaking out of the usual comment ghetto.

Good work lads...

E Berlin, thanks for the directions. I would never have known that -- thanks to the new, fucked up, overly commercialized, chaotic, info-overkill, animated ad deluged Blogcritics format redesign.

: /

Guess I'll take my cigar, my tequila, and my obnoxious, elitist literary opinions over to the new digs.

uh, smoking is allowed, right?

=====

"Art is knowing when to stop." -- ©1994 by Shark

Smoke 'em if you got 'em, far as I'm concerned!

And if you have any Sharkish decrees on how to make the site less fucked up, we're always open ears!

Camel Lights and a Newcastle.

Shark, we're doing the best we know mate, what would you suggest we do to keep BC going?

I'd rather double-fist a Mondavi Pinot and a Jack and Diet Coke... is it quitting time yet?

macallen.

oh, and yes...it's quittin' time.

well, almost.

I think I hit mental quitting time a good little while back now.

Then how about a couple of mental margaritas?