Literature or not?

Should one regard King's work as literature? Should it be named as such? Does "The Dark Tower-series" qualify as literature?

Personally, while I think that King is the best in his genre, his work should be viewed as 'literature' but I am curious to what others think.

that's an interesting question royal-i always thought of literature as stuff that you were forced to read in high school like the scarlet letter and works in that vein-i agree with you that he's the best in his genre but ill have to pass as far as considering his work litrature

Actually, this is interesting, because I was discussing this with a friend of mine who has a BA in English. She compared King to Charles Dickens.

Both are prolific writers. Both were perceived as hacks when they were alive. And she thinks that King will be on our grandkids high school reading lists, just like Dickens is already on ours.

Cool idea, huh?

In my junior in high school (1988-89) we had to read The Dead Zone in my honors English class.

Personally, I think King is literature, especially for his spot-on characterizations and blue-collar dialogue. He really writes in the voice of his generation, his country.

I agree with the comparison to Dickens and have made the same observation to my wife, who agrees that King is not just a genre writer (and she has a BA in Literature).

While he is a very popular writer over here in the Netherlands, I am not sure if his work will make it on list with classics. 'Carrie' might be already considered as a classic though.

But it would be a cool idea indeed!

Would he like to be considered 'literature' ? As far as I can tell from his memoirs, he wouldn't...

Funnily enough, I'm working towards my BA in literature and I agree that King will be considered literature in a few decades. In high school I wrote a term paper focused on It and Carrie and was surprised at the amount of literary criticism already written on him. Digging through those two books for the hallmarks of good literature proved it to me.

I think the comparisons to Dickens are accurate, especially if you consider the slight frenzy that happened with the serial release of The Green Mile. People couldn't wait for the next one to come out, just like Dickens' work.

To me, The Dark Tower is the greatest series of the late-20th/early-21st century. A lot of people won't read them, though, based on the perception of King as a horror writer. His ability with character relations really takes him beyond a genre.

I have to admit I really don't consider King a genre writer. His writing is definitely colored by what happened to him as a child -- the idea that good people don't always make good. In that way, every one of his novels and short stories is horrific, but almost all of his work is about the characters and the relationships between them.

As for the Dark Tower series, I will say that for years I wouldn't touch them. I was disappointed that the series wasn't finished, and after his accident, a lot of my friends were up in arms because they were afraid he would die without finishing it :D.

I wasn't until I realized I had been reading the Dark Tower series anyway (The Stand, The Talisman, Black House, From a Buick 8, Everything's Eventual, Insomnia, It to name a few) that I decided to read the thing from beginning to end.

Actually, if you follow some of the other novels and stories carefully (not just that take place Derry and Castlerock), there is actually another series if you read closely. Firestarter, The tommyknockers, and Lisey's Story all seem to be in the same "universe". All three reference each other at some point.

That's interesting atuinsails! Feel free to start a new thread about it!

King is reviewed on the literary sections in the UK so he is treated as a serious writer. To me, his biggest problem is overwriting, or under-editing - most of his books could do with being much tighter. This lack of control is probably what will stop his work being considered genuine classics rather than genre classics.

at the university of central florida working for my M.A. in English Literature, King was universally hated or sneered at. I suspect he will hence be considered literature in about 50 years or so. Not all his stuff, but his earlier novels and maybe this dark tower thingie, which is fashioned after Lord Alfred Tennyson's "Roland to the Dark Tower Comme"
i haven't read it yet. im waiting for it to be over. they tell me it has something to do with my obsessive-compulsive disorder. he surely is not the dickens of our time though. john irving has tha distinction.

While I absolutely love Stephen King, I'm afraid that he is too "low brow" to be considered literature. His books don't focus on thought provoking, complex themes and he focuses on telling the story more than developing symbols and motifs, which I'm sure simply horrifies who I call the "literary snobs."

No complex themes? How many SK books have you read?

#12 - There are many, many complex themes in Stephen King's work. You just have to dig a little deeper, which you do in the case of many classics anyway. Like I mentioned up there, I wrote a term paper on Carrie and It, and It especially is literally brimming with symbolism and hidden themes common to any piece of literature. He just writes it in a different genre. He's a master of characterization as well, and that definitely cannot be discounted. He writes better characters than many literary authors. I wouldn't say all his books qualify to be honest, but he's got some quality offerings out there just begging to be studied.

What I meant was that in his novels, story becomes the number one focus, which I don't think appeals to the literature people. And I believe I misspoke on the no complex themes issue...it's just that I believe that the themes are presented in a different way in his novels as opposed to the classics, which may be a reason why his novels haven't been accepted as true literary classics. You're right...there are complex themes, which I should have known, considering I've read IT about twenty million times!

Although I would definitely jump at the chance to write a paper on his novels...that's awesome!

As some one who writes and occasionally tries to get published (still haven't succeeded there), I am still lost when it come to the literary genre. A literary novel is supposed to be timely, yet classic, and have an overlying theme that can be discussed over hors d'oerves, as one English professor once explained to me.

I think that the reason most critics consider King to be low brow is that his novels don't lay those pearls of wisdom out for you. You have to wade though the mess and come out on the other side holding it in your hand.

For those of us who love his writing, we wade and pan through the muck multiple times and occasionally find multiple gems as well as pearls. The reason for this is his refusal to "plot" a novel. Since his novels are "situational" and largely driven by conflict between characters, you can't rely on the old novel standard of "introduction, rise of conflict, climax, anticlamax."

Absolutely, excellent characters, realistic dialogue, and actual plots. I personally think storytelling is key to good literature, otherwise it is a tedious exercise in intellectual thumbsucking. Though "horror" is a genre, Kings books don't simply follow a set formula where only the names and settings are changed. His book cover an extremely wide variety of issues and situations and I think the Dickens comparison is entirely apt.

it's not that SK is "too low-brow" for the university. the reasons the literary professors can't stand him is more human and more simple:

(1) SK makes more money in one day than any doctoral professor makes in a lifetime.

(2) SK is recognized by most everyone anyplace in the English-speaking (and many non-English speaking) countries of the world.

(3) His constant derision of creative writing classes burns the rectal areas of many a college professor, who must "publish or perish."

I agree, but don't forget that the 'snobs' don't like a popular writer linked to 'their' genre. I guess the snobs aren't happy with Elizabeth George, Patricia Cornwell or Nicci French either ;-).

I remember this issue came up back in 2003 when the National Book Foundation awarded King with the Distinguished Contribution to American Letter Award. Here is a link to his acceptance speech ...

http://www.nationalbook.org/nbaacceptspeech_sking.html

Edited (multiple times!) to get the link syntax correct

Thanks so much for this link! Wow, it's quite a speech, but I can understand him. When you are an aspiring writer and want to get published, the 'Old Boys Network' as he calls it, can get quite frustrating.

I want to echo the thanks for posting that link. I really enjoyed reading the speech and I too would like to see the literary world be more inclusive of popular fiction.

brewergirl:

thank you for posting the link. just rinished reading it. i'd like to think that the two classes of popular writers and literary writers could meld, but i'd also like to think that the land of oz ws real. what SK hopes to happen in academia has never been and, like the historial "fact" that george w. bush won the 2000 election, never will be.

I think literature is an arbitrary term regarding books with a backward facing historical eye. To me all works of fiction are literature.

#21 - Hey, just read the link, brewergirl, and WOW that says it all! Thanks!!!

A have a friend who used to ask the question "What is literature?" No one could give him an answer. I answered him one time with this: "Anything published by Penguin." He has since ceased to ask that question.

With that said, I have always earnestly believed King's work (at least a majority of it) to be literature. My main defense is likely the one to get shot down: he employs many attributes of postmodernism and modernism in his technique. Think about it: he makes many references to both low-brow and high-brow culture. And even those that are low-brow get made into high-brow simply because of the meaningful context in which his characters perceive them. The other thing is when he writes outside of the first person narrative, he experiments with internal monologue and many other forms of unconventional narration—nothing he writes is straight to the point. It meanders about as if the narration is part of the flawed observation of a real human observer. A very Modernist aspect is taking on a chaotic universe and finding a moralistic outlook. Being that most of his novels are allegorical there is always the moral outcome. However, that outcome does not end in perfection. There are no real happy endings with King's novels, but there is always moralistic growth resulting from the experience of a chaotic universe.

I have also always thought of King's work to be very erudite. However, it is told in a manner (the Americana, folksy storytelling) that makes it all flow (but not necessarily easy).

He also goes against convention. And who are the authors that have the biggest impact in literary History? Those that go against the already set formula; so much so, that they become the formula everyone follows.

Anyway, that is my tirade. Thank you for reading.

and a terrific tirade it was!

well, thank you. :)

An excellent tirade, indeed, but you're preaching to the choir. You'll find few King haters among this lot. You should cross-post this in "Thing(amabrarians) That Go Bump in the Night." There be heathens there that need converting. ;-)

True. I think what set it of was the "Too low-brow" thus my feathers had ruffled.

I look up that group. I'll say you sent me personally ;-)

Posted: http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=33801

:)

I agree, I think he'll have to die before its really considered literature. Or at least there's needs to be enough readers of his that become lit. professors and write their dissertations about his works and once it catches on in colleges, you get the trickle down effect and in 50 years everyone is reading him.

That said can you imagine a world where teenagers hate reading King like they hate reading Dickens? (I'm not personally slamming Dickens, but you get the idea.)

Oh sure...people hate stuff just to seem fashionable or rebellious or whatever. No thought goes into it, just knee-jerk reaction.

Actually, King has already been "canonized" in a lot of ways. Carrie has been on the high school AP test reading list for at least ten years. And a couple of different literature professors at the university where I used to teach taught Stephen King books in their graduate classes. I taught essay writing classes myself, and I've taught a couple of his essays.

Among the lit-crit folks, there's a great deal of respect for his older work. They lose interest after about the first five works or so, but Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Shining, and The Dead Zone are not uncommon in college classrooms and scholarly journals.

Fantastic! I went to a state university that seemed to lack such imagination in literature classes. Even the Honor's courses kept to classics. Not that its the worse thing to read classics :).

I suspect that university has changed since my years there (FDS -- 1970-72 and UCF 1987-1990), when it was established policy to study ONLY dead writers. This was overcome at both universities by inserting "Modern" or "Current" or MId-Century lit classes, where the enjoyable classics of today such as Saul Bellow's "Hendeerson the Rain King," and John Kennedy Toole"s "A Confederay of Dunces" were taught. (I asked the prof "Isn' this author dead?" the reply: Yes, but he wouldn't be if he hadn't died so young by accident.") I think I understood what he meant. As for the above posting by Bardsfingertips, he profiles King via literary methodogies. I'd like someon to profile his work utilizing philosophy's phenemological, entrological, and eschatological, provinces. I think he scores minus 0 set in the later. Any notion of church/temple/synagogue in his works is negative (Carrie) or blithely acknowledging its existence. However, SK is NOTe anti-Christ. His phenemological content is very bigh, as much as 70 or 80 percent in some of his works, such as Dreamcatchers. His spiritual vision seems to say there are horrors in the universe and dimensional dangers, but the Omniscent Force that can not be named governs all, and it is benevolent towards good life.
I have no idea how he was raised, but his work reads like the beliefs of a fallen Methodist.

Great response! Though I have to look up three of the words you used ;-)

I think that is a very interesting question. This would be a good one to ask people who aren't biased (like I am towards anything KING). So my answer is of course, yes. As an elementary teacher I plan on using the stories The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and The Eyes of the Dragon in my classroom (upperlevel).
My argument is that in 20 years and beyond people are still going to be reading King therefore how does that not constitute as literature like all of the other greats before him. Afterall I bet that most people in his time didn't think that Edgar Allen Poe would be a 'classic' and don't we consider him part of literature?

beckylynne:

truth is usually expressed simply. Good show!

I have always said that in 500 years from now SK his books will still be read and discussed just like Shakespeare, Jane Austen, the Bronte Sisters,Charles Dickens, etc. I really beleive that Stephen King and some of today's writers Ursula K. LeGuin, Anne Rice, Ray Bradbury, Andre Norton, and of course many, many others too numerous to name
as well as others from years ago like Beatrix Potter, Tolkien, E A Poe, Laura Ingalls, Louisa May Wolcott, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Emily Dickinson, etc. will still be read and reread for many generations to come. All of these great Authors wrote many unforgettable books and characters that will live on forever for as long as people read books.

beatles1964

I've got one of those BA things too and I totally agree with these people who compare SK to Dickens. To me, in order to count as literature a book should make the best possible use of the language it is written in. That's not to say it has to be grammatically perfect (most of the best writers aren't) but that it has to speak its own language perfectly - or as near as possible (whether that is the language of the streets or the language of children or animals or whatever else the book is about). Most of King's books are a masterclass in that. I'm not saying it's the only thing but it's the main compulsory one.

Anyway - literature is as much about changing tastes as anything else is. I can't say whether King will be up there in the canon 100 years from now. You only have to look at writers like Marie Corelli, who was incredibly popular in her time, disappeared almost completely until the end of the 20th C and is now making quite a comeback, to know it's not that easy to predict, but I do think he deserves to be there.

Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a textbook. Every time I hear the word 'literature' I start writing assignments. Can't help it.

ETA - #11 And I feel the same about John Irving too.

Horror, sci-fi, and fantasy will always be considered lesser-forms of writing by literary professors, academics, etc.
Stephen King, to me should be at least in a Contemporary literature class but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

Cenre writing is very rarely classed as literature, why, I don't know. Class writing will always win out.

# 39 Hey becky - I taught Eyes of the Dragon to freshman Special Ed. literature classes a couple of times with moderate success. I don't teach literature anymore, but The Girl... would be another good choice for that level.

Personally, I think history is going to be kind to King and he will be regarded as the Charles Dickens of the 20th Century in years to come. Today's literature is tomorrow's kitchen drawer lining - though critics say otherwise, time will be the judge of what lasts and is still read by future generations.