or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Stephen King
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stephen King - Page 2

post #16 of 73
I agree that The Stand is excellent. I also thought It and the first three of The Dark Tower were excellent. If you want a quick taste to get a feel, I'd go with Salem's Lot. Scared the hell out of me and I couldn't put it down.

Dreamcatcher... Why did you guys remind me of that garabage? Blech. I can't believe I finished that book. Disgusting.
post #17 of 73
I read the first 3 or 4 pages of "It", this is the extent of my knowledge of King and I must say I do not care to pursue the experience. I prefer hard-boiled for genre reading and the Elric novels for fantasy/angry youth.
post #18 of 73
I'm a pretty big lit snob but early stephen king is actually pretty good. I really enjoyed (as bachmann) the long walk, the running man. the stand is interesting for the first half, the shining is pretty good. I also enjoyed the gunslinger series up to the waste land and misery is pretty great
post #19 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFS View Post
Thx, I may give it a try.

Although if you have only one rec, it may be fair to say you have little love for the genre an sich.

The genre has loads of issues -- namely that it never tends to take itself seriously, and that because the books are plot-driven and premised upon action the characters tend to bounce around between ghosts/zombies/aliens/whatever screaming at each encounter and doing little else.

The books which have a dark theme or setting don't really rely on plot and hence are not 'horror' or 'sci-fi'. They include more traditional and often more mature elements of style and structure which have deeper roots than the cheap shocks of horror stories (cf. Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde); that is, such stories may have elements of the 'horror' genre (soulless constructs, evil alter-egos), but those elements are not intended just to shock the characters or reader. Horror stories, however, are often so necessarily sensational that they leave no room for nuances of other feelings or ideas and are inherently shallow -- as soon as the shocks mature into other ideas the book ceases to be 'horror' and becomes something else.
post #20 of 73
Apt Pupil (short story)
Needful Things
Pet Semetary
Firestarter
Misery
post #21 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
The genre has loads of issues -- namely that it never tends to take itself seriously, and that because the books are plot-driven and premised upon action the characters tend to bounce around between ghosts/zombies/aliens/whatever screaming at each encounter and doing little else.

The books which have a dark theme or setting don't really rely on plot and hence are not 'horror' or 'sci-fi'. They include more traditional and often more mature elements of style and structure which have deeper roots than the cheap shocks of horror stories (cf. Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde); that is, such stories may have elements of the 'horror' genre (soulless constructs, evil alter-egos), but those elements are not intended just to shock the characters or reader. Horror stories, however, are often so necessarily sensational that they leave no room for nuances of other feelings or ideas and are inherently shallow -- as soon as the shocks mature into other ideas the book ceases to be 'horror' and becomes something else.

this is pretty wrong and you betray a lack of knowledge about the critical discourse on the genre. the fact that the british gothic is considered a "serious" enough genre to be pursued academically kind of argues against your premise.

ps: you should read burke's essay on the sublime and the beautiful
post #22 of 73
The Stand fucking sucked IMO.

I like his short stories and Bachmann stuff, but find his novels to be way too wordy and boring.

Sure, he's better than John Saul and Dean Koontz....

but can't hold a candle to Cliver Barker.
post #23 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by javyn View Post
The Stand fucking sucked IMO. I like his short stories and Bachmann stuff, but find his novels to be way too wordy and boring. Sure, he's better than John Saul and Dean Koontz.... but can't hold a candle to Cliver Barker.
clive barker is pretty legit too, although his terrible movie creations and weird S&M side projects turn me off to him as a person. on the other hand I heard him as a guest on loveline once and he was pretty smart, so...
post #24 of 73
Okay, aside from the first two Hellraisers, I gotta give you that, his movies SUCK heh.

But his novels are incredible. I'll take Great and Secret Show over anything King has written on any day.
post #25 of 73
I liked Misery a lot. Pretty brutal, much better than the film, too.
post #26 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teger View Post
this is pretty wrong and you betray a lack of knowledge about the critical discourse on the genre. the fact that the british gothic is considered a "serious" enough genre to be pursued academically kind of argues against your premise.

Please. Literary criticism in general is probably one of the most silly and unsubstantiated areas of any university, and the 'horror' and 'sci-fi' genres are pretty much the nadir of that pit's bottom. English undergraduate studies in general are little more than graded book clubs. Most people can pull theses out of their asses, which is important because they often get confused between their head and hind.

Quote:
ps: you should read burke's essay on the sublime and the beautiful

Uhh...it agrees with what I just said.
post #27 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
Please. Literary criticism in general is probably one of the most silly and unsubstantiated areas of any university, and the 'horror' and 'sci-fi' genres are pretty much the nadir of that pit's bottom. English undergraduate studies in general are little more than graded book clubs. Most people can pull theses out of their asses, which is important because they often get confused between their head and hind.



Uhh...it agrees with what I just said.

and uhhh.. no it doesn't. burke probably wasn't critiquing a genre that didn't exist yet, sorry

anyway shouldn't you be out fantasizing about a male coworker? you already douche up enough threads on here, how about not trying to make people feel shitty about reading stephen king?
post #28 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teger View Post
and uhhh.. no it doesn't. burke probably wasn't critiquing a genre that didn't exist yet, sorry

No, he was critiquing the concepts behind that fabricated genre (which, like all literary taxonomies, are arbitrary and artificial). Besides, horror existed in literature long before the turn of the 18th century whether or not someone decided to gather enough potboilers to form a contemporary genre.
post #29 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
No, he was critiquing the concepts behind that fabricated genre (which, like all literary taxonomies, are arbitrary and artificial). Besides, horror existed in literature long before the turn of the 18th century whether or not someone decided to gather enough potboilers to form a contemporary genre.
My only point of contention with your characterization is that, while great "genre" transcends that easy categorization to become literature, I still feel it retains a link to it's genre origins and would not have it stand entirely out of it if I had to judge where it should be placed according to traditional literary taxonomy. To make it clear to anyone else reading, an easy way to distinguish genre from literature is that genre gives the reader what he wants, using the common archetypes of it's sub-category as a conduct to an expected end.
post #30 of 73
I haven't read very many King books but I rather enjoyed Needful Things.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Stephen King