Rediscovering the classics

[Lasher]

Be that as it may, I'm not sure "classic" is the same as "popular."

I never equated the two, so I'm not sure of the point of this. In fact I think I stated that his popularity was a detriment to his work being taken seriously.

What's the time frame for something being a "classic"? I was taught in 9th Grade that The Old Man and the Sea was a classic and that was published in 1952 and I was in 9th Grade in, ummm.... 1981... so that's 29 years. And I'm pretty sure they didn't wait till I was in 9th Grade to certify it a classic.

I think maybe the problem is that too many people equate pretension and inaccessibility as being requirements for Art. I know I used to think that way when I was younger.

 

[Lasher]

Clive Barker

You're an idiot. Go rewrite your thesis.

Bradbury you could make an arguement for. Maybe. Clive Barker? Jesus are you dumb.

 

[gravyrug]

You're an idiot. Go rewrite your thesis.

Bradbury you could make an arguement for. Maybe. Clive Barker? Jesus are you dumb.

Bradbury is a good one to go back and reread, too. Especially if it's been a few years. There's something I find comforting about his writing, even when he's writing the most amazingly horrific things.

 

[bad kitty]

I was an ultimate Stephen King fan. I had every book in hardback, but alas, I had to sell the collection to buy groceries. Since then it has been too painful to go back.

What I have been re reading is the Sleeping Beauty Trilogy.

 

[Guest]

You're an idiot. Go rewrite your thesis.

Bradbury you could make an arguement for. Maybe. Clive Barker? Jesus are you dumb.

so I guess you dont understand Imajika or Great & Secret Show. Barker has a very dark imagination, fusing sex with the macabre.

 

[eagleyez]

Steve came in the bookstore i managed on Christmas Eve a few years back and signed books for nuthin for a couple of hours....it was a Maine happenin.

I found him a Sinatra box set for his mom.

he's a cool cat.

 

[roxanne69]

I'm still trying to figure out how "Stephen King" and "classics" belong anywhere in the same neighborhood. Is that like the oxymoron "classic rock" or something?

Stephen King was awarded the National Book Award prize for lifetime achievement this year so yes, he can be considered a "real writer" now.


I'm reading "On Writing" by King and it's really fun because it is mostly autobiographical.

BTW To all who couldn't get through the Dark Tower (I couldn't), he has rewritten it and it will be coming out this summer in an easier to read format.

God, I'm such a bookworm!

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Stephen King was awarded the National Book Award prize for lifetime achievement this year so yes, he can be considered a "real writer" now.


I'm reading "On Writing" by King and it's really fun because it is mostly autobiographical.

BTW To all who couldn't get through the Dark Tower (I couldn't), he has rewritten it and it will be coming out this summer in an easier to read format.

God, I'm such a bookworm!

He rewrote it again??? I now have 2 copies that are different and he wants to do a 3rd of the same book?

 

[DéjàNu]

Hi Rox

It always depend of what mean "classic".

for me its what was the best or/and what would be the best.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Originally posted by Lasher
I never equated the two, so I'm not sure of the point of this. In fact I think I stated that his popularity was a detriment to his work being taken seriously.

I merely said that they weren't the same thing and then explained what "classic" meant to me. I have no idea what you think "classic" means.


What's the time frame for something being a "classic"? I was taught in 9th Grade that The Old Man and the Sea was a classic and that was published in 1952 and I was in 9th Grade in, ummm.... 1981... so that's 29 years. And I'm pretty sure they didn't wait till I was in 9th Grade to certify it a classic.

For automobiles, I think it's 25 years. For fish stories, I think it's 10-15 years.


I think maybe the problem is that too many people equate pretension and inaccessibility as being requirements for Art. I know I used to think that way when I was younger.

... und now ve dance.

 

[Olivianna]

... und now ve dance. [/B]

I give you a -21.

 

[eagleyez]

the canonical

i'd rather read Bukowski than that homophobe animal killer (himself) Hemingway any day.


Academia-blah....

 

[roxanne69]

the canonical

i'd rather read Bukowski than that homophobe animal killer (himself) Hemingway any day.


Academia-blah....

Bless your heart eagleyez lol I don't like Bukowski but my loathing for the overhyped mysoginist freak Hemmingway makes me just wanna hug you.


I manage a used bookstore and I always wish a famous author would walk in. You're lucky!

 

[medjay]

I guess to me, a classic is something that has stood up and been recognized as having some enduring worth over time. And by "time," I mean more than a few months on the bestseller lists.

I really didn't plan on a debate developing over the semantics of the word "classic"; I actually did mean books that were favorites and classics in everyone's personal opinion. I could give a fuck less what academics or literary snobs consider to be legitimate classics.

As far as King's relevance, you can't dismiss his accomplishments by equating them to a few months of the bestseller charts. His books have been in wide circulation since the early seventies for the simple reason that people love them and new generations of readers discover them. If thiry years isn't long enough for him to prove his worth then what is?

He's become a cultural icon and his stories will always be highly regarded because of their universal themes. This is why his books will always be in print and not end up forgotten and moldering away on the bottom shelf of some used bookstore. Ironically, his detractors use these very facts to bash him. I don't get it.

If you don't like King's style or his cannon or work that's fine. There's a lot of stuff I don't like either. For instance, I can't stand Charles Dickens who I think is boring, overrated and irrelevant. But his works are considered classics and taught in schools all over the country. They may be "classics", just not my types of "classics". But I'd never say Dickens' stuff doesn't deserve the classification; there are too many people out there who feel otherwise. Just like King.

thats the problem w/ writers now, they write for the masses instead of for themselves. A recipe for failure is what it is.
Don't concern yourself w/ what others might or might not like, do your own thing.

There's nothing wrong with being true to yourself and writing what you want. But one of the main rules of composition is to know your audience, and if you write a bunch of stuff no one wants to read it will remain in the bottom drawer of your desk while you go out and work for a living.

Anyone who has aspirations of being a writer is only fooling themselves if they say they don't want to get paid for it. It's the dream of every artist to be acknowledged and, if possible, compensated for his/her creations. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Originally posted by Scott X
no, he is not. Clive Barker and Bradbury are far better and he is not damned for being popular, he is damned for being mediocre.

You can't compare them because King and Barker are different writers with totally different styles. Like apples and oranges.

 

[Guest]

You can't compare them because King and Barker are different writers with totally different styles. Like apples and oranges.

I disagree. King supposedly writes horror as does Barker except Barker comes up with original ideas. King has dabbled in drama which has been more successful than his horror.
A killer clown? Oh fuckin' spare me.

 

[Queersetti]

As far as King's relevance, you can't dismiss his accomplishments by equating them to a few months of the bestseller charts. His books have been in wide circulation since the early seventies for the simple reason that people love them and new generations of readers discover them. If thiry years isn't long enough for him to prove his worth then what is?

He's become a cultural icon and his stories will always be highly regarded because of their universal themes. This is why his books will always be in print and not end up forgotten and moldering away on the bottom shelf of some used bookstore. Ironically, his detractors use these very facts to bash him. I don't get it.

If you don't like King's style or his cannon or work that's fine. There's a lot of stuff I don't like either. For instance, I can't stand Charles Dickens who I think is boring, overrated and irrelevant. But his works are considered classics and taught in schools all over the country. They may be "classics", just not my types of "classics". But I'd never say Dickens' stuff doesn't deserve the classification; there are too many people out there who feel otherwise. Just like King.

I think Dickens is a very apt comparison to King. Both were enormously popular authors during their lifetimes who were more renowned for their storytelling than for stylistic or innovative considerations.

 

[medjay]

I disagree. King supposedly writes horror as does Barker except Barker comes up with original ideas. King has dabbled in drama which has been more successful than his horror.
A killer clown? Oh fuckin' spare me.

Dude, refering to King or Barker as "horror" writers is really insulting to the both of them. Espcially since Barker hasn't written a horror novel since The Damnation Game. Fantasy, yes. Horror, I don't think so.

And I'd estimate less than 40% of King's work could be called horror. Have you even read anything they're written since the 90's?




And the fucking clown was scary.

 

[Guest]

And I'd estimate less than 40% of King's work could be called horror. Have you even read anything they're written since the 90's?

And the fucking clown was scary.

No I haven't because there are so many other authors out there who deserve recognition. The last King book I read was Dark Half and it bored me. btw, I would say more than 40% of his works would be considered horror/drama. If you want to be scared, look into Harlan Ellison and Neil Gaiman.

 

[medjay]

If you want to be scared, look into Harlan Ellison and Neil Gaiman.

Dude, Neil Gaiman doesn't write horror either. Which book did you read?

And if you haven't cracked a Stephen King book since the Dark Half then you're very uninformed about what he's been up to. You better get up to date if you want to continue the debate.

 

[Guest]

Dude, Neil Gaiman doesn't write horror either. Which book did you read?

And if you haven't cracked a Stephen King book since the Dark Half then you're very uninformed about what he's been up to. You better get up to date if you want to continue the debate.

the debate is King is highly overrated and should've retired back in 1990 and I am right.

 

[medjay]

the debate is King is highly overrated and should've retired back in 1990 and I am right.

Nope. King has released a lot of quality stuff in the last 15 years and hardly none of it falls into the category of horror. He's matured and his writing has matured. If you're looking for him to keep writing the kind of stuff he turned out when he was 30-year-old, alcoholic drug addict then I guess you should stick with Christine and Pet Semetary.

I'm letting my money ride with the new-and-improved adult King.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Originally posted by medjay
I really didn't plan on a debate developing over the semantics of the word "classic"; I actually did mean books that were favorites and classics in everyone's personal opinion.

Okay. So it is like "classic rock."


I could give a fuck less what academics or literary snobs consider to be legitimate classics.

Yes, it's always a good idea to ignore the views of those who know what they're talking about.


As far as King's relevance, you can't dismiss his accomplishments by equating them to a few months of the bestseller charts. His books have been in wide circulation since the early seventies for the simple reason that people love them and new generations of readers discover them. If thiry years isn't long enough for him to prove his worth then what is?

Someone used this same argument with me about Jacqueline Susanne once. Since she's been around longer, I guess she's more "classic" than Stephen King.


He's become a cultural icon and his stories will always be highly regarded because of their universal themes. This is why his books will always be in print and not end up forgotten and moldering away on the bottom shelf of some used bookstore. Ironically, his detractors use these very facts to bash him. I don't get it.

I doubt it, but time will tell.


If you don't like King's style or his cannon or work that's fine. There's a lot of stuff I don't like either. For instance, I can't stand Charles Dickens who I think is boring, overrated and irrelevant. But his works are considered classics and taught in schools all over the country. They may be "classics", just not my types of "classics". But I'd never say Dickens' stuff doesn't deserve the classification; there are too many people out there who feel otherwise. Just like King.

Q made an excellent point in comparing the two. Dickens was popular in his day, as is King nowadays, but his reputation has fluctuated. I suspect King will be to those 150 years from now what Dickens is to you today. Everyone will scratch their heads and wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

[medjay]

Yes, it's always a good idea to ignore the views of those who know what they're talking about.

Whoa! We both know that literary criticism is as subjective as anything. Don't even try to insult me by implying that I'm ignorant. I'd expect more from you considering that healthy debate we had some time ago about the merits of performance art (the thread about the dead baby eater, remember?) when you made it clear that all art is subjective and should not be held to rigid standards.

Q made an excellent point in comparing the two. Dickens was popular in his day, as is King nowadays, but his reputation has fluctuated. I suspect King will be to those 150 years from now what Dickens is to you today. Everyone will scratch their heads and wonder what all the fuss was about.

And thus you prove my point. Dickens is considered classic and is taught in schools all over the country. And he's a perfect comparison to King.

 

[theGatsby]

I've got to fall in line with the Professor on this one. I think it might be a bit early to consider King a "classic." Although I do agree with Medjay and Q that it is appropriate to draw comparisons to Dickens. I dislike Dickens, but can recognize the relevence of his writing and why it is taught. For one his vocabulary is phenomenal. Perhaps in 150 years there will be school kids bitching about having to read another King novel like I pissed about having to read Great Expectations.

King's On Writing is quickly becoming iconic for fledgling writers and experienced alike.

As for classics I like to reread?

The Great Gatsby - duh

The Catcher in the Rye

Moby Dick - ok here come the jokes

Red Badge of Courage

New stuff I've reread?

Lord of the Rings

Hitchhiker's Guide

 

[PinkOrchid]