King of Literature, part II
Reviewing books is a tricky thing. John Irving says that to do it right, you'd need to read all of an author's work so that you can see all that he's done, see his growth, get a sense of what he's trying to be about, etc. (I'm probably paraphrasing somewhat). This makes a lot of sense but would limit the pool of reviewers to a more knowledgable group, probably decimating the ranks of reader reviews at Amazon.com. Oh, darn.
That being said, I wanted to follow up my post on the definition of literature and Stephen King with some thoughts on his second novel, "'Salem's Lot." No, I haven't read all of King's books (I just can't do it) but I have read maybe half a dozen of his novels, a number of short stories, and a few novellas. I'm not an expert by any means but I do feel that while we're all unique as individual humans, if something bothers or excites me, it's likely to bother or excite many others, as well. Many writers and artists make their careers between those lines, and that's a good thing. If my own quality meter were the only gateway to publishing today there'd be damn few books out there.
Anyway, in my on again, off again effort to at least partially understand Stephen King, I wanted to read one of his earliest books. I was very pleasantly surprised but there were two main things I had to overcome and they both sadly took away from my enjoyment.
Normally I won't watch a movie or television event based on a book that I'd think I'd like to someday read. That being said, I've watched both TV miniseries based on "'Salem's Lot" and oddly enough, cracked the door to giving King another shot. The events of the miniseries are so faithfully modelled on the book (a good thing really) that I wasn't able to be surprised when I read it. Unfortunate it worked out that way.
But the other problem I had was brought on by the reactions I've had toward King's other work that I've read. These are the same things by and large that make it difficult for me to ever be a fan. For instance, there's just an occasional hint of King's politics and opinions of Nixon. What is there is worked into the context of the story and not thrown out as unwanted diatribe, as he's done in other pieces.
Another thing that is done with a light touch here is the use of nursery rhyme-like phrases or turns that in future works are done repetitively and with a heavy hand. Here his treatment of children strikes me as accurate and nearly dead on with how I feel kids in my time really spoke and really acted. The portrayals here are not caricatures or cartoonish.
When compared to the later books I've read (or tried to but put down) "'Salem's Lot" reads as if King had a sharp editor working for him or else a tighter control of his own narrative instincts. One of his books that I couldn't get through, "Desperation," suffers from a verbal diarrhea where seemingly every word or phrase that pops into King's mind makes the printed page.
In everything that King writes, his style is deceptively clear and easy to read. But when he his younger characters quote too many movie or TV phrases or when his characters' dialogue is too cartoonish or they use bizarre choices to phrase ordinary sentences, the reader is taken out of this flow. The writing takes you out of the narrative and that should never happen, especially when it appears gimmicky or self-indulgent.
None of this is so in "'Salem's Lot." I loved how the book is structured: the focus changes from character to character and then to the town, or the minor characters that live there. The story unfolds swiftly, surely, but subtly, and without the landmines that blow me out of much of his later work ("Misery" is at least one exception). The plot ties together well without relying on unplanned coincidence that tramples on the readers' willing suspension of disbelief. It is a complex tale told simply and told well. If it weren't for my earlier exposure to the TV movies or for the hints of the bad things he'd do in his later novels, it would have scared the pants off me.
I'd love to compare this book to Dan Simmons "Summer of Night" but for the reasons just stated I'm not sure that I can. The writing is probably better in King's book but the scenes of small town horror in rural Illinois in "Night" bring back every terrifying moment from the Creature Feature movies I used to see as a kid, the books I read, and the creepy feelings I'd get at night crossing the local cemetery as a short cut to the ball fields in Connecticut. These are done better here but I'm let down by the end; again, not so in King's book.
("Summer of Night" and its sequel, "A Winter Haunting" (an absolutely brilliant psychological horror story - did "Summer of Night" really happen?) are apparently in the process of being made into a movie.)
I have a friend who, if not an expert, is much more of a King fan and expert than I will likely ever be. He recommended to me King's book on the craft of writing called "On Writing." Although King's would have been among the last of such books that I'd ever seek out, I picked up a copy out of respect for my friend and will try to get through it in the future (note the uncertainty). In the Second Foreword of the edition that I have, King himself quotes the immortal Strunk and White work, "The Elements of Style." He cites the principle "Omit needless words" and says that he will try to do that there. I don't know yet if he succeeds; he did in "'Salem's Lot," not so in "Desperation" and others. I find this ironic.
So I'm left not knowing where I stand on King personally. Does my King-as-future-Literature argument still stand? Absolutely. Can I ever be a fan? Of individual books, certainly, but not of his oeuvre. Even on my most pessimistic days, I felt that King could write and write well, if he really tried to. Did he, in his earlier works (did he become a member of the write two excellent books than lapse into your own formula club - talked about in an earlier post), and change his mind later? Did he have an assertive editor, was he experimenting, was he writing for market? Personally I really wonder if he just wasn't writing too damn much and too damn fast. I think that quality must suffer at a certain speed.
I still don't know. I don't know the man and if I ever met him and asked him this stuff he'd probably be justified in pouring his martini down my shirt. I want to like him, though. As I said in the first post, he's done a lot of good things for writers and other little guys and clearly has a love and respect for books and literature. So while he may not have a lasting affect on my bookshelf, I still believe he will on others in a far future time. Would that we all could rest in such peace.
That being said, I wanted to follow up my post on the definition of literature and Stephen King with some thoughts on his second novel, "'Salem's Lot." No, I haven't read all of King's books (I just can't do it) but I have read maybe half a dozen of his novels, a number of short stories, and a few novellas. I'm not an expert by any means but I do feel that while we're all unique as individual humans, if something bothers or excites me, it's likely to bother or excite many others, as well. Many writers and artists make their careers between those lines, and that's a good thing. If my own quality meter were the only gateway to publishing today there'd be damn few books out there.
Anyway, in my on again, off again effort to at least partially understand Stephen King, I wanted to read one of his earliest books. I was very pleasantly surprised but there were two main things I had to overcome and they both sadly took away from my enjoyment.
Normally I won't watch a movie or television event based on a book that I'd think I'd like to someday read. That being said, I've watched both TV miniseries based on "'Salem's Lot" and oddly enough, cracked the door to giving King another shot. The events of the miniseries are so faithfully modelled on the book (a good thing really) that I wasn't able to be surprised when I read it. Unfortunate it worked out that way.
But the other problem I had was brought on by the reactions I've had toward King's other work that I've read. These are the same things by and large that make it difficult for me to ever be a fan. For instance, there's just an occasional hint of King's politics and opinions of Nixon. What is there is worked into the context of the story and not thrown out as unwanted diatribe, as he's done in other pieces.
Another thing that is done with a light touch here is the use of nursery rhyme-like phrases or turns that in future works are done repetitively and with a heavy hand. Here his treatment of children strikes me as accurate and nearly dead on with how I feel kids in my time really spoke and really acted. The portrayals here are not caricatures or cartoonish.
When compared to the later books I've read (or tried to but put down) "'Salem's Lot" reads as if King had a sharp editor working for him or else a tighter control of his own narrative instincts. One of his books that I couldn't get through, "Desperation," suffers from a verbal diarrhea where seemingly every word or phrase that pops into King's mind makes the printed page.
In everything that King writes, his style is deceptively clear and easy to read. But when he his younger characters quote too many movie or TV phrases or when his characters' dialogue is too cartoonish or they use bizarre choices to phrase ordinary sentences, the reader is taken out of this flow. The writing takes you out of the narrative and that should never happen, especially when it appears gimmicky or self-indulgent.
None of this is so in "'Salem's Lot." I loved how the book is structured: the focus changes from character to character and then to the town, or the minor characters that live there. The story unfolds swiftly, surely, but subtly, and without the landmines that blow me out of much of his later work ("Misery" is at least one exception). The plot ties together well without relying on unplanned coincidence that tramples on the readers' willing suspension of disbelief. It is a complex tale told simply and told well. If it weren't for my earlier exposure to the TV movies or for the hints of the bad things he'd do in his later novels, it would have scared the pants off me.
I'd love to compare this book to Dan Simmons "Summer of Night" but for the reasons just stated I'm not sure that I can. The writing is probably better in King's book but the scenes of small town horror in rural Illinois in "Night" bring back every terrifying moment from the Creature Feature movies I used to see as a kid, the books I read, and the creepy feelings I'd get at night crossing the local cemetery as a short cut to the ball fields in Connecticut. These are done better here but I'm let down by the end; again, not so in King's book.
("Summer of Night" and its sequel, "A Winter Haunting" (an absolutely brilliant psychological horror story - did "Summer of Night" really happen?) are apparently in the process of being made into a movie.)
I have a friend who, if not an expert, is much more of a King fan and expert than I will likely ever be. He recommended to me King's book on the craft of writing called "On Writing." Although King's would have been among the last of such books that I'd ever seek out, I picked up a copy out of respect for my friend and will try to get through it in the future (note the uncertainty). In the Second Foreword of the edition that I have, King himself quotes the immortal Strunk and White work, "The Elements of Style." He cites the principle "Omit needless words" and says that he will try to do that there. I don't know yet if he succeeds; he did in "'Salem's Lot," not so in "Desperation" and others. I find this ironic.
So I'm left not knowing where I stand on King personally. Does my King-as-future-Literature argument still stand? Absolutely. Can I ever be a fan? Of individual books, certainly, but not of his oeuvre. Even on my most pessimistic days, I felt that King could write and write well, if he really tried to. Did he, in his earlier works (did he become a member of the write two excellent books than lapse into your own formula club - talked about in an earlier post), and change his mind later? Did he have an assertive editor, was he experimenting, was he writing for market? Personally I really wonder if he just wasn't writing too damn much and too damn fast. I think that quality must suffer at a certain speed.
I still don't know. I don't know the man and if I ever met him and asked him this stuff he'd probably be justified in pouring his martini down my shirt. I want to like him, though. As I said in the first post, he's done a lot of good things for writers and other little guys and clearly has a love and respect for books and literature. So while he may not have a lasting affect on my bookshelf, I still believe he will on others in a far future time. Would that we all could rest in such peace.
posted by Rick Ollerman at 8:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home