I don't think it needs to be old to be called literature.Altorin said:to me at least, literature stands the test of time.. and the 30-something years king has been writing isn't enough time... the best "literature" is a hundred years old.. I think that due to the massive volume of his work that there will be some literary gems, and he definitely has some good books that I thoroughly enjoyed (The Green Mile for instance, was a great serial, and I really liked Dreamcatcher and the Mist, novels at least, the movies, unlike Green Mile, were piss).. They may stand up as literature when the time comes.. but as of right now, I can't really call King Literature... Literature doesn't really have anything to do with how good a book is.. or the pedigree of the author (most works of literature of this and the last century were written by drug addled fiends).. it has to do with the staying power of the work.. classics like Frankenstein, Dracula, Adventure Island, and even older works like Dantes Inferno, Paradise Lost and Shaharazade are literature..
In time, maybe King will prove to have the staying power of those authors.. I have a feeling he will, mainly because he's written so much.
http://www.westportlibrary.org/teenblog/images/twilight_book_cover.jpgcartzo said:quote: popular things are popular for a reason, because their good.
or because the target market is teenage girls.Horticulture said:http://www.westportlibrary.org/teenblog/images/twilight_book_cover.jpgcartzo said:quote: popular things are popular for a reason, because their good.
First of all, there's a "sometimes" at the beginning of that quote.cartzo said:quote: popular things are popular for a reason, because their good.
You talking about Lovecraft right?pigeon_of_doom said:I'd say pulp, although I also brand writers like Lovecraft in that category. The guys a pop-cultural monolith, but I don't think his novels have the depth or lasting relevance that will see them become classics. Or the impenetrable artistic sensibilities that still have people studying the penguin classics range. While I quite enjoy some of his stuff, despite his many flaws, I don't think of his work as anything more than pulp.
I don't know what the influence he's had some other posters have referred to is meant to be. Although perhaps it's just so widespread now that I just never attribute it to him. But an influence on horror fiction is hardly on par with Virginia Woolf's influence is it?
Sorry to invalidate pretty much your entire post, but I was talking about King. I appreciate Lovecraft's influence. Thanks for the explanation anyway.oliveira8 said:You talking about Lovecraft right?