SK was "in the right place at the right time; would not work in today's market"

[mae]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2474900/if_stephen_king_were_a_new_author_in.html?singlepa ge=true&cat=38



When Stephen King emerged as a best selling author in the 1970's and 1980's, there was a boom in the publishing industry. Just about any novel with commercial value had a shot at being on the best seller list. This was also a turning point in the industry where novels went from being a literary pursuit to being a large outlet for commercial fiction. Stephen King was an example of an author who was in the right place at the right time, in addition to being a very good writer.

Along with this boom in commercial fiction came all these imprints and divisions in each genre at the big New York publishers. This included horror, the genre Stephen King excelled in and helped make famous. He knew the subject matter of horror very well, reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft since he was a child. Yet also knew how to make it his novels outside the genre and appeal to the mainstream, inspired by the realistic settings in the works of Richard Matheson, someone he read since adolescence. He followed a similar and became a bestseller.

The point of view in Stephen King's book were in third person omniscient. A godlike point of view exploring the viewpoints of different characters in the novel. He either a whole canvas of characters to work from, or a dual battle between two main characters in each novel. Yet such things would not work in today's publishing market. He would now have to write his novels in third person limited, a more investigative or explorative point of view from the eyes of the main character. A very different approach from the one Stephen King learned in his prime over twenty five years earlier.

Also, horror novels are no longer in demand. While horror movies remain a big draw at the box office, horror novels have dropped off the radar to the point where no large publishers in New York have any horror imprints. Outside of Stephen King, horror novels have been relegated to bargain bin and online releases by small presses. Both he and Dean Koontz are among the few horror authors who remain on the fiction best seller list. Everyone else at the top now is writing a fantasy series or suspense thrillers, the latter genre also involves Koontz.

The era of fiction where just about everyone can be a best seller is also long gone. That sort of market dried up by 1990, and publishers took a more career oriented approach with their authors. In the 1990's, many authors were often limited to one genre with three books in that genre to prove they were a success, and the next two to cement their careers before any attempts at another genre. This more recent method of focusing on building careers has also changed, and most authors in the 2000's were lucky to even have one full length novel out in bookstores.

The truth is, many of Stephen King's horror classics would not work in today's market. There is no longer is a place for horror in commercial fiction. Such novels these days would most likely end up in a bargain bin after being released by small press publishers. If released today, King's most famous novels would more than likely be classified as suspense thrillers or fantasy to succeed on The New York Times Bestseller List.

The low key suspense thrillers he wrote under the pen name Richard Bachman would have found a huge audience. King, if he were a recent bestseller to debut in the last decade, would be competing with the more recent bestsellers releasing suspense thrillers. Along with the more established suspense thriller author such as Tom Clancy and John Grisham. Yet the public would know him as Richard Bachman at this point, and not as Stephen King.

His Dark Tower series still would have sold very well, since fantasy has became a hot selling genre in the last decade. The Dark Towers would have blown Stephanie Meyer and her Twilight series out of the water. While also serving as stiff competition for J.K. Rowling and her Harry Potter novels. Who would not pass up the chance to see a head to head battle on the bestseller list between the feud between Roland Deschain and Randall Flagg or the confrontation between Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort?

Either way, Stephen King still could have been successful as a bestseller if he was a more recent novelist. There is no doubt he would have had to struggle a bit more and limit himself to fewer genres, much less limit himself to one genre. This would also mean limiting himself to releasing fewer novels, since the publishing industry has seen a sharp decline in the last decade or so. Along with fact this is a more commercial marketplace than the literary one Stephen King helped revolutionize and innovate. In this era, he would not be the game changer he was, he would just be another bestseller.

However, this does not mean he would not have written horror, it just would not have been as successful. The Richard Bachman and Dark Tower novels would have made him successful on the bestseller list. Horror novels in this era would have been more or less passion novels that he wants to do. In his prime, horror novels were what sold while novels like those under the pen name Richard Bachman and The Dark Tower series were those he wanted to do. In this era, it would have been the other way around.

[Jean]

Even if every word of the above was true, it wouldn't in any way subtract from the fact that Mr.King is one of the greatest writers ever, whichever the genre or era, whatever the market conditions, whether or not people around him can read at all.

[Sam]

Absolutely true, there is no place in the current market for Stephen King's early works. That's why every bookstore has his titles packed in like pickles, most of the titles in multiple.

That is the most dumbassed remark that writer could have made. King DEFINED the current horror market and continues to be a driving force in the book world today. His work has grown beyond his horror origins, and he will be known a hundred years from now as one of those boring classics authors that high school students have to read in 11th grade literature.

Well, let's hope so.

[Brice]

Okay, it is my well thought out opinion that this writer is a dumbass. :)

[flaggwalkstheline]

Okay, it is my well thought out opinion that this writer is a dumbass. :)

Yep
this bugs me:

The Dark Towers would have blown Stephanie Meyer and her Twilight series out of the water. While also serving as stiff competition for J.K. Rowling and her Harry Potter novels

DT7 came out in 2004 and DT4.5 is gonna be in 2010 or 2011
That makes the dark tower stories current enough for me to say not that they WOULD but that they DO TOTALLY ANNIHILATE both twilight and Harry potter

[Brice]

I'm gonna' have to ask that you please not put Harry Potter and that other book in the same sentence anymore. Thank you! :)

[Bev Vincent]

I wouldn't dismiss his comments completely. There was an element of "right place right time." From The Stephen King Illustrated Companion: Dave King later heard his brother say that if Carrie had come six months earlier or six months later he might have missed out on the perfect timing presented by the popularity of The Exorcist, and he would still be teaching English.

[jhanic]

But isn't this true for almost any successful author? If he (or she) isn't in the right place at the right time, they won't be as successful. Of course, there are exceptions, but I really believe that the exceptions are few and far between. The successful author usually manages to strike a chord in his readership that may not have existed in another place or time.

John

[Matt]

I totally agree. Being a great writer has a lot to do with talent but I believe even Stephen King would tell you that not only was he in the right place at the right time, he had the brains and skill to take advantage of it.

[stone, rose, unfound door]

Like in any job, being in the right place at the right time immensely helps a good writer. I think that most of the article is true. Maybe in the US you've got a horror market that still sells well but I don't think this is true overseas. For example, you can't find a "horror corner" in a regular bookshop here. Horror is a despised genre and doesn't sell well (believe me, I used to work in an English bookshop and horror almost didn't sell at all!)
I also agree with the writer when he says King's books would have to be labelled "suspense thrillers" to sell as well as they did back in the 70s and the 80s.
What's more, the DT series doesn't sell half as well as the HP series, even though I never understood why.
I have to disagree with the majority again by saying this writer is not a dumbass and he very well knows what he's talking about.

[candy]

reading the above post, i dis-agreed with almost everything that was written and would like to say that rather than 'being in the right place at the right time' King actually instigated all of the above.

the turning point in publishing history when commercial fiction stood a chance at gaining the best seller list? hmmm maybe because King was damned good and a lot of people wanted to read his books, and he therefore ended up on the best seller list, not because some desk jock says times they are a changing.

or maybe that suddenly according to the above, Horror became popular. what it got popular when a good author starting writing horror? quell surprise!!


any author, artist, singer etc changes with the times and writes/sings for that markets audience. ok, so carrie and christine are dated, but only because they were written in a different era. If he was to write these now, aimed at todays market, i bet next months pay packet they would fly out

[Jean]

Apparently, Shakespeare, too, got in the right place... the drama market was dying for lengthy chronicles and tragedies written in a revolutionary style... all other revolutionaries and trend-setters (Byron, Dickens, Poe, Molière, J.S.Bach, Bob Dylan, you name it) didn't really do anything to create the conditions, they only used them... in a word, totally agree with candy, Sam, and especially Brice (see post #4 of this thread)

[Merlin1958]

Like in any job, being in the right place at the right time immensely helps a good writer. I think that most of the article is true. Maybe in the US you've got a horror market that still sells well but I don't think this is true overseas. For example, you can't find a "horror corner" in a regular bookshop here. Horror is a despised genre and doesn't sell well (believe me, I used to work in an English bookshop and horror almost didn't sell at all!)
I also agree with the writer when he says King's books would have to be labelled "suspense thrillers" to sell as well as they did back in the 70s and the 80s.
What's more, the DT series doesn't sell half as well as the HP series, even though I never understood why.

Undoubtably because the HP series ( and dare I say Twilight) is written for a much younger audience and as they mature. HP is geared more to the 12-20+ crowd I believe whereas DT is more 17/18+ no?

I have to disagree with the majority again by saying this writer is not a dumbass and he very well knows what he's talking about.

[I] would have to agree with you and Matt. I think its undeniable that "readership" in general is way down due to the internet and other media. Heck, look what the Newspapers are going through. I also wanted to point out that I think its great that SK seems to be utilizing his literary muscles to help increase the marketplace for up and coming writers through his foray's into Serialized novels, Kindle and web based releases to name a few. I refuse to believe that he keeps expanding his writing horizons on these fronts solely for the bucks. If that were the case he could certainly just keep cranking out novels (like UTD) and make his money. I mean he's an established Icon. No, I think he does this innovative stuff not only for the fun but, to help his guild, if you will, as well. Just one humble opinion anyway.


On a side note: I don't believe the writer was impugning King's talent in any way by the "Right time" phrase. He wasn't a great writer and innovatator he would never have had the staying power for a 30+ year career. No doubt he capitalized on the Exorcist popularity . But hey, it was also probably the right timing for Shakespeare (In fact they teach that it was), Charles Dickens and Jules Verne, as well. Not bad company!!!!

[Malice]

Okay, flaggwalkstheline. Had I knew about the randomness of you spoiler I would have not inhaled deeply on a cigarette while clicking the button. Now I can understand how some people can die from laughter.

As for DT blowing Harry Potter and Twilight out of the water, I can dig that. Instead of making a million obvious points why I'll settle for three.

1. Harry Potters sorcery is just accepting the lies Catholics were spreading about Pagans in the days of conforming rome to the man Jesus. DT's sorcery is epic and mind splitting.

2. Instead of originality Twilight used the tired format of Sexy teenage vampires and the climax of said stories result over something so trival and petty that I cannot even understand how it is even popular with people my age (i.e. my wife). The vampires in DT, even though inspired through more traditional venues have large amount of originalty and the story has them rivaled by a Gunslinger, a hilarious short tempered ex junkie, a crippled woman who still thinks the junkie is wrong about Reagan being president, a psychic child, a bumbler and a priest who used to be a drunk. AWESOME!

3. There are so many elements to the myth of DT that they even seem to rival the works of tolkien. Even with all the books and essays fans have written about DT no one has even come close to understanding the whole series. And I do not think that will even be possible until Sai King puts the last word on the ending page.

I think the DT series will be read for years or even centuries to come. It is almost the ebodiment of story telling through ages. So who ever wrote that article is a more on. It's not about the right timing. The Dark Tower is timeless.

[alinda]

I agree with Brice too, :clap:

IMO the words posted in that notice shout out that it's author doesn't seem very bright at all, and all the good timing in the world wouldn't make it so.

[stone, rose, unfound door]

Did I miss something or do all of you consider the guy who wrote the article to be a moron based on the fact that he said King was in the right place at the right time? He never said King was a bad writer. In fact he said the contrary : "in addition to being a very good writer"!
He has some good points as far as I can see what's going on here and what kind of books sell well.
Merlin 1958 : The HP series and Twilight sell well among adults 20+ as well and I started reading the DT series when I was 13 so I don't think there really is an age factor here. That's why I said I don't understand why the DT series doesn't sell better than it does. Here, I've met only 3 people who have partly read it and no one bought it when I worked (for an entire year!) at WHSmith!
I guess the situation is a lot different in the US than in France then since I see most of you think the author of the article is completely wrong. I'd like you all to tell me exactly why you think he is a moron. You can like someone's books and be critical at the same time.
Being in the right place at the right time doesn't mean King has no talent, it just means he benefited from the circonstances and a bigger audience discovered how talented he was.

[flaggwalkstheline]

Okay, flaggwalkstheline. Had I knew about the randomness of you spoiler I would have not inhaled deeply on a cigarette while clicking the button. Now I can understand how some people can die from laughter.

As for DT blowing Harry Potter and Twilight out of the water, I can dig that. Instead of making a million obvious points why I'll settle for three.

1. Harry Potters sorcery is just accepting the lies Catholics were spreading about Pagans in the days of conforming rome to the man Jesus. DT's sorcery is epic and mind splitting.

2. Instead of originality Twilight used the tired format of Sexy teenage vampires and the climax of said stories result over something so trival and petty that I cannot even understand how it is even popular with people my age (i.e. my wife). The vampires in DT, even though inspired through more traditional venues have large amount of originalty and the story has them rivaled by a Gunslinger, a hilarious short tempered ex junkie, a crippled woman who still thinks the junkie is wrong about Reagan being president, a psychic child, a bumbler and a priest who used to be a drunk. AWESOME!

3. There are so many elements to the myth of DT that they even seem to rival the works of tolkien. Even with all the books and essays fans have written about DT no one has even come close to understanding the whole series. And I do not think that will even be possible until Sai King puts the last word on the ending page.

I think the DT series will be read for years or even centuries to come. It is almost the ebodiment of story telling through ages. So who ever wrote that article is a more on. It's not about the right timing. The Dark Tower is timeless.

its like what sam elliot says at the begining of the big lebowski "sometimes theres a man..."

glad u like my sig, more shocking is that it is an actual quote by nixon!

[pathoftheturtle]

...He has some good points as far as I can see what's going on here and what kind of books sell well. ...Noticing points which are true is not the same as making worthwhile points through meaningful interpretation. To be fair, good writing isn't easy. If this is professional, though...
Okay, it is my well thought out opinion that this writer is a dumbass. :):clap:

[Sam]

Here's my thoughts. Regarding the Twilight and Harry Potter series, had the DT series been released with the same rapidity as those two series It would have outdone the Twilight series I think. Not Harry Potter though. Harry Potter struck a chord with readers from ages 10-60. Such a large group of people, added with the rabidity of the younger core group of readers, and you have a mix that the DT series could never hope to match. DT is too slow and too adult to hold as much appeal to a 10 year old child as the more appropriately (as in the language used not the themes) written HP.

However, the DT series doesn't outsell anything now because it's old. The Gunslinger is more than 30 years old. Many children who are about 5 will not read Harry Potter for more than a decade because it's not the hot stuff being pushed by booksellers and publishers. Something will catch their attention, but I doubt it will be with the same fervor that HP garnered.

Here's what I took the writer of the article to be saying. King is a very talented writer, but if he were to be a beginning writer now, his work would languish because horror doesn't sell now. But the writer doesn't take into account that horror didn't sell very well then either. King revolutionized the horror genre, and got typecast into the role of a horror writer so completely that every book he writes goes into the horror section when it is printed in paperback, even The Colorado Kid.

I don't believe it was a case of right place, right time (thought that helped a lot) as much as it was great writing. Carrie is not a horror novel as much as it is a coming of age novel about a girl who was tormented by her classmates. It just happened that her coming of age included a telekinetic ability that allowed her to get revenge on those who had been so cruel to her. His next two novels Salem's Lot and The Shining are what put King into the Horror genre. Prior to those books horror was pretty well dead as a genre. This is not to say there weren't some good books published that were horror novels, The Exorcist being one, but is to say that books published into the horror genre did poorly as a group... until Stephen King that is. It was his good writing that revitalized the genre and sewed the seeds for many pretenders to the throne.

I think that if King were to start publishing today, his books would have the same results because good writing is good writing regardless of the time it's read, and King is a GREAT writer.

[flaggwalkstheline]

when people deride SK's writing I like to remind em that dickens was considered a lightweight in his day

[stone, rose, unfound door]

I never said he wasn't good and I think there's a lot in what Sam said. Yet, I discovered a few weeks ago that the entire "horror" section at WHSmith (in Paris) had disappeared and I couldn't find any books by King anymore, apart from Under the Dome. Perhaps if he was writing his first book now, it wouldn't get the reception it did back in 1977. This is of course linked to the fact that people read less and that publishers don't want to take risks when publishing something new and targeting teens is usually a good idea, bookselling-wise. I'm not sure it is such a good idea quality-wise... I don't think Twilight is a well-written or interesting book, for example.
Most writers were considered lightweight in their day because they were unconventional most of the time and most people don't want to be given something new because then they'd have to put effort in reading and a lot of people consider reading as entertainment and entertainment shouldn't be too complicated. I don't agree with them but that's only my opinion. :) Lightweight in their time often became classics, but more often than not, they were completely forgotten by the public.
As I said once again, maybe I'm completely wrong about the American market but that's the situation here.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

The fact that Twilight is popular is proof that the masses should not be able to decide for themselves what to read.

And I ALSO agree with Brice.

[Jean]

I'd like you all to tell me exactly why you think he is a moron.
Because it's one of the two: either his article doesn't make any sense being only a re-chewing of the most tautological of commonplaces (namely, that if nobody buys an author's book, this author won't be successful), or he is accusing King of owing his success to circumstance. In either case, not very bright.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

I feel like King's writing of the time defined what was popular. i.e. Horror was popular because there happened to be a fantastic author writing horror. Not the other way around. Moreover, horror has fallen out of favor, and coincidentally, King has not written a novel that I would call strictly "horror" in nearly a decade. (with the exception of Cell) I think it is a classic example of "the chicken or the egg theory"

[Sam]

Well said BC. That's what I was saying too. If he were to start writing today, I think his books would be just as successful as they were in the 70's. They would be made into movies faster though. Carrie was released in April 1974 and the film was released in November 1976. That's more than two years and these days, that film would hit the theaters in about a year after the book was released.

I DO believe the early films helped to make King a houshold name, but he was a bestselling author before that ever happened.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Also, I cant speak about bookstores across the pond, but it would be impossible to go into ANY kind of bookstore here and not find a selection of SK novels. Anywhere.

[Candice Dionysus]

The selection of SK novels in any book store I've been to (new or used, and probably its the same all over North America) have always had epic amounts of Stephen King books.
Most of the titles I grabbed, I grabbed because I found them cheap at a used book store (like Kerry's downtown, or Old Forrester, also downtown), and I'd either heard nothing about them before, or I'd heard wonderful things.

I love browsing through old bookstores to see if they actually put their King together, or let the books float around to catch people's interest at random. Most of them clump the books all together, so its just like four or more rows of King. That'll catch anyone's eye.

I agree with everyone who said whoever wrote that piece of garbage quoted in the first post doesn't know what they're talking about and/or is lame. I love The Dark Tower books, and very much dislike both of the other titles mentioned (I refuse to mention their names any longer. I won't talk about them, because I didn't like them), so to me, to see someone compare them, especially considering that both book series' are meant for a younger audience (youth to young adult), whereas King's Dark Tower books are meant for intelligent readers with some measure of maturity and brains... Well... I think you get the point I'm trying to make.

[stone, rose, unfound door]

I'd like you all to tell me exactly why you think he is a moron.
Because it's one of the two: either his article doesn't make any sense being only a re-chewing of the most tautological of commonplaces (namely, that if nobody buys an author's book, this author won't be successful), or he is accusing King of owing his success to circumstance. In either case, not very bright.

I don't think he was planning on accusing King of owing his success to circumstances. Maybe he just didn't use the right words but he says King is an excellent writer so I guess he made a mistake when choosing the way to phrase his thought. I said it was true, not that it was bright in any way :)

[mae]

Those around for King's arrival would probably tell us the definitive story. There must be someone here who remembers what it was like in the US literature-wise in the mid- to late-1970s and 1980s, and what impact King had on the publishing and reading climate. I don't know much about that time, having been born in 1980, and following King only since 1995, but I do know most if not all of King's books were best-sellers from the outset and media sensations, pretty much, especially in the case of It.

[mae]

Actually, here's an article from 1980 where King himself talks about this right-time thing:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BdgTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qwUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3518,4544597&hl=en

[Merlin1958]

(namely, that if nobody buys an author's book, this author won't be successful), or he is accusing King of owing his success to circumstance. In either case, not very bright.

Ummmm actually, we tend to measure success (at least the majority in America) in dollars, right or wrong. Also, "Author/Writer" is a profession, which is defined as performing a service for a fee. Therefore, I believe an author's "success" is measured by the amount of people who actually "buy" his or her books.

And I don't believe the writer was saying anything as obtuse as "King owing his success to circumstance". I believe he was simply using SK as an example of the shifting marketplace and overall tenor in the literary world and publishing business.

Attacking the man's intelligence seems a bit beneath the folks on this site. He had an opinion and stated it in a professional manner. That's all.

Of course that's just MHO, as well.

[pathoftheturtle]

I believe his use of King as an example was oversimple and ill-conceived.

I am occasionally accosted with theories like this one by self-important bookstore clerks when I'm trying to make a purchase. I usually just nod politely until I can excuse myself. Privately, I don't give such ideas much credence. They work better as convenient excuses for those who are secretly content with being unsuccessful writers than as useful advice for those with serious ambitions.

If you are a literary agent, then go ahead and quote this article to your clients all you want. But, if you are a writer, tell your agent to just keep looking for a market for the horror story you're still working on. Even if you have to start small, sales will come to good ones.

[Jean]

(namely, that if nobody buys an author's book, this author won't be successful), or he is accusing King of owing his success to circumstance. In either case, not very bright.

Ummmm actually, we tend to measure success (at least the majority in America) in dollars, right or wrong. Also, "Author/Writer" is a profession, which is defined as performing a service for a fee. Therefore, I believe an author's "success" is measured by the amount of people who actually "buy" his or her books.
That's why I called it a commonplace. That's what that part of what I said looked like before you abridged it:


it's one of the two: either his article doesn't make any sense being only a re-chewing of the most tautological of commonplaces (namely, that if nobody buys an author's book, this author won't be successful)...


And I don't believe the writer was saying anything as obtuse as "King owing his success to circumstance". I believe he was simply using SK as an example of the shifting marketplace and overall tenor in the literary world and publishing business.

That was, actually, my question: if he didn't say what I think he said, then what, besides the commonplace mentioned above, he did say? Your answer is good because what you saw in the article is a lot more positive than what I saw there; still, taking into account everyone has already said here about a great writer creating his own market and - larger - his own cultural context, even the interpretation offered by you doesn't look very sound to me; also, it's rather the author's personal impression (also disagreed with by many here) on the state of things rather than any deep analysis of the market. I am afraid I still fail to see what he endeavored to convey to us except, I have to repeat, either a very trivial thing or a very biased one; neither seem to me, as you called it, "a professional manner".

ETA: also, what path said.

[Sam]

What really gets our ire up is the idea that coincidence played a large part in his success. Writing is a lot like stand up comedy. There are very few overnight sucesses. Most overnight successes have put in years of work and refinement and rejection into their work.

A better example of "right place, right time" would be To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Here is a book that dealt with a relevant issue of the time in which it was written. It was so well written, evidence that Ms. Lee was a great writer and well practiced, and hit on a nsocial nerve that was so alive at that time that this book, Lee's FIRST and so far only book, was an instant bestseller when it was published July 11, 1960. It went on to win the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1961. It remains a bestseller and remains in print to this day, and in 1999 was voted Best Novel of the Century by the Library Journal. If this book were published today, it would still be an excellent book BUT, given the circumstances and condition of the world that may have led to it's immense popularity (I have no idea of what the world was like at the time seeing as to how I suffer from not having been born just yet) would To Kill a Mockingbird reach the bestseller status it enjoyed when it was published? I don't know, but I think it may have gotten lost for a year or so. I think it would still garner the awards because it is such a good book, but the world is a lot different now, and would people see it as a relevant book now as it was then? I doubt it.

Maybe that's something for another thread, but I think it bears on this conversation.

[jhanic]

Good point! To Kill a Mockingbird is one of my all-time favorites, but if it were to be published today--with the rampant political correctness now existing--I don't know if it would even reach best-seller status. Too many groups would be protesting some of the language and depictions.

John

[Jean]

To Kill a Mockingbird has, ever since it was first published here in 50s, enjoyed an immense succes in Russia, - and in what was the Soviet Union - in spite of the fact that we didn't have either racial problems till very recently, or any civic conscience (Communist state, you know); but it's one of the greatest books about how children grow up and become real people, and it would be such in spite of any circumstances; I don't know anyone here who hasn't read and loved it; it's a book for all times - excepting, maybe, the present times of raging PC in Western countries; and I am very sorry to learn that it has any bearing on success of such books as that one. If circumstances can kill the success of a great book, they are the wrong circumstances, and the consequences won't delay telling in all spheres of culture and society.

[Brice]

I think the controversy would just serve to boost the sales. In fact even if it wasn't a particularly good book. We've created a country where people like nothing better than to be offended and outraged.

[jhanic]

A number of years ago, the Cleveland Public Library (if I remember correctly) set up a reader's discussion for various books, one of which was To Kill a Mockingbird. The reaction of a substantial number of people in the community to this book was to really trash it because of the racial aspect of the story--no other reason.

John

[Sam]

Bearing in mind that when I say if the book were to be published for the first time right now, I do mean the book as it is and not brought up to date. Here are a few facts about the time period. It was volatile with civil rights issues and many people were upset about the changes that were going on. The subject of rape was very much still a taboo subject and hadn't been extensively written about. The idea that a black man had raped a white woman in the US at that time was a very charged subject, mostly because of the racial tensions of the time. Today in the US, a book about the rape of a white woman by a black man wouldn't garner much attention because of the subject matter. There is nothing so shocking to the collective about that as it was in 1960. It wouldn't be breaking any social taboos via it's publication, except fo the language that was used. In the PC world we live in in the US now, the language itself would be the reason any controversy might be created. That would help the sale of the book true, but only if such a controversy should come up.

Like I was saying, the book itself wouldn't change so it would still be a great book. I just believe it would have gotten lost in the sea of other books out there for a while. It eventually would emerge because great books always do. Remember that Salem's Lot wasn't an immediate bestseller, but it was a well written and great story. It too eventually rose in stature, just like Mockingbird would. Unlike Mockingbird though, there were no controversial subject matters to aid in the sales of Salem's Lot, just the great writing.

[Brice]

I say get rid of those sort of people and keep the book. :D

[Ben Mears]

Timing and circumstances aside, if he didn't have the chops he wouldn't still be writing bestsellers 35 years later.

[Brice]

Oh, that's just luck too. :P

[stone, rose, unfound door]

Timing and circumstances aside, if he didn't have the chops he wouldn't still be writing bestsellers 35 years later.

I'm saying this over and over again but the author of the article said that King had timing + circumstances + talent and that adds up to bestsellers. He is saying commonplace things but they are still right.

[Ves'Ka Gan]

I think there is some truth to what the author is saying---however there are many flaws. For one, I think the real reason he would have a harder time is the decline of the publishing industry and the fact that publishers are wary of publishing anything that won't sell of the shelves.

Further, when I was working at Borders, we sold plenty out of the horror section--not just King. The Anita Blake novels went as fast as we could stock them, and plenty of people were buying World War Z and Joe Hill's work, to name a few. The idea that the genre is dying/dead or that King's earlier works have no place in the current market is debunked rather easily by anyone who's worked in the genre section of a bookstore. Horror still sells--and SK's books (new and old) still take up enough room, we half jokingly referred to it as the 'Stephen King Section' separate from the horror section.

I was stocking copies of Carrie andhis newer works, in addition to horror novels from newer authors.

[Sam]

And I'm saying the circumstances and timing didn't matter. That is where I disagree with the author. King's talent is what made him a bestseller. There was no interest in horror when his work was published. Carrie flew in under the radar, but was good enough to get King another book contract. It sold less than 15,000 hardback copies when it was released. The paperback went on to sell more than 1,000,000 copies a year later. King has said that he felt The Exorcist opened the way, but it is my contention that even if King's work were published today with no timing and no circumstances, it would still be well received. Carrie sold moderately in it's first year, but it's first year as a paperback saw an explosion. If you look at the release information on The Collector's website you will see a gradual increase of the print numbers from 30,000 for Carrie (which was too many so the next book was printed in shorter supply) to 20,000 for Salem's Lot to 25,000 for The Shining (12,000 or so for Night Shift, but that's because it was a collection) and then BOOM The Stand gets 70,000 copies.

Like I said, if he were to start today, I think we would see the same sort of progression regardless of circumstances and timing.

[stone, rose, unfound door]

I guess there's a bigger difference than I thought between the North American market and the French one (that I know best). It's amazing to see how well King still sells overseas!

[Sam]

With one or two exceptions, such as The Colorado Kid, I can walk into prety much any bookstore and buy whichever King novel I want. If they don't have it in stock, they can order it and I'll have it within the week. This isn't possible with many titles.

I'll also say that I can walk into ANY bookstore and unless it is a specialty store, like some around tourist areas such as Gettysburg where a few bookstores specialize in books about the US Civil War, I can find at least one King novel. Even the independants.

[Rahfa]

I'm not sure how it matters that we can find SK in bookstores TODAY, as opposed to 1975. He's obviously made his career.

The original post wasn't really a critique of SK...it was more about the publishing industry, and it was basically accurate.

As for Carrie - the hardcover didn't sell. It sold 1 MIL paperback copies, because it was a short, tense, well-written genre horror novel exactly perfect for the paperback market. Then, it got made into a great movie. SK was undoubtedly - and in his own words - boosted by a great book made into a great movie.

That put him onto Hollywood's radar screen, and everything else followed from there.

One can't make the argument that SK's career goes the same way if the movie of Carrie was terrible. He probably becomes a successful genre author - like VC Andrews or Dean Koonzt - big selling, but not a cultural touchstone.

I agree totally with the original post - an author can't break out of their defined roles in today's compartmentalized market. A few superstars can write their own ticket, but most can't.

I remember when Different Seasons came out, and everyone made a big deal because it was more "literary," as opposed to horror like SK was known for - as though it was a big risk for him. So that was in 1982, you can imagine what people would say today. Would anybody let Tom Clancy write a romantic comedy, or would everyone mock him? Or Dan Brown a techno-thriller?

So...obviously SK is a superstar and can do what he wants...the article had nothing to do with his talent. But publishing is a way different business than it was back then, and the Carrie movie breakthrough is as important as anything else.

Anyway...I'm not editing this before I post it, so I reserve the right to modify statements if I decide they don't make sense...haha...

[Sam]

I agree with you that the Carrie movie boosted King into superstardom Rafha. Hollywood made him the celebrity he is today, and I agree with you that the publishing world is, and was then as well, very compartmentalized. However, author's CAN break from those defined roles if they want to AND are capable of it. I know a few authors who are very capable of it, but prefer to remain in their niche. I know another one or two who have branched beyond the genre (though many don't know it) and wrote well done books that sold failry well even though they received little to no fanfare.

What helps to sell King's book today is his name. What helped to sell his books back in the 70s was his name recognition from several movies as well as the well written books that scared people so bad they saw vampires during the day and creeping fire hoses in the hotels when they were on vacation. Would King have been so successful without the film Carrie to boost him? I honestly don't know, but that wasn't the point of the writer of the article, so my comments have been made with the assumption that someone would make the Carrie movie today as well (hopefully as well as De Palma did).

What I DO believe though is that without the Carrie film, and in today's market, King STILL would have become a force in the publishing world. His work is better than most of his contemporaries (in my opinion), it is more gripping than most of the horror being published today, and he showed a willingness to embrace new ideas regarding publishing and hasn't shied away from a challenge. Couple that with his writing talent and you have someone who was born to be a leader of his field. I would also like to say that without King's influence in the 80's and 90's, I don't think the publishing world would be where it is right now. I believe the book publishing world would be a lot different. And I'm going to leave it at that. Talk to y'all later.

[Rahfa]

I agree with you that the Carrie movie boosted King into superstardom Rafha. Hollywood made him the celebrity he is today, and I agree with you that the publishing world is, and was then as well, very compartmentalized. However, author's CAN break from those defined roles if they want to AND are capable of it. I know a few authors who are very capable of it, but prefer to remain in their niche. I know another one or two who have branched beyond the genre (though many don't know it) and wrote well done books that sold failry well even though they received little to no fanfare.

I'm not a big believer in talking about what people could do if they wanted to. You either can, or you can't. You do or you don't.

But I agree some could still break out of their perceived genres, at some level, just not nearly at a superstar level like SK has achieved. Who are your examples? I'm trying to come up with some myself...

[jhanic]

We may be seeing something like that in the relatively new future. J.K. Rowling (remember Harry Potter?) has said she wants to do something very, very different next. Let's see what happens to her.

John

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Wasnt this discussion made somewhat obsolete by King having success as Richard Bachman?

[Rahfa]

Wasnt this discussion made somewhat obsolete by King having success as Richard Bachman?

Well....That could also be said to show an example of the opposite point - it was the same superstar writer, and it took his alias four genre books published as a paperbacks to earn a genre hardcover publication.


So I'm not sure it was a breakout success...it was a writer grinding out a decent level of success in a competitive market.

[Sam]

I'm not a big believer in talking about what people could do if they wanted to. You either can, or you can't. You do or you don't.

But I agree some could still break out of their perceived genres, at some level, just not nearly at a superstar level like SK has achieved. Who are your examples? I'm trying to come up with some myself...

My best example is Connie Willis. She writes science fiction partly because she is drawn to it, but also , by her own admission, because that's what she WANTS to write. She doesn't have any desire to write outside of the genre. Her writing has made her recipient to numerous Hugo Awards, as well as Nebula Awards, Locus Awards, and the John W. Campbell Award. This year she was inducted to the Science Fiction Hall of Fame in Seattle. She writes wonderfully crafted, real characters and has a knack for making the reader care for them. For a good example of her writing, read Doomsday Book. Her book Passage is as close as she has come to writing outside the Science Fiction genre. She's a damn good writer. Doomsday Book proved that. She also has the ability to write outside her genre. Passage proved that to me.

[Sam]

Wasnt this discussion made somewhat obsolete by King having success as Richard Bachman?

Well....That could also be said to show an example of the opposite point - it was the same superstar writer, and it took his alias four genre books published as a paperbacks to earn a genre hardcover publication.


So I'm not sure it was a breakout success...it was a writer grinding out a decent level of success in a competitive market.

Agreed. What I take issue with the article writer was the statement that many of Stephen King's horror classics would not work in today's market. I simply disagree with that statement and have made arguments as to why.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Wasnt this discussion made somewhat obsolete by King having success as Richard Bachman?

Well....That could also be said to show an example of the opposite point - it was the same superstar writer, and it took his alias four genre books published as a paperbacks to earn a genre hardcover publication.


So I'm not sure it was a breakout success...it was a writer grinding out a decent level of success in a competitive market.

Yes, but he did earn a genre hardcover publication, so it seems reasonable, that he would have eventually been successful even if his name had been Bachman instead of King.

And for me, Carrie is very low on my list of favorites, be it the movie or the book. I can't imagine his success hinging on the success of this one work. In fact, there have been numerous authors that had brilliant success with there first book or movie adaptation, and then had careers that fizzled out. So, yes, I do think that King got a good running start because the market was ripe. But he has had lasting success because of his talent.....and he would have been successful as Bachman as well if he were not "found out".

[Rahfa]

Yes, Bachman was absolutely earning his success.

You're definitley right about Carrie - just because was the movie was good doesn't mean Salem's Lot would be a great book, or The Stand, etc...but I do think the movie made him a superstar, which changed his ability to take some risks and write what we wanted, rather than having publishers/agents tell him, "no, you got to write this kind of book."

I think I agree with the original article's point that - just like music - in today's market, the publisher is concerned only with what will sell RIGHT NOW, so they don't care if some new SK comes along who can be a literary AND genre success. They just want the bestseller on the shelves, and they want the author to dance like a monkey to do that.

I think Dennis Lehane is a good example of somebody who was able to write himself "out of" noirish detective fiction into both horror/thriller like Shutter Island, and also historical literary fiction like "The Given Day." He's a great writer no matter what he writes (again, would he have had the latitide without the movies of his books? Don't know...)

We agree on the most important part - yes, King got a running start becasue of the ripe market at the time, but obviously it took talent after that. And yes, Bachman does prove that, because even this no-name author was attracting attention.

In today's market, I don't know that a 'Bachman' would succeed the same way though...he might have been relegated to paperback pot-boilers, and nobody would have ever invested in the hardcover breakthrough...there's just no patience for author development, and I think that was another point of the article I agree with.

[pathoftheturtle]

In the introduction for "The Bachman Books," King said that if the truth had not come out, he had planned to next publish Misery under Bachman's name. Now, that would have been quite an interesting experiment.

[jhanic]

Don't forget Dan Simmons, who's written successfully in horror, fantasy, science fiction, historical, and crime novels.

John

[mae]

I tried looking up contemporary reviews for King's first books, but the results from New York Times and others are all paid subscriptions. Does anyone by any chance have texts of contemporary reviews of Carrie of 'Salem's Lot, for instance? It would be interesting to read what the critics though of King at that time early in his career.

[Bev Vincent]

Here are their reviews of Carrie (http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/09/lifetimes/kin-r-carrie.html) and The Shining (http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/09/lifetimes/kin-r-shining.html)

[flaggwalkstheline]

yep both of those require subscriptions/ signing in

[Ben Mears]

Don't forget Dan Simmons, who's written successfully in horror, fantasy, science fiction, historical, and crime novels.

John

Excellent point John. I think Simmons is one of the best and most versatile writers working today. I would love to read a collaboration between him and SK!

[mae]

Here are their reviews of Carrie (http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/09/lifetimes/kin-r-carrie.html) and The Shining (http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/09/lifetimes/kin-r-shining.html)

I was able to get the texts:


May 26, 1974
Criminals at Large
By NEWGATE CALLENDAR

Maybe, strictly speaking, it is not a mystery book. But it does have action, suspense and, at the end, a holocaust. And it is exceedingly well-written. So don’t miss Carrie by Stephen King (Doubleday, $5.95) a first novel and one guaranteed to give you a chill.

“Carrie” is about a telekinetic girl in a small town in Maine. She is an unhappy girl. Her mother is a horror: a religious fanatic eager to beat the goodness of Christ into sinners with a powerful right hand. No wonder Carrie grows up all but mute, unattractive, shy. She is the butt of jokes in school; she is poorly coordinated; she does not appear to be very bright. But she has strange gifts. Finally, pushed beyond what her emotional state can absorb, she runs psychically amok, unleashing all the latent powers in her. The result is sheer disaster for her and for all around her.

King does more than tell a story. He is a schoolteacher himself, and he gets into Carrie’s mind as well as into the minds of her classmates. He also knows a thing or two about symbolism—blood symbolism especially. That this is a first novel is amazing. King writes with the kind of surety normally associated only with veteran writers. This mixture of science-fiction, the occult, secondary-school sociology, kids good and bad and genetics turns out to be an extraordinary mixture.



March 1, 1977
Something Nasty in the Tub
By RICHARD R. LINGEMAN

Stephen King is one of the hottest novelists currently working the horror-occult genre. His books "Carrie" and "Salem's Lot" were best sellers in paperback, having been given a considerable boost by the popularity of the movie of "Carrie." Judging from his latest novel, "The Shining," he is a writer of fairly engaging and preposterous claptrap. Ranked on a scale of from 0 to Ira Levin and Thomas Tryon, to name two leading practitioners in this vein, he would score, I should say, about a 75. His long suit is an energetic and febrile imagination and a radar fix on the young people who probably make up the large hard core of the market. He is not up to Mr. Levin and Mr. Tryon, however, because he lacks the sly craftsmanship of the former, at his best, and the narrative strength of the latter. Still, like a fast short-order cook during the breakfast rush, he serves up the scary stuff with unremitting dexterity.

Ontologically Grounded

The horror genre, with its convention of unnatural or supernatural menace, has attracted great writers from time to time. One thinks of Henry James's "Turn of the Screw," which insinuated a notion of evil extant beyond the grave, or Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House," also essentially a ghost story, yet utterly convincing psychologically. The sophisticated horror stories are grounded in some plausible philosophical or psychological ontology and employ a careful verisimilitude, so that one thinks, "It could have happened." Another kind of horror story, descended from the 19th-century Gothic, employs primitive fears, superstitions or legends rattling around in the collective unconscious, and contemporary writers often deck out these figures in modern guise: the devil in the Dakota, in "Rosemary's Baby," or demonic possession in the post-Vatican II world of "The Exorcist." The resurgence of interest in evil spirits in this day, though harmless, occasionally makes one wonder if the Beast of Unreason is stirring.

In "The Shining," Stephen King resorts to summoning up a melange of ghosts and mixing them with voguish interest in precognition. The story has Jack Dorrance, tentatively reformed drunk and unreformed playwright, taking his wife, Wendy, and 5-year-old son, Danny, for a winter of caretaking at the Overlook Hotel, an old-style mountain resort in Colorado with a "checkered" history. Jim intends to use the off- season isolation to complete his play, a labor that shouldn't call down anything worse than the unhappy shade of George Bernard Shaw, or maybe George Jean Nathan. Danny, however, is gifted with "the shining"-- precognition, mental telepathy, second sight or whatever. This, it turns out, makes him an undesirable guest at the Overlook, which is booked solid with a convention of evil emanations from its checkered past. The hotel's presiding evil spirit does not take a shine to Danny's shining, for reasons never quite clear, and, by the miracle of transmogrification, begins wreaking all kinds of bad things on the Dorrances, who are, by now, thoroughly snowbound.

Anyhow, what with something nasty in the bathtub of 217, those unquiet spirits of Mafia victims in the presidential Suite, the topiary whose animal-shaped bushes start making unfriendly gestures, the ancient boiler that if not constantly nursed is going to blow the whole place Rocky Mountain high, the running 1940's vintage masquerade party in the ballroom and, yes, killer wasps, the Dorrances soon wish that Jack had gone to MacDowell to write his play. Mr. King serves up these horrors at a brisk, unflagging pace, and he undeniably keeps things moving.

Some of the horrors, however, are embedded in his writing style. We have Wendy "trying to rid herself of the awful pent-up feeling that sometimes fell on her like a large-pressing hand over her heart." In the hotel's palmy days, "the money must have rolled down the corridors and into the cash register like a 20th- century Comstock Lode." Mr. King is one of those writers who tries to fend off the onus of a cliche by admitting or underlining it: "For Wendy it was discovering the truth in a cliche; her breath was taken away"; "He held on-- no exaggeration-- for dear life."

Grand Guignol ‘Room Service'

Well, these are the occasional lapses; worse is the muddling of all sorts of supernatural props-- precognition, ghosts, animism-- along with dollops of Freudian psychology and recurring, unhelpful allusions to Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death"-- plus an unacknowledged bow to "The Fall of the House of Usher.' So many doors are opening on horror or being bolted frantically shut against threatening evil that the novel resembles a Grand Guignol "Room Service.' The evil is slapdash, unfocused and eventually preposterous. Mr. King is a natural, but he lacks control; he simply rears back and lets fly with the fireball, and a lot of wild pitches result.

That's a pity, because his sheer rookie's energy is engaging, and in the relationship of Jack and Wendy, there is a core of psychological truth that might have been crafted into a subtle psychological chiller. For the Horror, dear Brutus, lies within us, not in our ghouls.


Too bad I can't find the one for 'Salem's Lot.

[jhanic]

Thanks, pablo. Those are very interesting!

John

[Ben Mears]

Here are their reviews of Carrie (http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/09/lifetimes/kin-r-carrie.html) and The Shining (http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/09/lifetimes/kin-r-shining.html)

I was able to get the texts:


May 26, 1974
Criminals at Large
By NEWGATE CALLENDAR

Maybe, strictly speaking, it is not a mystery book. But it does have action, suspense and, at the end, a holocaust. And it is exceedingly well-written. So don’t miss Carrie by Stephen King (Doubleday, $5.95) a first novel and one guaranteed to give you a chill.

“Carrie” is about a telekinetic girl in a small town in Maine. She is an unhappy girl. Her mother is a horror: a religious fanatic eager to beat the goodness of Christ into sinners with a powerful right hand. No wonder Carrie grows up all but mute, unattractive, shy. She is the butt of jokes in school; she is poorly coordinated; she does not appear to be very bright. But she has strange gifts. Finally, pushed beyond what her emotional state can absorb, she runs psychically amok, unleashing all the latent powers in her. The result is sheer disaster for her and for all around her.

King does more than tell a story. He is a schoolteacher himself, and he gets into Carrie’s mind as well as into the minds of her classmates. He also knows a thing or two about symbolism—blood symbolism especially. That this is a first novel is amazing. King writes with the kind of surety normally associated only with veteran writers. This mixture of science-fiction, the occult, secondary-school sociology, kids good and bad and genetics turns out to be an extraordinary mixture.



March 1, 1977
Something Nasty in the Tub
By RICHARD R. LINGEMAN

Stephen King is one of the hottest novelists currently working the horror-occult genre. His books "Carrie" and "Salem's Lot" were best sellers in paperback, having been given a considerable boost by the popularity of the movie of "Carrie." Judging from his latest novel, "The Shining," he is a writer of fairly engaging and preposterous claptrap. Ranked on a scale of from 0 to Ira Levin and Thomas Tryon, to name two leading practitioners in this vein, he would score, I should say, about a 75. His long suit is an energetic and febrile imagination and a radar fix on the young people who probably make up the large hard core of the market. He is not up to Mr. Levin and Mr. Tryon, however, because he lacks the sly craftsmanship of the former, at his best, and the narrative strength of the latter. Still, like a fast short-order cook during the breakfast rush, he serves up the scary stuff with unremitting dexterity.

Ontologically Grounded

The horror genre, with its convention of unnatural or supernatural menace, has attracted great writers from time to time. One thinks of Henry James's "Turn of the Screw," which insinuated a notion of evil extant beyond the grave, or Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House," also essentially a ghost story, yet utterly convincing psychologically. The sophisticated horror stories are grounded in some plausible philosophical or psychological ontology and employ a careful verisimilitude, so that one thinks, "It could have happened." Another kind of horror story, descended from the 19th-century Gothic, employs primitive fears, superstitions or legends rattling around in the collective unconscious, and contemporary writers often deck out these figures in modern guise: the devil in the Dakota, in "Rosemary's Baby," or demonic possession in the post-Vatican II world of "The Exorcist." The resurgence of interest in evil spirits in this day, though harmless, occasionally makes one wonder if the Beast of Unreason is stirring.

In "The Shining," Stephen King resorts to summoning up a melange of ghosts and mixing them with voguish interest in precognition. The story has Jack Dorrance, tentatively reformed drunk and unreformed playwright, taking his wife, Wendy, and 5-year-old son, Danny, for a winter of caretaking at the Overlook Hotel, an old-style mountain resort in Colorado with a "checkered" history. Jim intends to use the off- season isolation to complete his play, a labor that shouldn't call down anything worse than the unhappy shade of George Bernard Shaw, or maybe George Jean Nathan. Danny, however, is gifted with "the shining"-- precognition, mental telepathy, second sight or whatever. This, it turns out, makes him an undesirable guest at the Overlook, which is booked solid with a convention of evil emanations from its checkered past. The hotel's presiding evil spirit does not take a shine to Danny's shining, for reasons never quite clear, and, by the miracle of transmogrification, begins wreaking all kinds of bad things on the Dorrances, who are, by now, thoroughly snowbound.

Anyhow, what with something nasty in the bathtub of 217, those unquiet spirits of Mafia victims in the presidential Suite, the topiary whose animal-shaped bushes start making unfriendly gestures, the ancient boiler that if not constantly nursed is going to blow the whole place Rocky Mountain high, the running 1940's vintage masquerade party in the ballroom and, yes, killer wasps, the Dorrances soon wish that Jack had gone to MacDowell to write his play. Mr. King serves up these horrors at a brisk, unflagging pace, and he undeniably keeps things moving.

Some of the horrors, however, are embedded in his writing style. We have Wendy "trying to rid herself of the awful pent-up feeling that sometimes fell on her like a large-pressing hand over her heart." In the hotel's palmy days, "the money must have rolled down the corridors and into the cash register like a 20th- century Comstock Lode." Mr. King is one of those writers who tries to fend off the onus of a cliche by admitting or underlining it: "For Wendy it was discovering the truth in a cliche; her breath was taken away"; "He held on-- no exaggeration-- for dear life."

Grand Guignol ‘Room Service'

Well, these are the occasional lapses; worse is the muddling of all sorts of supernatural props-- precognition, ghosts, animism-- along with dollops of Freudian psychology and recurring, unhelpful allusions to Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death"-- plus an unacknowledged bow to "The Fall of the House of Usher.' So many doors are opening on horror or being bolted frantically shut against threatening evil that the novel resembles a Grand Guignol "Room Service.' The evil is slapdash, unfocused and eventually preposterous. Mr. King is a natural, but he lacks control; he simply rears back and lets fly with the fireball, and a lot of wild pitches result.

That's a pity, because his sheer rookie's energy is engaging, and in the relationship of Jack and Wendy, there is a core of psychological truth that might have been crafted into a subtle psychological chiller. For the Horror, dear Brutus, lies within us, not in our ghouls.


Too bad I can't find the one for 'Salem's Lot.

Hard to take a reviewer serious he who gets the the last name of the main character wrong (Jack Dorrance) in his first sentence and refers to him as Jim in the second sentence.

[Solar]

I was about to say the same thing. Jim Dorrance? Really?

[mae]

I really like that review of Carrie, even if it's too short.

[Bev Vincent]

By the way -- this is supposedly the guy who wrote reviews as Newgate Callendar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_C._Schonberg

[Blaine Is A Pain]

Back to the first post about the article itself. Basically the writer is trying to say King would not have been successful in today's market with his earlier books. I don't really buy the arguement myself. Granted Carrie is not this greatest book. I think Salem's Lot and The Shining would do just fine myself. Yeah, everything that is entertainment comes along at the "right time"

They do this stuff with athletes to. They argue that Babe Ruth would get ate up by today's pitchers. Kobe is better than Air Jordan. Joe Montana would suck in today's NFL. It's endless.

If you drop the same original Star Wars movie out to people now after all the other films that have come after it. Then sure it would not have people lining up around the block to see it because we have allready seen that type of movie in spades ever since then. But at the time it came out in 1977 it was trully a unique way of seeing a movie.

I just don't really get the point of the article? Is it to say now that King sucks or what? It just does not make much sense to me. The fact is he did come out with the stories he did at the time and he was a hit. You can't change it. Would he not be now? Hard to say really. I think IT would do pretty damn well if it were released for the first time now. Same with The Stand, Misery, and others. I really don't think authors have advanced all that much since his stories came out. You either make a good book or you don't.

[Sam]

The comparison of King to Star Wars is a valid one I think. King reawakened the horror genre and brought it into the modern day. Star Wars revolutionized special effects and in many ways CREATED the effects industry that many people say it couldn't stand up to now. Without Star Wars, the special effects industry would not exist as it is right now. Without King, the publishing industry wouldn't exist as it does right now. King helped to destroy the belief by the publishing industry that the public wouldn't buy more than one book from an author per year. He is constantly pushing the envelope and forcing publishing to grow to accomodate his ideas. He makes the publishing industry keep up with him, and has from the beginning in the same way Star Wars forced the special effects industry to grow in order to keep up with the demands it made. Good analogy.

[lowdown]

he came out when cable was just starting ....so i think he was in a good place for a great writer to take the rains ....and the fact that he still puts out a fuckin wicked book ..(UTD ....i'm on the last part)

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

King has demonstrated that he can be successful in virtually any medium at his craft. Books, TV, movies, audio, comics, podcasts, chap books, computer installments, etc. Hence, we have a, hopefully not tooooo terrible, collaboration with John Mellencamp for a Rock/Horror/Thriller musical.