Book Talk discussion

"Moneyball" is 25 cents today on kindle. No plans to read it anytime soon, but it looks interesting.

I finished We Need to Talk About Kevin. Completely fascinating and chilling.

I started on Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly which is funny so far and Origin which I have high hopes for.

Charlene wrote: "I finished We Need to Talk About Kevin. Completely fascinating and chilling.

I started on Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly which is funny so far and [boo..."

Kitchen Confidential was so much fun I read it several times. Origin sounds really good too.

I'll report back on Origin!

Marc wrote: "Charlene wrote: "I finished We Need to Talk About Kevin. Completely fascinating and chilling.

I started on Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly which is funny ..."
Chris, you're right about Kitchen Confidential. I'm only at about 30% and I've been laughing for a lot of that time.
OH! And I also learned NOT to order fish on Sunday or Monday. : )

It comes with a companion volume, Whatever Happened to Kealan?

HA! We Need To Talk About Kevin was very good and had an ending that I didn't see coming.
Origin was very good too, but much more fun and imaginative.
I'm almost done with Kitchen Confidential as well. It's a behind the scene look at cooking. Who knew such a variety of drugs was available as well as food?

Origin looked good, plot wise, but I saw a bunch of bad reviews. If you liked it, I will give it a shot.

Chris wrote: "Origin looked good, plot wise, but I saw a bunch of bad reviews. If you liked it, I will give it a shot."

I can only speak for myself, Chris, but I did enjoy it. It certainly won't win any awards or anything, but I thought it imaginative and very fast paced.

I'm used to even my lighter reads, like horror, not moving along at a terrific pace. Some of the things I like most about horror are the creation of atmosphere, a certain reflectiveness, and the unbearably slow reveal of some most dreaded thing. Lately I've read a few horror novels that zipped along, and it takes getting used to, but I'm finding that kind of writing can be a lot of fun.

Marc, yes-I am discovering that as well and I'm still getting used to it. I'm pretty sure that I like it, though!

So I started In the Blood for a book club. I gave it about 45% and I chucked it. Nothing wrong with it, really, but it just wasn't doing anything for me, so what's the point?

I started a couple that I've had since late fall last year.
Jack and Mr. Grin and Diary of the Displaced. I'm holding out high hopes for both but it's too soon to tell.

Charlene, one of the horror groups here is starting in on a read of Conjure Wife, a very good story by the very good Fritz Lieber. You might be interested in that one. It's about a professor whose career starts to take off ... and the witchery behind it.

I am interested, Marc...I did vote for it. Then last night I checked the library and they didn't have it!
Then I checked if it was loanable, it was not...but it seemed like every other story by Fritz Leiber was.
Grrrr!
I guess I will have to buy this one. Someone on the group mentioned Dark Ladies: Conjure Wife/Our Lady of Darkness which contains 2 books, but that's not available in ebook form.

I have a paperback copy with both stories from Tor's old Fantasy line.
It was the only way to get either one, even back in the day.

Charlene wrote: "I am interested, Marc...I did vote for it. Then last night I checked the library and they didn't have it!
Then I checked if it was loanable, it was not...but it seemed like every other story by F..."

Those omnibus editions can be great. I just got Ed McBain's first two in his 87th Precinct series for a couple of bucks used. The kindle of the first one alone is well over ten bucks!

*sigh* Ok, I bought it. I hope it's good, dammit!
; )

Charlene wrote: "*sigh* Ok, I bought it. I hope it's good, dammit!
; )"

Good movie anyway! I've read some of his short stories, and he's widely regarded as one of the greats.

Charlene, I wonder if you might enjoy reading some of S.T. Joshi's books on horror and its development -- The Weird Tale, The Modern Weird Tale, The Evolution of the Weird Tale (I read that one, loved it), The Rise and Fall of the Cthulhu Mythos(bought but not yet read), Junk Fiction, etc.

In The Evolution of the Weird Tale, he gets into the authors that made horror fiction what it is today, over the major part of what he feels was its most significant evolution. Really interesting run-down of the greats, and some wonderful, very detailed (but not boring, IMO) analysis of select novels and short stories.

His stuff is very pricey, but highly recommended as a great crash course in who (arguably) matters, why, and where horror is going and has been.

Joshi is incredibly opinionated, and much of his analysis can come off as polemical... nevertheless, I have found the vast majority of his analysis and insights on the weird tale to be highly valuable and very compelling. I'm reading his "The Modern Weird Tale" now, and I had to chuckle a bit when I read Joshi's analysis of Stephen King's literary "contribution" to the weird/horror field.

If you read Joshi, be prepared to hear some very sharp opinions (and perhaps unwanted if you are a King, Barker, Koontz fan) of many mainstream horror authors.

Joshi is definitely worth reading.

You know, I saw your post Marc and meant to respond, but I guess I didn't. Sorry about that!

I'm going to look into Joshi. : )

Charlene wrote: "You know, I saw your post Marc and meant to respond, but I guess I didn't. Sorry about that!

I'm going to look into Joshi. : )"

Hope you like him. Wish his stuff wasn't so pricey, but for a real horror nut like I am, it makes for fascinating reading.

Benjamin wrote: "Joshi is incredibly opinionated, and much of his analysis can come off as polemical... nevertheless, I have found the vast majority of his analysis and insights on the weird tale to be highly valua..."

I'm very curious to hear him on Stephen King. Sometimes he's merely briefly dismissive, which isn't interesting or illuminative. But it sounds like he took a bigger swing at King than just leaving it at a snarky quip.

His essay, in the Modern Weird Tale, really takes King to task. Joshi's ultimate conclusion on King is that while he may be a commercial success, his stories merit almost no literary consideration and will ultimately be relegated to literary oblivion. He uses some very very strong language to drive the point home.

Awesome. Sounds like must-reading.

Well, not having read Joshi yet, I can't comment, but I'm going to anyway. King himself calls his writing the Big Mac of literature. It's fast food. I won't argue that.
But, I will argue about his books being relegated to literary oblivion. I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

Charlene wrote: "Well, not having read Joshi yet, I can't comment, but I'm going to anyway. King himself calls his writing the Big Mac of literature. It's fast food. I won't argue that.
But, I will argue about his..."

Hehe... its funny that you paraphrased that quote from King, Charlene. Joshi also makes a passing reference to that same quote... I think King actually says "My prose is the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries".

Joshi piggy backs on King's own quote to point out that the combination of poor prose style and bloated plot lines make for literary disaster. Having read some of King's fiction, I think I entirely agree with this analysis.

As to what gets relegated to the literary dustbin of history and why... its hard to say ( I certainly don't have the literary wisdom to prognosticate on this issue). I agree with you Charlene that King is in no danger of being relegated to literary oblivion any time soon... he is far too popular for that.

However, Joshi does point out a number of writers that had similar commercial success as King only 40-50 years ago, but are no longer remembered because their literary contributions were so limited. I don't really know what the shelf life is for popular fiction like King... it would be interesting to find a study on this.

I think it would be interesting too. In one of the horror groups to which I belong, a poster was opining that he thought King would be the next Dickens.
I don't know about that, LOL!
I also agree with the bloated plot lines, etc.
However, whenever I see a poll regarding favorite books or 'go to' books that people like to reread, King is almost always near the top.

Joshi's book "Junk Fiction" is worth it for the intro and first chapter alone. He goes into great detail about the phenomena of bestseller-dom and how it evolved. It's a wonderful read. He also points out how few of the bestsellers had literary merit or are widely read or even remembered today -- either the books or their authors. He suggests that those two things are not unrelated. I think it's a strong point.

In the rest of the book, he tears up some key bestsellers to see what makes them tick, or not. Some of it is tedious, as finding fault with silly books is like shooting apples in a barrel. At times Joshi appears to be taking the easy way out and on autopilot with tepid and glancing observations. Some of it, though, does spur reflection. The extent to which a book's failings actually help sell it is a curious subject, and one especially difficult for a literary-minded reader or writer to broach in a manner more practical than curling one's lip into a dismissive sneer. Even literary writers would prefer, after all, to sell.

I think King will be remembered at least as much as a phenomena as a writer. Because he's a bigger phenomena. And the writing ... often not so good.

I've just skimmed the Joshi book so can't really speak to his arguments, but I doubt that King's going to be forgotten any time soon. If he is forgotten, his stint in literary oblivion won't last too long. Poke around the library shelves. Look at H. G. Wells' books -- you may not find Kipps or The History of Mr. Polly, but you can count on finding The Time Machine, The First Men in the Moon, The War of the Worlds, and The Island of Dr. Moreau. Check out Robert Louis Stevenson. Probably no copies of The Black Arrow, but Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde will be there. Dickens' Christmas Carol isn't a bad ghost story at all. Browse through the Henry James titles; maybe no Spoils of Poynton but The Turn of the Screw is almost certain to be there. The tale of dread has plenty of staying power, and when King's cooking...

If I had to bet on which contemporary writers would still be read in a hundred years or longer, King would be on my short list.

And bests to all.

I dunno how much he'll be remembered for his writing. I think Shirley Jackson's reputation will probably skyrocket, though. And HP Lovecraft's will improve.

I'm sure KIng's work will linger on, but I doubt it will be held in such high esteem as it is now.

Someone will come along to knock him off his throne.

My money is on Robert McCammon as the next King of the Hill.

I thought Straub was going to be, after Ghost Story. But his career never achieved the velocity of King's.

But he's writing on an entirely different level in comparison with King.

More literary, less blue collar.

He was huge with Ghost Story, though. That was a heck of a break-out novel.

I think after a while, King's being so prolific created a market of its own. Anyone who was the least bit interested in him, or in horror, had 10, 20, 30, 40 things to choose from. If he lost you, he had seemingly endless chances to win you back with the next one. That backlist became a potent force to keep him selling. Straub never had that.

And he didn't have the constant movie interest that kept King in front of the public, either.

I think Straub could have been a lot bigger, I guess I'm trying to say here.

I agree with you there.
I've always said that a lot of great authors got plowed under by the Stephen King Publicity Steamroller.
If the publishers backed Straub like that, we might not be talking about King now, except as a contender.

King hardly needs the publicity, but he certainly gets it. I can sympathize with some authors saying they get little or no marketing push from their publishers while those who don't need it get the whole year's marketing budget dumped on them.

Jack Ketchum once said that he was in a bookstore and didn't even realize his new book was available until he spoke to his agent. The publishers didn't do anything to promote the book and altered the cover so much, Ketchum realized he must have walked right by it.

Having read a number of King's novels and short stories, I can say that much of it is forgettable, at least compared to some highly dynamic and literary contemporary horror authors that (as pointed out by Recluse) have been regrettably overshadowed and overlooked by King's current popularity.

One thing noted about King's writing is the verbosity of his tales... the man seems to be enamored by his own voice... at least I am a bit at a loss how else to explain the painfully bloated novels that he has churned out.

But... popularity can be a fleeting thing and as other writers take their places, it is truly hard to imagine any remarkable contributions made to the field by King. Most of King's tales, that I have read, are fairly conventional with banal characters and cliched genre tropes sprinkled throughout.

I don't pose this as a petty challenge to any King fan out there (and I'm certainly not trying to stir the pot), but frankly, can anyone really think of a remarkable tale written by King that perhaps 50 or 60 years from now will merit literary consideration? Does King have a Blackwood-like "The Willows" or a Machenesque "The Great God Pan" or perhaps a Lovecraftian jaunt in his body of work?

I'm really not so sure...

Only some of his short stories, like Quitters, Inc.

He will probably be remembered best for Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, because it was turned into a movie that eventually became a huge DVD hit. But it will be the movie that is remembered more than the story, I'd guess.

Benjamin wrote: "Having read a number of King's novels and short stories, I can say that much of it is forgettable, at least compared to some highly dynamic and literary contemporary horror authors that (as pointed..."

He wrote a Lovecraftian story called "Crouch End", which is set, for some bizarre reason, in England rather than his beloved Maine. It's kinda like King trying to do Ramsey Campbell writing Lovecraft. Not good.

I (somewhat) recently read "The Rats in the Walls" and found it disappointing. It really blew me away the first time.

I have moments when Lovecraft really freaks me out. Other times, not so much. It happens.

That's weird, Marc. I just read The Rats in the Walls a few months back and thought it was pretty good!
BTW, I agree re: Quitters, Inc. Great short.

Benjamin, respectfully, I posit that Misery, The Green Mile, The Stand and IT will still be around and popular 50-60 years from now. Meriting literary consideration? Probably not.

But sometimes I feel that people get too excited over the term 'literary'. What makes something literary? Does something need to be literary to stand the test of time? I'm a Wilkie Collins fan and he didn't seem to be too literary to me, but his books are still around and accessible. Not to mention fun. Arthur Machen on the other hand, I find to be a bit overrated and outdated. But that's just me.

I think the majority of people just enjoy a good, strong character driven story and that is where King's strength lies. He creates characters that are human, flawed and seemingly real. Those characters are so good that readers are happy to forgive some verbosity in exhange for these characters that will live in their minds forever.
Just my thoughts. : )

Charlene wrote: "That's weird, Marc. I just read The Rats in the Walls a few months back and thought it was pretty good!
BTW, I agree re: Quitters, Inc. Great short.

Benjamin, respectfully, I posit that Misery..."

Actually... I do think a story has to have some literary merit to stand the passage of time (not as a matter of some kind of magical rule though, simply by observation). I'm not suggesting that a book should have won an award, but if a novel or story is nothing more than pop fiction, I think it remains popular for the audience of that time. Once the fad or trend changes, I don't think pop fiction has much more to offer to future generation of readers.

As to what defines something as literary...*shrugs*... I don't really know... I'm not a scholar in English Lit... but that kind of evaluation begins to approach the "you know it when you see it" test (kind of like pornography). I'm sure there is a much more "scientific" approach out there... I simply don't practice it... =)

As to King's writing, I think I have to respectfully disagree about King's "strengths" for writing good characters. I just don't see it... it seems to me that King specializes in focusing on the mundane and banal minutiae of highly conventional middle class characters. I think a story that is driven by character minutiae can of course work and be highly compelling... just not when the focus is on incredibly conventional cookie cutter characters. That fact that many of King's characters seem "real" doesn't make them actually interesting, at least for me... but Charlene, at this point, we are only talking about tastes and my taste in "interesting" is probably different from yours and others on this board... no better or worse.

And on another note... I actually did like Misery... Joshi's take on it was hilarious though. Anyone think that Misery took on an air of autobiography for King? Not literally of course... the man still has both of his feet, but in a more symbolic sense.

Recluse wrote: "Benjamin wrote: "Having read a number of King's novels and short stories, I can say that much of it is forgettable, at least compared to some highly dynamic and literary contemporary horror authors..."


Yikes... I have not read that one... I think I may simply take a pass on that one, Recluse.

Benjamin, it's cool to disagree. Things sure would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.

Regarding Misery, it did turn out to be almost autobiographical didn't it?
Annie Wilkes is another memorable character for me. You cock-a-doodie dirty bird! LOL : )

King's shorter novels tend to work better. He still hasn't learned to contain himself.
Other authors weave multiple plotlines into their novels. King adds another 100 pages.

In the words of Ambrose Bierce "a short story padded"

Charlene wrote: "Benjamin, it's cool to disagree. Things sure would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.

Regarding Misery, it did turn out to be almost autobiographical didn't it?
Annie Wilkes is anoth..."

Yeah... Annie certainly did take on that air of the every man/woman (although in a very deranged fashion) who pined for the the latest and greatest Misery Chastain novel. And Paul Sheldon being the tormented writer who wanted to write something real, not just the pop fic stuff... I felt that King used some very powerful scenes, particularly when he had Paul burn the final Misery manuscript right in front of Annie.

Viscerally horrific scene when he loses the foot...

Recluse wrote: "King's shorter novels tend to work better. He still hasn't learned to contain himself.
Other authors weave multiple plotlines into their novels. King adds another 100 pages.

In the words of Ambros..."

Yeah... some of King's plot lines seem to meander off into no-wheresville and often go unresolved. I wonder... does King get paid by the page? I just don't get it. You can kill someone by dropping The Stand on someone's head... its like a brick.

Autobiographical, but in the words of my mother, "He's the horror guy, right?"