What exactly does the “Literary Establishment” have against Stephen King? Now, I’m not a King fan—I can’t remember the last book of his I read, although I’ve read my share and I enjoy his short stories—but neither am I his detractor. The guy’s been more successful than nearly any other writer. It’s difficult to argue with that.
But a segment of would-be tastemakers persist in deriding King’s work as less-than-literary. Why? And so what? Does every book need to be brilliantly written prose, or can some of them be solidly paced-and-plotted page-turners? (Ideally, of course, they’ll be both.)
The ivory tower’s a lonely place to spend your time. And you’ll run out of things to read pretty fast.
The New Yorker, considered by some to be the tastemaker of tastemakers, is an exception, and publishes King from time to time, somewhat controversially. Another exception is the wonderful Paris Review, in which Christopher Lehmann-Haupt interviewed King for the “Art of Fiction” series. In addition, King was awarded the National Book Award for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters.
But just when you think he’s starting to get some respect, hello New York Times Sunday Book Review. This week James Parker, an editor at The Atlantic, reviews King’s new novel, “Under the Dome.” Parker says:
“As for the prose, it’s not all smooth sailing. Given King’s extraordinary career-long dominance, we might expect him at this point to be stylistically complete, turning perfect sentences, as breezily at home in his idiom as P.G. Wodehouse. But he isn’t, quite. ‘Then it came down on her again, like unpleasant presents raining from a poison piñata: the realization that Howie was dead.’ (It’s the accidental rhyme of ‘unpleasant’ and ‘presents’ that makes that one such a stinker.)”
So Parker decides the sentence is a stinker, and then tells us why it’s a stinker. If it’s such a stinker, should we need to be told, or shouldn’t it be immediately apparent? Moreover, Parker is making the assumption that the “unpleasant, presents” rhyme is accidental—why?
He tells us in the next paragraph: “But then, King has always produced at pulp speed... . We shouldn’t be too squeamish about the odd half-baked simile or lapse into B-movie dialogue, is my point.”
He gives King so little credit that he assumes King didn’t think through his sentences. The guy writes fast, yes—and prolifically. But can you remember the last book he wrote that wasn’t a success?
Can anyone? Is it really a fair assumption that he’s not in control of his own writing?
We shouldn’t be surprised that he treats King without respect. After all, by telling us what makes a sentence bad, he’s treating us with the same disrespect.
Writing is subjective. And personally, I like “unpleasant presents.”
Give it a rest, Parker. Please.