Stephen King talks crime, creativity, and LATER
“My view has always been you can call me whatever you want as long as the checks don’t bounce,” King told The Associated Press during a recent telephone interview. “My idea is to tell a good story, and if it crosses some lines and it doesn’t fit one particular genre, that’s good.”
Read more at The Associated Press
Read more at The Associated Press
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Ann
(new)
Feb 27, 2021 06:58PM
It is always good to tell it as you see it.
reply
|
flag
Great idea! And, you are a good story teller!!
On the other hand, don't become a propagandist. King has been using his work as a political outlet for some time now. He should leave that stuff to Twitter.
Womble wrote: "On the other hand, don't become a propagandist. King has been using his work as a political outlet for some time now. He should leave that stuff to Twitter.""Stephen King should stay in his lane!" is a thing that is never gonna happen, and I say Yay.
Womble wrote: "On the other hand, don't become a propagandist. King has been using his work as a political outlet for some time now. He should leave that stuff to Twitter."That's ridiculous. You write what you think, what you feel, what you want to speak into being. What you are permeates your life, whatever turn it takes. If you punch a clock, you may have to keep from speaking your truth, but if you are a writer of fiction, I think your fiction can say whatever you want it to.
"You write what you think, what you feel..."[edited]
When King uses his works to constantly belittle one side of politics -- "If it Bleeds" being the latest example -- he is seeking to influence and persuade people, in what is not obviously a political work. It's supposed to be a novel, but he treats his fiction like an adjunct to Twitter.
He's contaminating his work with junk politics. It belittles the reader.
Here's the acid test: would you be so approving of King if he attacked Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? We both know that if King wrote a word against either person, King would be vilified on social media, and cancel culture would be in full effect; he would be written off as a "rich old white male" who doesn't get it. People would call for a boycott of his publishers, and organise mass review-bombing here and on IMDB. We all know how it goes.
But when King attacks right-wing figures in his fiction, that's OK.
Seems to me that propaganda is still propaganda, whether he is Left or Right.
Womble wrote: ""You write what you think, what you feel..."[edited]
When King uses his works to constantly belittle one side of politics -- "If it Bleeds" being the latest example -- he is seeking to influence..."
Very well said. I've been reading King since the early 80's and honestly I don't know why I keep on at this point. His last several works have had so many jarring references to his intolerant politics that it completely ruins the amazing stories he can tell. If I want to hear an author's politics ranted at me, I'll follow them on social media or read non-fiction political books. In a work of fiction, something I read for enjoyment and relaxation, I don't need that crap. It completely ruins the immersion and escapism.
How can you all claim he needs to leave politics out of it and just ignore The Dead Zone? One of his most famous works is strictly anti-authoritarian through and through. Let's not pretend that is only springing up with the current political climate, King's been clear on his beliefs for decades. You can't make up stories out of thin air; a writer's beliefs seep into their works by the very nature of telling a story. Why would you create content that teaches lessons against what you personally believe to be right? It's called a theme, you learned about it in high school. Is it too on the nose and could be more subtle? That's a conversation worth having, but whether or not somebody should "just tell a story" and leave their beliefs out of it isn't one worth having
Can I suggest that if you don't like what an author writes, that you read someone else, rather than try telling them what to write. It's simply not up to you how another person makes a living. That's not how the world works. Have a nice day. :)
Paula wrote: "Can I suggest that if you don't like what an author writes, that you read someone else, rather than try telling them what to write. It's simply not up to you how another person makes a living. That..."It's called having an opinion, and this is a discussion board for reviews and opinion.
If you don't like other people's opinions, or you feel challenged by them, then don't read them. As you say, it's "not up to you" to determine how people express themselves.
The point remains: how many of King's defenders would approve of him if instead of attacking Trump and the GOP, he attacked Hillary or Obama or Biden? We all know what would happen to King if he did that.
I've just finished "If it Bleeds". It includes four stories. In every story, there is a partisan attack on right-wing American figures.
That's deliberately creating division. It's propagandising for one side of politics.
Joshua wrote: "How can you all claim he needs to leave politics out of it and just ignore The Dead Zone? One of his most famous works is strictly anti-authoritarian through and through. Let's not pretend that is ..."There is a big difference between being anti-authoritarian, and engaging in partisan political boosting. One is general and goes to philosophy, the other is specific, and banal.
Nobody is suggesting that King stops writing about political ideas. What I'm saying is that his incessant, partisan sniping is cheapening his work.
It's not OK just because his targets are Trump and the right-wing. Partisan politics is junk politics, regardless of leaning.
Jesus,who are the snowflakes again? lol
Womble wrote: ""You write what you think, what you feel..."[edited]
When King uses his works to constantly belittle one side of politics -- "If it Bleeds" being the latest example -- he is seeking to influence..."
He can go after whoever he desires. If he makes a valid point, he won't be vilified. Obama and Clinton are political figures; they can be criticized. How we go about that is up to each individual.
King's work is far from propaganda. He's just writing about how he sees the world and expressing his opinion--just as you and I are. He just has a bigger audience because he's better at writing than most.
Womble wrote: "On the other hand, don't become a propagandist. King has been using his work as a political outlet for some time now. He should leave that stuff to Twitter."Lol. Tying politics into your stories isn't propaganda. The man wrote an entire book about going back in time to stop the JFK shooter.
Todd wrote: Lol. Tying politics int..."11/22/63 is about JFK. (A man King describes as a "Gunslinger".)
The partisan attacks in his recent stories, are unrelated to the actual events of the story. They're gratuitous little jabs at one side of politics.
I seriously doubt all of his defenders would be happy if those jabs were against Obama or Clinton or Kennedy or Biden. King would be cancelled, and you know it.
Womble wrote: "Todd wrote: Lol. Tying politics int..."11/22/63 is about JFK. (A man King describes as a "Gunslinger".)
The partisan attacks in his recent stories, are unrelated to the actual events of the stor..."
Dude...if Obama or Hillary whined like a 14 year old girl on Twitter I would ABSOLUTELY want him to take shots at them. Fact of it is, Trump opens himself up to this kind of publicity. You like Trump so it upsets you, no big deal, but don't act like it makes the story unreadable lmao.
Your argument is that it's OK for King to treat his novels as an adjunct to Twitter, despite those politics being unrelated to the story, just because you agree with the politics.That's pretty divisive stuff. It's political fanboyism. Leave that junk to Twitter.
Womble wrote: "Your argument is that it's OK for King to treat his novels as an adjunct to Twitter, despite those politics being unrelated to the story, just because you agree with the politics.That's pretty di..."
No, I'm saying that the way President Trump conducted himself over 4 years made him infamous (or famous) and because of that references are going to bleed over into media. Be it writing, movies, or games. That's just the way it is. Nobody would be "cancelled" (which is a dumb word anyway) if they wrote the same things about Obama or Hillary. It just wouldn't hit as hard or really even make any sense because they didn't spend 40 years acting like complete clowns.
Todd wrote: "Nobody would be "cancelled" (which is a dumb word anyway) if they wrote the same things about Obama or Hillary."Well, we will just have to strongly disagree about that. I think it's obvious what would happen to King if he wrote about Biden or Clinton or Obama in the same way that he writes about Trump and right-wing figures. Cheers.
Good thing he doesn't need to write by fan committee or nothing would make it to print. That's what makes his works so much fun to read, we are getting a glimpse into someone else's head and that's what fiction should be.
Why does everything have to be political?
Womble wrote: ""You write what you think, what you feel..."[edited]
When King uses his works to constantly belittle one side of politics -- "If it Bleeds" being the latest example -- he is seeking to influence..."
Then don't read his novels if they offend you. It's his world not yours in those stories.
"Then don't read his novels if they offend you"In other words, don't read things that you disagree with, and don't speak out.
By your logic, I could say to you: "Don't read or reply to my comments if they offend you."
Really? Is that where we're up to? Are people really are so offended by contrary viewpoints that they're telling people to avoid reading books, and to avoid offering their viewpoints?
So much for tolerance and discussion and sharing viewpoints.
I have not advocated that people don't read King. Or that King should stop writing. So do not attempt to put words in my mouth. My point is that King is politicising his work, to his (and our) detriment.
My other point is that some people are happy with that politicisation because they share King's political views. If King suddenly changed his stance and attacked Democrat figures, I think it's obvious that these people's views on the matter would also suddenly change, and would be denouncing King.
The hypocrisy is obvious. And telling people not read things that may offend them? Hardly good advice on a site devoted to discussing books.
Well if you choose to continue reading them...why are you complaining?
I see and understand what you are saying...but I don't understand why you choose to read and then complain.
Also, he's speaking his mind just as you are. You are jumping down his throat for speaking his mind through literature, but you also are speaking your mind.
Fran wrote: "Well if you choose to continue reading them...why are you complaining?"That's like saying people shouldn't discuss a book after reading it. Or that people must unreservedly love or hate a book.
There's no nuance or intelligence to such an approach. It's all-or-nothing.
This is a site for discussion of books. Not for binary yes/no votes.
Womble wrote: ""Then don't read his novels if they offend you"In other words, don't read things that you disagree with, and don't speak out.
By your logic, I could say to you: "Don't read or reply to my commen..."
I wasn't the one offended. I merely made a suggestion to a criticism indicating offense. Not that you shouldn't read things you disagree with. But the comment indicated that what was being read was offensive. In that case the solution is simple. But it seems rather silly to read an author's work and then complain that he wrote it. Why does it have to be social and political commentary? Because he wants it to be. You either read it or not. Simple as that. You may disagree with his point of view but it is entirely hypocritical to read his work then ask him to change his views or to leave his views out of HIS work because you don't agree.
I think maybe most of you are missing the point. I obviously can't speak for other random posters, but in my case it's not about being offended by his political views. It has NOTHING to do with whether I agree with them or not. I find the political references, digs, and insults that have nothing to do with the story to be jarring and they take me completely out of the zone. Quite honestly, I expect Mr. King to be a better writer than that. :) If a story is political in nature, i.e. The Dead Zone, then political references make sense. In the recent stories they do not at all. THAT'S the complaint that I think is the root of this thread. It's been derailed into Red vs Blue which is almost as annoying as the references that started the thread. Some of us aren't either and are very very tired of y'all being at each others throats. ;)
Wow. Thank you for that - that was a great thing to say :)
Beverly wrote: "Some of us aren't either and are very very tired of y'all being at each others throats. ;)"Thank you.
Womble wrote: ""You write what you think, what you feel..."[edited]
When King uses his works to constantly belittle one side of politics -- "If it Bleeds" being the latest example -- he is seeking to influence..."
So don't read it. Find a right-wing author as good as Stephen King. Oh wait, there aren't any. Cry me a fcking river and write your own damn book if you don't like what King writes.
Ida wrote: "Find a right-wing author ."Not only did you miss the point, but you dumbed down the conversation in to yet another interminable, stupid "us vs them" argument.
Fran wrote: "Did she miss the point though?"Yeah, by a long way. Which is impressive, because I (and others) have clearly explained what the point was.
It took effort to miss the point, so that she could dumb the argument down to Left vs Right.
I don't care about your Left or Right squabbles. I don't care about Stephen King's politics, whether it's Left, Right or Pastafarian.
I just don't want garbage Twitter-style politics in my otherwise NON-POLITICAL novels. It's not a lot to ask for.
Nor do I care for partisan political defenders of King, who are only defending him because they share his political views, knowing full well they would hate on King if his views were different.
Hypocrisy is a blight, whether Left or Right.
Womble wrote: "Fran wrote: "Did she miss the point though?"Yeah, by a long way. Which is impressive, because I (and others) have clearly explained what the point was.
It took effort to miss the point, so that ..."
Oh i got the point. At least, the point you were TRYING to make. That you don't want your "non-political novels" to contain politics. But the thing is, this is America and there is this thing called "free speech," which means Stephen King can write whatever and however he wants. If novelists weren't allowed to "take jabs" at whatever political party they don't agree with, that would be something called "censorship," and the literary world would be no better than North Korea. I understand you don't like some of the contents of King's most recent work, but you're coming off as whiny and entitled. No author of fiction should have to censor their feelings and beliefs or make them less intense for the more "delicate" readers shall we say. If you don't like how he's approaching politics in his novels, don't read them. And if you don't wanna get jumped on in the Comments section, then post your opinions in your review of his book on your own page. I always respect people's opinions of books in their own reviews, but you're taking it public here with your criticism of someone who is basically a cult hero. So, I totally get the point you were making. So does almost everyone else who replied to your comment. We just think it's stupid and entitled.
I think that is what makes his stories so great. They do not fit one particular genre, and they cross lines. It is what makes them so great and at times, seem like they are based on true events.
Womble wrote: "Ida wrote: "Find a right-wing author ."Not only did you miss the point, but you dumbed down the conversation in to yet another interminable, stupid "us vs them" argument."
Hmmmm......."Right wing author"......Newt Gingrich,Tom Clancy, Vince Flynn, Bill O'Reilly.....Just of the top of my head
While some of his books are good, some of his stories annoy the hell out of me.....
The world is a political place, especially at present. So of course that is going to be included in his work. Especially as he has always included issues he felt strongly about in his writing. This is like saying "I wish he didn't include so many classic rock references, it's jarring to those of us that don't like that kind of music". So, you just go past it if you don't feel like it informs the storyline or the characters. But generally, it DOES have some bearing on the tone, the attitudes, or something to do with the actual story. If it bothers you so much, then it probably means you are not a big fan of his writing, which is ok, too. Weird, but ok. ;)
Angel wrote: "If it bothers you so much, then it probably means you are not a big fan of his writing, which is ok, too. "That's generous of you. However, the attempt at labelling and dismissing is transparent.
One does not have to agree 100% with an author's works, style, personality or politics in order to be a fan of that author's work in general.
Do YOU fully agree with every author whose books you generally like?
(If the answer is yes, then there's probably something wrong. People need their own views, their own identity.)
It's easy to see what people enjoy reading. Just look at their reading list.
Womble wrote: "Fran wrote: "Well if you choose to continue reading them...why are you complaining?"That's like saying people shouldn't discuss a book after reading it. Or that people must unreservedly love or h..."
The challenge with infusing political views into a novel seems to be that readers who don't share those views, perhaps even are offended by them, become upset. Art is supposed to do that. Provoke. Though King focuses a good deal on merely telling the story, there's no reason he should abstain from creating true art as well.
I sympathize with the point that someone may enjoy that story and also be offended by the art. Though I also sympathize with the idea that this is a site for literary discussions. The point: If we clarify that our viewpoint is just that, not objective truth, we leave room for actual discussion. Though stating it dogmatically shuts out other opinions. I read above that King's politicizing his story is "to...our detriment.” That is your view, ostensibly, though I see it as more of an invitation to discuss. But then I inferred "My opinion is that...” prefaced your point.
One of the things that's made our current political climate so challenging is dogma. It's the shutting down of discussion. Of people being willing to say, "My thought is...” or "My view is...” and instead merely stating that opinion as fact, then using social proof--gathering others who agree--to provide the illusion of verification of that truth.
There's a lot of interesting territory to explore here and I'm having fun using it to fuel a heated political thriller that should drop in the autumn. I'm no dogmatic thinker, and with all the interesting points being made here, as well as in King's work, I think there's a lot of room to learn more. Now.
