What do you think?
Rate this book
Stephen King and Philosophy
Haunting us with such unforgettable stories as The Shining, The Shawshank Redemption, Salem’s Lot, Carrie, The Green Mile, and Pet Sematary, Stephen King has been an anchor of American horror, science fiction, psychological thrillers, and suspense for more than forty years. His characters have brought chills to our spines and challenged our notions of reality while leaving us in awe of the perseverance of the human spirit. The first book in the new Great Authors and Philosophy series, Stephen King and Philosophy reveals some of the deeper issues raised by King’s work. From retribution, freedom, and moral relativity, to death and insanity, the chapters of this book expose how King’s stories access the questions and fears that haunt each of us in the middle of the night.
Contributions by Katherine Allen, Randall E. Auxier, Charles Bane, Matthew Butkus, Kellye Byal, Cam Cobb, Timothy Dale, Paul R. Daniels, Joseph J. Foy, Bertha Alvarez Manninen, Tuomas W. Manninen, Garret Merriam, Michael K. Potter, and C. Taylor Sutton
Contributions by Katherine Allen, Randall E. Auxier, Charles Bane, Matthew Butkus, Kellye Byal, Cam Cobb, Timothy Dale, Paul R. Daniels, Joseph J. Foy, Bertha Alvarez Manninen, Tuomas W. Manninen, Garret Merriam, Michael K. Potter, and C. Taylor Sutton
328 pages, Paperback
Published August 15, 2016
30 people are currently reading
215 people want to read
About the author
Jacob M. Held
12 books4 followersAssistant Professor of philosophy at the University of Central Arkansas specializing in legal and political philosophy, nineteenth-century German philosophy, and applied ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
August 16, 2016
I received this on a read to review basis from NetGalley. Thank you to the editor, Jacob M. Held, and the publisher, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, for the opportunity.
This is a fascinating little insight into the philosophical issues raised and addressed in the numerous works of horror maestro, Stephen King. This brings forward the ideology that, whilst dealing with horrifying and often supernatural elements, King's writing primarily deals with the human condition. This leads to questions arising concerning the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence in the novels and dissected in this book.
This brings forward the theories and ideologies of philosophical greats like Hume, Aristotle and Plato and uses King's writing to exemplify their strategy and significance. What is left is well-rounded arguments for a variety of topics such as the existence for and against God, why we love horror, Oedipal mental dynamic repressions and the representation of femininity and sexuality.
Both the editor and King themselves argue against these horror novels as not apexing the scale of literary greatness and yet these essays provide proof of the depth and diversity of the topics touched upon. It certainly made me eager to reread King with a more academic gaze heightened with my new knowledge and perception.
The only negative (and the subsequent loss of one star) was that each essay was often littered with spoilers about the texts they were addressing. I can see no way the editor could have gone around this without leaving out critical information and creating a less fully-rounded argument. It did, however, ruin the few King novels I have yet to read.
This is a fascinating little insight into the philosophical issues raised and addressed in the numerous works of horror maestro, Stephen King. This brings forward the ideology that, whilst dealing with horrifying and often supernatural elements, King's writing primarily deals with the human condition. This leads to questions arising concerning the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence in the novels and dissected in this book.
This brings forward the theories and ideologies of philosophical greats like Hume, Aristotle and Plato and uses King's writing to exemplify their strategy and significance. What is left is well-rounded arguments for a variety of topics such as the existence for and against God, why we love horror, Oedipal mental dynamic repressions and the representation of femininity and sexuality.
Both the editor and King themselves argue against these horror novels as not apexing the scale of literary greatness and yet these essays provide proof of the depth and diversity of the topics touched upon. It certainly made me eager to reread King with a more academic gaze heightened with my new knowledge and perception.
The only negative (and the subsequent loss of one star) was that each essay was often littered with spoilers about the texts they were addressing. I can see no way the editor could have gone around this without leaving out critical information and creating a less fully-rounded argument. It did, however, ruin the few King novels I have yet to read.
August 17, 2018
A good book for King fans though I had to skip some of the parts because of not having read some books on which the parts were based on. But I really enjoyed the writing and did enjoy the various discussions.
May 26, 2016
I don't know anyone who hasn't a clue who Stephen King is. If they haven't read any of his work, certainly they have seen something. This is dissecting his work, but nothing macabre about it. While I confess to being disturbed by his horror stories it's a strangely fulfilling panic. Carrie is so much more than a misfit who takes her revenge as much as every story King has written holds more meaning than simply to frighten or thrill us. Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption is a short story that lodged in my throat, thick with emotion. It's proof that while he is the master of horror, he can create beautiful stories about human beings too. His characters can be low lives or weirdos but never just that. To think of his work as fast food for readers doesn't ring true and in Stephen King and Philosophy there is evidence why his writing is full of meaning. Fan or not, it is an interesting read. I found myself thinking about what he is telling the reader, intentionally or not. Naturally, we all read a different story when handed the same book. Our own life experiences, where we are in life, everything merges with our reading so no one has the same exact perception nor emotions. I think the same can be said of writing. Our stories take on lives of their own, sometimes authors (just like artists) may even unintentionally be saying something they hadn't set out to say. It sneaks it's way out through the pen and when it's pointed out they think 'hmmm, I am saying something here."
I particularly enjoyed reading Held's thoughts on Carrie and it's rich symbolism of coming into womanhood. I also thought about the male friendships in the stories The Body (which Lean On Me was based on) and Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. I remember feeling so many different emotions because of The Body. How is it he can write about boys looking for a dead boy (which is in itself horrifying) and yet conjure this emotional journey where they are free to express their feelings (something certainly not encouraged in those days)? Held has done a much better job of exploring the meaning and depths of King's work and I spent time pondering things I never considered, somehow neglected to absorb. This book is incredibly engaging and I can't wait to read reviews by die hard King fans.
I particularly enjoyed reading Held's thoughts on Carrie and it's rich symbolism of coming into womanhood. I also thought about the male friendships in the stories The Body (which Lean On Me was based on) and Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. I remember feeling so many different emotions because of The Body. How is it he can write about boys looking for a dead boy (which is in itself horrifying) and yet conjure this emotional journey where they are free to express their feelings (something certainly not encouraged in those days)? Held has done a much better job of exploring the meaning and depths of King's work and I spent time pondering things I never considered, somehow neglected to absorb. This book is incredibly engaging and I can't wait to read reviews by die hard King fans.
June 7, 2016
Stephen King and Philosophy, ed. Jacob Held: Free review copy. I particularly enjoyed the opening essay by Held and C. Taylor Sutton on the problem of evil: how could God be both omnipotent and beneficient, when there is so much suffering in the world? (If a fawn dies slowly in a forest fire with no one to see, for example, that suffering can’t educate or otherwise improve anyone else.) The author runs through a number of philosophical treatments of the issue, including the lesson of Job, and King after him: suffering just is, and if it is consistent with an all-powerful and all-good God, humans can’t comprehend why. “If we claim that we see no reason for evil, is that a claim about God or about us? Is our lack of imagination proof against God?” I particularly liked the discussion of theodicy, and the argument that free will is a good that accounts for human evil: “If I build some kind of autonomous cleaning robot, few would say that I could improve it by giving it the capability to murder, even if it is not programmed to use that capability.” [But cf. Tony Stark.] Ultimately, however, he argues that a finite, embodied existence must have suffering; a world without evil would lack the differentiation and finiteness that are conditions of specifically human consciousness. Then the argument turns Bayseian: The existence of suffering doesn’t argue for or against the existence of God because we have no idea about what the prior probabilities involved are. Instead of the problem of evil, he argues, we need a strategy to cope with suffering, because suffering isn’t an argument, “but a condition to be tolerated, and perhaps redeemed.” And that returns us to King, whose works are generally about that issue, and whose recommended strategy is to care, to struggle, even if there is no ultimate answer.
Another chapter, by Kellye Byal, covers female subjectivity in Carrie—one bad mother encourages Carrie to harm herself, while another motherly figure tries to get her to fit in, but that’s not a solution either. Another, by Katherine Allen, discusses Pet Sematary and The Tommyknockers as “bioconservative fables,” cautionary tales about trying to exceed human boundaries. “When knocking down a wall, one should first check that it is not load bearing; our limitations may frustrate us, may often cause us great suffering, but they are also central to our identity.” Another, by Greg Littman, covers The Dark Tower and the idea that Roland’s flaw is his vision of his life as a linear quest rather than a circle; if it is a circle, then the only way for him to find meaning in it is to make it meaningful. Like Sisyphus, the author suggests, one must imagine Roland happy. Another chapter, by Michael Potter and Cam Cobb, covers Apt Pupil, the need for propaganda in successful teaching, and the way that power is fluid.
Elizabeth Hornbeck treats the Overlook Hotel as a Foucauldian heterotopia—a place that challenges ordinary social arrangements and brings together elements that aren’t supposed to exist together; the hotel is particularly suited to this function because a “home” isn’t supposed to be heterotopic, but is rather one of the normative social spaces against which heterotopias are defined. Heterotopias both protect “normal” spaces from transgressive activity and provide a space for those activities to take place: it is vital that they are both isolated and penetrable by those with the right permissions, as hotels are.
Joseph Foy & Timothy Dale examine Richard Bachman’s works in which humans—particularly humans mediated by a reality-TV culture—are the real monsters, and bread and circuses pacify the masses. Drawing on Hannah Arendt, the authors suggest that repressive cultures such as those in the Bachman books use violence to break down connections between people that might otherwise lead to political change. Yet the more violence is required, the more people question or distrust or resist the power of the state. The Bachman books are not hopeful, in that they end with individual rebellion rather than a joining together. (I didn’t realize that King allowed Rage to go out of print because he didn’t want to inspire school shootings; I think it’s probably too late.)
Greg Littman addresses the ethical/artistic role of horror, comparing the attitudes of Aristotle and Plato towards fiction. “Sadism toward imaginary people hurts nobody in itself, so need not be a wicked pleasure, but if it conveys any moral lessons at all, they aren’t good ones.” Yet horror fiction can be a useful way of thinking through, for example, what we’re justified in doing in order to survive. Horror can’t just be a way of purging negative emotions, because those of us who like it don’t feel like we’ve purged ourselves; we feel that it’s affirmatively pleasurable to read, and not really because of the author’s literary skill. “[T]he more we are sucked into the story like a child down a sewer, the less literary evaluation is likely to enter our head,” and horror connoisseurs “can get a taste for really shitty art.” Instead, the author proposes, the pleasure of horror is the pleasure of exercising our imaginations—and that’s why even bad horror can be so much fun; the work supplies a basic structure and our imaginations do the rest.
Charles Bane deals with the vagaries of intertextuality, and how King now says that the film version of The Shining was bad—because it was so “cold,” with Jack being crazy from the beginning, and the book was “hot,” with Jack trying and failing to be good. But, as the author points out, King actually uses a lot of other authors’ works, in quotations (especially song lyrics). The beginning epigrams set the novel’s tone even though King didn’t write them; this same intertextuality means that Jack seems disturbed from the outset in the movie because Jack Nicholson’s presence inherently evokes One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. King added a scene in the TV adaptation of The Shining in which Jack’s ghost visits Danny and they share an intimate moment, “reminding viewers that Jack wasn’t such a bad guy after all. Why this change? Perhaps King simply wanted to revise Kubrick’s reading, or perhaps he had begun to suspect, like Kubrick, that maybe Jack wasn’t such a good guy.” Ultimately, King doesn’t have interpretive authority over The Shining, any more than anyone else does.
Paul Daniels deals with time travel and the question of linear time in The Langoliers: is time like space, in that every moment in it exists now but we’re not there, or is there something special about the present? The eternalist says “it’d be a mistake to conclude that Pluto doesn’t exist merely because it’s not here, and likewise it’d be a mistake to conclude that Julius Caesar doesn’t exist merely because 49 BCE isn’t now.” The promise that there will be only one future, only one outcome, is the way that we hold ourselves together psychologically as we move through time, and King’s implicit argument in his books that deal with time are that ordinary people can hold up against the assault of many possibilities, even horrible ones, quite well.
Randall Auxier discusses time in the Dark Tower series and other books, including UR (which was released twice, once as a Kindle Single and once in edited form as part of a collection, removing references to JFK as well as to Gore’s loss in 2000).
Finally, Held returns to the problem of evil, this time invoking Schopenhauer. As he points out, King’s characters always face a choice: run (or drink), or fight against evil. There’s no ultimate victory, and no God-given goal. King’s children in particular suffer intensely, and often without hope of rescue, which is King’s view of our shared condition. But if suffering is inevitable, then Schopenhauer says that the best life is a heroic life, “struggling against overwhelming odds in some way and some affair that will benefit the whole of mankind,” even if they don’t reach their reward. And this struggle can be extending compassion to just one person who needs it. As King writes, “One kid doesn’t matter—not in the face of this… It was logical, but it was croupier’s logic. Ultimately, killer logic … The kid matters or nothing matters.”
Another chapter, by Kellye Byal, covers female subjectivity in Carrie—one bad mother encourages Carrie to harm herself, while another motherly figure tries to get her to fit in, but that’s not a solution either. Another, by Katherine Allen, discusses Pet Sematary and The Tommyknockers as “bioconservative fables,” cautionary tales about trying to exceed human boundaries. “When knocking down a wall, one should first check that it is not load bearing; our limitations may frustrate us, may often cause us great suffering, but they are also central to our identity.” Another, by Greg Littman, covers The Dark Tower and the idea that Roland’s flaw is his vision of his life as a linear quest rather than a circle; if it is a circle, then the only way for him to find meaning in it is to make it meaningful. Like Sisyphus, the author suggests, one must imagine Roland happy. Another chapter, by Michael Potter and Cam Cobb, covers Apt Pupil, the need for propaganda in successful teaching, and the way that power is fluid.
Elizabeth Hornbeck treats the Overlook Hotel as a Foucauldian heterotopia—a place that challenges ordinary social arrangements and brings together elements that aren’t supposed to exist together; the hotel is particularly suited to this function because a “home” isn’t supposed to be heterotopic, but is rather one of the normative social spaces against which heterotopias are defined. Heterotopias both protect “normal” spaces from transgressive activity and provide a space for those activities to take place: it is vital that they are both isolated and penetrable by those with the right permissions, as hotels are.
Joseph Foy & Timothy Dale examine Richard Bachman’s works in which humans—particularly humans mediated by a reality-TV culture—are the real monsters, and bread and circuses pacify the masses. Drawing on Hannah Arendt, the authors suggest that repressive cultures such as those in the Bachman books use violence to break down connections between people that might otherwise lead to political change. Yet the more violence is required, the more people question or distrust or resist the power of the state. The Bachman books are not hopeful, in that they end with individual rebellion rather than a joining together. (I didn’t realize that King allowed Rage to go out of print because he didn’t want to inspire school shootings; I think it’s probably too late.)
Greg Littman addresses the ethical/artistic role of horror, comparing the attitudes of Aristotle and Plato towards fiction. “Sadism toward imaginary people hurts nobody in itself, so need not be a wicked pleasure, but if it conveys any moral lessons at all, they aren’t good ones.” Yet horror fiction can be a useful way of thinking through, for example, what we’re justified in doing in order to survive. Horror can’t just be a way of purging negative emotions, because those of us who like it don’t feel like we’ve purged ourselves; we feel that it’s affirmatively pleasurable to read, and not really because of the author’s literary skill. “[T]he more we are sucked into the story like a child down a sewer, the less literary evaluation is likely to enter our head,” and horror connoisseurs “can get a taste for really shitty art.” Instead, the author proposes, the pleasure of horror is the pleasure of exercising our imaginations—and that’s why even bad horror can be so much fun; the work supplies a basic structure and our imaginations do the rest.
Charles Bane deals with the vagaries of intertextuality, and how King now says that the film version of The Shining was bad—because it was so “cold,” with Jack being crazy from the beginning, and the book was “hot,” with Jack trying and failing to be good. But, as the author points out, King actually uses a lot of other authors’ works, in quotations (especially song lyrics). The beginning epigrams set the novel’s tone even though King didn’t write them; this same intertextuality means that Jack seems disturbed from the outset in the movie because Jack Nicholson’s presence inherently evokes One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. King added a scene in the TV adaptation of The Shining in which Jack’s ghost visits Danny and they share an intimate moment, “reminding viewers that Jack wasn’t such a bad guy after all. Why this change? Perhaps King simply wanted to revise Kubrick’s reading, or perhaps he had begun to suspect, like Kubrick, that maybe Jack wasn’t such a good guy.” Ultimately, King doesn’t have interpretive authority over The Shining, any more than anyone else does.
Paul Daniels deals with time travel and the question of linear time in The Langoliers: is time like space, in that every moment in it exists now but we’re not there, or is there something special about the present? The eternalist says “it’d be a mistake to conclude that Pluto doesn’t exist merely because it’s not here, and likewise it’d be a mistake to conclude that Julius Caesar doesn’t exist merely because 49 BCE isn’t now.” The promise that there will be only one future, only one outcome, is the way that we hold ourselves together psychologically as we move through time, and King’s implicit argument in his books that deal with time are that ordinary people can hold up against the assault of many possibilities, even horrible ones, quite well.
Randall Auxier discusses time in the Dark Tower series and other books, including UR (which was released twice, once as a Kindle Single and once in edited form as part of a collection, removing references to JFK as well as to Gore’s loss in 2000).
Finally, Held returns to the problem of evil, this time invoking Schopenhauer. As he points out, King’s characters always face a choice: run (or drink), or fight against evil. There’s no ultimate victory, and no God-given goal. King’s children in particular suffer intensely, and often without hope of rescue, which is King’s view of our shared condition. But if suffering is inevitable, then Schopenhauer says that the best life is a heroic life, “struggling against overwhelming odds in some way and some affair that will benefit the whole of mankind,” even if they don’t reach their reward. And this struggle can be extending compassion to just one person who needs it. As King writes, “One kid doesn’t matter—not in the face of this… It was logical, but it was croupier’s logic. Ultimately, killer logic … The kid matters or nothing matters.”
November 9, 2018
I originally picked this up out of personal interest with the vague thought that I might use it in a class someday (I'm a philosophy professor). This semester I'm teaching a class on horror and philosophy, so I thought this book might provide some interesting material for that class. And I was right! I assigned the Littmann chapter on why people like horror and the Allen chapter on Pet Sematary, The Tommyknockers, deathism, and posthumanism. Those both worked well in class (the students read Pet Sematary).
I skipped or skimmed some of the chapters (especially those on the Dark Tower series, which I haven't finished yet but I plan to pick up with book six soon now that I'm done with this). Other favorites were the Byal article on Carrie and female subjectivity, the Mannien piece on friendship in the superb novellas Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption and The Body, Hornbeck on The Shining and heterotopia, Bane on the death of the author in The Shining (dealing with the novel and the film), and Held on Schopenhauer, compassion, The Tommyknockers, and Desperation.
Books on philosophy and pop culture can often be hit or miss, but this one was mostly pretty good. I have (as I like to say) rekindled my relationship with Stephen King in recent years after not reading him much since high school. Jacob Held has edited a volume that has enriched my love of Stephen King as both a fan and a philosopher. It makes me appreciate all the work I have read and excited to read all the books I haven't gotten to yet (Held's pieces, for example, make me keen to read Desperation, which never sounded all that intriguing to me before). Who knows? There might even be an iteration of a universe with a future in which I teach a whole class on Stephen King and Philosophy with this as the main text. Maybe we live in that universe now?
There are some spoilers in most of the chapters, but I'm not the kind of person that minds them much. As King himself says somewhere, if you really love reading for the experience of reading, spoilers shouldn't bother you that much. I think he's right, which is a good thing as I embark upon the last few Dark Tower books having been spoiled by some of the chapters here. After I finish the Dark Tower series I may revisit some of the essays in this book, and then revisit the Dark Tower, and then re-revisit this book, and ....
(See my blog review: https://examinedworlds.blogspot.com/2...)
I skipped or skimmed some of the chapters (especially those on the Dark Tower series, which I haven't finished yet but I plan to pick up with book six soon now that I'm done with this). Other favorites were the Byal article on Carrie and female subjectivity, the Mannien piece on friendship in the superb novellas Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption and The Body, Hornbeck on The Shining and heterotopia, Bane on the death of the author in The Shining (dealing with the novel and the film), and Held on Schopenhauer, compassion, The Tommyknockers, and Desperation.
Books on philosophy and pop culture can often be hit or miss, but this one was mostly pretty good. I have (as I like to say) rekindled my relationship with Stephen King in recent years after not reading him much since high school. Jacob Held has edited a volume that has enriched my love of Stephen King as both a fan and a philosopher. It makes me appreciate all the work I have read and excited to read all the books I haven't gotten to yet (Held's pieces, for example, make me keen to read Desperation, which never sounded all that intriguing to me before). Who knows? There might even be an iteration of a universe with a future in which I teach a whole class on Stephen King and Philosophy with this as the main text. Maybe we live in that universe now?
There are some spoilers in most of the chapters, but I'm not the kind of person that minds them much. As King himself says somewhere, if you really love reading for the experience of reading, spoilers shouldn't bother you that much. I think he's right, which is a good thing as I embark upon the last few Dark Tower books having been spoiled by some of the chapters here. After I finish the Dark Tower series I may revisit some of the essays in this book, and then revisit the Dark Tower, and then re-revisit this book, and ....
(See my blog review: https://examinedworlds.blogspot.com/2...)
June 15, 2017
Excellent. Took me awhile, but only because of stacks of books. Full review soon on CDonline.
June 13, 2016
Stephen King and Philospohy - deem, it was interesting and difficult read.
It's difficult, since sometimes I got the feeling like the author forgot that this was suposed to be about King and their thinking got lost in open fields of philosophy or in another authors books.
It was interesting, since it's about Stephen King, about some of King's books and about philosophy. It's a pity that it covered only some books (films), since King has many more wonderful books, but I understand that if it would cover all his books .... Anyway, be warned if you have not read all the King's books, especially his first books, this book contains spoilers about endings and key points.
Interesting and enchanting reading.
It's difficult, since sometimes I got the feeling like the author forgot that this was suposed to be about King and their thinking got lost in open fields of philosophy or in another authors books.
It was interesting, since it's about Stephen King, about some of King's books and about philosophy. It's a pity that it covered only some books (films), since King has many more wonderful books, but I understand that if it would cover all his books .... Anyway, be warned if you have not read all the King's books, especially his first books, this book contains spoilers about endings and key points.
Interesting and enchanting reading.
March 12, 2018
Some essays were very good, a couple didn't say much repeatedly.
Chapter 10 Broadcast Dystopia (Power and Violence in The Running Mile and The Long Walk)
- Joseph J. Foy & Timothy M. Dale
Chapter 10 Broadcast Dystopia (Power and Violence in The Running Mile and The Long Walk)
- Joseph J. Foy & Timothy M. Dale
"It is true that storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
-Hannah Arendt
In her "Reflections on Violence," Hannah Arendt describes the way in which violence--not power or force or strength--has, through technological development and historical evolution, become a means confused with its end. Rather than violence being the way in which regimes pursue goals that they deem necessary, violence itself becomes one of the purposes of society. The existence of war in this context becomes a pervasive condition of society instead of a limited activity of necessity. The people who live in such a society must accept that human life is expendable, and willingly accept that violence is to be preferred over connection to others. ....
The violence gets more and more extreme and pervasive, as does the structural violence within the system designed to maintain the extreme gaps between the wealthiest and the poor. As is postulated by Arendt when describing the divergence of power and violence, the more violence that is applied, the more resources and efforts the state must dedicate to that violence, further diminishing its ability to meet the needs of governance. ....
August 16, 2016
I found the insight and philosophical issues address in in many of Stephen Kings book interesting and this story. From Carrie to the Dark Tower series each book deal with the horrifying and often supernal side of the human mind. IF you get past the imaginary of Stephen King you find he write about the human condition and how people react to the unknown. Each Novel brings up questions we all much find answers for ourselves.
This book dives into those questions and answer we have to find and justify. This book has a look at the different series and books written by Stephen King and the questions he sends out to readers as they find themselves pulled from word to word. A questions is brought out is Stephen King another philological like Aristotle and Plato using words to imaginary to help the human mind discover what they need to find out for themselves.
FYI if you haven't reads some of Stephen King Novels this will ruin some of those stories and plots. So read with cautions.
Received Advance Copy from Netgalley.
This book dives into those questions and answer we have to find and justify. This book has a look at the different series and books written by Stephen King and the questions he sends out to readers as they find themselves pulled from word to word. A questions is brought out is Stephen King another philological like Aristotle and Plato using words to imaginary to help the human mind discover what they need to find out for themselves.
FYI if you haven't reads some of Stephen King Novels this will ruin some of those stories and plots. So read with cautions.
Received Advance Copy from Netgalley.
June 16, 2016
The essays that I appreciated in this book, are mostly the one about The Dark Tower series, IMHO because it's a philosophical story in itself. Some of the other were too complicated or they seem to have no real philosophy to talk of, but maybe it's just because I'm not so aware and interested in philosophy myself, or not intelligent enough.
I saggi che mi sono piaciuti di piú sono quelli che hanno scritto riguardo alla serie de "La torre nera", fondamentalmente perché, secondo me, quella é una storia filosofica in sé per sé. Alcuni degli altri saggi o erano troppo complicati o mi sembrava che volessero inserire a forza la filosofia dove non c'entrava niente, ma magari ho avuto questa impressione perché non conosco bene l'argomento o, piú probabile ancora, non sono abbastanza intelligente da capire.
THANKS TO NETGALLEY AND ROWMAN AND LITTLEFIELD FOR THE PREVIEW!
I saggi che mi sono piaciuti di piú sono quelli che hanno scritto riguardo alla serie de "La torre nera", fondamentalmente perché, secondo me, quella é una storia filosofica in sé per sé. Alcuni degli altri saggi o erano troppo complicati o mi sembrava che volessero inserire a forza la filosofia dove non c'entrava niente, ma magari ho avuto questa impressione perché non conosco bene l'argomento o, piú probabile ancora, non sono abbastanza intelligente da capire.
THANKS TO NETGALLEY AND ROWMAN AND LITTLEFIELD FOR THE PREVIEW!
November 24, 2023
This book is basically an easy introduction to philosophy, in which writers do some philosophical analysis of relatable matters such as education, womanhood, time, friendship, transhumanism, and reconciling a belief in God with the existence of evil. Interesting ideas presented in an accessible way. Yes, it's related to Stephen King, but I found value in it despite not being a particular fan. While it takes the form of essays that each deal with a philosophical idea the writer has taken from a Kingian tale, I was able to enjoy even those essays based on tales I hadn't read. (There were some plot spoilers though.)
The book is the first of a projected series on great authors and philosophy, and, as the editor notes in an interesting introduction, this raises the issue of Stephen King being a great writer. A lot of people will balk at this - including one of the contributors apparently - and King himself has described his work as the literary equivalent of McDonald's.
But why wouldn't King be a great writer? Because he writes novels intended to be popular? But Shakespeare wrote plays intended to be popular; he was a tradesman motivated by money. Perhaps it's because King writes horror stories. But have you ever read 'Macbeth'? Or perhaps it's because while Shakespeare wrote poetry for the ages, King writes in grimy American vernacular. But this is just a matter of taste, some people loving beautiful language for its own sake while others finding it gets in the way of the story and ideas. King is a good writer; he just eschews the bells and whistles.
But then there's the idea that philosophers could find sufficient substance in, say, 'Pet Sematary' to wax philosophical about. Was King really critiquing our faith in technology when writing those gory descriptions? The connection between some of the essays and the tale they are riffing on can seem stretched at times. But it's unlikely that Shakespeare had in mind a fraction of the ideas gleaned from his works by the library of commentary published on them. (Thoughtfully chewing the end of his quill, Shakespeare thinks, "I must include something for the feminists three centuries from now.") Any decent novel will reflect the nature and concerns of the society in which it was written, and more or less deliberately flirt with a few existential matters besides, thus providing substance for a philosopher to riff on. And King has written so many novels.
So for me, this book was less about King than about philosophy. But philosophy serves to enhance our appreciation for life, and if you are a thoughtful King fan you may well find this book enhances your appreciation for some of his work.
The book is the first of a projected series on great authors and philosophy, and, as the editor notes in an interesting introduction, this raises the issue of Stephen King being a great writer. A lot of people will balk at this - including one of the contributors apparently - and King himself has described his work as the literary equivalent of McDonald's.
But why wouldn't King be a great writer? Because he writes novels intended to be popular? But Shakespeare wrote plays intended to be popular; he was a tradesman motivated by money. Perhaps it's because King writes horror stories. But have you ever read 'Macbeth'? Or perhaps it's because while Shakespeare wrote poetry for the ages, King writes in grimy American vernacular. But this is just a matter of taste, some people loving beautiful language for its own sake while others finding it gets in the way of the story and ideas. King is a good writer; he just eschews the bells and whistles.
But then there's the idea that philosophers could find sufficient substance in, say, 'Pet Sematary' to wax philosophical about. Was King really critiquing our faith in technology when writing those gory descriptions? The connection between some of the essays and the tale they are riffing on can seem stretched at times. But it's unlikely that Shakespeare had in mind a fraction of the ideas gleaned from his works by the library of commentary published on them. (Thoughtfully chewing the end of his quill, Shakespeare thinks, "I must include something for the feminists three centuries from now.") Any decent novel will reflect the nature and concerns of the society in which it was written, and more or less deliberately flirt with a few existential matters besides, thus providing substance for a philosopher to riff on. And King has written so many novels.
So for me, this book was less about King than about philosophy. But philosophy serves to enhance our appreciation for life, and if you are a thoughtful King fan you may well find this book enhances your appreciation for some of his work.
March 30, 2022
I quite like the "Popular Culture and Philosophy" series. They take abstract philosophical concepts, and adapt them to events in pop culture in a (mostly) approachable way.
I've been a King fan for almost 2 decades, and have read a high majority of his work, so I can appreciate the connections that are made in the essays presented here. That said, I wish it had broadened out to a few of his "less popular" works. While "The Shining" and the "Dark Tower" series are great, I would have loved a look at the role that memory plays in works like "Duma Key", or the role of government in "Firestarter" or "The Dead Zone". Sure, it's fun to contemplate time travel and parallel universes, but one essay (maybe one on each) would have sufficed. King is ripe for more philosophical enquiry, and as he has changed as an author, it would be interesting to see another collection that looks at more of his later work.
I've been a King fan for almost 2 decades, and have read a high majority of his work, so I can appreciate the connections that are made in the essays presented here. That said, I wish it had broadened out to a few of his "less popular" works. While "The Shining" and the "Dark Tower" series are great, I would have loved a look at the role that memory plays in works like "Duma Key", or the role of government in "Firestarter" or "The Dead Zone". Sure, it's fun to contemplate time travel and parallel universes, but one essay (maybe one on each) would have sufficed. King is ripe for more philosophical enquiry, and as he has changed as an author, it would be interesting to see another collection that looks at more of his later work.
April 19, 2022
Pretty good. Truly I don't care what philosophers think of SK's work and why he did or did not write any of his works. I love them all...I'm just not that deep. Quite a few of the chapters were very interesting and the last three the best (written by the editor). Some of the early and middle ones were just too high brow for me. I find Philosophy a matter of opinion. And I don't care.
But I recommend this reading anyway for the fun and perspectives offered.
But I recommend this reading anyway for the fun and perspectives offered.
April 4, 2018
I liked this because I liked the philosophical thought around SK's writings, but if I had read more of SK's works (notably, The Dark Tower series), I probably would have liked it even more.
March 17, 2022
This was a great insight into what makes good villains in a story and why ordinary people relate in different ways to them.
April 17, 2025
It's like this book was made specifically for me.
September 5, 2016
This is a difficult review to write because there is simply so much that this book covers. The authors use the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche and others to examine and illuminate the works of one of today's most popular and beloved writers, Stephen King. As it states in one of the chapters, "This very book you hold is an attempt to use the writings of Stephen King as a tool to examine important philosophical issues." Elsewhere, the book states "...once we note how much works of popular fiction are infused with philosophical concepts and ideas, we begin to see that philosophy is everywhere, and that having an understanding of certain philosophical ideas and concepts can add depth, and enjoyment, to our reading of literature." The book covers a wide array of King's works and studies the philosophical implications of them in great depth and detail.
The chapters included are as follows:
Introduction: On Writing Popular Philosophy
1. There Is No God In Desperation:
Tak and the Problem of Evil
2. Female Subjectivity in Carrie
3. "Sometimes Dead is Better": King,
Daedalus, DragonTyrants, and
Deathism
4. "Gan is Dead": Nietzsche and
Roland's Eternal Recurrence
5. Rāma of Gilead: Hindu Philosophy
In The Dark Tower
6. What's Wrong with Roland?:
Utilitarianism and the Dark Tower
7. Stephen King and Aristotelian
Friendship: An Analysis of The
Body and Rita Hayworth and the
Shawshank Redemption
8. Propaganda and Pedagogy for Apt
Pupils
9. The Shining's Overlook Hotel as
Heterotopia
10. Broadcast Dystopia: Power and
Violence in The Running Man and
The Long Walk
11. Stephen King and the Art of
Horror
12. "You Weren't Hired to
Philosophize, Torrance": The
Death of the Author in The
Shining
13. What Happens to the Present
When it Becomes the Past:
Time Travel and the Nature of
Time in The Langoliers
14. Notes on Foreknowledge, Truth-
Making, and Counterfactuals from
The Dead Zone
15. Time Belongs to the Tower
16. Ur 88,416
17. From Desperation to Haven:
Horror, Compassion, and Arthur
Schopenhauer
Ka-tet: Author Biographies
As a longtime devoted reader of King, I enjoyed this book immensely. Additionally, I learned a lot about Philosophy: theories, teachings, etc. Some of this is pretty heavy reading and some chapters are stronger than others, but, overall, this is an exceptional book that I'd recommend highly. Thank you to Netgalley and Rowman & Littlefield for a copy of this in exchange for an honest review.
The chapters included are as follows:
Introduction: On Writing Popular Philosophy
1. There Is No God In Desperation:
Tak and the Problem of Evil
2. Female Subjectivity in Carrie
3. "Sometimes Dead is Better": King,
Daedalus, DragonTyrants, and
Deathism
4. "Gan is Dead": Nietzsche and
Roland's Eternal Recurrence
5. Rāma of Gilead: Hindu Philosophy
In The Dark Tower
6. What's Wrong with Roland?:
Utilitarianism and the Dark Tower
7. Stephen King and Aristotelian
Friendship: An Analysis of The
Body and Rita Hayworth and the
Shawshank Redemption
8. Propaganda and Pedagogy for Apt
Pupils
9. The Shining's Overlook Hotel as
Heterotopia
10. Broadcast Dystopia: Power and
Violence in The Running Man and
The Long Walk
11. Stephen King and the Art of
Horror
12. "You Weren't Hired to
Philosophize, Torrance": The
Death of the Author in The
Shining
13. What Happens to the Present
When it Becomes the Past:
Time Travel and the Nature of
Time in The Langoliers
14. Notes on Foreknowledge, Truth-
Making, and Counterfactuals from
The Dead Zone
15. Time Belongs to the Tower
16. Ur 88,416
17. From Desperation to Haven:
Horror, Compassion, and Arthur
Schopenhauer
Ka-tet: Author Biographies
As a longtime devoted reader of King, I enjoyed this book immensely. Additionally, I learned a lot about Philosophy: theories, teachings, etc. Some of this is pretty heavy reading and some chapters are stronger than others, but, overall, this is an exceptional book that I'd recommend highly. Thank you to Netgalley and Rowman & Littlefield for a copy of this in exchange for an honest review.
November 21, 2016
Stephen King and Philosophy, edited by Jacob M Held, is a collection of essays focusing on philosophical readings of many of King's works. While this is somewhat academic in style the essays are accessible and concepts, as used by the writers, are explained adequately.
Like any book about an author's work, there are so-called spoilers. If you haven't read the works under discussion then the essays can only be read passively since one doesn't have a frame of reference to decide if the argument, to them, is valid. So this isn't really for people who haven't read some or most of King's work. I only bring this up because I saw someone who counted that as a negative when no book with which I am familiar that seriously tackles an author's work does so without substantiating their points with the author's text. I was surprised at the "criticism" of this work on that basis.
I did not find every argument equally convincing but that is to be expected. That said, I did not feel any essay went too far afield in their commentary, my differences tended to be one of degree. King's appeal has long been the human element, more precisely the element of human flaws, and how that can lead to catastrophe or at least extreme negative consequences. It is in the matching of this dynamic, flaws leading to consequences, to philosophical ideas where this book excels.
For those without a philosophy background, I think the essays present the philosophy parts of their assessments in fairly plain language, so don't be too concerned about that. It might require some pauses to make sure you are following the writer but you will be able to get through it. For those with a philosophy background, as you well know, there is always more left unsaid about a given philosopher's thought than is said, so try not to overly nitpick because a writer didn't use what you would have used given the same assignment. Unless you feel what was said was either wrong or misused it is nothing more than a different approach.
I would certainly recommend this to any Stephen King fan who likes to ponder a work after reading it. Educators will find this useful for both teaching King in the future and for ways to approach other authors through a philosophical lens.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
Like any book about an author's work, there are so-called spoilers. If you haven't read the works under discussion then the essays can only be read passively since one doesn't have a frame of reference to decide if the argument, to them, is valid. So this isn't really for people who haven't read some or most of King's work. I only bring this up because I saw someone who counted that as a negative when no book with which I am familiar that seriously tackles an author's work does so without substantiating their points with the author's text. I was surprised at the "criticism" of this work on that basis.
I did not find every argument equally convincing but that is to be expected. That said, I did not feel any essay went too far afield in their commentary, my differences tended to be one of degree. King's appeal has long been the human element, more precisely the element of human flaws, and how that can lead to catastrophe or at least extreme negative consequences. It is in the matching of this dynamic, flaws leading to consequences, to philosophical ideas where this book excels.
For those without a philosophy background, I think the essays present the philosophy parts of their assessments in fairly plain language, so don't be too concerned about that. It might require some pauses to make sure you are following the writer but you will be able to get through it. For those with a philosophy background, as you well know, there is always more left unsaid about a given philosopher's thought than is said, so try not to overly nitpick because a writer didn't use what you would have used given the same assignment. Unless you feel what was said was either wrong or misused it is nothing more than a different approach.
I would certainly recommend this to any Stephen King fan who likes to ponder a work after reading it. Educators will find this useful for both teaching King in the future and for ways to approach other authors through a philosophical lens.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
July 6, 2016
*An honest review of this book is being given in exchange for the free e-version provided by Net Galley.
A very thorough and in-depth look at some of King's writings, including a lot of his earlier novels. It's a little bit of a difficult read (it is based on philosophy after all), and Held occasionally goes off on tangents with other authors, quotes, and books, but it is an intriguing view on some of King's greatest works. I'm an avid reader of King, but not of philosophy, so I think the reader must be interested in both to thoroughly enjoy the finer points of this book.
Many have commented on the spoiler aspect of the analysis for each book, but I'm thinking that the target audience for this selection is those who have already read most of King's books and enjoyed them. I don't really see a newbie buying this before having a vested interest in King.
This is the first in Held's philosophy series, and I think it is interesting he chose King. Something Stephen King has said (and written, as in 11/22/63) has always resonated with me - "Sometimes a story is just a story". I really loved this about King as I think fantastic literature can be written to be enjoyable and not always as an allegory or statement that one must analyze. King himself has stated that Tommyknockers is trash and his least favorite novel that he has written, but Held has put forth his philosophical viewpoint anyway. This is why a star has been taken off - while many valid points have been presented, I feel like with King it is possibly over-analyzed a tad. My question is did King write these books with such intent on the philosophical side? Maybe in some (such as The Dark Tower series) but I'm not quite sure on others.
A very thorough and in-depth look at some of King's writings, including a lot of his earlier novels. It's a little bit of a difficult read (it is based on philosophy after all), and Held occasionally goes off on tangents with other authors, quotes, and books, but it is an intriguing view on some of King's greatest works. I'm an avid reader of King, but not of philosophy, so I think the reader must be interested in both to thoroughly enjoy the finer points of this book.
Many have commented on the spoiler aspect of the analysis for each book, but I'm thinking that the target audience for this selection is those who have already read most of King's books and enjoyed them. I don't really see a newbie buying this before having a vested interest in King.
This is the first in Held's philosophy series, and I think it is interesting he chose King. Something Stephen King has said (and written, as in 11/22/63) has always resonated with me - "Sometimes a story is just a story". I really loved this about King as I think fantastic literature can be written to be enjoyable and not always as an allegory or statement that one must analyze. King himself has stated that Tommyknockers is trash and his least favorite novel that he has written, but Held has put forth his philosophical viewpoint anyway. This is why a star has been taken off - while many valid points have been presented, I feel like with King it is possibly over-analyzed a tad. My question is did King write these books with such intent on the philosophical side? Maybe in some (such as The Dark Tower series) but I'm not quite sure on others.
July 7, 2016
Having been a Stephen King fan for many years I figured that this would be an interesting philosophical discussion of his more disturbing (or not) works. Having previously studied branches of philosophy for academic work , I thought I was partly equipped for what was to come, but I was oh so wrong. Jumping straight into Desperation after the forward set the tone of the dialogue, since the dark and good themes in the book weigh quite heavily on the mind. Moving into Carrie and Pet Semetary, the discussion moved past casual reading for me. It was like being back at varsity and I put the book away a number of times. So much repetition and rewording of the same ideas just gave me a headache. Once we hit the topics of bonds of friendship in The Body and Rita Hayworth I started feeling like it was a book I could read comfortably again, and the writing flowed a lot better for me. More interesting ideas were now explored from the teacher/pupil dynamic in Apt Pupil, to the possibility of time travel in The Langoliers and 11/22/63 and the application of power and violence in The Running Man and The Long Walk. Of course The Shining and The Dark Tower cropped up time after time with a look at many different aspects of the books.
This is not a light read by any means and I wonder sometimes if we can't just read a book for the sake of reading it. Do we need to dissect the author's intentions or just accept it for the narrative it is meant to be? I thought that too many of King's books were overlooked with some of the same books repeated in a number of different chapters. In some places the write ups about the authors were far more entertaining than the philosophy. An interesting take but not my cup of tea - I think I'll stick to "Stephen King for Dummies".
This is not a light read by any means and I wonder sometimes if we can't just read a book for the sake of reading it. Do we need to dissect the author's intentions or just accept it for the narrative it is meant to be? I thought that too many of King's books were overlooked with some of the same books repeated in a number of different chapters. In some places the write ups about the authors were far more entertaining than the philosophy. An interesting take but not my cup of tea - I think I'll stick to "Stephen King for Dummies".
June 25, 2016
Actual rating 3.5 stars. Review to come.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews