> >
> > >
> > > P.s. I thought it was common knowledge that the majority of Stephen Kings work was contrived pap, and pretty much on a par with Dean Kootnz in that respect
> > >
> >
> >
> > I just can't get a grasp on why it becomes avant garde to bash popular anything. It seems like if a lot of people like something, there must be a contingent who disparages and disdains it, usually simply for the idea that if it is well liked by so many, it must be too mundane for the educated, the mature, the somehow superior. I have a friend (he directs and produces animated films) who HATES anything remotely having to do with Steven Spielberg, one of the most popular and successful directors in film.
> >
> > I love Stephen King. I always have. I don't consider him in the same contingent with Dean Koontz or James Patterson. Few other authors have left me afraid to sleep in my own bed, not due to gory pictures, or suspense building music, or the sudden and startling appearance of the bad guy, but just from *words* on a *page* that put those thoughts in my head so clearly I saw and heard and was startled by them.
> >
> > So a lot of his works have been made into movies which didn't convey the same anything as the books. So he's possibly one of the best selling authors of our time, obviously relegating him to "popular" status, and goodness knows, all "pop" culture is somehow subpar for its popularity. Give me a break. Is there nothing to be said for the idea that if a lot of people like something, there's probably something good about it?
> >
> > Mousie
>
> Amen, Mousie! The bashing of popular culture has long been a pet peeve of mine.
>
> The theory that I came up with (and this came from first hand experience) is that the majority of people who bash pop culture do so out of a sense of inferiority. In some twisted way, bad mouthing that which is "popular" gives these people a sense of superiority. Of course, most of them probably go home and read Stephen King while the latest Backstreet Boys album plays in the background. :)
>
> Like I said, this is not based on this forum...but in first hand experience. Although I seem to remember a similar discussion in a previous thread. I think the thread got started with a post about Harry Potter.
>
> Kel"hopefully I'm not being redundant"ly
> Kel"hopefully I'm not being redundant"ly

I love Stephen King. Unfortunately, I've not read much of his works, but what I have read has left me shivering.

However, Stephen King is a "pot-boiler". He takes very successful ingredients, mixes them together, and produces a book. The fact that it is a pot-boiler does not impinge on my enjoyment of the book. In fact, it increases it, for when I read the book a second time, I can not worry about the story so much, and see *how* he writes it.

I hope that you can see those elements in it, just like I hope it never ruins a book for you.

samhael

"Samhael's test for a good book: can yu read it a second time?"