Current Reads

[News]

News

[Stats]

Stats

[Dragonchaser]

Majesty, piffle.  Try him against a genuine stylist like Dunsany, Tanith Lee, E. R. Eddison, or Clark Ashton Smith, and you will find him gimmicky and trite.  That's not even talking about heavyweight prose artists like Melville or Hawthorne.

Maybe in comparison to Eddison, perhaps. But the style isn't in the same ball park. Besides, you can hardly compare King to Melville. I was talking about modern fiction. Tanith Lee's prose is too simple to be compared (at least from what I've read). And anyway, isn't it possible that I just find his prose sublime because I happen to love his writing? I've admitted there are better writers out there, and perhaps he is overrated as a storyteller. But just because you think he pales in comparison to others doesn't mean some people don't find his writing majestic, as I put it. Same goes for bands. Some love Dragonland for example   And others hate Ironsword. So what?

[Joseph Allen]

Maybe in comparison to Eddison, perhaps. But the style isn't in the same ball park. Besides, you can hardly compare King to Melville. I was talking about modern fiction. Tanith Lee's prose is too simple to be compared (at least from what I've read). And anyway, isn't it possible that I just find his prose sublime because I happen to love his writing? I've admitted there are better writers out there, and perhaps he is overrated as a storyteller. But just because you think he pales in comparison to others doesn't mean some people don't find his writing majestic, as I put it. Same goes for bands. Some love Dragonland for example   And others hate Ironsword. So what?

So, Ironsword rules! 

[Schattengott]

Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith - Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

[MetalCrypt]

I'm reading a very good novel by some guy.  I'm just not sure I can talk about it.

[Sargon the Terrible]

Maybe in comparison to Eddison, perhaps. But the style isn't in the same ball park. Besides, you can hardly compare King to Melville. I was talking about modern fiction. Tanith Lee's prose is too simple to be compared (at least from what I've read). And anyway, isn't it possible that I just find his prose sublime because I happen to love his writing? I've admitted there are better writers out there, and perhaps he is overrated as a storyteller. But just because you think he pales in comparison to others doesn't mean some people don't find his writing majestic, as I put it. Same goes for bands. Some love Dragonland for example   And others hate Ironsword. So what?

Because there are absolutes in art, otherwise there is no basis for saying anything is better than anything else, and that causes all critical theory to break down entirely.  That way lies aesthetic relativism and the death of art.  I have no problem with liking things despite their quality - after all, I am a great fan of early 20th century pulp literature, but I will never state that Burroughs, Howard, or Lovecraft are great artists - though Howard would have been, had he lived.  But I cannot abide saying something is 'the best' simply because you happen to like it.  I love Ironsword, but I will not claim they compare to bands like Moonsorrow or Primordial - bands with far more serious artistic qualities.  A fundamental truth of real art, that people in our proletarian age do not want to admit, is that quality is not all relative, and some things are better than others, and that's all there is to it.

Even King himself has referred to his writing as 'salami writing', and makes few pretensions to art.  He is a pop writer, and an entertainer, not an artist.  He has a pulpy sense of character, overheated dialogue, and the tiresome stylistic tic of inserting character's thoughts in parenthesis or italics in mid-sentence.  Even his best works, like The Shining, or Eyes of the Dragon are quite riddled with cliches and melodrama, and his idealization of childhood is sentimental in the extreme.  In fact I would say sentimentality is the primary flaw in his work.

[Joseph Allen]

There should really be a philosophy forum for this kind of thing. 

[Joseph Allen]

Besides, does a band have to be "serious" to qualify as art? And if so, what subjects would be considered serious enough, and how would a band go about achieving the right amount of "seriousness" to be considered as such? Just wanted to put my thoughts out there.

[Nosrac1691]

I consider music "art" in itself, regardless of the supposed "seriousness" of musical acts.

[Joseph Allen]

I consider music "art" in itself, regardless of the supposed "seriousness" of musical acts.

I guess that's kind of what I'm trying to say. 

[Dragonchaser]

I'm reading a very good novel by some guy.  I'm just not sure I can talk about it.

 

[Dragonchaser]

Because there are absolutes in art, otherwise there is no basis for saying anything is better than anything else, and that causes all critical theory to break down entirely.  That way lies aesthetic relativism and the death of art.  I have no problem with liking things despite their quality - after all, I am a great fan of early 20th century pulp literature, but I will never state that Burroughs, Howard, or Lovecraft are great artists - though Howard would have been, had he lived.  But I cannot abide saying something is 'the best' simply because you happen to like it.  I love Ironsword, but I will not claim they compare to bands like Moonsorrow or Primordial - bands with far more serious artistic qualities.  A fundamental truth of real art, that people in our proletarian age do not want to admit, is that quality is not all relative, and some things are better than others, and that's all there is to it.

Even King himself has referred to his writing as 'salami writing', and makes few pretensions to art.  He is a pop writer, and an entertainer, not an artist.  He has a pulpy sense of character, overheated dialogue, and the tiresome stylistic tic of inserting character's thoughts in parenthesis or italics in mid-sentence.  Even his best works, like The Shining, or Eyes of the Dragon are quite riddled with cliches and melodrama, and his idealization of childhood is sentimental in the extreme.  In fact I would say sentimentality is the primary flaw in his work.

Okay, I get what you're saying. I agree about the absolutes in art. I never said that King was the master of all things literary. I just admire popular writers more than classic ones (or ones with allusions to canonization). As a pulp writer, I think he is one of the best, perhaps my favourite. And I'm not sure if he invented the fragmented thoughts in parenthesis, but I really like that element of his style.

[Phoenix]

I think what Sargon said about King's writing being pulpy, somewhat cliche and overdramatic is exactly what I like about him. It never bothers me at all with his really good works. Just a ton of fun to read.

[Sargon the Terrible]

And that's fine.  Nothing wrong with enjoying pop art, since that is what it is for anyway.  Pulp is supposed to be entertaining, so it had better be.

Forgive me, I've been a serious writer for 20 years, and I take writing seriously.

Current reads:
The Guns of August Barbara Tuchman
On Moral Fiction John Gardner

[luciferi]

Ursula K. Le Guin - The Left Hand of Darkness

[Dragonchaser]

Last couple of weeks:

Sue Grafton - E Is For Evidence
Janet Evanovich - Twelve Sharp
Janet Evanovich - Lean Mean Thirteen
Grant Morrison - Batman: Arkham Asylum
Harlan Coben - The Final Detail

 Excalion - Enter A Life