Question about King

JRTurner · Jul 5, 2009

Hey everyone, forgive me if this subject has been done to death here, I didn't see anything over a month back that covered this.

I'm a big fan of horror, so this comes from someone who loves the genre and does love Stephen King novels (The Stand is my favorite.)

But I've been thinking lately about the horror genre and I was wondering if Stephen King really even is considered horror anymore?

I think of books like Firestarter or The Dead Zone and to me, they're almost mainstream now. The Dead Zone could almost be considered a political thriller (I did say almost

) I mean, in comparison to Clive Barker's Books of Blood?

I mean, because the character in Carrie has psychic powers, does that mean it's horror? (Okay, she does kill all her classmates, but how much worse is that than some things you see on Lifetime's "based on true events" movies?)

Is this making sense? Or am I jaded or something?

Does horror need a subgenre like mystery has? Like "cozy horror" or something?

Warmly,
Jenny

Jcomp · Jul 5, 2009

King is definitely still, as he has been, a horror author. There's really no denying that Salem's Lot, It, Pet Sematary, The Shining, etc. are horror stories, to say nothing of the myriad horrifying short stories he's written. He does venture into other territory more often than other horror authors, writing things that are definitely not horror, but the genre is where he forged and maintains his legacy. And there's very little that's "cozy" about most if not all of his horror novels. It's interesting that you mention Clive Barker because given his extensive work in fantasy genres you could make the same argument about his status as a "horror" author.

JRTurner · Jul 5, 2009

I meant no disrespect to King. I am a total fan, completely. I think the only books I haven't read of his yet are Dumas Key and Gerald's Game (for some reason, I never got around to that one, and Dumas Key is on my TBR pile.) The rest I've read at least once, but most multiple times.

I certainly don't want to diminish King's contributions to the genre. That wasn't my intent. I think what I was getting at is asking if it's just me, or has the genre changed to appease an audience raised on much more hard-core themes and gore than say, when Carrie was first published?

Ack, I don't know. Maybe it is just me.

Sorry.

Warmly,
Jenny

rugcat · Jul 5, 2009

King started out as a horror writer. and that appellation became fixed with the American public. And he certainly has written a lot of it -- but he's also written a lot of stuff that isn't horror at all -- you mentioned Firestarter and The Dead Zone -- not in the horror genre at all.

He's written some stuff that is clearly fantasy, and some that's sci-fi as well, some that's a mix, and some others that are hard to classify.

I don't think it's that the horror genre has changed so much as it is that King often branches out beyond it.

KCathy · Jul 5, 2009

I see what you mean, especially because I dislike (or detest) almost all horror but am a Stephen King fan. I doubt seriously that I'll ever read Pet Sematary or It. I'd have trouble considering Bag of Bones horror as opposed to supernatural or sci-fi, but then there's Dreamcatcher, with aliens crawling out of people's butts, that I would have trouble calling anything but horror.

Cranky · Jul 5, 2009

rugcat said:
King started out as a horror writer. and that appellation became fixed with the American public. And he certainly has written a lot of it -- but he's also written a lot of stuff that isn't horror at all -- you mentioned Firestarter and The Dead Zone -- not in the horror genre at all.

He's written some stuff that is clearly fantasy, and some that's sci-fi as well, some that's a mix, and some others that are hard to classify.

I don't think it's that the horror genre has changed so much as it is that King often branches out beyond it.

This, exactly.

FOTSGreg · Jul 5, 2009

JRTurner, No offense taken. It's even okay to criticize certain of King's works around here and even to disagree with one another on the various merits of King's work.

Now, as several have said before, King's writing sometimes crosses genres in such a manner that some of his works almost seem like mainstream fiction (and some of them are) or even nonfiction (and he's written some quite good nonfiction). Part of this, I think, is the way he does characterization. King's characters sometimes almost spring off the page at you. They seem almost too real. He also uses real and/or imagined locations and describes them in such detail that we can clearly imagine ourselves being there.

His major works are all still firmly in the horror genre although some of his mainstream and nonfiction can also be considered major works (his short story The Body and his nonfiction book on baseball are 2 examples).

JRTurner · Jul 5, 2009

rugcat said:
King started out as a horror writer. and that appellation became fixed with the American public. And he certainly has written a lot of it -- but he's also written a lot of stuff that isn't horror at all -- you mentioned Firestarter and The Dead Zone -- not in the horror genre at all.

He's written some stuff that is clearly fantasy, and some that's sci-fi as well, some that's a mix, and some others that are hard to classify.

I don't think it's that the horror genre has changed so much as it is that King often branches out beyond it.

I totally agree. Like the Dark Tower series is clearly not horror.

But to say Firestarter and The Dead Zone are not in the horror genre is exactly where I was going with this question:

Say a new author has written The Dead Zone and they were to query it today. Would they submit it as a horror novel to an agent/publisher that specializes in horror? Or would they submit it as a supernatural political thriller? I would say the latter, but then--what would the industry think of the darker messages in that? Would it end up being rejected as having no real home--horror publishers to scared to put it out because the market would say it's not scary enough and supernatural political thriller publishers worried it would be too scary for their audiences?

This conversation could really apply to much of what Dean Koontz writes as well. Hmmm.....

Maybe yesterday's fireworks scrambled my brain....

Warmly,
Jenny

rugcat · Jul 5, 2009

KCathy said:
I doubt seriously that I'll ever read Pet Sematary or It

You should read It, if only as a writer.(Although it's a pretty good book -- oh wait, is that a pun of some sort?)

In it, (again) you have a story told in a non linear style, from the viewpoints of (seven?)different characters at two different time periods, from childhood to adulthood, all woven together back and forth into the narrative. And it all seems an entirely natural way to write a book.

Anyone who thinks King is just a good storyteller, as opposed to a skilled writer, should take a look at this book -- it can teach you a lot about how to structure a novel, even if your own work is totally different in theme or structure.

rugcat · Jul 5, 2009

JRTurner said:
Say a new author has written The Dead Zone and they were to query it today. Would they submit it as a horror novel to an agent/publisher that specializes in horror?

I'd label them as "thrillers with a paranormal element" if I was submitting, and submit not to agents with a particular interest in horror, but in thrillers. And also SF/F agents.

Of course, we're all just guessing when it comes to questions like that.

Samantha's_Song · Jul 5, 2009

When I used to read Stephen King, from the mid 1970's up until the one he did with Peter Straub, I loved his novels because they were nearly believable - not quite horror, but just off the edge of normal.
The dead zone was always my favourite novel of his, and I loved the Shawshank story, many years before it became the brilliant film that it is. I also loved Christine and I felt as if I'd lost a friend when I finished that novel, no other has ever made me feel like that, not in any genre.

I think I sort of grew out of King when I reached my early thirties, but I do still enjoy the films they do to his books, like Delores Clairbourne and Misery etc.

Cranky · Jul 5, 2009

rugcat said:
You should read It, if only as a writer.(Although it's a pretty good book -- oh wait, is that a pun of some sort?)

In it, (again) you have a story told in a non linear style, from the viewpoints of (seven?)different characters at two different time periods, from childhood to adulthood, all woven together back and forth into the narrative. And it all seems an entirely natural way to write a book.

Anyone who thinks King is just a good storyteller, as opposed to a skilled writer, should take a look at this book -- it can teach you a lot about how to structure a novel, even if your own work is totally different in theme or structure.

Shoot, it's more like twelve characters, I think, though even some "walk-ons" like Campion still get a chapter or a long scene from their POV. I don't know how he kept it all straight!

rugcat · Jul 5, 2009

Cranky said:
Shoot, it's more like twelve characters, I think, though even some "walk-ons" like Campion still get a chapter or a long scene from their POV. I don't know how he kept it all straight!

And what truly amazes me, as a reader as well as a writer, is that the book never seems confused or opaque -- it's still moves along as an "easy" read.

Cranky · Jul 5, 2009

rugcat said:
And what truly amazes me, as a reader as well as a writer, is that the book never seems confused or opaque -- it's still moves along as an "easy" read.

*nods* It's a book I re-read once a year or so. I am not ambitious enough to try it myself, but there's lots to be learned from that book (and others of his, too, imo).

BTW, I think more of King's short work is simultaneously better and yet harkens back to his "roots" in horror. That said, he's written some really fine stuff in short form (I think one short at least won an O.Henry award) that isn't horror, either. His longer works tend to be more "dark fantasy" than horror, if I have to label it. A lot of that is really good stuff, too, though of course, I am admittedly biased. He's the first "grown up" novelist I read.

FOTSGreg · Jul 6, 2009

Cranky, I strongly agree that some of King's short stories are better than his longer works. If we were to make a list of which stories and books have been transported to film I think the shorter works will outnumber the longer. The shorter ones which have stayed with me the longest are, among others,

The Mauler (correction, the story was called The Mangler)
Grandma
Trucks
Graveyard Shift
The Mist
The Night Flyer

Haggis · Jul 6, 2009

When King's dead and gone, he'll be remembered as a horror writer, but his stories are all over the map. Some are awfully damn close to being literary. But I'm proud to claim him as one of ours.

Bentley Little says (and this is a lousy paraphrase) I don't write dark fantasy, I don't write paranormal, I don't write thrillers, I write horror. That's kind of the way I see it. The thing is, writers are scrambling now to identify their genre as anything but horror, simply because it's so hard to sell.

But pay no attention to me. I'm rambling now.

EFCollins · Jul 6, 2009

I'm a horror writer. I might write other things too, but horror is my home, my love, my passion. I believe Mr. King feels the same way. And you know, as a member of stephenking.com and a bit "in the know" of what goes on with Mr. King, he's definitely still a horror writer. His writing has changed, especially since his accident, but there's nothing wrong with letting your writing grow.

Jcomp · Jul 6, 2009

Haggis said:
Bentley Little says (and this is a lousy paraphrase) I don't write dark fantasy, I don't write paranormal, I don't write thrillers, I write horror. That's kind of the way I see it. The thing is, writers are scrambling now to identify their genre as anything but horror, simply because it's so hard to sell.

But pay no attention to me. I'm rambling now.

It's a ramble, but it needs to be said. I hate when people try to take an obvious horror story and create some brand new genre to place it in. "Oh it's supernatural-urban-thrillcabre."

"... ... ... So, horror then? That's what you meant to say?"

Cranky · Jul 6, 2009

Thrillcabe?! Bwahahahahahaha!

dgrintalis · Jul 6, 2009

Jcomp said:
It's a ramble, but it needs to be said. I hate when people try to take an obvious horror story and create some brand new genre to place it in. "Oh it's supernatural-urban-thrillcabre."

"... ... ... So, horror then? That's what you meant to say?"

QFT

I think people sometimes are ashamed they write horror, as if by writing dark things, they are somehow less of a writer. I think King is a brilliant writer and a brilliant storyteller.

Shadow_Ferret · Jul 6, 2009

rugcat said:
King started out as a horror writer. and that appellation became fixed with the American public. And he certainly has written a lot of it -- but he's also written a lot of stuff that isn't horror at all -- you mentioned Firestarter and The Dead Zone -- not in the horror genre at all.

I disagree. I think both those novels were horror 30 years ago. Maybe the genre has evolved, and mainstream fiction has evolved to the point that those stories are now considered something other then horror, but back in 1980 when I read them, they were horror.

Kathleen42 · Jul 6, 2009

Shadow_Ferret said:
I disagree. I think both those novels were horror 30 years ago. Maybe the genre has evolved, and mainstream fiction has evolved to the point that those stories are now considered something other then horror, but back in 1980 when I read them, they were horror.

They were still horror when I read them a decade later. I wonder, perhaps, if it's not so much that these books are outside of the genre but that people have a certain expectation of horror books that authors like King and Barker push back against.

Haggis · Jul 6, 2009

I think it's fair to say that each individual has his or her own expectation of what horror is. Many folks (and I've said this way too many times before in this forum) are guided by what they see in the movies and think horror is so much slasher shlock. If there's no blood and guts and oozing intestines, it can't be horror. Obviously, I disagree.

rsmccoy · Jul 6, 2009

Haggis said:
When King's dead and gone, he'll be remembered as a horror writer, but his stories are all over the map. Some are awfully damn close to being literary. But I'm proud to claim him as one of ours.

Bentley Little says (and this is a lousy paraphrase) I don't write dark fantasy, I don't write paranormal, I don't write thrillers, I write horror. That's kind of the way I see it. The thing is, writers are scrambling now to identify their genre as anything but horror, simply because it's so hard to sell.

But pay no attention to me. I'm rambling now.

(Stands up and walks to the podium) "Hi. My name is Scott and I'm...well I'm a Horror Writer..."

(Everyone in chorus) "Hi Scott!!"

Haggis · Jul 6, 2009

rsmccoy said:
(Stands up and walks to the podium) "Hi. My name is Scott and I'm...well I'm a Horror Writer..."

(Everyone in chorus) "Hi Scott!!"

*hands Scott a cup of coffee and a piece of intestine.*

Question about King

Lost in the Fog

Writer when I grow up

Today is your last day.

Lost in the Fog

Lost in the Fog

At least I don't need backing-up

Lost in the Fog

Today is your last day.

Evil, undead Chihuahua

World Class Rambler

'Tis true, she is a monstergirl

Court Jester

crushing on fictional characters

Evil, undead Chihuahua

A sphincter says what?

Evil, undead Chihuahua