/lit/ - Literature

don't compare that faggot Stephen King to real literature

The only people who hate on Shakespeare are trolling.
Catcher in the Rye is debatable, but I enjoyed it.
And while King does have some good literaturey books, most of his work is pulp.

>>932262
Name a few things that make him worse than most literary authors.

I like King and Catcher in the Rye
Shakespeare is shit, though.

don't forget me!

Why does /lit/ dislike Catcher In the Rye?

>>932290
I know, right!?!?!

>>932279
*Stephen King's use of language isn't as precise as Shakespeare's
*Almost all of Stephen King's books are bricks that are 300 pages too long and in desperate need of an editor, whereas J D Salinger can tell a complete story without a bunch of filler bullshit that add nothing to the story but pagecount
*Stephen King wrote a book with a premise that matches the Simpsons movie

>>932300
You read it in your soph year of high school, right?

Read it again when you're 25. It's not the same. If you reread Catch-22 you still enjoy it immensely, but Salinger does not stand the test of time.

>Stephen King
>Good
>literature

>>932281
Oh, hello miss Rand.
Literature that is better than you:

Shakespeare
The Catcher in the Rye
Stephen King

>>932309
I read it in high school and I just read it last week again. I'm 24 now. I enjoyed it just as much as I did years ago.

>>932309

I read it when I was 19, and again when I was 23 and I enjoyed it immensely.

I'm looking for a more concrete reason than just: "It doesn't hold up".

>>932322
you really think stephen kind is better than ayn rand? low blow, man.
i've never bothered to read king, so i really can't say.

>>932327
I'm only providing my arbitrary opinion. You'll need to look elsewhere for an in-depth analysis.

>>932330
>I never read King
>I will pass judgment anyway.

>>932308
>*Stephen King's use of language isn't as precise as Shakespeare's
It's good enough.
>*Almost all of Stephen King's books are bricks that are 300 pages too long and in desperate need of an editor
Yes, but hardly filler. Insomnia, one of my favorites, was a well written story.
>*Stephen King wrote a book with a premise that matches the Simpsons movie
Which one?
Also don't sage, we're just debating here. Save the sage for the Rand/Nazi threads.

>>932339
>i never read king
>so i really can't say
perhaps you missed the last part.

>>932340
Under the Dome, King's newest book, is what he's referring to.
And Insomnia was pretty fun to read, but I wouldn't call it fine literature.

>>3293181
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki

>>932330
>expressing a negative opinion about an author you've never read

>>932347
Yes but
>you really think stephen kind is better than ayn rand? low blow, man.
He's assuming Stephen King is bad. Assuming, based on second hand opinions.

>>932271
I never troll, and I fucking hate Shakespeare.

>>932365
Too bad, nigger.

>>932365
1) Why?
2) You do realize that the vast, vast majority of critics and educated people for the past couple centuries are against you, right?

>>932353
i also express negative opinions about entire genres of film and music that don't appeal to me, as well as genres of literature, and even authors i have preconceived notions about. it might sound weird, but i base what i will invest my time in next based on the opinions of people who i respect, and also by the opinions of the artists i do like.
that being said... i've never heard any good reason to read King, except by the occasional person that i dont know posting on 4chan. which i hardly consider a reliable source.

>>932370
Not the other guy, but I don't like Shakespeare either. I think mob mentality is the only reason he is still popular. The vast majority of people don't read him, and if they have to read some in high school or whatever they don't like it.

>>932340
>It's good enough.

Good enough? What kind of fucking rebuttal is that? Twilight's prose is "good enough" for the millions of shitheads who read it. Stephen King's prose is "good enough" for you. Just because his prose is "passable" doesn't mean it's any good. It's shit. And if you were well read you'd know this. Only a complete dumbass would compare Stephen King to Shakespeare.

>Insomnia, one of my favorites, was a well written story.
Well, when you put it like that, how can I argue? [/sarcasm] Is this the best you can do against the argument that Stephen King is clearly making his books dense not for literary merit but for sales purposes? I read Bag of Bones a long time ago, and it was literally 700 pages of a guy crying over his dead wife. A better author would be able to say more in a shorter period of time.

>Which one?
Under the Dome.

>>932359
Not fine, but at least good. I mean, it's entertaining after all, and even though you could point some flaws, it's a good story.
And before any of you say
>Twilight can be entertaining too
No it's not, that book provokes one to gouge your own eyes.

>>932260

I have no problem w/ Catcher in The Rye or Shakespeare. I can admire them both. After a year straight of studying nothing but Shakespeare, he kind of grows on you.

>>932381
Alright, I can go with that position.

>>932374
So the fact the he is considered by many to be one of the best horror writers of the 20th century doesn't count?

>>932271
The Classics of literature are always the popular works of the past

>>932374
>tool

>The Catcher in the Rye
Oh boy. Catcher in the Rye wasn't bad, but it wasn't a masterpiece. I think it's severely overrated, but nevertheless a necessary piece of every high school level English curriculum. The thing is, not many people continue to read critically past high school, so they keep Salinger on a pedestal he doesn't really deserve. That being said, the underlying themes of isolationism and the superficial resonated with me (as they do with many young people).

I have a feeling most people on /lit/ hate it because they equate it with hipsters and existentialist teens.

>>932388 Twilight's prose is "good enough" for the millions of shitheads who read it
Fucking called it!
>>932381 No it's not, that book provokes one to gouge your own eyes.
Also I'm not comparing him to Shakespeare, not at all. I appreciate different kinds of books for different purposes and I find his stories entertaining. Is that bad? Am I not intellectual enough? I still consider him above Dan Brown, Ayn Rand and Stephanie Meyer, that's for sure.

>>932393
i don't like horror novels or movies. before someone says "well maybe you should try them," well, perhaps i will, after i'm done reading the countless novels that do appeal to me.

>>932379
>The vast majority of people don't read him
You could say that about just about any pre-1800 writer.

>>932388
I'm not the guy you responded to, but I don't think Shakespeare is a good point of reference. I think King has the same elegance of hand in many of his books as Albert Camus. (e.g. Different Season)

>>932401
doesn't appeal to me != objectively bad

Archie Comics.

>>932400
>that book provokes one to gouge your own eyes.

tell that to the Twilight fans who genuinely like the book, just as you genuinely seem to like Stephen King. I wanted to gouge my eyes out while I was reading 'Salems Lot, especially when I read the climax and realized that it was never going to get good.

>I find his stories entertaining.
>Good literature /lit/ loves to hate: Stephen King
>entertaining
>Good literature

Contradicting yourself, bro. If you find Stephen King entertaining, good for you, but don't try to tell me that his shit is any good. There is a difference between what is good and what is entertaining.

>>932424
Cherry > All

>>932396
I like you.

>>932428
>There is a difference between what is good and what is entertaining.
So that's why I hate all good literature, because its not entertaining!!
Thanks for clearing that up for me idiot!

>>932428
>There is a difference between what is good and what is entertaining.

Granted, not everyone will find every good book entertaining. But the two certainly aren't anywhere near exclusive.

>>3290561
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki

>>932260
Stephen King. The one guy who's literary career was based on tampons.

>>932442
>There is a difference between what is good and what is entertaining.
>So that's why I hate all good literature, because its not entertaining!!
Amerifag detected.

>>932396
Salinger drank his own piss, you know.

Not that theres anything wrong with that.

>>932454
That was clearly sarcasm. But anyway
>>932428
So good literature can't be entertaining now? Can't entertainment be good?
You're confusing "good" with "fine" literature. You're talking about fine literature. Good is just... Anything that qualifies as such, subjectively speaking. Fine, on the other hand, has a set of requirements.

>>932447
I never implied the two were mutually exclusive

I'm trying to say that just because you like something doesn't make it any good. It's possible to like something that's low quality, like McDonalds food, and it makes you look like a dumbass if you try to imply that it's anything but low quality.

>>932464

>You're confusing "good" with "fine" literature.

You're making shit up

>>3291303
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki

>>932478
This. And King has actually referred to himself as the McDonald's of literature.

>>932464
>Fine, on the other hand, has a set of requirements.
Not the person you're responding to, but what are they? I've always wondered, since "fine" always struck me as a rather arbitrary category.

>>932482
yes

>>932257
aS_PREＶioUｓｌy ｍｅNＴＩｏＮｅｄ, ｔhＥｓe_ＭEＳＳｓAGＥＳ_ＷＩlＬ ＣOＮｔinｕE_unｔｉＬ ＹＯｕ ｐeＲmａnｅnｔLｙ_ｓtｏｐ_ａTｔａckＩNＧ_ａNＤ_FUcｋＩnＧ_wITｈ Ｗｗw.ａNoｎdＥrPＴALk.Se_(ＲＥMove_tｈE ＤeＲP),_ReＭＯvE_ＡLＬ_ilLEGAｌ ＣlＯNEｓ Of ＩT_ａnd ｌｉＥS_aＢｏＵt ＩＴ ａnD DＯｎAtｅ_ａｔ lEａSｔ A_mIlＬＩＯＮ ＵSＤ_ｔo_ＳYｓＯp_aS_COｍPｅNsaTｉOｎ Fｏr_tｈe_mａＳsive dＡＭaGＥ_yOu_ＲEｔaｒdS_ｈａvｅ ｃaUＳＥd.
swjtozul w m zafrbx htrzxw d d ra

>>932479
Oh yeah? >>932381
That was my post, replying to >>932359. It's obvious that I was already trying to distinguish his works from fine literature.
>It's possible to like something that's low quality
And you can like things with high quality. It works both ways, "good" doesn't have anything to do with quality, it's just a subjective view.
>>932485
Usage of language, plot complexity, transcendence, influence... Just to name a few.

>>932428
>good and entertaining are mutually exclusive

Hipster detected.

>>3291767
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki

Anything "entertaining" is "good" imo.
Anything that is not "entertaining" is not "good" unless its non fiction. But most "good" nonfiction stuff is also "entertaining" to me.

>>932537
To me "good" implies "readable," at the very least.

>>932537
I can't stand people like you.

"Hey man, I just saw a movie and it was awesome!"
"What was good about it?"
"Well... it was entertaining!"
"How?"
"I don't know, it was just entertaining!"

>>932627
A book can be entertaining for any number of reasons. You expect me to tell you exactly what is entertaining about every book I ever enjoyed?
Fuck off.

>>932627
>if you can't write a 30-page essay on why you like something, your opinion is invalid

>>3289561
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki
http://www.lawl.us/Ki

>>932271 It's important to remember, though, that of Shakespeare's time, his work was not renowned as literature, but instead as mildly overdramatic, entertaining, somewhat cheesy fare. Who's to say that five hundred years from now, they won't be teaching Stephen King in English Lit classes as the most important writer of our time?

>>932631
>You expect me to tell you exactly what is entertaining

Only if you want people to care about your opinions. Otherwise you're no different than a Twilight fangirl whose too stupid to articulate why she loves Twilight so much.

>>932643
...Except not. Shakespeare's eloquent writing (manifest in, for example, his brilliant use of metaphor) is what immortalized him. He wasn't just some ordinary writer during his time.

ITT: we cannot distinguish between mediocre and good

>>932651
Nothing in specific was being discussed as in any of my posts. You make assumptions based on nothing. If we were discussing a single book and I wouldn't tell you what I like about it then it would be different, but this is like asking "why do you like music?".

>>Shakspeare
no problem there
>>catcher in the rye
Fucking duck raping faggot
>>King
if you need an explanation here then you are an idiot.

>>932716
That should pretty much close the argument. Any further banter from the opposing side is just stupid drivel that will only illustrate his or her ignorance further.

I loved The Catcher in the Rye
Haters gonna hate