How will Stephen King be viewed in 100 years?

[Kyriakos]

Assuming the world does not end in 2012

This is not really an art question, just a general one. If you have read any of his work do you think that in the next aeon he will be viewed as a classic horror writer, such as Lovecraft is viewed today, or will he be dismissed as pop/bad art?

Before reading any of his work i had a very bad impression from the adapted films. They seemed to be way too epidermic in their plots, and i gathered from that that the original writing must have been similar.
However after getting one of his story collections (the night shift) i found a few stories which i actually did like. Granted some others are not that great, and it is said to be his finest short story collection, but even so there are a number which could be seen as detailed, complicated, artistic, no matter that King is remaining most of the time in the surface of things.

I mostly liked the Gray Matter, and some other story about a suicide of a girl who used to jump from the final step of a wooden ladder, to the mountain of hay below. The latter impressed me since i had no idea King could write a symbolic story that well.

Anyway, what is your own verdict? In 100 years will he be remembered as...

 

[North King]

Bad question. He writes plenty of all three.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

He'll be part of the canon eventually. Some ambitious young critic in the academy will want to make a name for themselves by being the first one to do extensive work on King's novels.

 

[Rashiminos]

He will be dismissed as a mind-poisoning psycho.

 

[illram]

I think he will be remembered as one of the best in the genre. He is one of the few modern authors who is a household name and he is one of the most successful fiction authors, ever. I think people read It or the Shining and think that since he is known for this sort of pop horror stuff, his work is not "literature" and therefore not an author of any consequence beyond his fabulous publishing success. Which is silly snob talk. He is actually is far more varied than that and some of his best stuff is actually not even his horror stuff. (Or even stuff he wrote in his name...) Anyone 100 years from now studying post-Vietnam era American literature should read some of his work IMHO.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Why isn't "Not at all" an option?

 

[Antilogic]

Given that most artists are not remembered, and current fame is no indicator of future fame (see all the great artists that died penniless and unappreciated in their time), no real way to know but likely not as high art.

I didn't think the one book I read was all that memorable (so forgettable I even forgot the title!), so I wouldn't rate him that highly.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Sort of like Dickens, I predict: widely read, taught in schools today, but not exactly "high art." Still, some ambitious young scholar will write the definitive posthumous biography and force everyone else in the profession to acknowledge him. Critics are always looking for some popular writer to die off so they can scavenge for publication material and call themselves the preeminent (Stephen King) scholar. I know it sounds stupid now, but watch it happen in about 40-50 years.

 

[Ramius75]

i will say, more in the Mary Shelly or Bram Stoker's area...

Edit: sorry, but then again... any memorable Char?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

If King has written anything close to the brilliance of Frankenstein, I would love to know about it.

 

[NovaKart]

I think he's said before that he's not taken seriously because he's a horror writer and there's some bias against that.

I think he's written some great books but he's too prolific of an author. He churns out so much stuff and it might be better if he took more time writing better stuff.

 

[Skwink]

I think he's said before that he's not taken seriously because he's a horror writer and there's some bias against that.

I think he's written some great books but he's too prolific of an author. He churns out so much stuff and it might be better if he took more time writing better stuff.

Yeah, his books aren't long enough!

 

[NovaKart]

If you think long and good are the same thing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I think he's said before that he's not taken seriously because he's a horror writer and there's some bias against that.

Yes, because literary critics hate Poe.

 

[Skwink]

If you think long and good are the same thing.

It was a joke about how he writes some really long books.

 

[NovaKart]

How many horror writers have the reputation of Edgar Allen Poe, and don't say someone who's known for Gothic horror.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Zero, because the only American author to have a comparable reputation is Melville.

 

[_random_]

Flannery O... I mean William Fa... Well, dammit. What can I say? Gothic horror is best horror.

 

[Disgustipated]

He wrote a story about a car coming to life...

As much as I like Stephen King, I don't try to pretend he's great literature or anything.

Oh and you guys discount the possibility that Stephen King sold his soul to the devil, and he will still be alive in 100 years churning out books.

 

[warpus]

The only book of his I ever read was "The Stand" and that was really good. I was a bit disappointed with the ending, but the book as a whole was a masterpiece

So, judging just by that.. and the books of his that have made it to the big screen that impressed me (the green mile, shawshank redemption, the running man).. I would have to say that he will be remembered as a prolific & masterful author of his time.

But of course I have only read one book of his so what do I know.