In this post, there will be mentionings of the novel Under the Dome and The Stand. References which contain potential spoilers will be posited in the appropriate manner.
As I am currently an unpublished writer, I have been throughout such a course reading within my spare time. I pursue the meandering roads from author to author, yet this winding path almost always seems to bring me back to Stephen King, and similar contemporaries. “Why is that so?” I asked myself one night as I sat in an easy chair, a copy of Under the Dome on my lap. And it came to me; a realization had hit. I like King’s style chiefly because I am under the impression that he cares little about the social ramifications his text might create when published.
What exactly do I mean by that? “Social ramifications” is a phrase one can mull over for an extensive period of deep thought, yet obtain no leverage throughout. I would agree with that, which is why I’m going to explain what I mean by his “style” and these hypothetical “ramifications”.
While I was reading the unabridged edition of The Stand—first run—I came across scenes which had struck me as extremely explicit and vivid, an element I like in fiction.
Simply stated, King doesn’t seem to care a great deal about what some might deem as ‘sensitive subject-matter’, consequently why I enjoy much of his work.
I enjoy this form of writing because, at the very minimum, it seems to illustrate that King does not censor himself or conform to contemporary moralistic sentiments. For myself, I have found writing of nearly any kind to be contingent upon expressing notions in the freest manner that seems apt, and I appreciate King’s blatancy in that department. I don’t enjoy reading fiction which broadcasts an impression of censorship or modification to suit other desires, in terms of the actual plots (I am aware that The Stand was originally cut due to financial issues…the binding Doubleday used back then was supposedly too weak to use for such a whopper of a novel, and so they would have to release the text in two separate books. They didn’t want to do that, though, and so the editing began).
Anyways, the main reason I enjoy literature that blatantly disassociates itself with so-called "[potentially] sensitive subject matter" is that it places the writer into a position to formulate freely through the rejection of perceived niceties. And I entertain that notion, as I find no persuasive or otherwise consummate to modify or censor yourself merely for the sake of others and what they feel; you can simply discard of their sentiments. Plus, if you wish to become an honest author, for some it simply means that your days within society as being universally deemed “polite” is possibly numbered. Furthermore (and perhaps more pressing), King really does appear to postulate smooth pacing, believable dialogue, and an overall sense of extraordinarily clarity, wittiness, and vividness, or in some texts --such as The Stand-- profound, colossally rich universes of fiction. And as far as sentiments go, I'm just at a predisposition to choose these texts over the masses of alternative themes. Clearly, King even creates a juxtaposition in terms of the spatial when he released Under the Dome (the TV Series adaptation has even been filmed in many parts near my location, such as the WCIK radio-station), contrasting rather popularly with his work The Stand (the copy I own even has an excerpt from a review, claiming that King “...goes back to his glory days of The Stand.”
Fundamentally, I understand that some people might not like this writing of violence, which is understandable. Some might not encompass these themes because they find these themes unsavory, which is also understandable. I am not suggesting other authors adopt these themes, nor am I suggesting that readers ought to enjoy these themes. I think that it would be absurd to expect my preference imposed onto others to have any real universal merit; however, I am going to say that, existentially, being shy as a writer is probably the paramount mentality you would like to reject, because writing truthfully and honestly can open a grand space of savory storytelling. But some levity here and there is fine, too.
Ultimately, Stephen has been such an inspiration and motivation for much of my writing, and as cheesy as it may sound, even a bit of my contemporary lifestyle. I find pleasure in being absorbed in what I see to be rich and immersive realms of fiction, especially when they are fleshed so craftily.
M-O-O-N, that spells “thanks”.
As I am currently an unpublished writer, I have been throughout such a course reading within my spare time. I pursue the meandering roads from author to author, yet this winding path almost always seems to bring me back to Stephen King, and similar contemporaries. “Why is that so?” I asked myself one night as I sat in an easy chair, a copy of Under the Dome on my lap. And it came to me; a realization had hit. I like King’s style chiefly because I am under the impression that he cares little about the social ramifications his text might create when published.
What exactly do I mean by that? “Social ramifications” is a phrase one can mull over for an extensive period of deep thought, yet obtain no leverage throughout. I would agree with that, which is why I’m going to explain what I mean by his “style” and these hypothetical “ramifications”.
While I was reading the unabridged edition of The Stand—first run—I came across scenes which had struck me as extremely explicit and vivid, an element I like in fiction.
The first notable mentioning of this is when Stuart Redman and his buddies had discovered Charles D. Campion’s riddled-with-snot body in his car, followed by his wife and infant. Yet this scene was not too controversial, I will admit, it set the tone for the things to come. Such as to say, later on in The Stand, Donald Merwin Elbert—the “Traschan Man”—is literally sodomized with a handgun in by a character named “The Kid”, who I found extraordinarily unique in terms of anything I have ever perceived in the entirety of my current life.
In no particular order, The Stand (unabridged) also held other salient instances for me, such as the shootout with Frances Goldsmith’s crew (including Harold Lauder’s suicide, a member of this crew), the multiple sex scenes which had cropped throughout the text (including the sodomy), and the gritty crime (such as when Andrew Freeman and Lloyd Henreid attempted to stick a convenient store).
Anyways, the main reason I enjoy literature that blatantly disassociates itself with so-called "[potentially] sensitive subject matter" is that it places the writer into a position to formulate freely through the rejection of perceived niceties. And I entertain that notion, as I find no persuasive or otherwise consummate to modify or censor yourself merely for the sake of others and what they feel; you can simply discard of their sentiments. Plus, if you wish to become an honest author, for some it simply means that your days within society as being universally deemed “polite” is possibly numbered. Furthermore (and perhaps more pressing), King really does appear to postulate smooth pacing, believable dialogue, and an overall sense of extraordinarily clarity, wittiness, and vividness, or in some texts --such as The Stand-- profound, colossally rich universes of fiction. And as far as sentiments go, I'm just at a predisposition to choose these texts over the masses of alternative themes. Clearly, King even creates a juxtaposition in terms of the spatial when he released Under the Dome (the TV Series adaptation has even been filmed in many parts near my location, such as the WCIK radio-station), contrasting rather popularly with his work The Stand (the copy I own even has an excerpt from a review, claiming that King “...goes back to his glory days of The Stand.”
Fundamentally, I understand that some people might not like this writing of violence, which is understandable. Some might not encompass these themes because they find these themes unsavory, which is also understandable. I am not suggesting other authors adopt these themes, nor am I suggesting that readers ought to enjoy these themes. I think that it would be absurd to expect my preference imposed onto others to have any real universal merit; however, I am going to say that, existentially, being shy as a writer is probably the paramount mentality you would like to reject, because writing truthfully and honestly can open a grand space of savory storytelling. But some levity here and there is fine, too.
Ultimately, Stephen has been such an inspiration and motivation for much of my writing, and as cheesy as it may sound, even a bit of my contemporary lifestyle. I find pleasure in being absorbed in what I see to be rich and immersive realms of fiction, especially when they are fleshed so craftily.
M-O-O-N, that spells “thanks”.
