This is a great question because it is so fascinating. Here's my honest answer.
Mostly, I just don't know. When I was younger and first discovered King, I thought that he would indeed be remembered as the best, most famous writer of the time. Now, I'm not 100% sure, only because I think his bibliography has become so big that it's easy for future literary analysts to point out this collection of weak books or that collection of same (if you know what I mean). I guess what I'm saying is that being prolific can sometimes dilute the value of one's overall legacy (maybe; who knows, I suppose). I don't know how prolific J.K. Rowling is, but she will be very famous and revered years from now just based on the Potter stuff; she doesn't need to write anything more, really. If you think of someone like Patterson, he'll be remembered more for his business model than anything else (and there is nothing wrong with that, at all; business models are creative things, too).
I think future scholars will focus on the earlier works. Probably the one that will be taught in schools the most will be The Body. It will be remembered. As will The Stand, The Shining, Carrie, and many short stories. Beyond those books, I don't know. The Dark Tower could, in the future, be criticized as a gimmick.
Let me expand the question a bit: Do you think King's legacy is based more on his literary output or his brand equity? If King wasn't willing to give so many interviews and go on so many talk shows, would his work be so well-known, would it be the cultural touchstone that it is? As an example of what I'm talking about: Did King's appearance in Creepshow turn him into a different kind of writer-icon, in the sense that people might have got into his works because he played that funny character? It's hard for me to remember, maybe others can help, but wasn't that a big deal at the time that he was in Creepshow? At least to the Fangoria crowd? It seems in hindsight like an inflection point.
Think of someone like Bentley Little. He likewise is a good writer; very King-like. Yet, who knows who this guy is? (Honestly, I sometimes even wonder if that is a created pseudonym for a collection of writers, a publisher's invention; I know I'm probably wrong about that, but, and I have said this before, he really is a mysterious writer.) He doesn't do interviews, I don't think much of his work has been adapted for other media (I think he did have his story The Washingtonians adapted somewhere; that's all about I am aware of on that front). Will anyone remember Little, even though he is a solid, skilled author?
Maybe King will be famous like a Poe, not like a Hemingway or an Orwell.
Now that I've had a little more time to look at the key questions here, I have to address this with a lite more thought.
I hate this. The future Stephen King? I’m not a fan of facing the mortality of my loved ones.
Let me begin by sharing yet another anecdote: I hated my advanced Critical Analysis class; we read one text, Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Spent a semester exploring every possible angle of that piece of uninspired mediocrity. End of the semester rolls around, and the professor was having one of those rare, “off the syllabus” discussions because she had an epiphany. She was tenured, and thus permitted some degree of freedom within the arcane halls of UNH’s English department, and took full advantage of this by creatively incorporating a litany of assignments. (write a critical analysis from a post -modern perspective with a cubist slant, as though you were Shakespeare’s editor – or some such nonsense).
This day she had a strange look on her face. She set the syllabus aside and proceeded to tell us that she had always thought of herself as literary scholar, hence the tenure. The woman had a least one doctorate in literature. Anyway, she said “all these years, and I’ve scoffed at the thought of ever picking up a Stephen King book”
At this point I sat up and took notice, Stephen King has always been like a family member to me. My mother and father, both well read New Englanders in Academia, introduced me to King from day one.
I think that
Firestarter was first, but it makes no difference, we discussed books over dinner, actually all the time, in any given situation.
My dad felt strongly that his ex wife was related, and if you ever saw my brother, Howie, you might think the same thing. Doppelganger!
So maybe I was biased, but if the Prof was going to veer away from Conrad and toward King, hurray!
She continued “well, I have to tell you something; I don’t know why, but I picked up one of his books a few days ago and let me tell you, boy was I ever wrong about him! That guy is an absolute master of words, I can’t believe it! This is going to revolutionize the way we think about great literature.”
I’m thinking,
this lady is a UNH professor and she only just realized that? Good, so its not just me thinking that all many of these classics we have to read as English majors pale in comparison?
Short answer: literary output. Your point about the entire body of work being too large to allow the quality to outweigh the potential weak spots is nonsense. (I am so sorry to put it that way, but it kind of is).
I’m pretty sure that I would feel all the fool continuing to explain why his writing is better than that of Hemingway, Irving, Updike, - oh and I certainly hope that the Gods of fiction consider him to be better than Orwell!I could write a comparative analysis right now, but I don’t need to. I’ll substantiate my opinions on a case by case basis. I don’t think that future literary analysts will be in any position to point out a collection of “more of the same” (yes, I know what you mean but that is not how I see it).
This is Stephen King we are talking about; the one with the ability to keep you interested enough to plow through a tomb in three days despite the character changes and point of view shifts. The one who opened Pandora’s box, giving away trade secrets by literally writing the book? The same guy who’s ego caters to the constant reader in every way possible, above and beyond the level of a deeply personal forward, or even a message board.
The same author intelligent and talented enough to incorporate Tolkien, modern political references and historical mythology (you name it), while researching modern hacking ,police jargon, medicine - all for one book.
Business Model? Shmisness Model . . Yes, it’s a good one. I can’t even imagine. I tried calculating the numbers when I learned about his deal with Castle Rock, but ultimately it equaled a lot of money and power (retention of power). Oh, did I mention that he uses that power and savvy to influence the general public for the greater good of humanity? (some days, occasionally it’s the universal greater good).
Patterson? Please!
Bentley Little – yes, I read The Burning. I lived in Flagstaff at the time and of course went on an obsessive hunt for access to the underground tunnels. They are there – no access.
I did no find the book exceptional enough to read another by the same author (s).
Ooohhh, one more thing: J.K. Rowling wrote an exceptional series, the likes of which we have never read nor (I fear) ever will again. Psst - Ever heard of Diana Gabaldon? If anyone can give Rowling a run for her money, it's she.
So I guess we are in agreement.
Stephen is better, in fact, he set the bar any way you want to look at it.