{"id":121,"date":"2018-05-06T23:43:52","date_gmt":"2018-05-07T03:43:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/?p=121"},"modified":"2018-05-06T23:43:52","modified_gmt":"2018-05-07T03:43:52","slug":"a-king-in-the-eyes-of-the-people","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/uncategorized\/a-king-in-the-eyes-of-the-people\/","title":{"rendered":"A King in the Eyes of the People"},"content":{"rendered":"

As a college student, you often hear fellow students dismissing certain elements of daily life as \u201csocial constructs.\u201d While people tend to focus on and mock the idea of a social construct, it\u2019s important to remember that social constructs can\u2019t be simply dismissed. Social norms, however frivolous or repugnant they may be, have real world consequences and effect change in people\u2019s lives. Reputation is one of the social constructs we often encounter that greatly impact many of our interactions with other people. It can be informed by attributes such as race, occupation, education, wealth etc. Regardless of where a person\u2019s reputation is derived from, it can affect how others contextualize them within society, and by consequence how others interact with them.<\/p>\n

This concept can apply to literature as well, particularly in the relationship between authors and their readerships. French philosopher Michel Foucault saw the author\u2019s name as a functional item, a means of classification, used to categorize texts and generate relationships between texts. He also saw the author as a function of discourse for the readership, stating \u201cDiscourse that possesses an author\u2019s name is not to be immediately consumed and forgotten; \u2026 Rather, its status and its manner of reception are regulated by the culture in which it circulates\u201d (123). Foucault later clarifies that the \u201cauthor function\u201d he\u2019s discussing is a construction that is \u201cassigned a \u2018realistic\u2019 dimension as we speak of an individual\u2019s \u2026 \u2018creative\u2019 power, his intentions or the original inspiration manifested in writing\u201d (127). These aspects of the author we find frequently discussed are \u201cprojections \u2026 of our way of handling texts: in the comparisons we make, the traits we extract as pertinent, the continuities we assign, or the exclusions we practice\u201d (127). Essentially, Foucault is making the claim that a reader\u2019s understanding of an author is limited and based on a series of projections, things the reader may think they know about the author in question.<\/p>\n

Stephen King possesses the image of a titan within the horror genre, with this idea being fed by his many horror works, and the popularity they\u2019ve gained for the genre. In a 2014 interview between King and Rolling Stone<\/em> writer Andy Greene, Greene comments that by becoming a writer of primarily horror novels, King was entering \u201cone of the least respected genres of fiction.\u201d King replies by stating that he never had much interest in the styles of the conventional literary greats such as Hemingway and Steinbeck, taking time to add, \u201cI have to say this: To a degree, I have elevated the horror genre.\u201d With this statement, King raises the idea that his work, being truly exceptional, has earned the horror genre some of the prestige it initially lacked. Greene remarks that few would argue with King\u2019s claim, giving it some measure of credence. I find this interview to be especially significant because it was conducted by Rolling Stone<\/em>, which tends to focus on popular culture. In a way, publications like Rolling Stone<\/em> help in setting the tone of American culture, and by promoting King, they increase his cultural significance. King\u2019s name functions to characterize the discussions around his work, with the interview serving to put his name on a pedestal. As a result, discussions about King usually set him up to be a luminary within the horror genre, which will have ramifications when discussing non horror work.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

While the Rolling Stone<\/em> interview helped to heighten and reinforce King\u2019s reputation, not all literary critics have been so kind to him. King received the National Book Foundation\u2019s award for distinguished contribution in 2003, attracting the ire of Yale English Professor Harold Bloom. In a column for The Boston Globe<\/em>, Bloom decried the foundation\u2019s decision, believing commercial success to be their only criterion in selecting King. He then introduces J.K. Rowling and her Harry Potter<\/em> series into the argument, referring to the first novel, The Sorcerer\u2019s Stone<\/em>, specifically. While Bloom says he \u201csuffered a great deal\u201d while reading what he perceived to be a terrible novel, he draws attention to a positive review written by King. In his review, King comments on the possibility that children reading Harry Potter<\/em> may grow up to read some of his novels. Bloom takes this idea further, stating, \u201cWhen you read Harry Potter<\/em> you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.\u201d He believes a sort of vicious cycle has formed, where unskilled authors are building off of one another in order to achieve prominence, seemingly lowering literature in the process. Indeed, Bloom seems to dislike most new literature, as he ends his column by naming only four American novelists, \u201cwho are still at work and who deserve our praise.\u201d Throughout his column, I viewed Bloom functioning as a literary elitist using his elevated position in academia to espouse his views, which seem to be counter to anything he sees as popular culture. He doesn\u2019t believe King and Rowling deserve their success and allows his repugnance to overpower his discourse, going as far to dismiss their work as irrelevant were it not successful.<\/p>\n

Using literary elitism to limit a writer\u2019s validity as an author doesn\u2019t need to have the vitriol employed by Bloom, and can be more effective without it. King has been faced with genre shaming, meaning that critics don\u2019t take his work seriously as literature because it falls within the horror genre, which they see as facile. While discussing his novel Bag of Bones<\/em> with Time<\/em>, he mentioned how his new publisher at the time helped him to break his horror centric image, \u201cScribner [was] \u2026 interested in the book rather than in [my] reputation \u2026 which was a penny-dreadful reputation at that point. \u2026 To some degree, they rehabilitated my reputation\u201d (Cruz). King admits that his critics had relegated him to a producer of \u201cpenny dreadfuls,\u201d meaning that in their eyes, he only produced cheap, sensational stories. It\u2019s important to note that King made his transition to Scribner publishing in 1998, after he had already released several successful non horror works, such as The Green Mile<\/em> and the Dark Tower<\/em> series. By getting a new publisher that advertised his work in a different way, he was able to move past the farcical reputation established by his detractors. King\u2019s reputation was also aided by The Shawshank Redemption<\/em>, specifically the film adaptation. Aja Romano of Vox details the adaptation\u2019s importance for King\u2019s career, saying the film \u201cdrew popular attention to the fact that King could do more than \u2018just\u2019 write horror, and helped kick-start critical reassessment of him and his work.\u201d Notice how Romano specifies by saying the film drew \u201cpopular attention.\u201d The Shawshank Redemption<\/em> was originally published in 1982, but it received little attention until an adaptation was made, a task undertaken by readers. As the film version of the story grew in popularity, eventually becoming the highest ranked movie on IMDB, it piqued people\u2019s interest in the source material, which served to bolster the idea that King could still write well when outside the horror genre. King switching publishers was action taken by the author, while the creation of a film adaptation to The Shawshank Redemption was an action originating from the readers. These two actions, though originating from two different parties, both serve to appeal to the readers, showing again how the culture of the day sets the tone of discussion for authors and their works.<\/p>\n

So let\u2019s see an example of the \u201cauthor function\u201d influencing how one of King\u2019s work is handled in discussion. From 2014 to 2016, King published a trilogy of thriller detective novels starting with Mr. Mercedes<\/em>, marking his first project in the detective genre. In a review of Mr. Mercedes<\/em>, The Guardian<\/em> writer Michael Smith begins by admitting that he judges King works differently: \u201cStephen King is one of the few writers so well known that even people who don’t read have heard of him. As a result, he is judged by different rules.\u201d Smith says that he examines new King novels on two levels when reviewing them. First, he reviews the novel on the premise of its quality as a standalone work. The second level of analysis, centers around \u201cthe question of whether it’s a\u00a0good Stephen King book, because he\u00a0puts each novel in front of bazillions of readers who return for his distinctively unstoppable storytelling engine, his particular and hugely dependable voice.\u201d Smith then outlines a third level of analysis, a method seemingly designated only for non horror works, \u201cKing isn’t as trapped in the\u00a0horror ghetto as he once was. Therefore, there is a\u00a0third level of potential scrutiny \u2013 that of assessing the book within whichever genre it inhabits.\u201d Smith is reviewing King\u2019s writing in Mr. Mercedes<\/em> based on his ability to adapt his writing style to the detective genre, since the discussions surrounding his works tend to take place within the horror genre. Unlike past critics, he doesn\u2019t relegate King to being \u2018just a horror writer,\u2019 but decides to view his writing within the detective genre. King\u2019s name, carrying a myriad of connotations from his lengthy career, requires Smith to analyze Mr. Mercedes<\/em> within multiple contexts, in order to form a solid opinion on the novel as a whole.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The New York Times<\/em> review of Mr. Mercedes, by writer Megan Abbott, spends more time reflecting on some of King\u2019s possible influences. Abbott points out that King has admitted to his horror works being inspired by the anxiety of the era he wrote them in. She then posits the idea that this concept still holds for Mr. Mercedes, \u201cKing cannily focuses on a particularly urgent and timely one: the spree of rampage killers dominating current headlines.\u201d The novel centers around a cold case involving a man driving a Mercedes into a crowd during a job fair, drawing parallels to violent rampages from that time, such as the shooting in Aurora, Colorado and the bombings at the Boston Marathon. When discussing the protagonist of the novel, former detective Bill Hodges, Abbott references the work of Raymond Chandler, a renowned author within the detective genre. She specifically highlights from an essay called \u201cThe Simple Art of Murder,\u201d in which Chandler laid out some of the hallmarks of writing within the detective genre, such as the character elements that construct a good detective protagonist. Abbott notes how King initially draws from Chandler in constructing Hodges, only to later depart from his methods later in the novel. While I enjoyed this review and its ideas as to where King drew inspiration, I was careful to remember that many of Abbott\u2019s ideas were not based in fact. Her review was informed by things she assumed to be true, pieces of the projection of King.
\nIn observing King\u2019s career, I believe it\u2019s easy to see how the name \u2018Stephen King\u2019 has escaped the man in some regards. What began as a man trying to earn living as a writer has been transformed into debates regarding the validity of his works as literature, and the validity of the horror genre and genre fiction as a whole. King has remained relevant and active as an author by finding ways to restructure how readers view him in literary discussions, and engaging them with more frequent departures from the horror genre. I\u2019m interested to see how the King name will continue to evolve over time, and whether his work or their adaptations will hold more sway with public opinion. I see King\u2019s image and discussions regarding him shifting more towards horror again, given that the 2017 film It<\/em>, based off King\u2019s novel of the same name, has become the highest grossing horror movie of all time. But King could always steer the discussion in a different direction by releasing a novel set within a genre he hasn\u2019t worked in before, as he did with Mr. Mercedes. Whatever project he decides to put out next, his readership, both the admirers and the detractors, will be waiting to discuss it in ways only befitting of a Stephen King work.<\/p>\n

Works Cited
\nAbbott, Megan. \u201cStephen King’s ‘Mr. Mercedes’.\u201d The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 June 2014.<\/p>\n

Bloom, Harold. \u201cDumbing down American Readers.\u201d Boston.com, The Boston Globe, 24 Sept. 2003.<\/p>\n

Cruz, Gilbert. \u201cStephen King on His 10 Longest Novels.\u201d Time, Time, 6 Nov. 2009.<\/p>\n

Foucault, Michel, et al. Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Cornell Univ. Press.<\/p>\n

Greene, Andy. \u201cStephen King: The Rolling Stone Interview.\u201d Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 31 Oct. 2014.<\/p>\n

Romano, Aja. \u201cStephen King Has Spent Half a Century Scaring Us, but His Legacy Is so Much More than Horror.\u201d Vox, Vox, 4 Aug. 2017.<\/p>\n

Smith, Michael Marshall. \u201cMr Mercedes by Stephen King Review \u2013 a Crime Thriller from the \u00a0Horror Master.\u201d The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 4 June 2014.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As a college student, you often hear fellow students dismissing certain elements of daily life as \u201csocial constructs.\u201d While people tend to focus on and mock the idea of a social construct, it\u2019s important to remember that social constructs can\u2019t … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1942,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1942"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":124,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121\/revisions\/124"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/engl-209\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}