In response to my BLOG article KUBRICKIAN, my friend Arminta wrote:
"I never quite understand your passionate dislike of Stephen King. The Stand was my favorite of all his books I've read. I don't know exactly what he said about the director of the movie but it's difficult to do a good book justice in when you put it on the screen. You lose the details of the reader's imagination when it turns into real pictures. Thus, the movie is never as good as the book. Just like anything else, everyone have their own opinions and a right to read whatever author they choose. I didn't think the meaning of a good book is really whether or not people are still reading it today. The meaning is much more personal than that."
MY ANSWER:
"Thanks for the comments. I do not have a "passionate dislike" for Stephen King; I just think he's a mediocre writer. In fact, I like him--personally--because he was self-deprecating about his talent and he's done great work with encouraging young people to read and funding scholarships (as has James Patterson also). My point was that those writers who were so popular in my youth are unread today; I think that King and those other popular writers of today will be unread in another generation. I don't think they'll "stand the test of time". I think that the movie The Shawshank Redemption is superior to the novel. I have read only three of King's books, all of which were because of movie adaptations. Thinking of other movie adaptations: certainly The Bridges Of Madison County was far better than that GREATLY popular book. I remember when I was 13, Elvis' movie King Creole was released and I saw that it was based on a book A Stone For Danny Fisher by someone I did not know--Harold Robbins--and at that time Harold Robbins had not become the fantastically successful writer he became. The book is nothing like his later formulaic books which made him a household name. Does anyone read Harold Robbins today? As that impressionable 13-year-old, I just HAD to read that book; my mother had to give permission for me to check it out at the library because it was ADULT! At that time, I thought the book was GREAT, but the movie was nothing like the book as it was a Depression-era, coming-of-age roman a clef. Of course I didn't know what a roman a clef was at age 13!"
ARMINTA AND SUE'S COLLOQUY:
ARMINTA: I've just heard you mention Stephen King's books before in a way that came across to me like you didn't like him.
SUE: I didn't care for his writing; I was disappointed that he was critical of Meyer and Patterson. Did they outgross him in sales? I had thought that King was magnanimous, but his criticism of Kubrick, et.al., made him seem petty. I was never a fan of Hemingway and he really pissed me off when he criticized Fitzgerald after Fitzgerald died. Hemingway was mean, petty, and vindictive in A Moveable Feast. I think that Fitzgerald is NOW held in higher esteem by critics than is Hemingway.
ARMINTA: Did you know that King makes cameo appearances in most of the movies they adapt?
SUE: No; that's very Hitchcockian of him!
ARMINTA: There's a customer who comes in the bank who I think looks like Stephen King. When I mentioned it to him he acted as if it was not news to him; he also did not seem pleased.
SUE: Reminds me of my BLOG article about Gerald telling a waitress she looked like Billie Jean King and she snapped back with, "You look like Willie Nelson!"
ARMINTA: I've never seen a movie adaptation that I thought was better than the book including The Bridges Of Madison County, though I'll admit the book did not make me cry...unlike the movie!
1 comment:
Doncha just love Arminta? ML
Post a Comment