In 2003, Stephen King received the medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. Some respected critics like Harold Bloom, did the tantrum of their lives for an election so decadent. Explains, learning critical thinking Bloom, Stephen King, he says, is not literature, and does not contribute, destroy the letters. Other less countercultural critics applauded the decision. In different proportions, but in essence therefore, some criticize my interest in King's novels.
I think the mere fact that these critics have not read King never not an argument against its critics. It is impossible to give an opportunity for all authors, all tastes, also has the letter SK scarlet which most of the amateur and professional literature like the plague flee: NewYorkTimesBestSellingAuthor. is, and the same is said against Murakami, sells too, we read very often, is accessible and entertaining, therefore, can not be literature.
There is a profound error in this idea, a kind of criticism that is based on prejudice and discrimination. As Reyes and many others, I can only dream of a simple literature, accessible, communicative and enjoyable for all who read. Honestly, I think Stephen King is laying the groundwork for such literature as they did in their time Charles Dickens and Alexander Dumas.
Certainly, other authors with names of the New York Times and bestselleras sagas such as Interview with the Vampire, the Tom Clancy's, Bourne Hollywood and even the new vampire Crepúsuclo hypochondria, sell as much or more than King. And confiésome guilty, I have read and enjoyed more than one of these books entertaining but no substance. But none of them has been what it was the Dark Tower, for example, only King has made me laugh out loud and looking at me from a new, dark, which is no more savage honesty that we face when we were alone and lost. King only joined me when I had to learn to walk again if you stay true, I whispered, and at the end was right.
Yesterday I finished reading The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon , in English, as it should read Stephen King. That is the first point for the literary value of works of King achieved. can not translate. For more than a translation from clogging Plaza y Janes or DeBolsillo is not the same as reading it in its original language. It is incompetence of the translators sometimes his over-zealous, "but there are things that only the chaotic and anarchistic polysemy of English can mean or represent. And yet, there are things that only Mr. King can say and do say the language on a domain that has acquired quite respectable if not staggering. Slang typical concatenation of adjectives, original insults, puns incredible. I think when the meaning of the work depends heavily on language that is written, history and language form a symbiosis so close, there is something special.
Stephen King handles simple metaphors, illogical and convoluted life that, nevertheless, maintain a consistency that does not really know where it comes from, but it's there. These metaphors evolve along their books and they complement each new novel. Thus, in The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon , everything can be derived from the first sentences of the book: the world has fangs and every bite. The precariousness of our false assurances to the world and nature. Throughout the novel, which has only 250 pages-the metaphor is being developed on the increasingly fragile flesh of a girl lost in the woods. Suddenly, all that is a source of entertainment, long walks, the day camp, an enemy becomes huge, invincible, terrifying. The world shows its teeth. Simple metaphors, but that we develop about themselves and, almost always, at the end of the book, closed like a moebius ring each year plus infinity. Subaudible god, bear is not a bear, the god of the lost, the nine innings, save situation. must read to see that game of allegories that are not pedantic.
That, too, King, a writer is simple, unpretentious. He himself says in On Writing - one of the best on the job - , the idea is to tell a story and the story like, entertain and be read, inviting the reader to return to the books. As much as his novels each year acquire greater depth, narrative richness and beauty, it seems to be an accident, an ancillary aspect of the work, something perhaps, that neither the author had noticed. His books are not intended educate, but educate, not seek to show human nature and they do. A story of King is a perfect time capsule almost a year, a decade and the social stratum that is even when Stephen is not realistic, nor manners, nor naturalist, or historian. Could
decírseme is an exaggeration to think that a King novel speaks of human nature. Two things, no more than The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon to support me: First, who has been missing for a few hours and know how easy it is to begin to dissociate in a hopeful voice and voice-defeating, it almost immediately black humor, making mocking imaginary conversations with friends who are not there with heroes lost and how useful it can be all that to the soul, to let off the trance, on the other, put a face and name the opponent who has no personality, the god of the lost, name is separated, to confront the "other" and learn to negotiate with him, have the ability to stand up. This is a horror novel, not because there is a "monster" in it, because one remembers terror have been lost in the forest in the city in a bad neighborhood and gains power and intimidating environment. A real terror, represented by a osoquenoesunoso.
Much more canshelled on the work of Stephen King, especially about the most recent. Work also has its cons, like everything: using the resources of the older novel folletón sustaining attention, cutting chapter, operates his reputation as a novelist of terror when none of his novels scares in recent years has recycled some old writings, has an ego the Unamuno who did get in several books. These are all literary cons, but they're pros, because at the end of the day achieves what every writer looking even at a subconscious level, that people read to the end, you want to read more.
Yes, when you read a best-seller you've read them all. But you have not read Stephen King. I think can be brought to an in the same category as Pérez-Reverte, Muñoz Molina, Juan Marse, Michel Houellebecq, Norman Mailer, and even Dostoyevsky, write to sell, write and tell a story, but when readers finish, we realize that in the background, there is more there than just a pretty story. Is the reflection of a time, one way of being human. Clear that King has the edge in the center of the consumer world and books that present a challenge only to be understood and enjoyed: literacy.
not necessary to be cryptic, untranslatable, unreadable as Finnegan's Wake for literature or to master English. Also may be at each bus stop, at all airports in any bookstore shelf and remain literature. I like to read Stephen King and not consider it a guilty pleasure or futile, I consider it one of the writers who taught me to love literature.
I said.
0 comments:
Post a Comment