Attached Link: http://hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2003-09-21.shtml

If you hadn't heard, Stephen King has been awarded a lifetime achievement award from the National Book Award. Naturally, critics are up in arms because King doesn't write "literature." Something I'd always found amusing is that today's greats were yesterday's hacks. The classic writers we're forced to read in school today were derided in their own time because they wrote "common" stories instead of literary masterpieces. Orson Scott Card, a famous Sci-Fi writer, summed up the irony nicely: "Hardly anyone reads the "great writers" of the Elizabethan era, and instead we honor most a playwright who wrote to win the pennies of the shopkeepers and apprentices. Whom do we remember and read most from the 1800s, not in English classes, but for our own pleasure? Charles Dickens, who wrote serials for the newspapers. Louisa Mae Alcott, who started with dime novels and ended with children's fiction. Mark Twain, whose books were sold by subscription and who was despised as a hack until the French noticed him. Jane Austen, a "mere" writer of women's books. King will be remembered when all the writers favored by his disparagers are forgotten. It is King who will teach our grandchildren what America was in our time. The hilarious thing is that most of King's critics would probably praise Edgar Allan Poe as an important American writer -- even though his most noted work is definitely in the oogly-boogly category. He's been dead long enough for the stink of popularity to have faded, apparently. " BTW: Mr. Card has a great website filled with interesting columns, including a sporadic one on writing. He has also written one of the best books on writing I've ever read, "Characters and Viewpoint." So the next time someone tells you that you're wasting your time by "writing genre" instead of literature, just remember, 100 years from now kids will probably be studying Stephen King and JK Rowling, not the "intellectual literature" that today's professors drool over. Maybe they'll be reading your "genre stuff" as well. Cheers!

good point and well stated. I agree

Attached Link: http://www.wesselenyi.com/top100books.htm

We had a similar discussion at the SciFi convention a couple of weeks ago. One of the authors told the story of some publishing house doing a poll for the top 100 Books of the 20th century. When The Lord of the Rings came out on top they refused to publish the results and ran the poll again, this time including the Bible in the list of eligible candidates. In the second go round The Bible came out as #1. To their consternation The Lord of the Rings came out as #2. Funny, I didn't know the Bible was written in the 20th century. :-) As an aside (and lending some credence to this anecdote) I did find the results of a poll that sounds very much like the one the author mentioned. Some interesting books in this list. Give it a look see. jon

I honestly think a great book is a book that is actually read. I rarely read Stephen King so he's not a great author to me, but is a great author to many other people. That doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't make them wrong. It means that, for me, Stephen King is not a great author, and I don't care that I'm in a minority on that point. The fact is that great books are determined over time. Shakespeare was not the greatest author of his time...but he is an author that survived over time. It remains to be seen if Stephen King's popularity will outlast his lifetime. The interesting part is that none of us will know if he is judged great by the ages or if his celebrity is what determined his "achievement." I live in California...I've learned to be suspect of fame by celebrity (look who we have for a new governor if you wonder why I'm a cynic). I don't think anyone should write with the idea of greatness or celebrity in mind....to me, you should write because you would write if no one read you, because you have no choice. If you are writing for fame, then perhaps what you are looking for is to be famous rather than to have written something meaningful or satisfying. It isn't wrong to write for fame...but it is necessarily right either. Just my two cents, written under the influence of wine. And, as it has been pointed out, who the heck am I anyway. Take care all.

I don't have to write. I could create webpages, or videogames, or art, or songs instead... Oh, wait, I do create webpages, and art and songs and I'm working on a video game... :) As I say when the submission game gets particularly depresssing, "as long as I'm going to be writing the things down anyway, I might as well continue trying to make them good enough to get published." But my true goal is to get famous. Because my husband and I devided theobligatory quest for fame and fortune up, and his job is fortune and mine is fame. As long as we remain as poor as churchmice, he can't claim I'm not doing my share around the house. ;)

To be honest, I don't have to write either. So I don't. Doubtful if fame or fortune will come my way when I do nothing to pursue it. On the other hand, fame and fortune doesn't interest me very much these days. I haven't seen much happiness produced by either.

I like this attitude of the fame and fortune devide thing. Money sure would make the struggle and unhappiness a lot more bearable or find someone that has both already? On good writing. If you can sell millions it does not really matter what will be said later. You must be better than the rest to sell the books and that says something to me since millions want to publish and can't.

I respectfully disagree. Millions of National Enquirers are sold and, by your criteria, the writers for the National Enquirer must be brilliant writers and because Emily Dickenson sold nearly nothing during her life time, she must be a dreadful failure. But that's not how I view it.

I just referred to story books and not articles or reflections. True, many writings will never see the light and under them will be brilliant ones but most probable aren't. A man like Stephen King does not write things that should last a lifetime. He writes a story and does it better than millions of others and so people believe it is good and buy it. If sales does not count you should at least establish the criteria before you ask people to submit names to a list. Movies, actors and songs fall into groups for you can't try to listen to Vangelis and Elvis and ask who is the best. Some books impact on our life where others are just brilliant stories you never want to hear again. To put the Bible with Harry Potter and ask which is the best, based on what? It is a waste of time to comment on that. Both have their place but not on the same list unless the list is sales. Then the Bible wins . Criteria first, then we can discuss the merit of the books on the list.

Not going any further in this subject. All I had to say on the subject was in message #4. Anything more will result in bickering and detail picking for no good purpose, and I've no interest in doing that. If someone else wants to, that's fine. I'm gone from this thread. Good night all.