Stephen King has always read to me as an author whose
strengths outweigh his weaknesses, like a fighter with lousy form who still delivers
a solid enough knockout punch to earn his place in the ring. I enjoyed The
Stand but thought it ended poorly. I
was chilled by the finale of Rage but
thought a lot of his characterizations were a hard sell. In general, King’s skill with scene-building,
character depth, and intensely emotive narration (as well as what has to be a gargantuan
memory bank of brand names and colloquialisms) do battle with, and ultimately
prevail over, his tendency towards overlong plots and prose that’s decidedly,
almost deliberately, lacking in finesse.
The Shining wasn’t much
different. He puts us squarely in the
place and minds of his characters, wallops us with some incredible, high-intensity
scenes, and then more or less shrugs off the reader’s need for emotional
closure. It’s powerful, fun, and a
little bit empty when it’s all said and done.
That’s what I expected and what I got.
From what I’ve read of King’s thoughts on writing, he wouldn’t
consider the “weaknesses” I’ve outlined to be worth losing any sleep over. Where other writers might get hung up on
weaving a concrete detail into a scene without disrupting the flow of the
action, King doesn’t bat an eye. Dude just
comes right out and says whatever he wants to say. The chance that a lengthy paragraph of description
or dialogue might weigh a scene down never pushes him to pass up an opportunity
to bedazzle the reader just that much
more. Given that I’d seen enough clips
of (though never actually seen) the film to have a general notion of how it all
shakes out, it’s hard to say what was really “necessary” for the buildup of
tension for this particular story, but amidst generous descriptions of the
Overlook Hotel and a few too many scenes going over similar points (Danny is
psychic, Jack has violent/indulgent urges, Winnifred is worried), The Shining did seem to take its time
getting off the ground.
And this shouldn’t be read as a criticism of the author’s
style. For any points I could make about
a clunky dialogue tag here or there, the guy produces some furiously gripping
work. He can afford not to worry about how
tight his plotting is because he more than makes up for it elsewhere. For those of us not blessed with the high-speed
(possibly corrupted) supercomputer that is Stephen King’s brain, though,
reading his work from the perspective of a learning student can feel an awful
lot like watching a circus performer in awe.
“Boy, that’s impressive! I sure
couldn’t do that, and I don’t particularly want to learn.”
It’s clear to me, that Stephen King either experienced for himself, or from someone close to him, an abusive/alcoholic father.
ReplyDeleteAnd there you hit the nail squarely, DK. “Write about what you know,” as they say. For Stephen King, it was his own battles with addiction. It is that depth of understanding, of personal conflict, that resonates so deeply in his writing. He bravely takes on the task of looking at himself via a character’s eyes, and as many folks have come to realize, the person in the “mirror” isn’t always a pleasant reflection.
But he takes it a step further. He examines himself—a character in all of its imperfections—through the eyes of the Others in the novel. Layers and layers of humanity get torn away through use of this device, often (metaphorically) the things people deny, push aside, or ignore. For Steven King, in my view, it is this habit that strikes the heart of his readers in such a terrifying manner. After all, nothing is more frightening than the monster inside everyone; more heart-wrenchingly full of desperation is a person’s hope for victory against his/her personal demons.
That is what struck me so strongly with this novel. It hit so many cords that no matter what our upbringing, we can all relate to something in there. This is also an amazingly astute comment. For, from my viewpoint, King’s ability to touch his audience so deeply is not only due to his skill in delving deep into the dark heart of his characters/himself-as-his-characters, but in his ability to find something within them that speaks to everyone and for everyone, imperfect people included.
You have an excellent point, Jeremy. I can easily see King not being worried about those things we'd stress about at this point in our own careers. That's not to say you shouldn't make sure you are at least playing by the rules. But I do like how King seems to spend what he believes is the appropriate time on something or details before moving on.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. When I read your thoughts, I remembered what I had read in the book, and yes, there are some drawn out descriptions. It's funny though, why don't those bother me, when other authors bug the snot out me with similar things? Is it because I just enjoy King's style more? Or is there something else to it? Not sure, but it is definitely something to think about.
ReplyDelete