Writers like Hemingway and Steinbeck were great writers, but their writing style is very short and simple. Which in their case works well, but what makes an author like for example George R.R Martin or Stephen King not as respected? Is it the genre they specialize in isn't considered a good one. For example King writes lots of horror and non-horror, but his horror stuff gets the most attention usually. He has written tons of great books so I dont see what makes him less respectable.
Writers like Hemingway and Steinbeck were great writers, but their writing style is very short and simple. Which in their case works well, but what makes an author like for example George R.R Martin or Stephen King not as respected? Is it the genre they specialize in isn't considered a good one. For example King writes lots of horror and non-horror, but his horror stuff gets the most attention usually. He has written tons of great books so I dont see what makes him less respectable.Film-Guy
It's not your sentence structure or your word choice that makes you a famous author. It's what you've got to say. You'll find that time and time again, at least in most cases, it's those profound books, those that say something deep and somehow ultimately knowledgable are those that are remembered. Of course, you can pull out a lot of authors that are popular that don't fit those guidelines. But to counter it in advance, I'll go ahead and say that they've become/remained popular in the last 10 years or so, maybe less. In a hundred years, authors like J.K. Rowling likely won't even be remembered.
Writers like Hemingway and Steinbeck were great writers, but their writing style is very short and simple. Which in their case works well, but what makes an author like for example George R.R Martin or Stephen King not as respected? Is it the genre they specialize in isn't considered a good one. For example King writes lots of horror and non-horror, but his horror stuff gets the most attention usually. He has written tons of great books so I dont see what makes him less respectable.Film-Guy
The formers expressed universal truths through writing.
The latter is a great writer with an acute talent for describing the macabre.
It's not your sentence structure or your word choice that makes you a famous author. It's what you've got to say. You'll find that time and time again, at least in most cases, it's those profound books, those that say something deep and somehow ultimately knowledgable are those that are remembered. Of course, you can pull out a lot of authors that are popular that don't fit those guidelines. But to counter it in advance, I'll go ahead and say that they've become/remained popular in the last 10 years or so, maybe less. In a hundred years, authors like J.K. Rowling likely won't even be remembered.bluej33
i see what you are saying, many classic writers wrote about what was going on or something that many could relate to. Books like The Grapes of wrath and for whom the bell tolls for example. King has tons of great books out, but I don't know of any that relate or parallel current life in the way Steinbecks did.
The genre plays a huge role. Thrillers are designed to entertain, yet dramas have something more meaningful to say about their society or a certain ideology. This makes them timeless in effect because they are essentially records of that society or ideology. I don't like the thought that King isn't as good just because he wants to entertain the audience and not care about the rest of the world, but that is the mentality among most critics.
The best narratives do both (entertain and critique), and in my mind that is most prevalent among science fiction
Kings work, I agree is classic, but it probably hasn't aged enough. I hate that people don't realize that he non-horror stuff.
Film-Guy
His best stuff is over 20 years old. What is the required amount?
I don't know, if it was up to me it would be. Just think The Illiad and Odyssey were written over two thousand years ago, all the way up to the authors you mentioned (Steinbeck), I would say Steinbeck is on one level, but to have a novel last for over multiple thousands of years is another whole thing entirely.
The genre plays a huge role. Thrillers are designed to entertain, yet dramas have something more meaningful to say about their society or a certain ideology. This makes them timeless in effect because they are essentially records of that society or ideology. I don't like the thought that King isn't as good just because he wants to entertain the audience and not care about the rest of the world, but that is the mentality among most critics.
The best narratives do both (entertain and critique), and in my mind that is most prevalent among science fiction
Buffalo_Soulja
Thrillers are meant to entertain, but a horror story that really chills you and makes you think is something rare and wonderful. At least to me.
Kings work, I agree is classic, but it probably hasn't aged enough. I hate that people don't realize that he non-horror stuff.
blackngold29
His best stuff is over 20 years old. What is the required amount?
I don't know, if it was up to me it would be. Just think The Illiad and Odyssey were written over two thousand years ago, all the way up to the authors you mentioned (Steinbeck), I would say Steinbeck is on one level, but to have a novel last for over multiple thousands of years is another whole thing entirely.
Steinbeck and hemingway are considered classics to alot of people I meet, I dont know exacly how old they are. King wrote good books throughout his career, but I think a book like The Stand and Salems Lot deserve the Classic Status. Salems lot is just as good if not better than Dracula. i am legend isnt that old and I consider it a classic, Salems lot is just as good as I am legend and it came out in the 70s. I think King books like Salems lot, The Stand, The shining, Pet Semetary and maybe carrie deserve classic status by now.
Log in to comment