- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Posts
- 2,308
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Nacreous, well-written and formulated analysis. I hinted at aspects of this in my earlier post in the thread, but I don't think Kyros Christian (or anyone, haha) read it.
If anything, King's continuing to return to "the well" by utilizing children is simply relying on a solid technique that works (for his audience to be appropriately chilled or immediately identify, and him to evoke that) and if there's any criticism it might be that it's laziness or formulaic by now. Certainly not pedophilia. It's something every creative artist wrestles with in what they do - reliable techniques in their comfort zone or which resonate with an audience vs. continual re-invention and challenging one's self. A lot of the time it's new and interesting twists and variants on the same basic staples that can provide some of the most interesting output, or when that thematic idea is exhausted lead to some searching out of other concepts.
No, I read it, and I think you were getting it right. Between you and Nacreous, it got me thinking about the things I've read about what King has seemed to always try to do. I don't believe I've read "On Writing," but I read some of the stuff he wrote on that in the late and early '80's, and I thought he was pretty communicative about what he wanted to do.
In something that I read in the last year or 18 months, I think it was an interview, he mentioned that, in his writing process, he is trying to get to a point where "'the boys in the basement' take over," that is, he kind of turn control over to his experience of what is sometimes referred to as "the mythopoetic unconscious." Other artists have talked about it in different ways, but I think King has had good success at accessing a creative process that is not entirely consciously directed.
This success has helped him produce some pretty engaging stuff. He's not the most polished stylist ever to put pen to paper, but when I read a lot of Stephen King, what I really appreciated about him was that I felt he gave you enough information, much of it by itself "trivial," to allow you to feel like you really knew his characters as people -- ordinary, regular folks -- who ended up in extraordinary situations. Overwhelming, scary, terrifying, extraordinary situations.
And, I think, the "boys in the basement" understand that those extraordinary situations that are good fodder for "horror" are, as outlandish as many of them are, *just* *barely* more horrible than the terrible, sudden shit that happens to us "real" folks every day. "They boys in the basement" also understand that the average everyday person is being confronted, daily, with thoughts, wishes, and desires that aren't really socially "kosher," and some of that is pretty scary, too.









