Eine Lobhudelei auf Stephen King
Hallo, es ist 3:53 Uhr als ich diesen Text beginne und ich muss einfach einiges loswerden. Die Menschen die mich persönlichen kennen, stöhnen jetzt wahrscheinlich auf und überfliegen das alles nur. Dennoch versuche ich auch denen etwas zu bieten.
Ich versuche im Folgenden eine Lobhudelei auf meinen Lieblingsautor write. For someone whose followers have almost nothing to be ashamed of his works to be because he is misunderstood as strong as no other (I will come back yet). Someone who accompanied me through my life since I was twelve years old and whose works have influenced me more than that of most musicians, filmmakers and artists together in general. I'm talking, of course, by Stephen King.
Now I ask all who intend to read it here and know about King not much more than his name and maybe two or three of his films, the previous associations, both good and push aside.
forget lurid as the Kings Heyne Verlag titles to the German "interpreted" (Tommyknockers = The monster, Duma Key = delusional, Blaze = torment or Everything's Eventual ='s Eventual, just time to name a few examples) write, or how flat and 0815's films, which convey the impression that Stephen King only cheap slasher fare. say forget what American critics when they say King would be "read Fast Food" without salary and not nearly as "satisfying" as the competition. Get him away from the corner of Dan Brown's, Wolfgang Hohlbein and Dean Koontz (apologies if I have now slandered someone you like) and considered him, but with the help of the factors that are necessary to measure the quality of an author.
Auch wenn das so wirkt, als wäre ich ein verblendeter Fanboy, welcher jeden morgen mit feuchten Tröpfchen in der Shorts aufwacht, weil er von seinem Idol geträumt hat, kann ich viel der starken Kritik mit der sich King konfrontiert sieht verstehen und auch viele Lobeshymnen auf einige seiner Bücher nicht nachvollziehen.
King ist meiner Meinung nach ein ambivalenter und vor allem flexibeler Autor. Für dessen immens hohen Output (ich weiß, Anglizismen stinken), erstaunlich viel Qualität vorhanden ist, der aber auch schon viel Scheiße verzapft hat. Zeitverschwendungen wie „Der Buick“, „Desperation“ und „Tommyknockers“ lassen mich immer noch förmlich erzittern.
Nun, before I announced to the factors that are necessary for the quality of an author come, I must clarify the personal relevance of this post.
After my year very enjoyable and electrifying trip to the corner of misanthropy, with the help of the authors Faldbakken, Welsh and Palahniuk, which I also want to miss any more, I was on 6 December "The Arena" (org: Under the Dome), the new King novel gift. 1280 pages, which I have just finished half an hour.
re-read King was like coming home after the holiday. The holiday was totally beautiful, but somehow looks forward to home and no one's there, enjoying is any quiet moment in his Lieblinssessel, although the beach was beautiful. Maybe it was psychosomatic, but King has seized me now again. I had little time, but I could spare, I read over the holidays and I have to provide a 800-page marathon made of three stages. I've always been a greedy but not necessarily a fast reader.
Now I have finished the latest work of Kings, of which I was really afraid that it is bad because I did not know whether I can still captivate King over such a length, after I very nearly in Lisey's Story was received before the boredom. He was there and how.
Let us turn to the evaluation Kings. Of course I am referring here to purely subjective factors, such as one I think, even literature can not be reduced to the pure art. Of course you can on the basis of those judgments like "good" or make "bad". I like this but not enough knowledge to assess the in King and I read almost only translated what disqualified me anyway.
It is similar to all other artifacts, one must know what it refers. Will you look at everything from the technical side, and evaluate an author only on the basis of how well he can use language? I personally think that one should not forget what this purpose are the instruments that represent the language skills of an author. Everything is going addition to telling stories. And in my humble opinion, is the most important point is to be measured at which an author. Of course there are both the authors provide a synthesis inconceivable to associate with one another, superior technology and a story to you skin from the back of the pack. No wonder the Orwell, Dickens and Goethe are as unassailable as far as the quality of their work.
have so we staked our framework in which we want to look at King. The purely subjective framework of my own little world view. As with everything else, there is obviously a question of taste. There are enough people come, like me, for its author and defend him at the mercy and these people do not really more than I want to achieve with this text, that this author gets a real chance. The difference is that King is not known, but known. King is to be read as golf drive, listen to the doctors or chocolate as a favorite ice cream places have.
Each has an opinion of King, have concerned themselves with or without him. He is the type of horror, this bloodthirsty, with the monster clown from "It".
mean I need the almost ashamed. King is as good as any who have never read him penny dreadful level. Simply because of the many impressions of the most famous author in the world, so start pouring on. Many of them agree also, I think King many readers who do not understand what he has will go and find the bloody bodies in his books the best. Nevertheless, everyone who likes to read books by Stephen King in Maine, at least given a chance.
I try on a comparison with a currently very well-known author, Kings advantages to make it clear. Curtain up for Danny Boy.
Dan Brown and Stephen King have many similarities. Both seem to have the talent to take the shortest time immense number of people for their stories. They tell stories spectacular, lead to that devours its books. The big sticking point is the characters and there is King in my opinion after almost unique.
What remains to the people of Robert Langdon (the protagonist in Brown's "Angels and Demons, The Da Vinci Code, The Lost icon) in the memory? What does Robert Langdon? Why he acts the way he acts? What distinguishes him from other than its position within the novel?
Langdon in my opinion is interchangeable. Langdon is also a basically does not matter. Although you want to know how it goes, but it would bother me if it is a foot chopped off? If he would be tortured? No, no play. More than the fact that the story goes no further. Dan Brown is trying to give Langdon corners and edges. The claustrophobia, the Mickey Mouse Clock. But he failed. Stephen
King takes time for his characters and creates the most without boring the reader. The protagonists and antagonists have a soul. You get to know them with the book and understand a lot more important. King is inviolable is to breathe life into fictional characters and that's meant literally.
The people that King creates, you can imagine the reader in a different environment and has an idea of \u200b\u200bhow they behave. All they do is a sense, it is directly related to their personality. King manages to create insane opponent (Randall Flagg, Norman Daniels, the Rennies, George Stark) facing fears and the reader, but yet somehow she understands what she still scary making and to outline likeable (Jonsey-Beaver-Pete Henry, Alan Pangborn, Dale Barbara) are more than characters in a novel. There are characters that materialize in the mind of the reader and there exist. They are people for whom one has feelings. It is hard to describe until you experience it, but King creates a sympathy for his characters that I otherwise never found shelter.
these figures, it is exactly, at issue in King. It's really rare around the old Indian cemetery, which came to life to murder the car starts or the demonic clown. It is about people of interest to some, and accompany them to a piece of their lives. To experience what they experience and even more to feel was sie fühlen. Diese Nähe zu den Charakteren, schafft King meistens erst durch die Extremsituationen herzustellen in die diese geraten. Leider sind es die Extreme für die er bekannt ist, dafür das er nicht zimperlich mit Gewalt umgeht, dafür das er die abstrusesten und manchmal auch dämlichsten Einfälle hat. Aber das wofür King bekannt ist, ist nicht seine größte Stärke.
Ich gehe hier absichtlich nicht auf die „Dark Tower“ Reihe ein, welche quasi Kings stärken potenziert und somit ein unfassbar intensives literarisches Werk ist, sondern spreche hier nur von dem „Groschenroman King“ dessen Filme man kennt. Auch wenn die Filme teilweise Klassiker sein mögen, Brian de Palmas "Carrie," for example, it is impossible to convey to them the incredible closeness to the figures, which have been read.
This proximity is also what causes absolutely everything I read about King. Even books like "The Buick", which I felt after the first 100 pages as a terrible dull and monotonous, I could not stop reading just because I am the fate of the protagonists, despite all the antipathy towards history, somehow the heart was. A story is only as good or bad as their characters. That is why Stephen King is in my opinion a brilliant storyteller, author and artist. The empathy that King creates, is unique and can only be art. No fast food, no level of carnage-free, no simple horror novel, but true art. If King's books were clay, he would be none other than God because he creates human beings and not just figures.
So in the end I was a bit spongy, but the fatigue has caught up with me. Although the slime trail I leave fairly thick, are hopefully clear she honestly and reasonably differentiated (as far as possible for a fanboy) is.
Mfg kazper
0 comments:
Post a Comment