king

so it may seem weird, but i think i am developing a sort of fondness for stephen king. of course, when i say king i mean his books, but not necessarily the white-bread horror that he does so well. turns out the man can write engaging material that isn't all shock and awe.

i just finished the shawshank redemption, which moved well enough, although reading something after having seen the movie, no matter how long ago, is always a struggle against the residual images in your mind--king's narrator is a red-haired irishman who bears no resemblance to morgan freeman.

king also managed to bail me out of a slump near the start of the semester with his book on writing, creatively titled just that. he has a sort of appealing blue-collar aesthetic, and openly admits that while he doesn't write literary stuff, he can appreciate it, and frequently does, as the forthcoming best american collection shows.

king's opinion on the literary nature of his writing may have changed somewhat in recent years, though it is likely the way people look at him is what really has undergone a shift. i haven't read his latest, but it was reviewed in the times and its literary nature, for king at least, was one of the subjects bandied about. so yeah. the master of macabre. the henchman of horror. the pusher of poltergeist. and a challenging, prolific, and bestselling writer. would that we all had those problems.