Analysis Of Stephen King's On Writing

343 Words 2 Pages
King might be best known for writing horror novels but On Writing is a real work of high art and transforms genre in the otherwise dreading and plethora style of writing books. Dr. Lawrence Nannery, a professor of philosophy at St. Francis College, defines high art as having a full understanding of the work “can enhance an understanding of other aspects of life as well” and “does not reveal everything it has in one exposure.” For example, in prose, writing genres work to normalize certain academic aspects and beliefs embodied within them. But these aspects are often portrayed so incorrectly that they either border on, or are completely submerged in ideology. However, King transforms this genre and doesn't reveal it so easily and freely, what he does is makes individuals understand concepts that are otherwise unattainable in an unpredictable and unorthodox manner. …show more content…
Many writers attract negative criticism, but few of them seem quite so hated by their belittlers as Stephen King is. According to Marcus Geduld in “Should Stephen King Get More Credit As A Writer From Literary Critics?” King’s prose simple “gets the job done” or is “just a hack” and can only describe a blurry world in general terms when he strays from his obsessions: horror. Undoubtedly, the role of the critics are vital. The critic is the second most important facet, next to the author and the work

Related Documents