This has been a piece in the works for a while now (or rather the general idea of it has been rattling around inside my head for some time now), but it seems that every time I sit down to write it I just don't have the energy because I know once I start rambling on about my favorite author it'll be hard to stop.
First, a little back story. Stephen King is probably THE man responsible for my love affair with the written word at an early age. Sure, I was big into Goosebumps books before King, and I had all of the classics supplied to me by my parents (Treasure Island, Robinson Crusoe, Tom Sawyer, etc.), but it was the summer between fifth and sixth grade that made me really dive into a book and forget where I was; it was the summer of "It".
My mom had the book on her shelf, and by some chance I happened to glance at it, and asked my mom what it was about. She told me to see for myself. I really didn't want to read the book; anybody that has seen the book "It" knows it's very thick, and a pretty long read. But, I was curious, and so my summer went by with me mostly sitting on a swing set with hours flying by while I read the story about a killer clown abducting children from the town of Derry and how a group of misfit kids tried to kill the clown; and then how they returned in adulthood to finish the job.
It's still one of my favorite books, and it was the start of me wanting to read anything I could get my hands on (primarily Stephen King books, I've read every one of them and own almost all of them by now, but plenty of other authors and genres have crossed my path enjoyably as well). King's style of writing I think is what has been most appealing to me, and I've been told that my own writing style is similar(though not intentionally copied). King's style (and supposedly my own) is a very conversational style. He doesn't write his books to be examined by literary scholars, and doesn't feel the need to write his horror novels like, say, Mary Shelley; where every other word is worth about twenty dollars. This is not to say that King CAN'T write like that, I have no doubt in his abilities, but he recognizes that most people don't always necessarily ENJOY reading novels and novelettes like that.
Anyways, that's just my own thoughts about King, not the focus of this piece; my apologies for doing the rambling that I was hoping not to do. The point is that King has, recently, begun to inject some politics into his work at an unprecedented level (for him, at least). He's never made it a big secret that he's a liberal; he'll mention it when asked in interviews, and has even gotten involved politically in the past regarding a potential ban on violent video games (though this last one I don't think can be pigeon holed to either party, I happen to agree with him that I don't want the government telling me what games I can play). He's had a handful of little comments throughout books, certainly, from different kinds of characters saying different things like, "Well, you know how the eighties were, what with Reagan and all...", but his two most recent books have surprised me by taking it to a different level.
Stephen King's "Under the Dome" was the first of the two books that I had read, mostly because it was the first one to come out in paper back (I'm just too cheap to buy hardcover books, even if it is my favorite author). "Dome" was VERY much based on politics; which was fine, because it worked for the story. I was surprised, because he's never ventured into this with his stories, but was happy because he was, I think, pretty fair to each side. Both sides had their stereotypes, of course, but that's fine; when writing fiction, stereotypes are sometimes the best and easiest way to give the reader the impression of what kind of person this character is. For example, two characters from the book are introduced; one is a long haired hippie college professor, the other his little twenty year old student. They are caught having sex in an old cabin, caught with pot, and drive away in his car with a "Yes We Can" bumper sticker. Certainly not the description of all liberals, obviously, but a stereotype addressed and used in the book none the less. On the flip side, the people that run the town are building and housing a secret meth lab, are ultra right wing christian fundamentalists who use the "n" word periodically when referring to President Obama. This too, obviously, is not an accurate description of most people on the right; but a stereotype used to create the characters and the atmosphere of what the town of Chester's Mill, Maine, is like.
Aside from those stereotypes, he makes one of the heroes of the book a lifelong, staunch Republican journalist who is involved in the battle against the above described right wing stereotypical antagonists. I won't say anything more about the book, I don't want to ruin it for anyone who hasn't read it, but it was an example of King diving into politics, and at a positive level.
The next book, a collection of short stories entitled "Full Dark, No Stars", was, by contrast, not political at all. BUT, the afterword (which I religiously read), just had to but a damper on my experience. In it, he talks about how he takes his writing seriously and doesn't appreciate those that "phone it in", so to speak. Somehow, he manages to mention Sarah Palin and her death panels remark, through this, and though I KIND of see the point he is trying to make, it still made me shake my head with disappointment. Obviously, it's his decision what he wants to write in his afterword, and I can't say that if I were to be a fiction writer I wouldn't just load my forwards and afterwords with all kinds of political writings; just for fun(I've also had some ideas for a collection of short stories that are all loosely politically based, so I can't say too much in that department, either). But for a writer like King, who has been so prolific and hasn't done this in any other book, I have to wonder if it is wise for him to do so. It won't make me stop reading him, but it may affect future sales from other readers. Maybe he doesn't care, at this point; Lord knows he's made his money with his craft, and maybe he feels that at this point he's earned the right to preach to his fans a little here and there. If it's just a little here and there, too, maybe it won't make any difference; I don't know. All I know is that I hope that, if he's deciding to inject politics into his writings more, that it is more like "Under the Dome", and less like the afterword of "Full Dark, No Stars"; otherwise King's novels could double qualify as "horror", for this conservative, at least.
