Boyd Tonkin: Why money isn't everything (even if it's $60m a year)
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me. So sang Aretha Franklin and so chorused Stephen King as he sniped at enemies on the American literary scene when pocketing his National Book Award for lifetime award.
King enjoys an annual income estimated at more than $60m (£35m) and writes at a pace and volume that summons up the supernatural powers so often evoked in his fiction. King has enjoyed global acclaim and a string of iconic movies inspired by his work. But it all seems to count for nothing when highbrows diss your rep.
Over the past decade, writers and critics have begun to take King more seriously. A few weeks agoMcSweeney's magazine publishedMcSweeney's Mammoth Treasury of Thrilling Tales. King wrote a yarn himself.
True, King's new novel, Wolves of the Calla, reverts to many of the tiresome tricks of his early career. Yet books of the 1990s, such as Hearts in Atlantis and The Girl who Loved Tom Gordon, showcased an ambitious writer keen to extend his range. They were applauded by the haughty literati that King now accuses of treating him as a hack with lucky breaks. He could still whisk you up a nice line in haunted and blood-soaked Indian graveyards. But he is also devoted to the Modernist motif of writing-about-writers: The Shining and Misery are the best-known examples.
In 2000 King committed his advice on literary life to print in On Writing, a valuable guide well-received for its insight and balance. He also now pays his respects to the likes of Tom Clancy and John Grisham even though critics agree that he towers head and shoulders above them.
So is King truly the Charles Dickens of post-Sixties American literature? Close, but no cigar. That dude does exist, but his name is John Irving.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments