I first learned that King was insane after I read one of essays, “Why We Crave Horror Movies”, an essay which had captured the ego of the average human being and cast it in a grotesque light. Terrifying for us readers outside King’s mental circle, but I reckoned it would do marvels for his character development in fiction.
Shawshank Redemption is one of such works. Paired with King’s knowledge of life within the prison community (presumably second-hand, as he didn’t serve any time himself), his comprehensive approach to the human psyche created an utterly realistic drama that was delightful to read. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the story is how it managed to keep its head above the subject matter. Many a writer has written a prison novel, some of them based off experience. But in many of those novels it is easy to get caught up in descriptions of life within the walls, as there is an abundance of words just waiting to be written on the subject. And yes, King does include many descriptions. What he didn’t feel the need to do was explain the ways of prison life to his readers. He just let us figure it out ourselves, leaving us to picture the cells and the walls and not read about them. It’s the tried and true method of showing, not telling, and King does it beautifully. And instead of wasting time on backdrop, he jumps right to polishing the characters.
Even with the heavy subject matter and cultural references thrown at us, the readers never doubt Red and Andy’s reality for an instant. They might as well be real men, people that may be living in the state prisons even now, planning an escape or accepting their institutionalized life. King must have spent I don’t know how many years looking inside himself and others in order to achieve the level of solidity he has in Shawshank. It’s not just Red and Andy—after all, Red is one of the few honest men who own up to their crime, and Andy is just full-out innocent. It’s not hard for the readers to identify with them. No, it’s the other minor characters as well, who have indeed committed heinous crimes, may or may not admit to them, and may not be the kind of people you’d want to hang out with, but all of them show a terribly human facet of themselves. Like the rapist who carved marble as a hobby, or the coin collectionist. King therefore highlights the prisoners and criminals--ones we might overlook as mere scum--as human beings too. This is what makes his writing so compelling--we can read a portrait of our world in his books. And that is what every good writer does.
This is an excellent, insightful reading journal! I wish I'd forced the class to engage in the "graded discussion" for Shawshank like I did with "The Body." On that note - please DO write something about the body (perhaps after watching the film) very soon. You write incredibly well, and when you do write - you write a lot. I don't think it's a challenge for you to crank out 500 intelligent words. So try to get as much up on the walls before I tour the hallways of your gallery.
답글삭제I'm glad you like King, and I don't think you are wrong to describe him as insane. But he's comfortably insane, perhaps even brilliantly insane, which makes his writing compelling. He doesn't hide from much, and that's what makes his characters feel so honest and real.
I like what you say about King not writing what doesn't need to be written. A good writer can balance their reader like an egg on a spoon, and not overwrite or underwrite. If Shawshank or The Body had been written in third person...perhaps things wouldn't have turned out as interesting. If Andy had narrated instead of Red, we might also have a less intriguing story. The decisions writers make are truly interesting.
You didn't finish nearly enough reading journals, but I did notice A LOT of comments you left on other people's reading journals - enough to make up at least one on the body. Be thankful I notice these things.
답글삭제