>In a review of Michel Houellebecq's essay "H. P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life" published in the Los Angeles Times, April 17, 2005, Stephen King implies that Howard did not work at his craft and was merely pastiching Lovecraft.[188] King described his disapproval of the sword and sorcery genre, and superheroes, in his book on writing Danse Macabre: "[It] is not fantasy at its lowest, but it still has a pretty tacky feel. ... Sword and sorcery novels and stories are tales of power for the powerless. The fellow who is afraid of being rousted by those young punks who hang around his bus stop can go home at night and imagine himself wielding a sword, his potbelly miraculously gone, his slack muscles magically transmuted into those "iron thews" which have been sung and storied in the pulps for the last fifty years."[190]
Why does /lit/ have such a hard time accepting that the Pulps are not literature? Lovecraft and Howard just don't belong in the literary canon any more than "Flowers in the Attic" or "Ice Planet Barbarians" or even /lit/'s ironic favorite "When The Side N*gga Catch Feelings". Imagine meeting a woman, going on a date, asking her favorite books and she replies with a Ulysses, Lolita, Crime and Punishment, etc and then she mentions those books. That's what you sound like when you discuss Cthulhu and Conan as if they are serious literature.
>b-b-but Stephen King
the Shining is more literary than anything Lovecraft and Howard ever wrote.

>>24571100 (OP)
>Shining is more literary than anything Lovecraft and Howard ever wrote
Is it?

>>24571100 (OP)
He doesn't say anything bad about Lovecraft in that quote. Lovecraft didn't write power fantasies with muscular warriors and whatnot. Have your even read him?

>>24571100 (OP)
>Imagine meeting a woman, going on a date, asking her favorite books and she replies with a Ulysses, Lolita, Crime and Punishment, etc and then she mentions those books.
You want to try that again buddy?
Also,
>Woman
>Reading at all
>Not reading drugstore booktok trash

>>24571100 (OP)
Are you for real nigga? Lovecraft wasn’t literary but he was a visionary for the genre.


Seems like king doesn’t have a shred of self awareness to be talking like this

>>24571100 (OP)
King looks like a rhesus monkey that's been shaved in preparation for some heinous medical experiment. I do not like him and I do not like his books, and I believe he has been very fortunate to have had some mildly-interesting ideas for plots that've been picked-up and turned into films far superior to anything he has put to paper. He is the only man whom I have ever wished ill upon, and solely because his face, voice and writing style irritate me.

king is just jealous he was born too late to influence the genre seriously

>>24571100 (OP)
You supporting a literal pedophile and his unfounded and biaaed ancedotal opinion. Women love gothic Lovecraft shit.

>>24571100 (OP)
King - Howard - Lovecraft

We wuz literature and shit! It's like three stooges arguing who's more Jewish.