My Opinions on the Literary Merits of “The Shawshank Redemption”

[JAMESTHEKINGFAN]

I would like to discuss the literary merits of Different Seasons, primarily the novella "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption". This was one of my favorite King works, primarily because it proves that King can rise above the complications of formula and genre, and be a lasting writer for American literature. But more than that, the work has real literary value, and I wanted to discuss that in this post.

First of all, I would say that one of the key positive aspects of the story is that it appeals to people of many generations, tastes, and walks of life. Let me illustrate with the following comparison between my dad and I:
I myself am a teenager/first year college student who enjoys gritty stories from horror, comic books, science fiction, and the normal, mainstream literature of yesterday and today (maybe a lot of the nerds my age and worldview are--props, fellow nerds). And because of this, the hard prison/redemptive formula appealed to me, because its writing caused a real pull of emotions for me. but my dad, a Master's student almost finished with his master's in Theology as I write this (he's a second-career pastor), with a Bachelor's in English from William and Mary, has different tastes from me. He loves westerns (I love westerns to, but he's more hardcore with it than I am), certain types of literary mystery/espionage novels (Agatha Christie and Grahame Greene come to mind), and realist writers such as Hemingway (again, a favorite of mine, but dad strictly reads the above listed works). My dad will enjoy watching the Hellboy movies with me, because of the things Hellboy says that are hilarious, but beyond that we differ greatly on reading and film material, particularly when it comes to horror.

What got my dad interested in Stephen King was the movie versions of The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption. As these were not horror stories, but rather "prison/redemption" stories with plenty of metaphors and characterization to make the literary buff's head spin, my dad wanted to quickly read the books. So far, he's had a chance to read Shawshank. And he liked it enough to change his opinion of King (the idea that King is talented enough, but writes too quickly to have the best work he's capable of, and that he "writes to an audience) just a little. He hated "Apt Pupil" (the next story in Different Seasons), and didn't finish the rest of the book, but again that's because those stories didn't appeal to my dad's taste in reading.

Yet that's OK, cause within the entire Stephen King canon exists something for everyone; this fact is exemplified in the Shawshank Redemption story.

Another point to the merit of the work lies in the relations within the characters. The relationship created between Red, the go-to guy within the prison who narrates the tale, and Andy Dufresne, the big-time banker wrongfully imprisoned for murder who serves as the protagonist, serves to illustrate--at least for me--an idea of interconnectivity between the lives of ordinary people's lives when thrust into extreme circumstances. The entire plot to escape and the last scene with Red talking about seeing Andy again and the idea of hope for the future seems to counterpoint the interconnectivity between these lives by adding the intricate emotions of a guilty man serving his time creatively, the best he can, and an innocent man fighting against the system and prevailing.

It's been a while since I've read the story, but I feel that these characters best serve as literary characters up there with Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, because they serve as the most human in all of us as well as the most surreal.

Finally, I would like to state that, if the work becomes so well-appreciated that the people who watch the media based on it, and read it, and still don't believe that the writer wrote it, that is some compliment to the works merit indeed. There is a story that an old woman recognized King at the grocery store, and asked him why he didn't "write more wholesome stuff like Shawshank." When he told her that he did write it, she tried to argue him down. This illustration might serve to defend an earlier point that I made, that King has in his body of work something that appeals to everybody, and The Shawshank Redemption is proof of that.

So now I close with these thoughts, and I hope to get others opinions on the matter. And if Stephen King reads this post, and likes it, then to me that would be more than Andy breaking out and moving to his dream spot in Mexico.

[Bryan James]

Go get "On Writing," you English Major, you.

~BJS

[aptpupil]

What do you mean your dad hated Apt Pupil?

He should have taken a little time to get to know me first.

Having said that, I did once ask a woman why she had taken such an instant dislike to me. She replied that it would save her time later!

[~Ally~]

I did once ask a woman why she had taken such an instant dislike to me. She replied that it would save her time later!

Yeh but it still hasn't stopped you pestering me at every opportunity you get.

[JAMESTHEKINGFAN]

Go get "On Writing," you English Major, you.

~BJS

I do want to read that particula book, but what does that have to do with my discussion exactly?

[JAMESTHEKINGFAN]

Srry, miswrote that, meant I have not read it. But again, what does it have to with my argument?

[Charms7]

I agree that Stephen King's works appeal to just about everybody. The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and The Eyes of the Dragon are further proof. On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft is one helluva great book. That's just my opinion. I'm not speaking for anyone else.

[wally wonder]

I would like to discuss the literary merits of Different Seasons, primarily the novella "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption". This was one of my favorite King works, primarily because it proves that King can rise above the complications of formula and genre, and be a lasting writer for American literature. But more than that, the work has real literary value, and I wanted to discuss that in this post.

i dunno what passes for "worthy" literature these days, but i know that there is worth in all things sk. the value is there, not because of the genre, but in spite of it. i imagine there's people around and about that see and talk about that value, where they be, anybody's guess. the big university somewhere everywhere. but yeah, good job on your thesis, you made a point and stuck to it. i don't think i could have been as articulate your age, much less now, after years of trying to tell people how it is and getting nowhere. good luck with you studies.

[JAMESTHEKINGFAN]

Thank you for your comments. Actually, what you said was what I was trying to point out--that lasting literature trandscends the genre. H.G. Wells and Ray Bradbury are keen examples of this (The Time Machine and Farenheit 451 come to mind as I write this). If you read the short story "Flowers for Algernon" in your literature book in high school, you may not realize that Daniel Keyes wrote and published that story in The Magazine of Science Fiction & Fantasy in 1959, or that it won the Hugo Award inn 1960. This further clarifies my point that really good writers trandscend their genres and create lasting literature.

[JAMESTHEKINGFAN]

Thank you for your kind words. Actually, the point you made was the point I was trying to make as well. If you look at "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes, you will see another fine example of literature rising above the genre to make a strong point about society. H.G. Wells, Ray Bradbury, Alan Moore, Larry McMurtry, and in a sense Louis L'Amour are other good examples of what you and I are talking about.

About worth in all SK books, I do not deny that fact--the point is that some of his books and stories are meant for pure entertainment purposes, not to be interpreted as more than they are. Dreamcatcher is a good example of that. Had some good points to make, but it was meant to entertain a key audience. Lisey's Story may be an example of a good literary book by Stephen King.