korrents

korrents · piece

Stephen King: The Rolling Stone Interview (interview by Andy Greene)

Stephen King · 31 Oct 2014

The piece opens with

Whole areas of fiction should not be dismissed as "genre" and so denied the standing of literature

Their wordsI’ve spoken out my whole life against the idea of simply dismissing whole areas of fiction by saying it’s “genre” and therefore can’t be seen as literature.

Read the piece on rollingstone.com ↗

5 korrents from this piece ↓

Stephen King did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

  1. Our reading

    Whole areas of fiction should not be dismissed as "genre" and so denied the standing of literature

    Their wordsI’ve spoken out my whole life against the idea of simply dismissing whole areas of fiction by saying it’s “genre” and therefore can’t be seen as literature.

  2. Our reading

    Organized religion is a very dangerous tool that many people have misused

    Their wordsMy view is that organized religion is a very dangerous tool that’s been misused by a lot of people.

  3. Our reading

    Choosing to believe in God makes things better, giving a meditation point and a source of strength

    Their wordsYeah. I choose to believe in God because it makes things better. You have a meditation point, a source of strength.

  4. Our reading

    Uncertainty is good for things

    Their wordsNo, I think uncertainty is good for things.

  5. Our reading

    Everyone has the capacity to imagine, but not everyone develops it

    Their wordsBut the more that you can do it, the more you’re able to get out of it. Everybody has that capacity, but I don’t think everyone develops it.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.