Why Stephen King Can't Write (according to some guy)

Discussion in 'Discussion of Published Works' started by minstrel, Jul 21, 2014.

  1. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    8,102
    Likes Received:
    4,605
    His whole article is crappy. How he tries to get chummy with the reader by addressing them with nicknames..... -_-
     
    Mike Hill likes this.
  2. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Well, it's true that I didn't quite understand why he starts off his article by utterly discrediting himself... Like, when you've only sold 11 copies compared to King's hundreds of millions, it's not exactly something you brag about... esp not when you're about to go ahead and critique the guy who sold way more books than you ever did. (and judging from his Amazon sample, ever will)

    I didn't know what kemosabes is, so I kinda just skipped over it lol. I did see Trojans though. On closer inspection, it's true that the article does look rather amateurish.
     
    peachalulu and 123456789 like this.
  3. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    If there is a 'worst lines' thread, those two really need to be in it. o_O
     
    Mckk likes this.
  4. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    Kemosabes as in friends? Like Tonto called the Lone Ranger his Kemosabe?
     
  5. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Who/What's Lone Ranger? I'm now thinking of Aragorn...

    So kemosabe means "friends"? Okey dokey. Sounds almost Japanese...
     
  6. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    [​IMG]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke-mo_sah-bee
     
    Mckk and Lemex like this.
  7. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Shame the new Lone Ranger movie is the best bad movie ever. :(
     
  8. minstrel

    minstrel Leader of the Insquirrelgency Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Messages:
    10,742
    Likes Received:
    9,991
    Location:
    Near Sedro Woolley, Washington
    So, speaking for those of us who haven't seen it, is it any good? :D o_O :crazy: :rofl: :p
     
  9. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    It's the best bad movie ever! :D
     
  10. Kaitou Wolf

    Kaitou Wolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    50
    Err, do what now? See, I love to read, everything from Dracula to manga and comics. I'll read pretty much anything, and enjoy reading. I just can't seem to enjoy Tolkien's prose.
     
  11. shadowwalker

    shadowwalker Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    847
    Well, again - and trying not to derail here - many writer's first draft is pretty much identical to the finished product and many of those same writers don't plan ahead. Nor are they writing the equivalent of a literary McDonald's. If you don't think King's method is working for him, no problem; but it's sounding a lot like you think it doesn't work for writers in general, and that's where things go off-track.
     
  12. Chaos Inc.

    Chaos Inc. Active Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Acolasia
    I think this thread illustrates my nagging complaint about writers in general. A lot of you don't see writing as an art form and are approaching it like an intellectual essay. How many of you would look at a Van Gogh with the same criticism? Hell I think his work looks like it was created with finger paints by a 6 year old, but that's not why his art is valuable or why I appreciate it. We also don't judge writing like we do other art forms and I think that's a mistake.

    Consider if Michelangelo were to write an article about Van Gogh's failure to utilize shadows to create depth or his childish attempt at texturing. I'd consider Michelangelo an elitist a-hole even though his work clearly indicates that he is an elite.

    Writing is art. If there's spelling errors or grammar that's one thing but some people scrutinize writing style for painting outside the lines. It's like saying expressionism art isn't good because some realists don't care for it.
     
  13. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia
    Van Gogh is an excellent example. His art was seen as simplistic and poor by his contemporaries and the establishment.

    I totally agree that writing is an art and am not very interested in conformity.
     
  14. daemon

    daemon Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    978
    "loves Tolkien" and "doesn't enjoy Tolkien" are meaningless.

    I did not say that anyone who "doesn't enjoy Tolkien" is a poor reader. I said that anyone who reads The Lord of the Rings without taking a step back from the tiresome prose to look at the big picture, and consequently misses out on what makes the story interesting independently of how it is told, fails at reading. (@Kaitou Wolf, I did not say that you fail at reading. ;)) Reading is an active skill, and to do it right, the reader must forgive any annoying characteristics of the writing style in order to get at the heart of what is written. Failure to forgive → failure to read.

    I love Middle Earth. I love the adventures that take place in Middle Earth. I share the complaint that you and Kaitou Wolf make against The Lord of the Rings (The Hobbit is a bit easier to read). It is bogged down in excessive detail. But I forgive that annoyance. And so did Peter Jackson. In some ways (not all ways), I think that the movies are better than the books, similarly to how the blog post linked by the OP says that the movie The Shawshank Redemption (my favorite movie of all time, actually) is better than the novella Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption by Stephen King. The fact that such amazing movies could be made is proof that the books' authors accomplished something amazing under the surface of prose that annoys some readers. (And it makes @bythegods's statement that King's stories are "unimaginative" the single most bizarre statement that I have read in this context.)

    That is why my blood boils when anyone says that an author "can't write" just because the author does not use a certain style of prose. King is just just an example, albeit an interesting example to me, because even though I have not read any of his books, I adore some of the movies that are based on books that he wrote, namely The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and The Shining. Those movies were made by people who, rather than sit around and complain that King does not write "rhythmic" sentences (or some other inane nitpick), read his books and brought his stories to life in their imagination. The way a reader is supposed to read.

    The blog post is really just an example of a small subcategory of complaints that readers make against books which indicate that the reader failed to read, not that the writer failed to write.

    There is a place for critique of writing style. It belongs under "how this book could be improved", not under "why this author is a bad author".
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
  15. prettyprettyprettygood

    prettyprettyprettygood Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    I have to admit it irritates me a little when authors try to 'prove' that another successful author is, in fact, rubbish. It's too easy to say that it comes from jealousy and bitterness but so often that seems to be the case, because even if you personally don't enjoy King's books and find his writing weak, if you've got the ability to get out of your analytical author head even a little bit it's blindingly obvious why he's successful and why he is good at his job.

    If breaking down paragraphs and analysing sentences is where a person gets their kicks then fine, I get it. But to think for a second that anyone is going to read their views and think "gosh you're right, I'm going to stop reading his books and start reading yours!" is just deluded, and I'm not sure why else you would want such an article to be published as opposed to just debating the matter on a forum like this.

    And his comparison with film doesn't work for me - a film could be seen as technically flawed by a film connoisseur but not the rest of us, and if the story is good enough it could be successful, just the same as a novel.
     
  16. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Yes, writers can produce excellent work without much need for edits or changes, of course they can. Stephen King isn't one of them, and I'm saying that as something of a fan. Again, my point was focused on complexity, and sophistication - something that King admits he doesn't really go for.
     
  17. SuperVenom

    SuperVenom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2010
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    South Wales
    Everything is not everyone's cup of tea.
    Besides countless books, film and tv series he is doing something right.
     
  18. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Pure pish. Of course writing is an art form, it can't be anything else. But if you don't think that art is subject to criticism, that we should just consume what is given to us happily because it makes our time on earth seem shorter like some Epsilon in Brave New World, then you are welcome to that. However, some see art as something slightly more important than just a mere diversion. Criticism is born from passion, not cynicism. And criticism is not always just criticizing, either.

    Imagine if the 'Birth of Venus' was left just like this:

    [​IMG]

    I think you'd be well within your right to say 'Hey buddy, what happened to that face?!' But you don't, because the actual 'Birth of Venus' is a masterpiece, where every brush stroke is perfectly placed to create an image of harmony and beauty. By the way, if you think this looks like the work of some fingerprinting 6 year old then you know some really exceptional children:

    [​IMG]

    Is this of a quality to rival the Renaissance masters? Yes, I think it is, but then again I love Van Gogh's work. The methods of Expressionism and Modernism to set their work apart from Realism and Neo-Classicism is not the same thing as finding faults in a writer who is essentially a yarn-spinner. Now let's have some perspective here, high quality art like Van Gogh and Michaelangelo, and Botticelli, is something that has been painstakingly worked on - Stephen King is a writer like Agatha Christie. King works very hard at writing stories, but he doesn't take the time to work on his writing. If you like that, fine, but don't expect anyone to treat it with the reverence of a masterwork.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
    peachalulu, jazzabel and Mckk like this.
  19. SuperVenom

    SuperVenom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2010
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    South Wales
    Plus sometimes the art is valuable because the artist is dead. Age can create a rose tinted effect on certain paintings, I personally dont like constable as a artist but amazing painter. His work is crafted and drawn well, but look more like a postcard then a painting due to the lack of life in the work. Not a huge Van Gogh fan if honest, i like deatil and long strokes from some the older masters, but is not without its charm. Art is the only subject that is subjective.
     
  20. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    That's right, and it's also worth remembering that some people still find faults in Dickens, and there is plenty of faults in Wordsworth. Very few works are 'sacred', and those that are are now the cornerstones of civilization, things like The Illiad or the annuls of Confucius.
     
  21. daemon

    daemon Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    978
    I do revere Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and The Shining, even though I have never read them. They are so strong on plot, character development, symbolism, etc. that even when translated to a new medium, they remain fascinating and gripping stories -- masterworks of imagination.

    In fact, my favorite novel (not by King) is one of the clunkiest novels that I have ever read. But it explores feelings that no other author has ever touched. I treat it with greater reverence than I treat the classics, which is perfectly okay because reading is a subjective experience and it is more important that a story is meaningful to me than that the author is a master with words. I have also spent at least 10 times as long critiquing it than I have ever spent critiquing any other written work, putting a microscope to all its flaws. That process has only enhanced my appreciation of it by forcing me to think about it from different angles, leading to the discovery of new interpretations.

    Shifting focus from that reply to the thread in general (where "you" is the general "you"):

    This is where the analogy between painting and writing really reveals more differences than similarities between painting and writing.

    In one sentence: a painting is a treat for the eyes but a book is a prompt of the reader's imagination and critical thinking.

    In more sentences:

    A painting is a package. When it is observed, it is experienced in its entirety. One subtly wrong color choice ruins the whole experience. It cannot be ignored.

    A book is a representation of a bunch of ideas. Different parts are experienced at different times. If a word is poorly chosen, then you can decide which word you think the author should have used, even say the sentence out loud the way you think it should have been written if that makes you happy, and move on. The idea came across. There are plenty more ideas waiting for you.

    Do a thought experiment. You read a book. The higher meaning / message behind the text moves you deeply. But the wording is clunky, the ending drags on for too long, or whatever. So you rewrite the book to be elegant and poetic. It is now a masterwork. Someone who picks it up and reads it without knowing what kind of work went into it, or who even wrote it, thinks that it is the greatest book ever written. But whose masterwork is it? Who contributed more to its greatness: the original author, who came up with the message, or you, who expressed the message elegantly? Do you revere the work that the original author had produced before you improved it? (Kinda hard not to have reverence for something that comprises most of the substance of the greatest book ever written, no?)

    Which leads back into the analogy. When you look at a painting, it grows in your mind. When you are not looking at it, it fades from your mind. But a book grows in your mind after you finish reading it. (Provided that you read it the right way.) The mistakes fade away (or at least get stored away in a quarantined location in your mind) and the profound highlights rise to the surface. After a while, it becomes the masterwork you want it to be.

    All this is to say (with no accusation implied): it is meaningless, unfair, and altogether anti-critical to treat a book as a holistic package and judge it as "good" or "bad", or "better" or "worse" than another book, and even more senseless to judge an author as "good" or "bad" by the books he writes.

    (If I am oversimplifying painting, then fair enough -- I am no expert on painting -- but that just brings paintings closer to the complexity and unjudgeability of books, not vice versa.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
  22. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    I'm frankly mystified when people love books they have not read. It just doesn't make sense to me. Would you love a film you've never seen? Love a piece of music you've never heard?

    However, my point was about criticism of a book, not merely idly enjoying it. If you can look on your favourite novel in new lights and maybe see the odd flaw then excellent. But no work other than really Homer or something is or should be considered untouchable. If you love a book despite it's clunkiness then fine.

    I don't see, either, how assigning levels of quality, like people do with what is 'good or bad' as being 'anti-critical' or unfair. It's really not unfair at all, quality is something you become attuned to.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
  23. daemon

    daemon Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    978
    Yes and yes. This analogy helps my point. I never heard Chopin perform Fantasie-Impromptu, and I have not read the sheet music, but I know that I love the melody that he performed because I have heard it performed by other musicians. Even now, I hear it in my mind and I like what I am experiencing. I have never read King's telling of Shawshank, but I know that I love the story that he told because I have seen it brought to life by people who did not write it.

    How would you respond to the thought experiment that I described?
    Frankly, I would hate to think of any book as untouchable. That would be boring. :D
    Because calling something as complex as a novel "good" or "bad" fails to represent the good things and the bad things about it. Such judgment also fails to represent the reader's act of interpretation, which differs from other readers' interpretations. I could try to judge my favorite novel simplistically, but I would fail. I could call it a good novel, but that would be an insult to authors around the world who have perfected their craft. I could call it a bad novel, but that would be an insult to the author's emotional intelligence and imagination, and to everyone who finds meaning in the novel.

    Idunno, is it particularly useful to be able to say whether a novel is good or bad, or even whether you do or do not like it? (After all, the burden of proof is to show how it is useful, not to show that it is useless.)

    Or how about whether you do or do not recommend it? There are novels that I would recommend to some people but not to others. There is literally no novel that I would flat-out recommend that everyone should read, or that everyone should avoid. Between "I like this novel" and "I recommend this novel to you", is there a distinct third meaning represented by the statement "this novel is good"? If so, then why is it helpful to express that third meaning? What does it contribute to the discussion?
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
  24. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Well, with Classical music, there is no recordings of Chopin or Wagner, so we only have other musicians to play their music for us. I love the music of Richard Wagner, but I've never stepped into a time machine to hear him play it himself. Those other musicians are not under any illusions about whose music they are playing, which is something that doesn't happen in literature. It's not exactly equivalent to saying you've not seen a film but love it anyway.

    With regards to your thought experiment (not a bad one, mind you) I would say that I would leave the original flaws and all if anything. But if I reworked a work I thought had potential, then I would strain to emphasize it was an adaptation of an earlier work. As a matter of fact I can think of an example of just that happening. The original Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes is often regarded as a very flawed masterpiece, and while the Latin translation and reworking by a Roman poet (Flavius I think) is the more widely read and appriciated version, all the glory goes still to Apollonius still because he first set the story down in writing. Or made it up, it's hard to tell with the Ancient Greeks, haha.

    I agree! :D

    I do agree with that, but usually people who claim a novel is good or bad have reasons for saying that. You are right, just saying 'it's good' or 'it's crap' doesn't help anyone critically, and it isn't even a comment worthy of saying unless you can back it up in my opinion. Obviously there needs to be a careful consideration of a novel before it's assigned to either the good pile or the bad pile or even the great pile. I consider King's The Tommyknockers a very bad novel, one of the worst I've read in my opinion, but as this thread has already shown I can point out positive things about it, I can point to a lot of very negative things too. On the flip, I can point to a novel, say Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami, a novel I like very much, and point to more good things than bad. And I do think I can point to negative things in that Murakami novel too.

    I don't think it's insulting Stephen King's emotional intelligence or imagination to say that I find the story poor and poorly constructed, and I'm guessing King isn't going to lose much sleep over that if he ever heard me say it. People do like the novel however, and if they found it effective as a horror story then fine, but if they found anything meaningful in it I'd be very interested to hear them out. They might even change my mind.

    The main question here that I see is: is my opinion of what is 'good' and what is 'bad' worth listening to? Well, I don't think I can answer that objectively, but I will say that I've been reading serious fiction my entire life, and I have at least one degree which required me to analyse fiction critically. I do think there is a hierarchy of quality, and that books are always being 'tested' for quality. Art is mostly subjective, yes, but I do not think it is entirely subjective.

    What if a bad novel can be proved to be more useless than useful? I would say it is useful to decide if a novel is good or bad. Some things you just know are good, and there are certain things to tell them apart from bad. To take an extreme example, I would say that without question something like Dante's Divine Comedy is a great work. History decides these things. We remember something like Sons and Lovers by D.H. Lawrence, but we don't remember When it Was Dark by Guy Thorne.

    Well, speaking for myself the statement 'this novel is good' shows my own tastes usually, but they are usually judged against a criteria. I have said to people who I knew wouldn't like a novel that it is a good one, I've told people who like a novel I think it's a bad one, a recommendation is I guess some other form of statement - it is to me. For something to be good or bad it has to tick at least most of my critical buttons, and the more the obviously better.
     
  25. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    You make an interesting point, so thank you for the clarification. However, I'm not sure I agree completely. Mostly because - there does come a point when you *cannot* forgive the writing. Both personal taste and the simple fact that the wrong words and sentence structure affects how one perceives the story are rather strong factors.

    This is where I'd agree with the writer in the article - just as a painter cannot say, "The paint I use is unimportant", so a writer cannot say, "The words I use are unimportant." In both cases, the tool directly impacts upon the final quality of the piece of work, and therefore impacts upon how the audience receives it, and rightly so. At the very least, it is a real shame - like an unpolished gem. And I do not think you can blame the reader for the writer's own lack of editing skills. It's up to the writer to deliver his work - that's the writer's job - and if he fails to deliver a story cleanly, that is the writer's failing, not the reader's. The reader is there simply to read, enjoy a good story, and think a little if the story so prompts them. The reader is not an editor, not a critic, not a beta reader. He is simply a reader and under no obligation to wade through the trash just to get to the good stuff. The reader made a trade - so much money for a good story. If the writing gets in the way of the good story, then the writer didn't do the job properly and it's not a fair trade.

    As writers, we read differently - and there are advantages to reading the way you say. But even writers want to sometimes just read for fun - we're always (or, well, I am anyway) looking for a book that's so good that our inner critic actually switches off (a rare thing for me).

    Good ideas are sometimes wasted in the wrong hands, I think. These days people value ideas over technical skill, and that's a bit of a shame too. They're equally important. The words are not just the presentation - it is THE product.

    So no, I do not think you should, or even can, always forgive bad writing. For me, it's actually frustrating because you can see how good it could be, and it's just wasted.

    If a writer can't write well, then that's a bad writer. Just because he has a good story to tell doesn't make him a writer. The writer is a professional at writing. The one who can't write well but has good stories are simply storytellers. While many writers are storytellers, that doesn't make storytellers writers.

    However, Tolkien's by no means a bad writer - he just over-indulged in his world building, which unfortunately simply isn't my cup of tea. I loved the films though, and given Tolkien's reputation, I do still want to give LOTR one more try. As for Stephen King - his stories don't tend to interest me much. And the truth is - again, I'm not an editor - I just want to read. The world has far too many interesting and well-written books for me to wanna waste time on one that's received bad editing, unless I have ample good reason to wade through it anyway - Tolkien being one such example for me. (not to say his book was badly edited - I wouldn't know, I've not read through it - but it contains boring excess, perhaps)

    I would, however, agree with you that it takes an even better critical eye to be able to see the potential - the good story - beneath the bad delivery. It'd also take an immense amount of patience, or simply a certain temperament where you're aware of bad writing but somehow it does *not* frustrate you. And that's what would make an excellent editor or writing mentor. However, that's not the average writer, let alone reader!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice