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

It is one of the most used train stations. Now think of all the kids who have read the book, who look at that platform, and wonder (or just wish) if magic is real. To me, that's pretty powerful.

Personally, I love King and Rowling. But, I also enjoy movies like Alien vs Predator, so I've got some problems of my own.

 

I don't really have a clever answer to the idea of children wondering if magic is real because of Harry Potter. I don't find it a particularly powerful idea anyway. I loved The Hobbit as a child, I loved the magic of it, but maybe my brain works differently to others - and maybe some people just need something like Harry Potter to make them see the beauty of life.

 

You remind me of my husband. He's a rocket scientist (literally) and his brain is extremely black and white.

I don't think they need Harry Potter to see the beauty of life. I meant it in the sense of, when I first read The Hobbit, actually I read LoTR first, after I put it down I itched to go on an adventure. Which ended up being me running around my neighborhood pretending to fight orcs. If something moves you to get out and do something, to get out and change something, to think about something in a new way, that is what I meant about it being powerful.

 

As a child I used to run out into the countryside with friends and play Orks and Hobbits for hours. It was such fun. I'm not sure I do really see things in black or white, what do you mean? I can't deny I don't like Harry Potter, passionately so; but if it gets them passionate about reading then I don't see anything wrong with it until a certain stage I guess.

I needed The Hobbit to get me to love reading, and I still cherish it as a children's books - but if I was to judge it's literary qualities I'm not sure I'd say it has very many.

 

Heh, funny, I chuckled.

 

I'm not a big fan of Stephen King either. I've read one book by him all-the-way-through that I really enjoyed. "Rose Madden" I think that's the name of it. It's about an abused woman who escapes into a painting to free herself from her abusive policeman husband.

 

Rose Madder - perfect title, too!

 

Hadn't seen this thread before.

I'm no King fan (couldn't finish Rose Madder, for example) but the article in the OP doesn't make a good case at all.

 

After reading the article in the OP, I can kinda see why I find King to be boring and dull. Though the guy in the article at least for me in an odd way, basically said that King writes with a wide roller filled with no grace or redeeming ability. Run ons of run ons, and using the almost non existent details, is not going to add to the theory of story, story, story. Well that simply sounds like horse pucky. Though the average reader is virtually clueless to the conceptual rules of writing, and more often than not will not point out the problems that King likes to utilize (or lack there of). Would also explain why King bows down to Clive Barker as the true master of Horror. Possibly because Barker understands how to do all the things that King simply and admittedly of his own accord that he can't be bothered to do. SMH walks away more confused about the universe.

 

I read IT. And all the unnecesary stuff was bugging me, but I understood he made it that way so when the grimm stuff happened you would care for the people getting killed. You know so many details about their life that you cant help but care. You see yourself in their skin .

 

The book by stephen king I enjoyed the most was his "on writing" which by the way was very funny and entertaining

 

I'll have to check that out! Would be interesting to see inside the head of a master.

 

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but I think the article in the first post is funny. Not only does its writer reveal that he has trouble understanding a simple descriptive passage in a best-selling novel, he disagrees with some really great advice. In fact, all King was saying was, in his own words, "Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass," as Anton Chekhov put it. You just have to wonder what the article writer thinks a description should look like.

 

I agree with SadStories. I don't see what the big deal is about how King described that scene.

"What is a steep drive?" What the hell does that question even mean? It isn't King's job to paint the picture so that you see it *exactly* how he imagined it. He gives you plenty of information for you to use at your disposal, which allows you to imagine something that's more than likely very close. In other words, he supplies your mind with the key framework, and you fill in the blanks. If you can't picture a steep drive, I don't know what to tell you. Even if you've lived in a city your entire life, and never ONCE went into the country to see natural elevation changes and how that effects roads or driveways, I'm sure you'd see the steep drive of a parking garage or *something*.

And even if you don't quite understand one part of the description, it probably wasn't an integral part of the story that you needed to grasp, or else risk not understanding the entire book. That's what he meant by not letting random descriptions, that are needlessly meticulous, get in the way of telling the story. He didn't say "fuck all" to it, just that certain scenes will be described in more detail than others, based on their importance to the story.

By the way, maze-like says what it means: like a maze. King doesn't say "exactly like a maze". I've never read King, but I feel that whoever wrote that article might need to either get over himself, or next time present a better argument.

 

Oh deffinitely! It was one of those rare books (in my case) that I just cant put down and am thinking about when I cant be reading it. Very good even if you are not a writer. And im not even a Stephen King fan.

 

I've read King's book 'On Writing' and he very specifically says that he doesn't like to get too descriptive. He prefers to leave it to your imagination. That suits me, because I'm reading a book by William Boyd right now and he just goes on and on with how a room looks, when I don't even care. But more than that, I find the article lazy and a little bit pretentious. Maybe not quite pretentious, but certainly quick to judge and complain. While I agree that the passage he chose isn't a brilliant one, it hardly reflects more than forty years of solid writing and experience. And I agree with SK that story and characters are absolutely everything. He does those two very well, mostly, especially the characters. His stories are occasionally a little mixed, but his characters are almost always spot on.

Plus, he is a good writer. He's conversational and charismatic, often funny. He lets you get into the minds of his characters. He does tone of voice very believably. His writing flows well and he knows how to set the mood. He's not bad with settings either. As for description, he's good at this, too. That doesn't mean he's not without flaws, but I can't grumble or complain with his books. Sometimes the endings are a bit abrupt or woolly, but he's so good at creating a story that this is forgiven. I'd say he's one of the best and appeals to all sorts of readers. As for the writer of the article, I got the impression he's barely read any SK. It doesn't seem to be very well researched and I'd say he's putting words in SK's mouth. Yes, he does think story is absolutely everything, but he's not suggesting that you don't write well. SK is very critical of 'bad' writers in 'On Writing' and even competent ones are recommended not to publish. He clearly loves words.

 

First, this is on Huffington, a site run by a billionaire who doesn't pay her writers one red cent. I can't even follow the link because I've got them blocked. I don't support any site with this type of business model. Pay the writers, have a damned good reason for not paying them (like: you're not paying yourself either) or fuck right off, I say.

Second, Stephen King manages to enthrall a large number of people with his writing and that says to me, he must know what he's doing.

 

In other words. I don't think it's fair to re-explain selected passages.

He prefaced his argument with an acknowledgment that the person he criticizes is more successful. A lot of people begin arguments with similar acknowledgments. Then they go on with their points that sometimes disregard that acknowledgment anyway, which I think is a sloppy attempt to put aside something they considered but don't want to haggle over. Anyway, he would be right that popularity does not mean quality. But I really think he's confusing bad writing (in his opinion) with a particular style.

I'm not a fan of King's, either. But I can easily put that aside and not let my own attitude pollute my assessment, as I think Coniff does. I think Coniff just doesn't like King's style and that this impacted his assessment.

 

Seconded. Anytime I see anything from that site, I give it next to no chance of seriousness.

 

And given that it's King, it could be sour grapes, too.

 

Ad hominem.

 

Stephen King wrote a clown in a drain. His argument is invalid.

 

In fairness it wasn't just a clown...it was an IT!

 

But that's why I wrote "next to no chance". There was nothing absolute about my decision.

ETA
In fact, my decision wasn't even an argument. I do the same thing to tabloids at the supermarket with such headlines as Hillary Caught Drinking Baby Blood at Satanic Ritual!

 

And given the direction technology has taken since the book came out, one has to wonder if King wasn't simply predicting the horrors of dealing with any given IT department.