Stephen King Bashes Stephanie Meyer

I think he has the right to criticize her, but I think he should have offered some reasoning other than "She's not very good." That's not a critique, as all the reviewers on this website know.

 

"Possibly sensing the worldwide fallout from inflaming millions of Twilight loyalists, King went on to say that while Meyere's writing may bite the big one, her storytelling is compelling...at least to a certain, less experienced segment of the population."

Now isn't that the truth. Meyer's story is compelling to the inexperienced, in both a literary and sexual sense... It's a great read to those who don't read much, and a great story to those who haven't lived much.... If you read the whole article (and no reason why not, short as it is) he makes a pretty good point. He also points out (quite accurately, I think) why her writing was so successful. This is a very interesting little tidbit for any aspiring YA writer!! (if you didn't pick up on it yourself)

Anyway, I think a great writer is well within his rights to say this, and I'm glad that someone has the balls to do it. Mind you, I tend to be pretty outspoken myself... And king did say that Rowling is a 'terrific' writer (which I thought was interesting) so it's not like he's bashing the latest hot seller 'just 'cause'.

I don't resent Meyer her flash success, and I don't see why anyone would. I think it's awesome, and inspiring. But I will always criticise writers just the same, popular or not... I criticise the writing, and I'll say when King is pushing garbage just as quick.

And it's nice to see writers criticising each other. There's no excuse for hurt feelings. She's rich - why should she give a flying crap?

I'm just happy when I see people 'telling it like it is'. It's very refreshing!

 

Why doesn't he have the right to criticize her? I don't see any reason. But I do agree on the "giving more reasons" part...but eh that doesn't matter so much to me. He explained himself enough.

I liked a few of his recent works, and they definitely aren't as good as he used to be, but when are they ever?

 

King has a right to his view, and I agree with him on this one. But hey, it works both ways Kingy. I am sure another writer could say that King can't write worth a darn, same about writers King likes. Ah, the magic of opinion. Hey, if Stephen King liked the ending Darabont gave his precious, "The Mist," I already found something to criticize him for!

 

This isn't about hurt feelings. This is about un professional, arrogant, behaviour, Kas. King and all of us have a right to say why we dislike her or her books. We just need to do it properly.

And are you saying that because one poorly written book managed to get fluke success, every writer who expects/hopes for a teenage audience shouldn't be concerned about writing well because many don't have the experience to recognise good writing? That's dumb. It doesn't turn them into regular readers of quality, intellegent, work. Besides, the vast majority of authors for youth and children stay successful because they stay aware of their reading level while respecting their intellegence. Twilight is a fluke, and will be forgotten.

 

Neither of them are perfect. I have read many of Stephen King's novels, some of which have been gripping (It), some of which have been disturbing (Rose Madder), and some which I had to put down after a mere one hundred pages (Salem's lot). Really, he doesnt have any right to criticise anyone. I agree with what another poster said; it's boorish and unproffesional. He is not a fashion model or a pop icon, he is an elderly novelist and should know better. It's somewhat hyporcritical as well. I have read enough of King's novels to know he has never produced any 'masterwork'. His writing style is blunt to the point of being painful, and his forever unevolving themes became boring long ago. Steph can't write either. As a writer, she is vastly inferior to King, but at least she has the sense to remain silent and retain some semblance of modesty. King, on the other hand, is a narcississtic and resentful man.

 

Technically models and pop stars should know better too, because it's not okay for them to behave that way either. We all should.

 

Oh, come on, he's not resentful.

 

NO, if you read the entire article, as I suggested, you should have seen what I was talking about. If you did read, then perhaps I should have been more clear. I didn't think I'd have to copy and paste the entire thing into my message to discuss it.

I agree that it IS a dumb assumption; a very common and very dumb one. I also agree that Twilight is a fluke. It had a few good ingredients and struck a lucky combo. It is essentially piss poor writing, and I'm dismayed with its popularity. But I didn't come onto this thread to bash Twilight into the ground and derail the topic.

Books like Twilight are rather a lot like lottery tickets. Half-assed novels flood publishing offices by the thousand even as I write this post. It is only natural then that a few of these books will go on to become popular.

The aspiring writer should do everything within his/her power to minimise chance. The first thing is to perfect the writing. Practice, practice, practice. And more than that... practice self criticism. Someone told me once that it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to become truly great at anything. Since reading and writing go hand in hand, I think the rule applies here just as well as with anything else. I have spent thousands of hours reading over 1000 books in my life, and this has given me a great head start. I need only clear the cobwebs from my head, tap into what I already know, and I'm halfway there.

Anyway, I thought my views on this were pretty obvious and I apologise if not. If you read the entire article you should have seen that I was talking about Meyer's innocent descriptions of the adolescent sexual feelings of girls. And on top of that - yes, Meyer's poor writing ability is attractive in its simplicity as an 'easy read' for those who generally avoid books. It is a very sad fact, but I do believe that it was a contributing element in her success. It won't work for most people - but as I said - Meyer struck a 'lucky combo'. Attempting to mimic her success with poor writing would be the height of stupidity. Lucky is lucky, and as I work on an 800 page novel-to-be, I'm determined to see that luck plays no part!!

Anyone who wants to discuss this further with me should do so by PM. Please don't derail this thread.

Explanatory note: I kept my original post mild because I didn't want to derail the topic!! And now I find myself posting something much nastier than I originally intended. So please, please use PM if you want to argue with me. I'm always happy to argue.

 

Agreed. I don't think he really cares, except in a general way. Believing that poor writing should not be rewarded (and saying so) does not imply resentment. It says more about his appreciation and respect for the written word than anything else.

 

I admire Stephanie Meyer because she didn't set out to write Twilight. She had a dream that she was particularly fascninated with and began writing the whole thing out for herself in her spare time. It was a hobby and an escape that she enjoyed. She shared the story with her sister, who encouraged her to get it published. (This tidbit is from her website http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/index.html.)

"Writing is a socially accepted form a scitzophrenia" --E. L Doctorow
And if you can do it for fun and make millions at the same time...WOOO HOOO!

 

My last post, other than the hurt feelings bit, had nothing to do with the article, but this comment right here. Defense mechanism. I responded the way I did because for some reason I read this as, "This one crappy writer was a huge success with teens, so why should any other writer for teens need to write well?" At the time, I hadn't noticed you saying anything about Twilight being a fluke.

I'm constantly encountering people who think books for teens or youth are a beneath adult literature and seem to think that the author's awareness of the voice and reading level of the audience is the equivilant to lack of quality. Or once someone seemed to be offended by the idea that certain books are shelved in the teen section because they are equal to any other book for adults, but have teenage characters.

 

Okay, perhaps hes not resentful. That was a bit of a strong word.
He's certainly arrogant. Afterall, he has bashed many writers over the years. He also can't take any criticism. Remeber how bitchy he got with Stanley Kubrick? No wonder his writing never improved, the man is as stubborn as it gets.

Anyway, I'll try not to turn this into a King bashing thread. But don't you think its weird that writers such as King spend more time dicussing other peoples novels than their own?

 

So, you read this...

And took this meaning from the above?

Perhaps King means 'less experienced' in the sense that the target audience--if there is one in this case--are young girls with very little life experience. Not necessarily literary experience. And the person who wrote the preceding is referring to the former aspect.

I seriously doubt King, or anyone else, is advocating writing crap just because it will fly in a particular market.

There were books I read as a younger and less critical reader that I just loved. If I read them now I would just toss them aside. Just about anything by Dean Koontz comes to mind except for Watchers and and increasing amount of King's work.

I even had a phase when I was hung up on V. C. Andrews. But I was a preteen.

gar

 

Actually in the artical, the sentence that had the words "less experienced" didn't specify, but I was interpreting something KAS observed, and extrapolating on the idea that the book had concepts that girls loved and it didn't matter how bad the writing is, it still sold well. And if that's the case, why should other books be written well as long as the concept is attractive? I was not thinking of anything King said specifially, and I'm pretty sure someone has refered to both literary and life experience somewhere in the thread. But like I said, defense mechanism because of how people sometimes talk about teen books in a condecending way, which is why I made such an extreme leap.

Sorry, my brain makes all these connections without even realizing it. Since I don't realize I'm doing it, I can't control it, and I'm not sure I want to (though it is annoying having to explain myself if I don't want to be told in rather long-winded replies about why my conclisions are wrong).

 

Ooohh come on, we know it's true.

Anything with teenaged sex and boyfriends sells well.

Just look at the manga 'absolute boyfriend' books, with their twinkly girly front covers. There's LOADS of them stacked up in Waterstones. The manga section is huge because all that girly mushy stuff sells so well.

We all love reading boyfriend/girlfriend stuff

...

Or perhaps just i do. Anyway, Twilight never really captured me, so i never bothered.
I agree that sex + teenagers + mushy = big sell, though.

 

Yeah, it does, Ash, but Judy Blume managed to use all that and do it skillfully with very real teenage girls and very real situations. And for all that plus vampires one needs not to look any further than Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which even my high school Drama teacher (who was in his fifties) said was very well written.

 

I have to agree here. People who write for teenagers/Children cannot do so without understanding and respecting their intelligence, and have to master the art of capturing the minds of young people. This really isn't easy, and it's especially hard to maintain.
Personally, I usually write for teenagers and I must say it's pretty difficult, because you have to keep it entertaining without clouding it with *overly* sophisticated syntax. (That's not to say the syntax shouldn't be sophisticated, just interesting without being far too complex) plus write an interesting, awe-inspiring story, including social issues and pressures that most people of that age group face growing up, in order to create a relation between them and the characters. These things have to be crafted carefully. It really isnt a case of dumbing down the writing and selling it on mass. Good writers are aware and respectful of their audiences.

 

but how could anybody not love Buffy? *sigh* My hero.

 

...Just out of curiosity...how many of you have actually read the Twilight series? Or even just the first book?
(Just watching the movie doesn't count. You know the movie is always shallow and lame in comparison to the book).

-----
(edited to add: )
Personally, I would like to write YA fiction (I realize now, that I can expect criticism from some, for that). I was fascinated with Stephanie Meyer's style. The entire series is written from first person perspective--and I thought she pulled it off rather well. If someone would like to sound like the 'authority' on the 'shallowness' of Stephanie Meyer's writing and the content of her books, then let them atleast read the book before judging. I for one, am not the type of person to read 'vampire' or 'werewolf' books. My feelings were "what's next? Attack of the 50 foot spiders?" OH...Alien invasion and symbiotic life forms... (Sarcastically) Even better. But she manages to pull it off with a grace I couldn't have fathomed before reading (visit her website for an exerpt from any of her books). That's all I have to say. If people judge before reading, then they are just as bad as the people who wrongly condemned and judged Harry Potter and The Golden Compass as 'evil' without ever cracking the covers.

 

King

I agree that it would seem that he stated her being a terrible writer as a fact, not an opinion. I think as long as your preface with "I think" or "In my opinion" and then back up with solid evidence your claim, an established writer with with some modicum of credibility can say whatever they want. First amendment and all that. So I am between condemnation and acceptance. Although the story wasn't the transcript of the interview so he may have voiced it as an opinion, in which case I condone his sentiment.

 

Well, everything one says is his own opinion unless backed by facts, IMO.

I have, just the first book. Why?

 

For the simple reason that someone's opinion has 100 X more merrit when they're speaking first hand and not just repeating what the mob has to say (to avoid being uncool). I respect and listen to someone who has honestly read the books (not just skimmed haughtily) and then tells me all about why the writing 'stinks' or deserves criticism.

I learned with the old Harry Potter and Golden Compass 'condemnations' that none of the 'condemners' had actually read the books for themselves. They were all just repeating heresay. And amazingly, despite the fact that I checked them out and read them, people still wouldn't listen to a first hand account that they were just fine.

What a world, what a world, what a world!--Wicked Witch of the East.

I wonder if Steven King read the whole book?

 

No, I was asking/wondering whether it was appropriate, not constitutional, for a professional writer to publicly criticize another, in the opinion of members of this forum. I joked about people discussing this "ld style" - I was referring to the Lincoln-Douglas debate format used in some high school debate teams where you argue values/philosophical principles.

 

Prefacing with "I think" really makes no difference. Whether or not Myers is a good writer is inherently an opinion. As much as I believe King is no one to throw stones about quality writing, he need not identify which statements are factual in nature, and which are his personal opinion. That falls to the reader utilizing an underused process known as critical thinking.

What it a boorish remark on King's part? Yes. Is King arrogant as hell? Yes. Is he right in this instance? I don't know. I haven't actually read any of Myer's work, although the idea of doing so makes me groan.

This response consists of opinions.