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

I've just read the linked article, and the author is guilty either of flawed reasoning or dishonesty:

"
"It's also important to know what to describe," King writes about writing, "and what can be left alone while you get on with your main job, which is telling a story...."

Within King's wide, steep discussion of writing there awaits an answer to the big riddle: the story is the only thing that matters. Not words--but story, story, story.

Storytelling "makes up for a great many stylistic faults, as the work of wooden-prose writers like Theodore Dreiser and Ayn Rand shows...."

In other words--and words are all we have as readers--Stephen King has decided that nothing should get in the way of the story. That means words become disposable, an inconvenience, and that throwaway lines are not always thrown away."

There's nothing in what Stephen King has said in the first para that indicates he thinks words are disposable, an inconvenience, etc, as he's accused of in the final para. He *does* believe that his main job is to tell a story - fair enough, other writers value different aspects more highly - but choosing to use words economically to do this in a clear and straightforward manner is not the same thing as not valuing words. (Whether he does this in practice or not is a different matter, but that's seems to be the philosophy he's espousing in the quotes.)

 

Interesting points you present, everytime I'm here on the forum (which is rarely, much to my chagrin) it astounds me how enriching it is to read such well-constructed opinions.

I read Anthem by Rand, liked it much and didn't have the feeling that the author goes uncessarily at length about concepts...the novel wasn't lengthy. It's interesting to hear Atlas Shrugged was tedious.

 

King always seems to have one way of thinking about a thing that puts a perfect picture in your mind, and he'll use that description as much as needed. How many times in the Shining did someone "pinwheel" their arms, and how many "nodding" sunflowers were there in IT? But these descriptions work, and I think for these types of novels, there's no need to whip out a thesaurus for every little thing.

 

For me? Thanks so much! I was worried I hadn't expressed myself very well...

 

I was referring to Lemex's comment on unreadability of a book by Ayn Rand, to be perfectly sincere, but the rest can equally applied to your comment, too.

Mentioning that - the economy of words and how they're distributed within a text is a highly slippery, vague ground, to which - in my view - general trends can be applied with difficulty and partial unjustness, as everybody is entitled to their own choice of words.

The following coincides to an extent with one of the progress journals here: To what degree should a writer alter their text to help the (target) reader decipher it ? Even if it's for the purposes of readability? In this regard a certain benchmark in the form of coherence-based instinct should be developed, that is, to assess how much sense my piece of writing does. In this regard I've observed two phenomena: 1) overanxious writers cutting on their word count and allegedly superfluous words in the "austerity measures mode" of an indebted country and 2) overself-confident ones with high-flung, elaborative style, who don't give the slightest of fucks about how fluently their text reads.

King has tamed language so much that it dances to his tune.

 

Thank you. Literature is my specialism and profession. It and criticism of it is something I have a good amount of experience with. 'Unreadable' is one of the kinder ways I would describe that novel as.

 

I

I will be most honored to have you read my prose then; at the moment I don't dispose of a piece worth spending anybody's time, but when I post sth here I'd be glad if you comment on it.

 

Sure, I'll read it when I can spare the time. Just send it. My life is pretty busy at the moment, juggling my private tutoring and an MA. Like I said, literature is my life, if I'm not researching I'm teaching it.

 

Thank you. Looking forward to your insight.
Be well.

 

I'm embarrassed a little . I did wonder. But I agree, what I've read of Lemex's comments leaves me very impressed.

 

Don't be, I didn't include the quotation of his comment, making mine a bit confusing.

 

Except for The Mist & Pet Sematary I knew King couldn't write when I was 15 years old. I keep scratching my head why he [and people like Rowling, etc.] are so popular amongst people above the age of 18 given their limited writing abilities.

 

People do seem to like Rowling against all sense, taste and logic.

 

Well, if he wrote two books that you found acceptable, it sounds like King can write... you just don't think he does, most of the time?

 

I like King's early work. He's a good writer, which is apparent even in his works that I don't care for.

I didn't think Atlas Shrugged was tedious, though I didn't agree with much of the philosophical viewpoint underpinning the work.

 

I never said I liked his books. Both were made into movies. I liked the movies - thought the books were stupid.

 

So what did you mean by "except The Mist and Pet Semetary"?

 

*Sighs*

King wrote both books, both books became movies. I watched the movies - I wouldn't touch one of King's painfully simplistic books nowadays with a ten foot pole. I mean even Children of the Corn & Carrie was a waste of time seeing as I'd been watching horror flicks since 12.

 

You are so sophisticated and world-weary. It must be a burden for you to have to explain yourself to the ignorant masses. Thanks for taking the time.

 

Only the stupid need organization, the genius controls the chaos! - Albert Einstein.

Sounds about right.

 

Is it a complete non sequitur, or is there some hint of a connection somewhere?

 

And just like that, King, Rowling, et. al. are popular go-to examples of authors to trash, not because the quality of their writing is so unusually low that it deserves unusually scathing criticism, but because they are so unusually well-known that they draw an unusual amount of attention, both positive and negative. The thing is, people feel better about themselves when they belittle others than when they praise others, so the negative attention goes viral (because people parrot their favorite criticisms) while the positive attention stagnates.

 

Rowling & King write like high schoolers. If you think that's writing, it's pathetic.

 

Please, keep proving my point.

To clarify: I am not contradicting any specific criticisms of their writing, but merely pointing out that if you scrutinized every book as unforgivingly, then you would rarely enjoy reading. Of course, you do not scrutinize everything so unforgivingly, because not everything is so well known.

 

"Like high schoolers" isn't what I'd call a well-supported opinion. A bare unsupported expression of contempt is not a good strategy for winning an argument. Or for winning respect.