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

While I am no fan of King, he clearly can write. He would not have had the success that he has if he couldn't. Unless all the people who buy his books cannot read!

 

Speaking of high school, this level of argument amounts to high-school level hipsterism, or just immaturity. I'm guessing we're dealing with someone in high school or someone a few years out who has yet to mature beyond it.

 

No, s/he's 28 years old and has published... I don't know, some number of books... both fiction and non-fiction! S/he is an expert on all things, and must be respected!

Bow down before his/her opinions! They are presented as fact, and therefore must be true! They are presented in a scornful manner, and thus we must be worthy of scorn! Bow down, I say! BOW DOWN!

 

I would think that there might be a good chance of some Glasgow kisses from the people bowing.

 

Don't forget, he/she is a third generation hindu mystic who read the Qur'an and the Bible, cover to cover, while seeing combat overseas.

Edited to add: And he's a liar besides! He's only 27!

 

27 or 28, the deficit in mental acuity is astonishing.

 

Now now, everyone. While I don't like the tone of his posts, and that his posts on this thread show a lack of care and contradiction in his thinking (saying 'aside from a few books' - when thinking really about the films), how is what I say about Rowling really all that different from BlackRaven's?

Time will tell if he can back up what he says with good, detailed arguments - which he must do even here on this forum. This is the internet, it's a level playing field. I'm 24, have read both the Bible and Qur'an cover to cover, and my uncle is a Buddhist monk, and I'm currently working on an MA degree. My comments have sometimes been called elitist and snobbish before, but most people seem to accept them. If I was a new member, how much hostility would my comments attract?

 

As I recall, you back up what you say, and I've never had the vibe that you're suppressing a desperate desire to spit in someone's face. "Tone" matters.

 

I don't think you ever called anyone pathetic for having a different opinion then you. Your arguments are grounded in a greater reality then the invective you can type the fastest. You have a cute wolf as your avatar (a bit overdone, but whatever). And you have the gravatas of a long history of commenting establishing a report that you have not squandered in order to beat down everyone else.

But I don't think this guy will last longer then @MLM, which is a shame, since watching him fight with @BayView and @ChickenFreak is so much fun.

 

Yeah, true. I've became really conscious recently of the fact I've in the past been described by some here as a snob. Especially since I've had a few people in the past few months message me asking for detailed information on Classics and viking poetry. I feel responsible to be as honest as I can, I like sharing the fruits of my passion - and so I must admit I can be a bit of a snob at times.

 

Wow, this has gotten really vicious really fast.

 

I'm snob-opposite in some ways--for example, I think that if so many people love Rowling and King in the particular way that they do love them, there has to be genuine deep value there, and I have a general fondness for pot-boiler fiction--and I still don't recall ever finding your expression of contrary opinions to be snobbish or offensive.

 

Oh good then. ^.^

 

To get back to Rowling and King, and the recent success of YA novels...fuck it, I'm gonna start a new thread.

 

It's nonsensical in context.

 

Omg this thread will never die.

 

Zing. The real question though is will Undead-Zombie-King write better or worse than regular King.

 

Since Duma Key, haven't see seen Undead-Zombie-King?

 

Actually, my response to his evaluation of King applies equally to what I have seen you write about Rowling. Not that I disagree with any specific point you would make against her writing (I actually have never read any of your specific points; I have just noticed some snide remarks here and there), but just that if it was not so well-known, then you probably never would have put enough thought into it to notice as many flaws as you have.

So even if I agree with every point you make, then my reaction is not "how can she even call herself an author?" but rather "yeah, I guess that's what happens when you overthink something that is just meant to be a fun read."

 

Something being a fun read does not mean you should switch off your critical faculties. It's the same with when people say 'They are books for children', so? I for one wouldn't want my kids to start reading reading books that are bad. By the time Potter and the Philosopher's Stone came out I was already familiar with The Hobbit, and Dahl, and other very good children's writers.

For me, I find Stephen King is a fun read, and I enjoy reading him despite the flaws people have pointed out and I could make myself. He's technically not great, and I agree with people who say that, but I don't care - I enjoy him, despite his faults. No amount of snobbish comments are going to change the fact I enjoy switching off with a Stephen King book, I don't care if he gets trashed by some critic or internet user, and I don't think he does either. I am a fan in the same way I'm a fan of Snow Patrol. Rowling can't make me just take it.

Even Murakami, who I also find is mostly a fun read, does not escape my critical eye. It just happens Murakami is a pretty decent writer, so I don't need to make comment on him.

 

True, but being aware of the flaws in something ≠ ignoring its strengths, exaggerating its flaws, and singling it out for ridicule.

Besides, my main point is not that you should not read Harry Potter with a critical eye. Just that it is kind of pathetic that the go-to example of a book to ridicule is not the most ridiculous book, but rather, the book that has been given much thought because it is the most well-known.

Makes me think that if I want people to trash my work, then my best strategy is not to write as badly as I can write, because then my book will just be ignored. Instead, my best strategy is to write the most enticing, entertaining thing I can write, because then people will actually think about it enough to notice the flaws and they will care enough to talk about the flaws.

 

Well, to be honest you are right. I do single Potter out exactly because it's popular, though, which gives me more reason to object to it. Potter still has many fans, some of them I know as friends. If I were to say something like The DaVinci Code, or 50 Shades of Grey were bad then no one would react very much - you say Potter is bad and there are areas of the internet where people would get to the personal insults very quickly.

People care about the books, and personally I both enjoy annoying people and I don't really see the point in criticizing something everyone knows is bad already.

I do see the point in criticizing what people think is good though, it might make people think, and also it knocks a lot of nonsense like Pottermore down to size, and at the very least will entertain me for a few hours.

 

My view on Potter. I read them and enjoyed them for what they were. But there were numerous times when I was jolted completely out of the book by some god-awful piece of writing.

In terms of King, I recognise that he is not a great writer (and I haven't read him in a long, long time other than a chapter of his latest one before putting it down) but I always remember that his stories worked. They flowed, they kept me hooked, they had interesting characters and arcs.