ClancyBoy

When people assemble to bash popular writers I'm usually right there with my lead pipe.

In King's case it simply isn't true though. The man is a brilliant writer, though some of his stuff is better than others, and I think he tried harder in his earlier novels than in some of his later ones.

The only thing that separates King from writers of so called great literature is his choice of themes. He is completely unpretentious and does not use his gift to try to win awards or impress a small group of literary snobs the way people like Yeats and Joyce do. In my mind that might even put him a step above.

I think The Shining in particular is truly great. It's more a psychological novel that explores the mind of a violent drunken psychopath than it is a thriller. It's not light reading, not one bit. If he had continued in that vein for the rest of his career I don't think anyone would have any trouble calling him a great writer. If he had done that he wouldn't have been nearly as popular though.

Bashing King just because he writes about vampires and aliens and is liked by a large segment of the uncritical drooling public is not really valid criticism of his writing, and is really pretty unsporting. If you can cite specific flaws that might be something different.

__________________
"Mother Hitton's Littul Kittons wait for you down there. Little pets they are, little little little pets. Cute little things, they say. Don't you believe it. No man ever saw them and walked away alive. You won't either. That's the final dash, flash. That's the utter clobber, cobber." --Cordwainer Smith, Norstrillia.

Mike C

King taught writing before he became successful. You may not respect his writing in general, but consider two things: Virtually every pro writer I know owns this book, and many have found it inspirational. Plus, every writers forum on earth has an 'On Writing' thread, And I've yet to see anyone say that King's advice is flawed.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

ClancyBoy

I'm not sure what to make of the juxtaposition of this comment next to the Woody Allen quote in your sig.

__________________
"Mother Hitton's Littul Kittons wait for you down there. Little pets they are, little little little pets. Cute little things, they say. Don't you believe it. No man ever saw them and walked away alive. You won't either. That's the final dash, flash. That's the utter clobber, cobber." --Cordwainer Smith, Norstrillia.

Rob

I don't think the Woody Allen quote has much relevance to the comment, but the comment is best seen in the context of my other comments in the thread.

Cheers,
Rob

Mike C

Oh dear.

No, what separates him from writers of great literature is his word choice. You confuse 'theme' with 'subject', also; many literary works have dealt with the same themes as King.

You do know that Yeats and Joyce are dead, right, Nancy?

So this just has to be irony.

You have me confused, Nance. In other posts you make pretentious noises about wanting to produce 'art' rather then populist mass-market appeal pulp, now here you praise the pulp-meister. Not only praise him, but seem to suggest that he is one of the all-time literary greats.

I don't like King, but he has his place. He's good at what he does. But to compare him favorably to Yeats and Joyce? Even King would laugh in your face.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

ClancyBoy

Why do you keep calling me that? I have I done something to offend you personally?

__________________
"Mother Hitton's Littul Kittons wait for you down there. Little pets they are, little little little pets. Cute little things, they say. Don't you believe it. No man ever saw them and walked away alive. You won't either. That's the final dash, flash. That's the utter clobber, cobber." --Cordwainer Smith, Norstrillia.

ClancyBoy

An open question.

If Yeats turned away from classical themes for whatever reason (he renounced fascism, turned to socialism, and became enamored with the writing of "the people") and turned to writing pulp would he cease to be great?

__________________
"Mother Hitton's Littul Kittons wait for you down there. Little pets they are, little little little pets. Cute little things, they say. Don't you believe it. No man ever saw them and walked away alive. You won't either. That's the final dash, flash. That's the utter clobber, cobber." --Cordwainer Smith, Norstrillia.

Rob

If we make this more open and consider a common writer, rather then Yeats, because it doesn't depend on the writer being Yeats: no, I don't think so. A writer achieves greatness through their best works, and the fact that some is of a lower standard or a different type doesn't usually change that. Reputation might suffer, then again it might not. If a common writer turned from whatever made him 'great' in the first place, then became a successful writer of pulp fiction, probably no harm.

Cheers,
Rob

Non Serviam

What an extraordinary thread.

I enjoyed "On Writing". I wasn't a great fan of King before I read it; now I'm still not a fan, but I'm more tolerant of his occasional failings. The book's completely frank about what Stephen King thinks and feels, and it has some deliciously biting sarcasm about writers' workshops that I loved.

It's nice to see straight, nuts-and-bolts writing advice from someone who's actually used these techniques to become an unarguably successful writer.

I think the strength of King's writing comes from the same source as the weaknesses -- he starts off by creating a character that really interests him, sticks the character in a situation that interests him, and then just starts writing to find out what's going to happen. Which makes for interesting characters and situations at some points in his novels.

Unfortunately he tends to fall back on the same old defaults when he runs out of ideas.

To answer Clancyboy's question I think a writer is usually revered for his best work more than he's vilified for his worst. Which is a good job for people like Heinlein.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle The ways of the world are twisty and unknowable, the only way to be sure you are not caught out in something you regret is not to do things you may regret.

Truth-Teller

And it won't work for any of you.

King's advice is flawed. Who the fuck writes without a plot? This is why he has atrocious endings.

What ending? He has no ending. Haha.

Truth-Teller

All of his endings turns into supernatural hogwash; it all becomes fantasy. He goes out for the cop-out. This is why Jack Ketchum writes better than this fellow.

If you want to emulate someone (especially a horror writer), emulate Roald Dahl. He is a master of plotting and ending. He makes you forget your reading. Emulate him--and study his works.

Peruse it.

Lost in Some Story

I agree that King is a brilliant and witty writer. I also agree that King's endings are lacking. I started with "The Shining," which I thought was amazing, but every other work I've read has failed me during the last few chapters.

I thought "On Writing" was good. It's not a true writer's guide by any stretch. The Elements of Style will probably be the only writer's guide that carries weight in my opinion. King does make me laugh though, as he is one of the wittiest writers around. I'd recommend it to anyone.

__________________
"The greater part of what my neighbors call good I believe in my soul to be bad, and if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior."
Henry David Thoreau

ClancyBoy

He makes a decent case for it.

1) Life has no plot.
2) If he doesn't know what's going to happen next, he can't give the ending away by mistake. This keeps the reader engaged.

__________________
"Mother Hitton's Littul Kittons wait for you down there. Little pets they are, little little little pets. Cute little things, they say. Don't you believe it. No man ever saw them and walked away alive. You won't either. That's the final dash, flash. That's the utter clobber, cobber." --Cordwainer Smith, Norstrillia.

Mike C

I just like fucking with you. When you say something dumb, I call you nancy. Consider it shorthand. And to thump your tub about creating 'art', then to cite King as a paragon of that art... that's a Nancy moment.

No - unless the writing became less great also. Consider this: When Orwell tried his hand at SF with 1984, did he become a lesser writer, or did he write one of the defining novels of the 20th century? Ditto Huxley. It has nothing to do with genre, pulp or otherwise; it's about the mind behind the words.

Changing genres did no more to reduce their greatness than Lisey's Story - King's attempt at 'literary' and called by one British critic the worst book he'd ever read - made King a literary giant.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

ClancyBoy

Oh woops. I confused W.B. Yeats with Ezra Pound. How did I manage to do that?

It's Pound I find insufferable. I hate that guy. Yeats is a-ok with me.

__________________
"Mother Hitton's Littul Kittons wait for you down there. Little pets they are, little little little pets. Cute little things, they say. Don't you believe it. No man ever saw them and walked away alive. You won't either. That's the final dash, flash. That's the utter clobber, cobber." --Cordwainer Smith, Norstrillia.