'They' say that to be a good writer, one needs to read A LOT. I disagree with this. To be a good writer, IMO, one needs to understand what makes other writers good (and bad). So, we just can't read a lot, we need to think a lot (and, yes, I place more value on the latter than the former). What is the point of reading (w.r.t. to writing) if we don't analyze a book's/author's strengths and weaknesses to buttress our own?
So, I'm gonna start by analyzing the king of horror. I'm listening to his BOT (book on tape) Cell, and the great thing about Mr. King's writing is that it's fairly straightforward, which makes it easier to dissect. In very broad strokes, here's my shortlist:
Pros:
Imagery. Imagery. Imagery.
Pacing (though I've heard this has fallen off in some of his recent fare, I've found his pacing great in Cell and in most of his older works).
Dialogue (punchy, funny, pointed)
Plot/Tension (sometimes he goes a bit WTF on plotting, but he usually starts off w/ an everyday/everyone situation that goes all facocked -- i.e., half the tension comes from playing on our innate fears)
Cons:
Character Repetition (I know he can't help himself, but his characters -- particularly his MCs -- tend to think in similar manners w/ similar thought progressions. It's stylistically recognizable, which is good, but it lacks authenticity, which is bad).
Dialogue (yes, both good and bad. His dialogue sometimes is way too forced -- he has characters saying things that they'd never ever say based on their personalities/circumstances/etc.)
Believability (I'm not talking about believability of plot -- obviously there needs to be suspended disbelief to an extent. This goes back to character -- he's got people doing/saying/thinking things that don't make sense given the situation).
What would you add to/remove from the list?
Wish I could participate, but as a complete and total wuss, I don't read King.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of him, but I can't bring myself to do it :)
You've pretty much covered it here... I have a love/hate relationship with King... mostly I love him, but sometimes he writes something completely awful and I think "how come no one edits this guy?" :)
ReplyDeleteI’m aghast, that you would soil the image of the King with negative commentary on his near holy tomes (is that the right plural?). JK ;)
ReplyDeleteYou might want to check under your bed before you go to sleep from now on. I think the shadows of the dark are actually on his side!
I've only read a couple of King books, and was his 'On Writing'. I'm not a fan of horror, but I did find his book about his writing life very interesting. So, like L.T., I can't really participate in this one.
ReplyDeleteI've only read a few SK and they were not the most well known. The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon has been my favorite.
ReplyDeleteI can't do books on tape! I've have tried many times and I get completely lost. I think that means I'm a visual learner?
The only Stephen King book I've read is On Writing so I don't really know about his strengths and weaknesses but I definitely analyze writing as I read. It takes away some of the enjoyment for me, but it's helpful.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read King in years- I'm with L.T. in the wuss boat. However, in my teen years when I enjoyed being scared I recall being impressed with King's ability to weave the unexpected into his work.
ReplyDeleteFor example, chopping off the fingers and the lawnmower scenes in Misery. I never would have seen those coming in a million years.
Can't do scary, therefore I've never read King. And I agree with Renee, you better watch out- his minions will be after you now.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read one of his in a while, so nothing pops to mind regarding pro's and con's...but in high school he was the first major novelist who hooked me.
ReplyDeleteSK is one of my favorite authors – sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI have to knock points off whenever his novels’ have hundreds of pages that don't advance the story and whenever gratuitous vulgarity pops up “unexpectedly” (read: out of place, forced and uncharacteristic).
Perhaps in my youth, he shocked and surprised me with the uncouth and forbidden language and deeds, but now the shock affect is lost and it falls flat.
If he’d omit the needless crudity and allow an editor to cut the leftfield road trips and the slow Sunday drives through inconsequential events, he’d easily be in my top five again.
He’s a brilliant writer.
I love much of Stephen King's work, especially his early books like CARRIE, THE SHINING, THE DEAD ZONE, etc. Of course, my favorite work is DIFFERENT SEASONS - his collection of novellas that inspired the films STAND BY ME, APT PUPIL, and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. But I'm an even bigger fan of Dean Koontz, whose writing style is wonderful. I think his pacing is actually better than King's - King, after all, has a tendency to go on and on in certain novels. In fact, I'm often in agreement with Valerie - does he even have an editor anymore?
ReplyDeleteLaura, I'm a fan of Koontz's as well. Like you and Valerie mentioned, King definitely needs to ramp up his own advice of 10% (probably 20% for him in many cases), but, regardless, I agree w/ AM -- there is something brilliant about him.
ReplyDelete