The Stand - Complete & Uncut
ReddShad
I have a few questions about The Stand - Complete & Uncut:
In the foreword, King says that the book is as it originally was meant to be
published in 1978, and that the difference between the original version and the
uncut version was that about 400 pages had been edited out in 1978 because of
production costs. In 1990, he says that he replaced most of the original
manuscript, and that no part of the book was actually 'new'.
So, if the entire book was actually written in 1978 (or earlier), how did the
following get into the book?
* Madonna singing 'Material Girl'
* A 'Nightmare on Elm Street' SEQUEL!
* Rap music
* Spuds MacKenzie
* Also, there was mention of a stock market crash, which I suppose could have
been a guess, but the others...no way! He obviously rewrote some parts of the
book in 1990, because rap, Madonna, Freddie Krueger, Spuds Mackenzie and the
1987 stock market crash all happened after 1978!
Also, I'm not done with the book yet, but I noticed a couple of slip-ups:
* When Colonel Deitz is telling Stu Redman who is deceased, he fails to mention
Sally Hodges, but Stu acts as if he had mentioned her. (Deitz mentions Ralph,
Bert and Cheryl Hodges, but not Sally)
* In Chapter 17, pg. 121, "At 1995 hours the sound pickups in Ezwick's
lab....." 1995 hours??? Doesn't military time end in 00 through 59?
Bob MacAdu
I believe King says, somewhere in the rambling 'Preface In Two Parts,'
that he updated bits for the new edition, much the same as the needless
'posthumous' updates in the Bachman book The Regulators.
As far as errors, King is rife with them. He obviously feels he does not
need the services of a proofreader or an Editor any longer. The Dark
Tower is simply one very typical example: Roland's guns originally had
ironwood grips, now they are sandalwood; on page 485 of Wizard & Glass
he claims Theresa Maria Dolores O'Shyven is the husband of Peter...
It is sad to think that someone who was once such a good writer has gone
blundering off into self-imposed deification and believes he can do, or
at the very least write, no wrong...
Rocker1018
>It is sad to think that someone who was once such a good writer has gone
>blundering off into self-imposed deification and believes he can do, or
>at the very least write, no wrong...
>
>
Someone who was ONCE a good writer. Mistakes or not, King is still a great
writer. However, when you think about fiction you remember you are writing all
lies.
Mistakes can happen, it can slip by anyone. But it doesn't make King a
self-imposed bad writer.
Shawn
stevie canuck
Bob MacAdu wrote:
> My argument is not about the mechanics of fiction, rather the lack of
> editing and that the need for it is apparently obviated in King's work
> resulting from the elevated sense of self-worth he has bestowed upon
> himself.
That's an interesting premise you begin with. Why do you assume the
alleged lack of editing is by King's dictate? I have heard the equally
plausible hypothesis that it is the fault of his publishers. The theory
from that side goes that the publishers know he will sell, so why waste
time editing.
Perhaps, if there is a lack of needed editing, (and I for one do not
accept this premise to begin with) it is one of the reasons King has
left Viking.
>I read King, buy every book the day it hits the bookstores- always have,
>always will. However, as a writer, I read for detail and composition,
>both of which are painfully lacking in his novels of late.
I think you are the only critic of King's work I have ever heard decry a
_lack_ of detail in the man's writing. He is frequently chastised for
unnecessary detail. Of course, you go on to criticize him for that as
well later on in your post.
>He has become much too complacent, if not lazy, in his style; become
>the child at the dinner table who wants only to 'gross you out' with
>stories of boogers and vomit because he thinks that is what 'horror' is.
Again, this seems an odd criticism of King at this point in his career.
I would much more expect to hear him knocked for avoiding horror all
together, but I am wracking my brain trying to think of examples in his
last five novels of childish "gross-outs." I guess The Regulators could
be cited for unnecessary splatter, but I think that was a deliberate
stylistic choice.
I have a hard time seeing any of the detail in Rose Madder, Insomnia,
Desperation, The Green Mile of W&G as being childish "gross-outs." Care
to offer an example or three of this flaw in his work?
>At last count, and believe me, I *do* count them,
I can't help but wonder why? Counting incidents of particular
grammatical constructions is about the last thing on my mind when I am
reading King, or any other writer. I can see how being so focused on the
building blocks would detract from the enjoyment of the overall
construction though. Why don't you try reading without considering those
elements?
(snippage)
>Another example from W&G: what point did part 6, chapter 6 of part 3
>have in furthering the plot? Read it and tell me, or I can answer it
>for you and save the time - nothing. It was pointless and gratuitous and
>sorely in need of being edited from the book.
Well, not every reader, nor every writer believes that every word,
paragraph or passage of a novel needs to explicitly move the plot along.
It is certainly _a_ theory of writing that anything that doesn't move
the plot forward should be disgarded, but it is far from a universal
rule.
I discovered long ago that Stephen King is not an advocate of that
particular theory of writing. 'salem's Lot, which I believe you cite as
one of his classics, is a prime early example of this. The extended,
lyrical passages about the town and its knowledge of evil do not in any
practical sense move the plot forward. But the book would be a far
lesser creation without them.
>My argument - or arguement, as it is incorrectly spelled in the opening
>of W&G - is that King needs an editor and to step from his mighty word
>processing throne on ocassion to familiarise himself with simple story
>telling without the irritating devices. He once said of Clive Barker
>that he had seen the future of horror, and he is more than likely right.
>Until King can return to the simple perfection of 'salem's Lot, Carrie,
For my money, Carrie is one of the weakest novels King has ever written.
it certainly is minimal and to the point, and it was a good enough first
novel. It was, however, a novel written by a writer still in search of
his style. And to suggest that 'salem's Lot is "simple perfection" is to
greatly understate the complexity of that marvelous work.
>or nearly everything he wrote up to Pet Sematary or The Dark Half, he is
>going to be considered a 'hack' and panned by more and more readers.
And here we come to the heart of the matter, IMO. You are a fan of early
King. You do not appreciate his later works. This is not an uncommon
position among those who have been reading King for some time. I really
think it has more to do with King's evolution and growth as a writer,
and his refusal to continue to write the same narrow range of books over
and over again, than it has to do with a perceived lack of editing of
the work.
King has been a "wordy" writer since 'salem's Lot. He has written more
and less verbose books all along the way, and he has written lesser and
more accomplished books all along the way as well.
>And the reason I continue reading him, the Dark Tower in particular, is
>because I hope one day he will a) finally get to the end of the tale and
>reveal the secrets of The Tower, and b) learn to write without training
>wheels and put out something to keep you lying in bed thinking about all
>night again.
I think it's too bad that you can't enjoy King's writing anymore. I
think it is an even greater shame that you continue to spend your time
reading writing which you are as likely as not going to find wanting in
the extreme. There are so many other writers available, including many
who write in the minimalist style your post suggests that you prefer.
Ah well, whatever floats your boat.
Stevie C
to e-mail me change .com to .ca
--
a.b.s-k geek code
DS++ TH+ FP NS+ SC+ ND SL++ DZ++ CJ DH- !BB !NT ST+ D1 D2+ D3+ D4++ !ED
!IT IN++ CA- !CH MI TK- !TA SH-- FI !CY GG++ DC++ PS+ RM+++ DE+ RG++ GM+
P++ R++ OT(-) F+ N+ DK+
sk++ ps+ dk-- ar pc++ cb+ jlb++ pdc+
C+++ I++ sh+ GO-- VI+++++ OR ot
Bob MacAdu
My argument is not about the mechanics of fiction, rather the lack of
editing and that the need for it is apparently obviated in King's work
resulting from the elevated sense of self-worth he has bestowed upon
himself.
I read King, buy every book the day it hits the bookstores- always have,
always will. However, as a writer, I read for detail and composition,
both of which are painfully lacking in his novels of late. He has become
much too complacent, if not lazy, in his style; become the child at the
dinner table who wants only to 'gross you out' with stories of boogers
and vomit because he thinks that is what 'horror' is. At last count, and
believe me, I *do* count them, I have noted 269 analogies in which one
thing is 'like' another, i.e. 'his half-erect penis wagging from side to
side ahead of him *like* some halfwit's idea of a magic wand,' and 216
cases of needless parenthetical statements which could have easily been
rendered as another sentence entirely - all in 524 pages of Wizard and
Glass: an average of one in every 1.08 pages. It is not description, it
is laziness. King, it seems, has lost the descriptive prowess to tell a
tale without these crutches, and they become mental stumbling blocks to
a reader who forever has to bear some partial sentence in mind as he is
dragged along through yet another needless aside. Another example from
W&G: what point did part 6, chapter 6 of part 3 have in furthering the
plot? Read it and tell me, or I can answer it for you and save the time
- nothing. It was pointless and gratuitous and sorely in need of being
edited from the book.
My argument - or arguement, as it is incorrectly spelled in the opening
of W&G - is that King needs an editor and to step from his mighty word
processing throne on ocassion to familiarise himself with simple story
telling without the irritating devices. He once said of Clive Barker
that he had seen the future of horror, and he is more than likely right.
Until King can return to the simple perfection of 'salem's Lot, Carrie,
or nearly everything he wrote up to Pet Sematary or The Dark Half, he is
going to be considered a 'hack' and panned by more and more readers.
Rocker1018
>> However, as a writer, I read for detail and composition,
furthering the plot? Read it and tell me, or I can answer it for you and save
the time - nothing. It was pointless and gratuitous and sorely in need of being
edited from the book.
Well, for Carrie I see something King did that was for nothing more than the
filler you so much dislike in W&G. All the news paper stories and so forth are
not needed at all. It could have been better to make those that needed to be
known through characters and actions. But I still loved the story.
I am also a writer, as you also say you are. I am currently studying writing
skills and techniques and have currently begun reading IT. Reading the book
with the new knowledge I am gaining in my education, I see something I had
never noticed before. Subtle techniques used by King in the book that is proof
of his knowledge of what makes a narrative tale so good. I see in King what
many critics don't see in his work. Well written stories.
>King has been a "wordy" writer since 'salem's Lot. He has written more
>and less verbose books all along the way, and he has written lesser and
>more accomplished books all along the way as well.
>
I agree with Steve completely in this and let this speak for itself.
>I think it's too bad that you can't enjoy King's writing anymore
Despite any problems in grammer and the minimal mistakes made in his stories.
Despite his love affair with italics and parenthises, I love Stephen King's
tales and read each and every book. His "voice" draws me in and I can't say
enough about the people he creates. Even as a writer, I can't dwell on errors
when the story is as good as the Kings.
Shawn
((I know I can't spell very good. I am a spoiled child of the spell checker.
And to thunk, I was a spelling bee champion in elementary school. But that was
before spell checkers were even invented. <<<Judge my meanings - not my
spelling>>>))
Robert Whelan
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, stevie canuck wrote:
> Bob MacAdu wrote:
>
> > My argument is not about the mechanics of fiction, rather the lack of
> > editing and that the need for it is apparently obviated in King's work
> > resulting from the elevated sense of self-worth he has bestowed upon
> > himself.
>
>
> That's an interesting premise you begin with. Why do you assume the
> alleged lack of editing is by King's dictate? I have heard the equally
> plausible hypothesis that it is the fault of his publishers. The theory
> from that side goes that the publishers know he will sell, so why waste
> time editing.
King has said in the past that he was a writer who benefitted from, and
depended on the input of editors. However, by agreeing to publish the
books unedited, and by refusing to take up the burden of self-editing
when no outside editor is wiling to, he is ultimately the one responsible
for the shoddy product produced. Perhaps he unwisely agreed to certain
deadlines which affect his work negatively, and he has no choice BUT
to publish unedited.
>
> Perhaps, if there is a lack of needed editing, (and I for one do not
> accept this premise to begin with) it is one of the reasons King has
> left Viking.
I hope that is the reason.
> >I read King, buy every book the day it hits the bookstores- always have,
> >always will. However, as a writer, I read for detail and composition,
> >both of which are painfully lacking in his novels of late.
>
>
> I think you are the only critic of King's work I have ever heard decry a
> _lack_ of detail in the man's writing. He is frequently chastised for
> unnecessary detail. Of course, you go on to criticize him for that as
> well later on in your post.
To make an analogy to film. There are two kinds of "detail". One is int
the "focus", the sharpness of the image. The other is in the number of
discernable elements within the image. King may be throwing a million
things into the pot but not bothering to "focus the camera" so to
speak. The overuse of similes is a good example of this.
> >He has become much too complacent, if not lazy, in his style; become
> >the child at the dinner table who wants only to 'gross you out' with
> >stories of boogers and vomit because he thinks that is what 'horror' is.
>
>
> Again, this seems an odd criticism of King at this point in his career.
> I would much more expect to hear him knocked for avoiding horror all
> together, but I am wracking my brain trying to think of examples in his
> last five novels of childish "gross-outs." I guess The Regulators could
> be cited for unnecessary splatter, but I think that was a deliberate
> stylistic choice.
"Needful Things"....how many childish gross-outs were in that book? The
battle between Nettie and Wilma was just one. "The Regulators" is
impossible to argue as a "stylistic choice" because King has used that
"style" before, and always, as the original post said, as a "gross-out".
"Regulators" was a pure indulgence in King's part, in this predeliction
of his to be childish, and this is the only "stylistic" choice of any
note. Claiming that it was deliberately childish (because Tak was
operating through the mind of a child) is ludicrous and pretentious.
>
> I have a hard time seeing any of the detail in Rose Madder, Insomnia,
> Desperation, The Green Mile of W&G as being childish "gross-outs." Care
> to offer an example or three of this flaw in his work?
I would beg to differ. The opening chapter of "Rose Madder", which I just
started reading, childishly, and lazily, uses the "gross out" of a bloody
induced miscarriage. The sensitive, politically correct among us may cry
out about how moving this passage is, and how brave King is to describe
an experince that has happened to many women. But it was a lazy way of
setting up the "good - evil" relationship, in a crude, cave-man like
way. "Ugh! Man punch woman in stomach...make bloody squishy abortion!
Man Bad! Woman Good!"
And as for the Green Mile...how can anybody not be embarrassed by the
death of Delacroix? Similarly, this was used as a caveman like way of
defining one of the guards as the epitome of sliminess, while allowing
King to indulge in a spectacular gross out of horror-movie special
effects in the electric chair...
>
> >At last count, and believe me, I *do* count them,
>
>
> I can't help but wonder why? Counting incidents of particular
> grammatical constructions is about the last thing on my mind when I am
> reading King, or any other writer. I can see how being so focused on the
> building blocks would detract from the enjoyment of the overall
> construction though. Why don't you try reading without considering those
> elements?
Ummm. The point is that a story should be well enough constructed so that
one is not aware of the construction. In film, the zipper down the
monster's back reminds one that it is a man in a costume, and one has
to deliberately suppress that awareness to continue to believe the story
about a monster. If a breif glimps of the zipper occurred in one scene,
but seemed to be carefully avoided in the rest of the film, the film
might be forgiven for making a slip, but to repeatedly show the zipper
indicates the filmmaker doesn't care. Same goes for the overuse of
similes. It means the author doesn't care that his "trick" is being
used over and over, detracting from the story. A wagging penis being
described as an "idiot's idea of a magic wand" brings a ludicrous
amount of imagery to an image that does not require it. Sure, it
spices up the description, but in a way that distracts from the scene
described.
> (snippage)
>
> >Another example from W&G: what point did part 6, chapter 6 of part 3
> >have in furthering the plot? Read it and tell me, or I can answer it
> >for you and save the time - nothing. It was pointless and gratuitous and
> >sorely in need of being edited from the book.
>
>
> Well, not every reader, nor every writer believes that every word,
> paragraph or passage of a novel needs to explicitly move the plot along.
> It is certainly _a_ theory of writing that anything that doesn't move
> the plot forward should be disgarded, but it is far from a universal
> rule.
Hmmmm. I notice that the question about that particular passage was
avoided, so I am guessing that it was a good point, and that the passage
could have been edited out altogether.
But most novels have a central purpose. If the purpose is to tell a
story, then elements that distract from it are flaws. The purpose of
an algebra textbook is to explain algebra. If it constantly diverges into
biographical details of Elvis Presley, the student might complain.
The King reader, similarly, can complain about a distracting passage that
does not help the main story.
James Fenimore Cooper wrote a story called "The Pioneers", which, if
read for the plot alone, is horribly flawed by endless descriptive
passages of nature. But since the plot is slight, and inconsequential,
it is obvious that the point of the book IS the nature scenes. Read with
that in mind (obvious because of their dominance throughout) it is a
fantastic homage to the beauty of the American wilderness. It was
clearly Cooper's point in writing the novel. Had he just written a
staight adventure story, and at one point clumsily dumped a paragraph
about man's destruction of nature in, and he had not included any
such passages before, the reader might reasonably complain. This
is what Bob was complaining about in "Wizard & Glass".
> I discovered long ago that Stephen King is not an advocate of that
> particular theory of writing. 'salem's Lot, which I believe you cite as
> one of his classics, is a prime early example of this. The extended,
> lyrical passages about the town and its knowledge of evil do not in any
> practical sense move the plot forward. But the book would be a far
> lesser creation without them.
But those extended lyrical passages help define the town as a place ripe
for infestation by vampires. They fit with the story, and support the
plot. Extended lyrical passages about Elvis would have detracted from
"Salem's Lot". Or do you think that they would have added an
interesting texture to the story? They might have, but one can still say
that the main story would have suffered.
> >My argument - or arguement, as it is incorrectly spelled in the opening
> >of W&G - is that King needs an editor and to step from his mighty word
> >processing throne on ocassion to familiarise himself with simple story
> >telling without the irritating devices. He once said of Clive Barker
> >that he had seen the future of horror, and he is more than likely right.
> >Until King can return to the simple perfection of 'salem's Lot, Carrie,
>
>
> For my money, Carrie is one of the weakest novels King has ever written.
> it certainly is minimal and to the point, and it was a good enough first
> novel. It was, however, a novel written by a writer still in search of
> his style. And to suggest that 'salem's Lot is "simple perfection" is to
> greatly understate the complexity of that marvelous work.
(sigh) Believe it or not, I started responding to this before I realized
it was Stevie. The original writer posted a long, intelligent criticism
of King, and now Stevie is stating that the person is undiscerning,
because he is dumb enough to praise one of King' "weakest novels"
according Stevie. He then augments his insult by claiming that the
poster missed the "complexity" of Salem's Lot. Bob didn't say that
Salem's Lot was not "complex" but that it's writing style was simple
and "perfect". While I agree that Carrie was a weak story, and
that Salem's Lot is a complex novel, I believe that King's storytelling
in both WAS in fact, much more disciplined. He didn't just throw any
old description onto the word processor and let it go at that. I
wish that Stevie would read other people's comments more carefully.
He seems to selectively misunderstand, just so he can disagree.
> >or nearly everything he wrote up to Pet Sematary or The Dark Half, he is
> >going to be considered a 'hack' and panned by more and more readers.
>
>
> And here we come to the heart of the matter, IMO. You are a fan of early
> King. You do not appreciate his later works. This is not an uncommon
> position among those who have been reading King for some time. I really
> think it has more to do with King's evolution and growth as a writer,
> and his refusal to continue to write the same narrow range of books over
> and over again, than it has to do with a perceived lack of editing of
> the work.
What a pile of crud. I have started to see this "evolution and growth
as a writer" line, repeated like a mantra, on this newsgroup. It
is insulting to claim that those who complain about his lack of editing
are merely rationalizing their upset over King's divergence from the
"same narrow range of books over and over again". Were King's older
books all the same? Dead Zone? The Stand? Firestarter? Christine?
Can these books be categorized as a "narrow range of books?" King
has never written a "narrow range of books". A strange insult to
King, by a King fan, just to place a straw man argument in the mouth
of a King critic.
>
> King has been a "wordy" writer since 'salem's Lot. He has written more
> and less verbose books all along the way, and he has written lesser and
> more accomplished books all along the way as well.
But not always a "sloppy" writer, which is what Bob was talking about.
> >And the reason I continue reading him, the Dark Tower in particular, is
> >because I hope one day he will a) finally get to the end of the tale and
> >reveal the secrets of The Tower, and b) learn to write without training
> >wheels and put out something to keep you lying in bed thinking about all
> >night again.
>
>
> I think it's too bad that you can't enjoy King's writing anymore. I
> think it is an even greater shame that you continue to spend your time
> reading writing which you are as likely as not going to find wanting in
> the extreme. There are so many other writers available, including many
> who write in the minimalist style your post suggests that you prefer.
When is this "You don't like King, don't read him" argument ever going to
get tired? Bob likes King. He reads him. He complains about the crap
in King. Just like a lover of soup would complain about the flies in
it. "There are so many other writers available" Yeah, well, F*** you
too. This is a Stephen King newsgroup...there is nothing in the charter,
(at least, I hope not) that says that critical comments about King are
off topic.
> Ah well, whatever floats your boat.
Yeah. "Whatever floats your boat" ...a subtle ad hominem that means
"You wierd person for reading something that you didn't quite like, and
having the temerity to post your opinion". People read things they don't
like all the time. And they express their opinions about it. It's a
fact of life. Get over it.
Robert
frien...@webtv.net
I've said it here before and I'm going to say it again. See above. Get
an editor, Steve-O. Maybe if all the constant-reader nimrod fanboys
would quit blindly throwing their money at you and discover what real
writing is, they would demand this. Multiple mistakes and piss-poor
lazy writing have become the norm with Mr. King and I sympathize with
all the hangers-on (especially if the outcome of DT is really that
important to them.)
Mkrivet
As for everything Stevie said, ditto. Thanks for typing it out and saving me
the time, Stevie!
MK
absk geek code
BB TH- FP--- SC+++ !ND+ !SL++++ DZ- DH++ NT------ ST++++ D1++ D2+++
D3 ++++ WG++++1/2 ED+++ IT+++ IN+ TK---- !TA+ SH+ FI++ GG !PS DC-
RM+++++ DE++ RG-- GM+++ P R+++ OT- N+ C? OR+ ot++
stevie canuck
Mkrivet wrote:
>As for everything Stevie said, ditto.Thanks for typing it out and
>saving me the time, Stevie!
No problem. But 'twould seem that Mr. Whelan didn't think much of my
comments. Whoa!! Big surprise there eh? <EG>
Stevie C
to e-mail me change .com to .ca
--
Now some people say you should not tempt fate,
And for them I would not disagree,
But I never learned nothin' from playing it safe,
I say fate should not tempt me.
Mary-Chapin Carpenter
stevie canuck
stevie canuck wrote:
A post with which he became convinced of the pointlessness of while
writing it ... went to cancel it and hit the send button by mistake.
I've cancelled it, but if you see it, I apologize.
S.C.
stevie canuck
Robert Whelan wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, stevie canuck wrote:
> > Bob MacAdu wrote:
>>>My argument is not about the mechanics of fiction, rather the lack of
>>>editing and that the need for it is apparently obviated in King's work
>>>resulting from the elevated sense of self-worth he has bestowed upon
>>>himself.
>>That's an interesting premise you begin with. Why do you assume the
>>alleged lack of editing is by King's dictate? I have heard the equally
>>plausible hypothesis that it is the fault of his publishers. The theory
>>from that side goes that the publishers know he will sell, so why waste
>>time editing.
>King has said in the past that he was a writer who benefitted from, and
>depended on the input of editors.
Yeah, it's always wise to hold someone to something they said once, for
the rest of their life.
>However, by agreeing to publish the books unedited, and by refusing to
>take up the burden of self-editing when no outside editor is wiling to,
>he is ultimately the one responsible for the shoddy product produced.
Yep, that's certainly one way of looking at the matter.
>Perhaps he unwisely agreed to certain deadlines which affect his work
>negatively, and he has no choice BUT to publish unedited.
Yeah. Like the deadline for DT IV. That one was a real killer.
>>>He has become much too complacent, if not lazy, in his style; become
>>>the child at the dinner table who wants only to 'gross you out' with
>>>stories of boogers and vomit because he thinks that is what'horror'is.
>>Again, this seems an odd criticism of King at this point in his career.
>>I would much more expect to hear him knocked for avoiding horror all
>>together, but I am wracking my brain trying to think of examples in his
>>last five novels of childish "gross-outs." I guess The Regulators could
>>be cited for unnecessary splatter, but I think that was a deliberate
>>stylistic choice.
>"Needful Things"....how many childish gross-outs were in that book?
Not one of the books I mentioned. Not one of his last five novels.
Ooops. I didn't say he had never done. I was making the point that it
was not something which could be tagged a trend in his recent writing.
Duh!
>The battle between Nettie and Wilma was just one. "The Regulators" is
>impossible to argue as a "stylistic choice" because King has used that
>"style" before,
Ummm ... so because he did it once before, he can never make that choice
again? what kind of silly ass nonsense is that?
>and always, as the original post said, as a "gross-out".
Yeah, as the original post said. And it was, ipso facto correct? Why
would that be Robert? Because you agree, or because I disagree. Hmmm ...
guess it amounts to the same thing doesn't it?
>"Regulators" was a pure indulgence in King's part, in this predeliction
>of his to be childish, and this is the only "stylistic" choice of any
>note.
That's certainly one point of view on the matter.
>Claiming that it was deliberately childish (because Tak was
>operating through the mind of a child) is ludicrous and pretentious.
Whereas, claiming as you do Robert, to be always correct in these
matters of opinion, and to know the mind of the author in each and every
case, is just good old fashioned common sense? Ho pretentiously
ludicrous of me to have thought otherwise.
>>I have a hard time seeing any of the detail in Rose Madder, Insomnia,
>>Desperation, The Green Mile of W&G as being childish "gross-outs." Care
>>to offer an example or three of this flaw in his work?
>I would beg to differ.
Why start begging now Robert. Surely it must be assumed and expected by
now that if I post an opinion you will, as a matter of course, disagree.
--
Now some people say you should not tempt fate, And for them I would not
disagree, But I never learned nothin' from playing it safe, I say fate
should not tempt me.
Mary-Chapin Carpenter
She's so happy and I think this is not cool, 'cause I know the guy she's
been talking about.
Ani Difranco
Everyday may your joy protect you, Everyday sweet love respect you,
Heart and mind in rhythm, Everyday ... Everyday may good grace surround
us, Luck and love and life dumbfound us, Beauty right up in your face,
Everyday
Stephen Fearing
'Cause no one can take this heart from me, No one can scatter my soul,
But it's hard, mister, dying by inches, From something you cannot
control.
John Jennings
I know it was love, but love can be a fleeting thing, filled with
flowers in the dark, the beating of the blackbird's wings ... I know it
was love, 'cause love can set you wandering, or keep you in a cage, or
make you do most anything.
Lynn Miles
If you love someone can you let it show? Hold them close to you and tell
them, So they know. It's too late, by the grave. give them all the love
you have every day.
Garnet Rogers
Rocker1018
> Maybe if all the constant-reader nimrod fanboys
>would quit blindly throwing their money at you and discover what real
>writing is, they would demand this. Multiple mistakes and piss-poor
>lazy writing have become the norm with Mr. King and I sympathize with
>all the hangers-on
You know, I grow tired of things like this. I was one of the first to complain
about the original post and then Stevie followed. I want to know something.
Ok, the first post said that King made mistakes in his writing and that made
him a (let me think... lazy and bad writer). This was posted by a fellow
writer.
My complaint is simple, has it come to the point where people nitpick about
errors that any HUMAN can make and say a person is a bad writer because he
makes these.
Maybe he has an editor and that editor missed them too. Well, you detracters
should run right out now and castorate him. (I hope that isn't too gory a
thought for those of you who find Needful Things and The Regulators too much
for your stomachs to handle.)
My point is this
***** Stephen King is a good writer because he is a wonderful "Story Teller."
He has many times said he is a story teller and not a literary genious. He
wants to tell a good story and I for one enjoy it.
I am sorry that a few people can't enjoy a work that has a mistake or two in
it. It is sad that a good well told story is lost on those who are so
narow-visioned to see it for what it is. Entertainment
Shawn
Robert G Martin
I posted the original ORIGINAL original message about The Stand (I'm not the
fellow writer). Agreed, his stories are great (I have all his books), but
it's distracting when you find a glaring error. Here's another one: In
Cycle of the Werewolf, during the month that the werewolf kills the man at
the truck stop, the truck is referred to as a Dodge on one page, and a Ford
on the next. The chapters are only three pages long in this book, and it
was very noticeable. This is really irritating to me, but that doesn't mean
I don't appreciate his works; I buy every book he writes anyway! He just
needs to get a good proofreader working on these things, that's all.
Ginger
>No problem. But 'twould seem that Mr. Whelan didn't think much of my
>comments. Whoa!! Big surprise there eh? <EG>
>
> Stevie C
Hiya Stevie,
I wouldn't worry too much about it.... there are quite a few
pro-Stevie ppl around here (myself included) ;-)
Constant reader,
Ginger
home page: http://www.i1.net/~webfx/ginger/
email: gin...@pcpostal.com
absk Geek Code:
sk+ ED+++ ST++ IN+ NT+ RM+ IT+ DE+ RG- P>+
R++ OT F N ot++ dk+ ps+ rc+ ar C+++ I++
***also one of the ten o'clock people***
Bob MacAdu
stevie canuck wrote:
>
> Bob MacAdu wrote:
>
> > My argument is not about the mechanics of fiction, rather the lack of
> > editing and that the need for it is apparently obviated in King's work
> > resulting from the elevated sense of self-worth he has bestowed upon
> > himself.
>
> That's an interesting premise you begin with. Why do you assume the
> alleged lack of editing is by King's dictate? I have heard the equally
> plausible hypothesis that it is the fault of his publishers. The theory
> from that side goes that the publishers know he will sell, so why waste
> time editing.
>
Perhaps this is so, but it smacks of being an excuse for not wanting to
take the time to put out the best product one can. If the only intent is
to make money and get a product out quickly, rather than publishing a
book you were proud of having written and one which you felt was the
best you could hope to produce, that is tremendously sad. Certainly one
wants to make a profit - it is after all a business - but isn't the idea
of writing meant to be more than a concern for what goes in your pocket
at the end?
> Perhaps, if there is a lack of needed editing, (and I for one do not
> accept this premise to begin with) it is one of the reasons King has
> left Viking.
>
King's Viking days were his best, in my opinion. I feel that he left for
reasons of wanting more control over his works - which is laudable - yet
what control has he shown? Each book becomes a study in self-indulgence:
bloated, rambling tomes the size of The Shorter Oxford and each of them
with less spirit and fervour for the craft. His inconsistent and, quite
frankly, pointless use of European spellings stand out as pretentious,
rather than clever, and his 'style' has deteriorated into virtual self-
parody. This, to me, speaks of someone who feels they no longer need to
be edited; that each world is verbal gold and awkward constructions be
damned.
> >I read King, buy every book the day it hits the bookstores- always have,
> >always will. However, as a writer, I read for detail and composition,
> >both of which are painfully lacking in his novels of late.
>
> I think you are the only critic of King's work I have ever heard decry a
> _lack_ of detail in the man's writing. He is frequently chastised for
> unnecessary detail. Of course, you go on to criticize him for that as
> well later on in your post.
>
My intent regarding a lack of detail is only in reference to needless or
poorly written detail. Parenthetical statements, when used properly, can
certainly add to the narrative voice. However when they are used poorly,
as though the writer cared very little for taking the time to think of a
better method of clarifying himself, they are intrusions. Similes, too,
can be used to great effect. King, lately, has taken to using them ad
nauseum, as though he were writing himself notes, saying 'I'll get back
to that bit when I can figure out how to describe it better.' A simple
re-working of a sentence to clarify it takes very little time. As a very
rough example from W&G: is 'A cat - a hideous thing with two extra legs
sticking out of its sides like toasting forks - came into the doorway'
any more descriptive than 'A cat - a hideous thing with two extra legs
protruding, misshapen, from its sides - came to the doorway?' Clearly it
may not be the intent of King that the legs are misshapen, but is the
passage any less clear without comparing the legs to toasting forks? It
is the endless and needless use of these devices which cry out for an
editor to sit down and ask 'Er, Steve, could you possibly make this a
bit better here?' Or, better still, Mr King should devise a way to write
these marginal notations somewhere other than on the pages of what gets
run through the printer.
> >He has become much too complacent, if not lazy, in his style; become
> >the child at the dinner table who wants only to 'gross you out' with
> >stories of boogers and vomit because he thinks that is what 'horror' is.
>
> Again, this seems an odd criticism of King at this point in his career.
> I would much more expect to hear him knocked for avoiding horror all
> together, but I am wracking my brain trying to think of examples in his
> last five novels of childish "gross-outs." I guess The Regulators could
> be cited for unnecessary splatter, but I think that was a deliberate
> stylistic choice.
>
> I have a hard time seeing any of the detail in Rose Madder, Insomnia,
> Desperation, The Green Mile of W&G as being childish "gross-outs." Care
> to offer an example or three of this flaw in his work?
>
I promise you, if I ever get past the first dozen pages of Rose Madder
without rolling my eyes and setting it aside - or any other of his Hero
Women trilogy - I will. However my point was not about his being, as you
say, 'childish,' but rather that his scatological interest has become
more pronounced of late. Yes, in nearly all his books he delves into one
form of 'gross out' or another, and frequently with some success. But to
continually inform the reader that a character wets and/or soils their
pants, passes wind with great regularity, masturbates, enjoys mucus or
licks the floors of their homes to a spotless perfection wears on the
nerves. There is a place for these things: it is called humour. Granted
not the humour everyone enjoys, but they've no place in a 'serious' work
where they stand about calling attention to themselves saying 'Gosh, am
I funny or what?' King has, periodically, used these various bits of
'comic relief' to great effect; lately, I feel, they have been overdone
and used to great affect.
> >At last count, and believe me, I *do* count them,
>
> I can't help but wonder why? Counting incidents of particular
> grammatical constructions is about the last thing on my mind when I am
> reading King, or any other writer. I can see how being so focused on the
> building blocks would detract from the enjoyment of the overall
> construction though. Why don't you try reading without considering those
> elements?
>
Simply becuase they stand out as wildly out of place and completely
superfluous to the text as a whole. He has become an apostrophist in the
worst sense of the word and it detracts from, rather than enhances, the
narrative.
> (snippage)
>
> >Another example from W&G: what point did part 6, chapter 6 of part 3
> >have in furthering the plot? Read it and tell me, or I can answer it
> >for you and save the time - nothing. It was pointless and gratuitous and
> >sorely in need of being edited from the book.
>
> Well, not every reader, nor every writer believes that every word,
> paragraph or passage of a novel needs to explicitly move the plot along.
> It is certainly _a_ theory of writing that anything that doesn't move
> the plot forward should be disgarded, but it is far from a universal
> rule.
>
> I discovered long ago that Stephen King is not an advocate of that
> particular theory of writing. 'salem's Lot, which I believe you cite as
> one of his classics, is a prime early example of this. The extended,
> lyrical passages about the town and its knowledge of evil do not in any
> practical sense move the plot forward. But the book would be a far
> lesser creation without them.
>
It is not merely a question of plot advancement or lack thereof: yes, I
stated that this bit is without merit, but only because, after having
read it, I had to pull back from the book and say to myself 'What the
hell did *that* have to do with anything?' When you have to do that, the
writer has not done his job. When you are repelled from something - and
I do not mean 'disgusted' - rather than being drawn in, the writer has
failed in his task. If you can read something, ponder it, and go on,
only to discover that it has relevance to something later, then you have
been drawn into the web. Otherwise it's dreck.
> >My argument - or arguement, as it is incorrectly spelled in the opening
> >of W&G - is that King needs an editor and to step from his mighty word
> >processing throne on ocassion to familiarise himself with simple story
> >telling without the irritating devices. He once said of Clive Barker
> >that he had seen the future of horror, and he is more than likely right.
> >Until King can return to the simple perfection of 'salem's Lot, Carrie,
>
> For my money, Carrie is one of the weakest novels King has ever written.
> it certainly is minimal and to the point, and it was a good enough first
> novel. It was, however, a novel written by a writer still in search of
> his style. And to suggest that 'salem's Lot is "simple perfection" is to
> greatly understate the complexity of that marvelous work.
>
'Simple perfection' merely pointed to a period when a King book had a
certain magic about it; when the writing was fluid, thoughtful, and had
a purpose; when you could read in each paragraph the burning desire of
the author to create. Now it seems his only burning desire is to make a
wad of cash and get on to the next chapter in The Wallet That Conquered
The World.
> >or nearly everything he wrote up to Pet Sematary or The Dark Half, he is
> >going to be considered a 'hack' and panned by more and more readers.
>
> And here we come to the heart of the matter, IMO. You are a fan of early
> King. You do not appreciate his later works. This is not an uncommon
> position among those who have been reading King for some time. I really
> think it has more to do with King's evolution and growth as a writer,
> and his refusal to continue to write the same narrow range of books over
> and over again, than it has to do with a perceived lack of editing of
> the work.
>
I never claimed his works were narrow - that is an inference on your
part and wholly incorrect. I have been reading King since I was about
seventeen - the year Carrie came out - and, until recently, have been
just as fanatical over his work as anyone else in this NG, however I
have to agree with many critics that his writing has wandered far from
the mark, become pedestrian and commonplace, and lacks the spark of
genius which at one time fuelled his tales.
> King has been a "wordy" writer since 'salem's Lot. He has written more
> and less verbose books all along the way, and he has written lesser and
> more accomplished books all along the way as well.
>
> >And the reason I continue reading him, the Dark Tower in particular, is
> >because I hope one day he will a) finally get to the end of the tale and
> >reveal the secrets of The Tower, and b) learn to write without training
> >wheels and put out something to keep you lying in bed thinking about all
> >night again.
>
> I think it's too bad that you can't enjoy King's writing anymore. I
> think it is an even greater shame that you continue to spend your time
> reading writing which you are as likely as not going to find wanting in
> the extreme. There are so many other writers available, including many
> who write in the minimalist style your post suggests that you prefer.
>
> Ah well, whatever floats your boat.
>
> Stevie C
>
Thank you for your pity. [Wipes his eye with a tissue]
I do not prefer minimalist styles, however, only good ones. And King has
miserably floundered at being 'good' and even worse at being 'great' for
some time.
I do, of course, realise there are more people writing books than he who
bestows upon us the trivialising moniker of 'Constant Reader.' Clive
Barker is one example: brilliant, evocative writing; books the size of a
doorstop whose narrative voice is epic in every sense. Peter Straub, of
course, is another (as we are on the topic of 'horror' fiction). Yes, I
should venture to think even Douglas Adams may well rank amongst the
lofty, but I digress...
Perhaps you, as well, should discover other authors, and come to know
how a proper book should be written.
King has still got a powerful sense for imagery and story-telling, I
grant you, but he just hasn't got around to using it lately.
stevie canuck
Ginger wrote:
> <ste...@rogerswave.com> wrote:
> >No problem. But 'twould seem that Mr. Whelan didn't think much of my
> >comments. Whoa!! Big surprise there eh? <EG>
> I wouldn't worry too much about it.... there are quite a few
> pro-Stevie ppl around here (myself included) ;-)
Well thanks Ginger. I'm actually not worried at all, except that I am
now feeling mildly paranoid after posting my Bob = Robert theory. <G>
Stevie C
to e-mail me change .com to .ca
--
stevie canuck
Bob MacAdu wrote, in response to my post commenting on his criticisms of
King's recent writings:
... and I got about half way through my response, when I got the sudden
distinct inpression that I was actually talking to Robert Whelan, under
a nom de post.
I stopped at that point since, if my feeling is correct, I have nothing
to say, and if I am incorrect, Bob's views are so similar to Robert's,
and so similarly presented, that I am all but certain that entering into
discussion would be a total waste of time and bandwidth.
See y'all on some other thread. I've said my bit on this one.
Robert Whelan
On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, stevie canuck wrote:
> Bob MacAdu wrote, in response to my post commenting on his criticisms of
> King's recent writings:
>
> ... and I got about half way through my response, when I got the sudden
> distinct inpression that I was actually talking to Robert Whelan, under
> a nom de post.
>
> I stopped at that point since, if my feeling is correct, I have nothing
> to say, and if I am incorrect, Bob's views are so similar to Robert's,
> and so similarly presented, that I am all but certain that entering into
> discussion would be a total waste of time and bandwidth.
>
> See y'all on some other thread. I've said my bit on this one.
>
> Stevie C
Incredible. Now you are using a similarity to my posts as an excuse
for terminating a discussion? My contempt for you has reached its utter
and absolute nadir. I assure you that I am NOT posting as Bob MacAdu.
He is a completely autonomous individual. I do agree with him
emphatically about the quality of King's works, however. Are you really
going to use the similarities of our opinions to cop out of the
discussion? This is the most pathetic bow out to date. You don't even
have the excuse of Bob writing a parody of you, or of being rude to you.
Robert.
Vegard
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971122111907.18189B-100000@amanda>, Robert
Whelan <rwh...@dorsai.org> writes:
>"Needful Things"....how many childish gross-outs were in that book? The
>battle between Nettie and Wilma was just one.
You just named one of my favorite scenes from the book. _Neeful Things_
was intentionally a very B-movie-ish book, and it should be judged with
that in mind.
>I would beg to differ. The opening chapter of "Rose Madder", which I just
>started reading, childishly, and lazily, uses the "gross out" of a bloody
>induced miscarriage.
Well, it certainly had an impact on me. The opening chapter drew me right
in like few other King books have done.
> The sensitive, politically correct among us may cry
>out about how moving this passage is, and how brave King is to describe
>an experince that has happened to many women. But it was a lazy way of
>setting up the "good - evil" relationship, in a crude, cave-man like
>way. "Ugh! Man punch woman in stomach...make bloody squishy abortion!
>Man Bad! Woman Good!"
I can't help but suspect you *intentionally* went into this book
*wanting* to dislike it just to come in here and slap it in Stevie's face.
Face it, Rob: you *live* for whining, pissing, puling, moaning and
yammering <including lots of un-needed synonyms to give Robert something
to complain about>. It's a good thing you can take it out on us; maybe
the people you associate with daily get it easier.
> But most novels have a central purpose. If the purpose is to tell a
>story, then elements that distract from it are flaws.
Telling a story may be the central purpose of King's novels, but surely
it's not the *only* purpose. Developing characters and creating an
atmosphere will often "distract" from the "story" (plot), and
personally I think those are two of King's strong sides. Of course, that
doesn't excuse *all* the tangents and digressions.
>(sigh) Believe it or not, I started responding to this before I realized
>it was Stevie. The original writer posted a long, intelligent criticism
>of King, and now Stevie is stating that the person is undiscerning,
>because he is dumb enough to praise one of King' "weakest novels"
>according Stevie. He then augments his insult by claiming that the
>poster missed the "complexity" of Salem's Lot. Bob didn't say that
>Salem's Lot was not "complex" but that it's writing style was simple
>and "perfect". While I agree that Carrie was a weak story, and
>that Salem's Lot is a complex novel, I believe that King's storytelling
>in both WAS in fact, much more disciplined. He didn't just throw any
>old description onto the word processor and let it go at that.
I reread Carrie recently, and I must say that I thought it was sloppily
written. Lots of unnecessary repetition and those newspaper clippings
were utterly superfluous. Still a powerful book though.
I don't think King's sloppy writing is something new. I find it revealing
that you started to object to King's writing when you were in college--and
started being more critical of what you read.
>What a pile of crud. I have started to see this "evolution and growth
>as a writer" line, repeated like a mantra, on this newsgroup.
LOL! *You're* complaining about repetitive posts?
Anyway, I thought you might find this old review interesting, Robert. It
was posted (but not written) by one of the Bobs to this group back in
May--someone was apparently considering it for an award, but found it to
be poorly edited:
-----
"Unfortunately, I have not read CARRIE, the previous novel by this
author, which seems to have had very good notices. I have nothing to
compare it with for a Leap Forward, but I would be very opposed to
it's being awarded the LeBaron Barker prize, because it suffers from
very careless editing. Even the most elementary copy-editing would
have improved it, for it contains misused words, incredible
punctuation and misspelling, and I had the feeling when I was reading
it that nobody had read the manuscript, much less the proofs.
Judicious cutting would have helped it greatly, for the author does
not really know what to leave out, and it drones on and on, with much
extraneous material. I don't think Doubleday should call attention
to novels, which reflect casual attention in the house.
The book suffers from a weak structure, too many characters and what
is possibly a hopeless idea. The author struggles to achieve an
atmosphere of terror and panic, but his vampires are paper dragons.
Nothing ever really frightens the reader or even encourages him to
go on, because he doesn't believe a word of it. I have read books
about the disappearance of whole populations which made me unable to
sleep for nights on end, but I had to force myself to finish this
book. It was by far the hardest read of the three novels submitted.
Constant reader was sure as hell BORED from page one.
I am really sorry to render such an adverse report, because the writer
is capable of good writing, and there are flashes of it (mostly
extraneous) throughout the book. He certainly has talent, but needs
some expert advice. His descriptions of New England are far superior
to his suspense motifs. I got the impression that this was written in
a great hurry, as there are gobbets of undigested research sticking
out of it.
The title seems to me to be very poor. I cannot imagine being
attracted to buy this book by this inane title.
My reaction to SALEM'S LOT is an unequivocal NO."
-----
Vegard
Jon R.
Oh. I'll cancel my flame for not snipping and using more
than one sig, then. <g>
Jon R.
-even more pointless-
Jon R.
Robert Whelan wrote:
(snip) Same goes for the overuse of
> similes. It means the author doesn't care that his "trick" is being
> used over and over, detracting from the story. A wagging penis being
> described as an "idiot's idea of a magic wand" brings a ludicrous
> amount of imagery to an image that does not require it. Sure, it
> spices up the description, but in a way that distracts from the scene
> described.
My, _you_ guys could need an editor, too!
An observation: The simile (the comparisons with 'like') are
more common in speech than in writing. I've always thought SK
to be a storyteller much influenced by the oral tradition, and
I guess that may be a reason why he's fond of these expressions.
Another may be that they crop up in dialogue - which they should,
but which they usually don't with other authors. (That's the case
with simpler comparisons. Wildly poetic ones are rearely believable
in dialogue.)
About the gross-outs...I tend to believe that type of scene is okay
if it fits the story. As you know, I think the scenes in Needful
Things and The Regulators did, while I cared less for Rose Madder.
No reason to repeat that argument here, I guess. <g>
Jon R.
Jon R.
stevie canuck wrote:
>
> Bob MacAdu wrote, in response to my post commenting on his criticisms of
> King's recent writings:
>
> ... and I got about half way through my response, when I got the sudden
> distinct inpression that I was actually talking to Robert Whelan, under
> a nom de post.
I think you should read the rest of it. To a degree I agree with
Bob many places, and if he should be Robert in disguise, he
certainly fooled me!
Jon R.
Jon R.
Bob MacAdu wrote:
>
> stevie canuck wrote:
> >
> > Bob MacAdu wrote:
> A simple
> re-working of a sentence to clarify it takes very little time. As a very
> rough example from W&G: is 'A cat - a hideous thing with two extra legs
> sticking out of its sides like toasting forks - came into the doorway'
> any more descriptive than 'A cat - a hideous thing with two extra legs
> protruding, misshapen, from its sides - came to the doorway?' Clearly it
> may not be the intent of King that the legs are misshapen, but is the
> passage any less clear without comparing the legs to toasting forks?
If I were the editor, I'd have suggested: "A cat came to the doorway.
It was a hideous thing with two extra legs sticking out of its sides
like toasting forks."
One reason why there are lots of these things inserted into other
sentences, may be because SK wants to give the impression that
Roland is telling the story. Oral storytelling works like this.
Count your own insertions in an ordinary conversation, and you'll
find that they are numerous!
That said, I didn't 'hear' Roland, and there were lots of things _I_
would have liked edited away, too, but I disagree about that
particular example.
(snip)
> But to
> continually inform the reader that a character wets and/or soils their
> pants, passes wind with great regularity, masturbates, enjoys mucus or
> licks the floors of their homes to a spotless perfection wears on the
> nerves. There is a place for these things: it is called humour.
(snip)
I suppose you're right about the farting; I read that (in W&G) as
a comic relief - that didn't work for me. The licking of the
floors wasn't funny, and I doubt many people saw it as such. I
read it as a, perhaps overstated, form of expressing a mania. Such
people do exist. The licking of cats, now _that's_ effective!
> > >Another example from W&G: what point did part 6, chapter 6 of part 3
> > >have in furthering the plot? Read it and tell me, or I can answer it
> > >for you and save the time - nothing. It was pointless and gratuitous and
> > >sorely in need of being edited from the book.
I'll have to look that up first...
(snip)
> Yes, I
> should venture to think even Douglas Adams may well rank amongst the
> lofty, but I digress...
DNA is a great one. His CD-Rom The Starship Titanic is now out
in book form, written by Terry Jones (in the nude).
> Perhaps you, as well, should discover other authors, and come to know
> how a proper book should be written.(snip)
LOL!
Jon R.
Lori Lang
On 24 Nov 1997 00:49:18 GMT, rocke...@aol.com (Rocker1018) wrote:
>>posted the original ORIGINAL original message about The Stand
>> This is really irritating to me, but that doesn't mean
>>I don't appreciate his works; I buy every book he writes anyway! He just
>>needs to get a good proofreader working on these things, that's all.
>
>Ok, I can live with that. There was just that one person who insulted King's
>writing and the fans who stood by him. As for your post, I'm kool with that.
>
>Shawn
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Peter Straub who posted an
explanation of what really happens after the writer finishes a first
draft.
I don't recall all the details, but it basically boiled down to
several different people reading the draft, making marks on it where
errors are found, and attempting to give direction as to how to
correct it.
Then someone has to decipher all these marks, correct the "mistakes"
and send the whole mess to the printer, who then adds his own personal
*flair* by adding a few mistakes of his own.
I guess you could say that the whole process is only as strong as its
weakest link. SK did not necessarily *write* all the mistakes
originally. Some of them were made in an attempt to correct something
else, and some were made purely by accident. You would have to get
your hands on Steve's first draft to find out which mistakes were
really his.
I agree that there is room for improvement- no doubt about that. But
I think that until computers are programmed to actually follow a story
line and look for inconsistencies, we will always have mistakes. But
heck, some of them are amusing!
And don't ya just feel so darned *smart* when you do find a mistake?
"Wow, I bet I'm the first person to notice this!" (yea, right).
Lori
Change .com to .ca to email me.
stevie canuck
Jon R. wrote:
> stevie canuck wrote:
>>Bob MacAdu wrote, in response to my post commenting on his criticisms
>>of King's recent writings:
>>... and I got about half way through my response, when I got the sudden
>>distinct inpression that I was actually talking to Robert Whelan, under
>>a nom de post.
>I think you should read the rest of it. To a degree I agree with
>Bob many places, and if he should be Robert in disguise, he
>certainly fooled me!
Hey, I said I could be wrong. But I did read the whole thing, and the
overall style, the views of King as a sloppy and lazy writer, and the
comments on the opening of Rose Madder in particular were all so similar
as to be eerie. The apparently phony e-mail addy also made me wonder.
Anyway, I said what I had to say on that thread, and not withstanding
Robert's never ending stream of insults, and the fact that I'm sure he
will characterize me as a chickenshit slime for bowing out, I have
nothing further to contribute there.
Robert Whelan
On 24 Nov 1997, Vegard wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971122111907.18189B-100000@amanda>, Robert
> Whelan <rwh...@dorsai.org> writes:
>
> >"Needful Things"....how many childish gross-outs were in that book? The
> >battle between Nettie and Wilma was just one.
>
> You just named one of my favorite scenes from the book. _Neeful Things_
> was intentionally a very B-movie-ish book, and it should be judged with
> that in mind.
I'm just not used to READING B-movies. I sometimes don't mind watching
them, though.
>
> >I would beg to differ. The opening chapter of "Rose Madder", which I just
> >started reading, childishly, and lazily, uses the "gross out" of a bloody
> >induced miscarriage.
>
> Well, it certainly had an impact on me. The opening chapter drew me right
> in like few other King books have done.
>
> > The sensitive, politically correct among us may cry
> >out about how moving this passage is, and how brave King is to describe
> >an experince that has happened to many women. But it was a lazy way of
> >setting up the "good - evil" relationship, in a crude, cave-man like
> >way. "Ugh! Man punch woman in stomach...make bloody squishy abortion!
> >Man Bad! Woman Good!"
>
> I can't help but suspect you *intentionally* went into this book
> *wanting* to dislike it just to come in here and slap it in Stevie's face.
> Face it, Rob: you *live* for whining, pissing, puling, moaning and
> yammering <including lots of un-needed synonyms to give Robert something
> to complain about>. It's a good thing you can take it out on us; maybe
> the people you associate with daily get it easier.
Nah. I did not go out of my way to read it, but came across a coverless
paperback by accident. I'm scanning it during my subway rides home, when
the clumsy writing is less painful to my tired brain. Before I started
reading this newsgroup, I was reacquainted with King via "Desperation"
and "The Regulators". This was well before I knew the existence of
Stevie, and his odd preference for "The Regulators". I had been warned
against "Rose Madder" by my brother, who has similar taste, and didn't
like it either. My dislike is wholly mine own, not driven by a need
to taunt Stevie.
> > But most novels have a central purpose. If the purpose is to tell a
> >story, then elements that distract from it are flaws.
>
> Telling a story may be the central purpose of King's novels, but surely
> it's not the *only* purpose. Developing characters and creating an
> atmosphere will often "distract" from the "story" (plot), and
> personally I think those are two of King's strong sides. Of course, that
> doesn't excuse *all* the tangents and digressions.
>
> I reread Carrie recently, and I must say that I thought it was sloppily
> written. Lots of unnecessary repetition and those newspaper clippings
> were utterly superfluous. Still a powerful book though.
You may be right. It's been a long time since I read it, and my comments
on it's quality were perhaps wrong. I remember it, actually, as a book
I don't want to read again...So nix on my comment about "simple and
perfect style", as regards Carrie. I agree with Stevie (and said so,
I believe) about that one.
> I don't think King's sloppy writing is something new. I find it revealing
> that you started to object to King's writing when you were in college--and
> started being more critical of what you read.
Actually, Jen suggested that this MIGHT be my problem. And I considered
it, but I really don't think so. I'm reading Rose Madder at the moment,
and it just doesn't seem to be the same voice I'm used to. It's like
Robert Jordan is ghostwriting it. Or just Stephen King, ghostwriting it.
I just finished a scene, presumably from Rose's POV, in which the other
women's breasts are focused on to such a degree that you wonder who
the hell is doing the looking. I don't think college did it to me. Just
a lifetime of reading well crafted books, and an appreciation of King's
better told tales.
> >What a pile of crud. I have started to see this "evolution and growth
> >as a writer" line, repeated like a mantra, on this newsgroup.
>
> LOL! *You're* complaining about repetitive posts?
>
> Anyway, I thought you might find this old review interesting, Robert. It
> was posted (but not written) by one of the Bobs to this group back in
> May--someone was apparently considering it for an award, but found it to
> be poorly edited:
<review of Salem's Lot snipped>
Fun review...
Robert.
Robert Whelan
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Jon R. wrote:
> My, _you_ guys could need an editor, too!
>
> An observation: The simile (the comparisons with 'like') are
> more common in speech than in writing. I've always thought SK
> to be a storyteller much influenced by the oral tradition, and
> I guess that may be a reason why he's fond of these expressions.
> Another may be that they crop up in dialogue - which they should,
> but which they usually don't with other authors. (That's the case
> with simpler comparisons. Wildly poetic ones are rearely believable
> in dialogue.)
>
> About the gross-outs...I tend to believe that type of scene is okay
> if it fits the story. As you know, I think the scenes in Needful
> Things and The Regulators did, while I cared less for Rose Madder.
> No reason to repeat that argument here, I guess. <g>
Spoilerssssss*******for Needful Things*****
Well, I'm sort of groaning my way through Rose Madder...so I'm
interested in why you found such scenes less effective in it. Is
it because the story was trying to take itself seriously, and the
B-movie elements conflicted? I can understand that. The only
reason I was able to enjoy Needful Things at all is because I was
warned (by you, I believe), that it was supposed to be that way.
But I still did not enjoy the Nettie vs. Wilma battle. I'm not
a horror shlock fan. I don't think painful disembowelments are funny.
It conflicted with my normal expectation of some sort of empathy
for the characters being established before the gruesome gore. And
King DID do some of his typical character development in that book.
Shlock horror, and meaningful horror don't mix well. You can't ask
a reader to switch from caring about Polly, or Norris, or Alan,
to laughing at Nettie and Wilma, or Georgie and that other creep.
Robert.
Robert Whelan
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, stevie canuck wrote:
> Jon R. wrote:
>
> > stevie canuck wrote:
> Hey, I said I could be wrong. But I did read the whole thing, and the
> overall style, the views of King as a sloppy and lazy writer, and the
> comments on the opening of Rose Madder in particular were all so similar
> as to be eerie. The apparently phony e-mail addy also made me wonder.
>
> Anyway, I said what I had to say on that thread, and not withstanding
> Robert's never ending stream of insults, and the fact that I'm sure he
> will characterize me as a chickenshit slime for bowing out, I have
> nothing further to contribute there.
>
Not that you are a "chickenshit slime" but that you inevitably bow
out when the conversation goes over your head, and your initial posturing,
about your knowledge of literature fails to impress your fellow
conversationalists. How did the ending of your last pontification go?
Some fat headed nonsense about "language and story uniting to form
a seamless whole" defending Wizard and Glass. You did contradict
yourself by agreeing with either Jon or Vegard about clumsy elements
in it, however. We all contradict ourselves, or overstate our views
from time to time, but you sure bowed out fast from such a lofty
overarching statement. No details on what a "seamless whole" actually
means, or how exactly the story and language unite to create it (or
whatever).
R.
stevie canuck
JGMcLean0 wrote:
>an editor will often suggest major changes to content, structure,
>length, focus, etc.
>Authors who reach a certain multiplatinum stature can, if they wish,
>become "un-editable" -- the literary equivalent of getting rights to
>the final cut from a movie studio. *This* is the criticism that King,
>perhaps rightfully, takes. The proofreading mistakes I don't think we
>can really hold him personally responsible for.
I agree that the writer should not be held responsible for typos in the
final published copy. It is out of their control.
I also agree that a writer who has "final cut" on his or her work can
and should be open for criticism which might otherwise be pointed toward
the editor.
I think though, that it is as it should be that the writer, as artist,
should have "final cut" on his or her work. When I read a book, I am
interested in the author's perspective, and how he or she puts that down
in writing. I am _not_ interested in the point of view or stylistic
preferences of some editor, who may or may not be a writer themself.
This is not to say that I think a good editor has nothing to contribute.
I think that the writer's most valuable resource, after his or her own
heart mind and soul, is the pov of readers. King (and others) have said
that the best thing to do for a writer is to get their work in front of
as many readers as possible and listen to what those readers have to say
in reaction.
At the end of the day, however, I think that the artist should have the
right to make final decisions about the art they create.
Stevie C
to e-mail me change .com to .ca
--
There's a storm raging over the city
Lightning flashing cars racing everywhere
In the distance you can hear the sirens screaming
And the thunder wake a dead man with its blare
Willie P. Bennett
JGMcLean0
Lori Lang writes:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Peter Straub who posted an
>explanation of what really happens after the writer finishes a first
>draft.
>
>I don't recall all the details, but it basically boiled down to
>several different people reading the draft, making marks on it where
>errors are found, and attempting to give direction as to how to
>correct it.
That's proofreading. Editing goes quite a bit deeper; an editor will often
suggest major changes to content, structure, length, focus, etc.
Authors who reach a certain multiplatinum stature can, if they wish, become
"un-editable" -- the literary equivalent of getting rights to the final cut
from a movie studio. *This* is the criticism that King, perhaps rightfully,
takes. The proofreading mistakes I don't think we can really hold him
personally responsible for.
Jim
Rocker1018
>You would have to get
>your hands on Steve's first draft to find out which mistakes were
>really his.
hmmm, I hadn't thought about this till now but I do own Rose Madder in its
unedited unpublished format. It is tthe only version I have read and I think
I'll get the published version and compare the two. I'll let you guys know of
any changes,
Shawn
Jon Skeet
Robert Whelan <rwh...@dorsai.org wrote:
> But I still did not enjoy the Nettie vs. Wilma battle. I'm not
> a horror shlock fan. I don't think painful disembowelments are funny.
But you enjoy reading Michael's posts? Sheesh... ;)
(Just kidding, this time...)
--
Jon Skeet
Web page: http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Stephen King, Dungeon Keeper, Worms, Friends... it's all there.
Jon R.
Robert Whelan wrote:
(snip)
Spoilerssssss*******for Needful Things*****
And for Rose Madder as well
spoiler space
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
> Well, I'm sort of groaning my way through Rose Madder...so I'm
> interested in why you found such scenes less effective in it. Is
> it because the story was trying to take itself seriously, and the
> B-movie elements conflicted? I can understand that.
Partly, I guess my timing was wrong. I had just read Ordeal by
Linda Lovelace, which dealt with a far worse husband, that one
real.
Secondly, I thought Norman was kind of flat...you know, all bad
and horrible. If his good sides shone through at times, I've forgotten
it now. I usually like my characters a bit more complex. I also
had some problems with becoming interested in the story, and in
hindsight I see that I probably read it with too much of a distance.
(This book won't work as good when read like I read Regs and Needful
Things, in other words.) Stevie, if you read this, I remember you
posting about how you liked Norman's character, but IIRC, that was
more towards the end of the book?
Shortly put, I was waiting anxiously for the supernatural bits to
turn up (I knew about them being there), and I thougt they were
nicely done, so the ending was okay. I even liked the picture parts,
mostly for intertextual reasons that probably won't make much
sense for non-Nordic people.
> The only
> reason I was able to enjoy Needful Things at all is because I was
> warned (by you, I believe), that it was supposed to be that way.
I'm glad if that had some positive effect. :-)
> But I still did not enjoy the Nettie vs. Wilma battle. I'm not
> a horror shlock fan. I don't think painful disembowelments are funny.
Sorry, that reminds me of one of my favourite jokes, originally
drawn by Franquin in his Black Pages. A samurai has just performed
seppuku/harakiri and his bowels are dropping to the ground. He
points to a lump and says "I'm laughing to death! A cancer
infection!"
> It conflicted with my normal expectation of some sort of empathy
> for the characters being established before the gruesome gore. And
> King DID do some of his typical character development in that book.
> Shlock horror, and meaningful horror don't mix well. You can't ask
> a reader to switch from caring about Polly, or Norris, or Alan,
> to laughing at Nettie and Wilma, or Georgie and that other creep.
I understand the criticism, and I respect it, it just didn't work
that way for me. I liked the bad guy, and I cheered for him all the
way. I find myself doing that from time to time...perhaps I should
be scared?
Besides, I guess my own reading patterns are a bit to blame. I'm
used to keeping a distance to the text, seldom actually identifying
with the characters. Caring, yes; identifying, no.
Jon R.
Web Master
Rocker1018 (rocke...@aol.com) wrote:
: >You would have to get
But even that has been edited from SK's original manuscript. By the time
it has gotten to the proof stage that you've got, the book is _almost_
ready for publication. It is called an "uncorrected" proof, but basically
a proof is the final shot someone's got to look at a book before it gets
mass produced. A lot has gone on between the manuscript stage and the
proof stage.
--
Bev Vincent
Houston, TX
Bob MacAdu
Jon R. wrote:
>
> Bob MacAdu wrote:
> >
> > stevie canuck wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob MacAdu wrote:
> > A simple
> > re-working of a sentence to clarify it takes very little time. As a very
> > rough example from W&G: is 'A cat - a hideous thing with two extra legs
> > sticking out of its sides like toasting forks - came into the doorway'
> > any more descriptive than 'A cat - a hideous thing with two extra legs
> > protruding, misshapen, from its sides - came to the doorway?' Clearly it
> > may not be the intent of King that the legs are misshapen, but is the
> > passage any less clear without comparing the legs to toasting forks?
>
> like toasting forks."
>
I've just finished W&G and, at final count, there were 660 total
'intrusions' of either the *like* simile or parentheticals which could
have easily been stand- alone sentences-- all in 668 pages. Fairly poor,
in my opinion. I still have to say that he needs to learn how to
describe things without these bits used, or overused, so frequently.
Once in a while is fine, and very often needed. But one in every page? I
find myself reading these and thinking of Rowan Atkinson in the Black
Adder series - 'Death and pestilence stalk the land like...like two
great stalking things!' - and laugh. I might recommend to him the
purchase of a good thesaurus...
> One reason why there are lots of these things inserted into other
> sentences, may be because SK wants to give the impression that
> Roland is telling the story. Oral storytelling works like this.
> Count your own insertions in an ordinary conversation, and you'll
> find that they are numerous!
>
True enough. However does it not also seem that, if Roland is the
storyteller, the books should be written - sorry, 'writ' - in the first
person? I find that I have a difficult time believing many of the things
the characters do and say - which is true of many of King's books
recently - because they strike me as being somewhat out of character.
For example, how likely is it that a drug addict from New York would
know that L. Frank Baum wrote The Wizard of Oz? Or that he wrote many Oz
books for that matter? I consider myself fairly well-read and even *I*
didn't know there were more books in the 'Oz Cycle' until years later;
they are not often found in complete sets at bookstores. It seems to me
that many King characters know 'too much' or do not strike me as wholly
believable in certain scenes, or that they simply do things which
ordinary people would not generally do. Clearly this is fiction, but is
the intent not to make the reader feel as if they can understand,
identify and/or sympathise with, a character?
> That said, I didn't 'hear' Roland, and there were lots of things _I_
> would have liked edited away, too, but I disagree about that
> particular example.
>
The example cited was one I chose at random. Probably not the best
example, but the point was merely to illustrate that description can be
written without the simile of 'like' being thrown in. It just screams
out to me: 'I can't think of a proper way to write this.' But your
re-working does carry the idea and isn't as intrusive as King's.
> (snip)
> > But to
> > continually inform the reader that a character wets and/or soils their
> > pants, passes wind with great regularity, masturbates, enjoys mucus or
> > licks the floors of their homes to a spotless perfection wears on the
> > nerves. There is a place for these things: it is called humour.
> (snip)
>
> I suppose you're right about the farting; I read that (in W&G) as
> a comic relief - that didn't work for me. The licking of the
> floors wasn't funny, and I doubt many people saw it as such. I
> read it as a, perhaps overstated, form of expressing a mania. Such
> people do exist. The licking of cats, now _that's_ effective!
>
True. Licking the cat, I mean. That was entirely within the character
parameters and not unlikely for her to have done so. But the farting...
Even Chaucer writes of it, but in a much more eloquent manner.
> > > >Another example from W&G: what point did part 6, chapter 6 of part 3
> > > >have in furthering the plot? Read it and tell me, or I can answer it
> > > >for you and save the time - nothing. It was pointless and gratuitous and
> > > >sorely in need of being edited from the book.
>
> I'll have to look that up first...
>
Do you really want to bother? It's just so bloody stupid.
> (snip)
> > Yes, I
> > should venture to think even Douglas Adams may well rank amongst the
> > lofty, but I digress...
>
> DNA is a great one. His CD-Rom The Starship Titanic is now out
> in book form, written by Terry Jones (in the nude).
>
Jones in the nude...how unlike him to be...
I haven't heard of Starship Titanic yet. Must be that I'm looking in the
wrong section. I only ever find the five books of the Hitchhiker's
Trilogy and the Dirk Gently books. Figures.
> > Perhaps you, as well, should discover other authors, and come to know
> > how a proper book should be written.(snip)
>
> LOL!
>
> Jon R.
Bob MacAdu
stevie canuck wrote:
>
> Bob MacAdu wrote, in response to my post commenting on his criticisms of
> King's recent writings:
>
> ... and I got about half way through my response, when I got the sudden
> distinct inpression that I was actually talking to Robert Whelan, under
> a nom de post.
>
> to say, and if I am incorrect, Bob's views are so similar to Robert's,
> and so similarly presented, that I am all but certain that entering into
> discussion would be a total waste of time and bandwidth.
>
> See y'all on some other thread. I've said my bit on this one.
>
> Stevie C
Nope, no Robert Whelan here. Only someone who points out that, much as I
hate to say it, 'Even Homer nods.'
Bob MacAdu
Jon R. wrote:
>
> stevie canuck wrote:
> >
> > King's recent writings:
> >
> > ... and I got about half way through my response, when I got the sudden
> > distinct inpression that I was actually talking to Robert Whelan, under
> > a nom de post.
>
> I think you should read the rest of it. To a degree I agree with
> Bob many places, and if he should be Robert in disguise, he
> certainly fooled me!
>
Nice of you to say. Wrong, but nice of you. :)
Bob MacAdu
stevie canuck wrote:
>
> Jon R. wrote:
>
>
> >>Bob MacAdu wrote, in response to my post commenting on his criticisms
> >>of King's recent writings:
>
>
> overall style, the views of King as a sloppy and lazy writer, and the
> comments on the opening of Rose Madder in particular were all so similar
> as to be eerie. The apparently phony e-mail addy also made me wonder.
>
> Anyway, I said what I had to say on that thread, and not withstanding
> Robert's never ending stream of insults, and the fact that I'm sure he
> will characterize me as a chickenshit slime for bowing out, I have
> nothing further to contribute there.
>
No-one is characterised as 'a chickenshit slime' if they've a valid
argument to present. I am entirely open to debate. I stated my views
only as a very long time King fan who has been, of late, quite unhappy
with the seemingly formulaic style of his works, the endless and poorly
thought-out bits of narrative, and the needless and irritating pretence
of his inconsistent Briticisms which I find, personally, to be quite
pointless.
Bob MacAdu
Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, stevie canuck wrote:
>
> > Bob MacAdu wrote, in response to my post commenting on his criticisms of
> > King's recent writings:
> >
> > distinct inpression that I was actually talking to Robert Whelan, under
> > a nom de post.
> >
> > to say, and if I am incorrect, Bob's views are so similar to Robert's,
> > and so similarly presented, that I am all but certain that entering into
> > discussion would be a total waste of time and bandwidth.
> >
> > See y'all on some other thread. I've said my bit on this one.
> >
> > Stevie C
>
> for terminating a discussion? My contempt for you has reached its utter
> and absolute nadir. I assure you that I am NOT posting as Bob MacAdu.
> He is a completely autonomous individual. I do agree with him
> emphatically about the quality of King's works, however. Are you really
> going to use the similarities of our opinions to cop out of the
> discussion? This is the most pathetic bow out to date. You don't even
> have the excuse of Bob writing a parody of you, or of being rude to you.
>
> Robert.
Thank you, Robert. It is quite refreshing to have someone agree and not
resort to name-calling if they don't: '*My* author could beat up *your*
author with one arm and a dictionary tied behind his back!'
Bob MacAdu
Rocker1018 wrote:
>
> >> However, as a writer, I read for detail and composition,
> furthering the plot? Read it and tell me, or I can answer it for you and save
> the time - nothing. It was pointless and gratuitous and sorely in need of being
> edited from the book.
>
> filler you so much dislike in W&G. All the news paper stories and so forth are
> not needed at all. It could have been better to make those that needed to be
> known through characters and actions. But I still loved the story.
>
I mentioned Carrie in the context that it was one of King's books which
I find to be, to some extent, memorable, notwithstanding the De Palma
film. It seems a thousand years since I've read it in 8th grade English
class - as everyone else read Where The Red Fern Grows or something like
it - so I apologise if it was not the best example. I do, however, enjoy
it for having been short, concise, and to the point, as most of King's
later books aren't.
> I am also a writer, as you also say you are. I am currently studying writing
> skills and techniques and have currently begun reading IT. Reading the book
> with the new knowledge I am gaining in my education, I see something I had
> never noticed before. Subtle techniques used by King in the book that is proof
> of his knowledge of what makes a narrative tale so good. I see in King what
> many critics don't see in his work. Well written stories.
>
I am sorry that you are using It as an education in writing, as I found
the book an arduous torture from beginning to end; the beginning of
King's downhill slide towards ponderous tomes with unsatisfactory
resolutions. When he writes a story which he has thought out prior to
placing himself before the computer, he writes extraordinarily well.
When he sits and rambles until a point eventually occurs to him, his
writing suffers. It needs, in my opinion, needs the letters S & H in the
initial position.
> >King has been a "wordy" writer since 'salem's Lot. He has written more
> >and less verbose books all along the way, and he has written lesser and
> >more accomplished books all along the way as well.
> >
>
> I agree with Steve completely in this and let this speak for itself.
>
> >I think it's too bad that you can't enjoy King's writing anymore
>
> Despite any problems in grammer and the minimal mistakes made in his stories.
> Despite his love affair with italics and parenthises, I love Stephen King's
> tales and read each and every book. His "voice" draws me in and I can't say
> enough about the people he creates. Even as a writer, I can't dwell on errors
> when the story is as good as the Kings.
>
As you journey towards discovering how writing can be utilised to 'draw
someone in,' think, too, about how it can be used to adversely effect
the reader. I think of the doorstop - sorry, novel - Insomnia and how
good it was at the start and how much crap it became about four thousand
pages in. King has developed a problem, as I see it, with not carrying a
given tale to a logical conclusion: evidence of this began with the
original version of The Stand, where it seemed he had bitten off a bit
more than he could chew and had got quite bored with writing the story
and...well let's just blow everybody up and see what happens after.
When a writer becomes bored, or at the very least tired of what he has
begun because he can't think his way out of it, the reader suffers.
This is unfair. And yet people throw huge amounts of cash at him and
say, 'Give me more!' I want more as well. I want a story which I can
say, honestly, I marvelled at, something for which I waited years to
read and can savour again until the next bit comes out. He hasn't done
that for me. His 'voice' turns me away with an
I-Don't-Care-What-You-Think-Because-I-Don't-Have-To-Because-I-Make-Millions
mentality which is not what story-telling is about. Read Pearl Buck,
about what the creative burning *really* is - and tell me that, as a
true writer, you don't find a tear of understanding in your eye - then
read King and his 'Constant Reader' pandering with a new light. You may
well find it illuminating.
> Shawn
> ((I know I can't spell very good. I am a spoiled child of the spell checker.
> And to thunk, I was a spelling bee champion in elementary school. But that was
> before spell checkers were even invented. <<<Judge my meanings - not my
> spelling>>>))
Bob MacAdu
frien...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> I've said it here before and I'm going to say it again. See above. Get
> an editor, Steve-O. Maybe if all the constant-reader nimrod fanboys
> would quit blindly throwing their money at you and discover what real
> writing is, they would demand this. Multiple mistakes and piss-poor
> lazy writing have become the norm with Mr. King and I sympathize with
> all the hangers-on (especially if the outcome of DT is really that
> important to them.)
Huzzah!
Thank you!
Well met!
Bob MacAdu
Rocker1018 wrote:
>
> Ok, the first post said that King made mistakes in his writing and that made
> him a (let me think... lazy and bad writer). This was posted by a fellow
> writer.
> My complaint is simple, has it come to the point where people nitpick about
> errors that any HUMAN can make and say a person is a bad writer because he
> makes these.
> Maybe he has an editor and that editor missed them too. Well, you detracters
> should run right out now and castorate him.
'Castorate' him, eh? What would that be, put him on wheels?
The point was that The Great & Powerful King needs an editor who isn't
too busy prostrating himself to do his job properly. King mentions Chuck
Verrill, if I am not mistaken, as his invaluable editor - a well-paid
editor who obviously hasn't got the balls to stand up and say 'Gosh,
this really stinks, Steve; "mayhap" you could find a better way of
writing this bit.' An editor's job, in my understand- ing of the
position, is to help the writer produce the best work possible and not
allow tripe such as 'agruement' and 'from whence' make it to press:
'whece' as it is indicates direction and obviates 'from,' and
'arguement' is just plain *wrong* no matter what anyone says about
variant spellings. These cronies who parade as 'editors' are nothing but
acolytes falling all over themselves in the service of a King whose time
on the throne has been all but spent.
>(I hope that isn't too gory a
> thought for those of you who find Needful Things and The Regulators too much
> for your stomachs to handle.)
> My point is this
> ***** Stephen King is a good writer because he is a wonderful "Story Teller."
> He has many times said he is a story teller and not a literary genious. He
> wants to tell a good story and I for one enjoy it.
> I am sorry that a few people can't enjoy a work that has a mistake or two in
> it. It is sad that a good well told story is lost on those who are so
> narow-visioned to see it for what it is. Entertainment
>
I do not consider myself 'narow-visioned,' however I do expect something
more than a fat ream of rambling pomposity from the Number One Selling
Author in the world - something more than the usual self-aggrandising
sputum he has slapped together in the last few years.
As for 'a mistake or two,' read the previous posts.
> Shawn
Denise Panter
Bob MacAdu <6...@purgatory.org> wrote:
>Jon R. wrote:
>>
>> stevie canuck wrote:
>> >
>> > Bob MacAdu wrote, in response to my post commenting on his criticisms of
>> > King's recent writings:
>> >
>> > ... and I got about half way through my response, when I got the sudden
>> > distinct inpression that I was actually talking to Robert Whelan, under
>> > a nom de post.
>>
>> I think you should read the rest of it. To a degree I agree with
>> Bob many places, and if he should be Robert in disguise, he
>> certainly fooled me!
>>
>> Jon R.
>
>Nice of you to say. Wrong, but nice of you. :)
Which was wrong? That Stevie should read the rest of your original
post? That Jon agreed with you to certain degree in many places? Or that
Jon didn't believe you were Robert in disguise?!
Denise :)
--
pc witticism 109:
C:\> File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)
delete nospam to send e-mail
Regina Jones
When I was in high school, I learned what "real writing" is. Now I
just want to be entertained. Stephen King does that very well, even if
some don't consider it to be "real writing".
--
Just little ol' Ysabell
Maliki
Regina Jones <Ysa...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<01bcfa33$cb5431e0$58d848a6@default>...
> When I was in high school, I learned what "real writing" is. Now I
> just want to be entertained. Stephen King does that very well, even if
> some don't consider it to be "real writing".
I don't read crap. That's not arrogance on my part--I just know what piss
is, and I don't drink it. I don't like burned popcorn. So when King sits
on my bookshelf next to Joseph Heller, Jack Kerouac and Douglas Coupland, I
think he would be at least "pretty good." And considering I own more King
novels than I do by anyone else, I figure that means something as well.
Joe
Trav1701
In article <65g0jq$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Bob MacAdu
<6...@purgatory.org> writes:
>I've just finished W&G and, at final count, there were 660 total
>'intrusions' of either the *like* simile or parentheticals which could
>have easily been stand- alone sentences-- all in 668 pages. Fairly poor,
>in my opinion. I still have to say that he needs to learn how to
>describe things without these bits used, or overu
<SNIP>
Doesn't anybody read anymore to enjoy a story. That is why they have been
written so us the fans can enjoy the story not to analyize every letter and try
to second guess Mr. King to what he wanted.
I dare anybody here to show me a book by any author that has no "mistakes" in
it.
I am getting realy tired of just reading in this group how Mr. King is going
downhill and whatever other cliches have been used. This group used to be a
fun read and now it is a chore to get through the posts each day.
Traveller
trav...@aol.com trave...@juno.com
John Bodin 1:2624/701.1 Fidonet
Co - Sysop Bear Heaven BBS (914) 677-6948 1:2624/701 Fidonet
http://members.aol.com/trav1701/index.html
Bjorn Pedersen
Bob MacAdu <6...@purgatory.org> wrote in message
<65g0jq$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>I've just finished W&G and, at final count, there were 660 total
>'intrusions' of either the *like* simile or parentheticals which could
>have easily been stand- alone sentences-- all in 668 pages. Fairly poor,
>in my opinion. I still have to say that he needs to learn how to
>describe things without these bits used, or overused, so frequently.
>Once in a while is fine, and very often needed. But one in every page? I
>find myself reading these and thinking of Rowan Atkinson in the Black
>Adder series - 'Death and pestilence stalk the land like...like two
>great stalking things!' - and laugh. I might recommend to him the
>purchase of a good thesaurus...
If you really want to draw this criticism to its extreme, one might say that
Steven King has 'forgotten the face of his father'.
There is a general rule in Fiction writing which says: 'Show, don't tell!'
It simply means that the writer shouldn't tell the reader what happened. The
character's action should show what is going in.
On page 117 in Wizard & Glass, down on the bottom, in the Hodder & Stoughton
version there is this description: "The box was locked and Jonas had given
her no key, but that was nothing to her, who had lived long and studied much
and trafficked with creatures that most men, for all their bold talk and
strutting ways, would run from as if on fire had they caught even the
smallest glimpse of them." This sentence is 55 words long. If King had been
a new author, he would have been given harsh instructions to edit it. It is
too long. King is telling us what happened.
Now, it is King who has sold one quazillin books, and not me, but the above
could have been written as: "The box was locked, and Jonas had given her no
key. She let her fingers run over the lock, wanting to fling the box open
right there. She could open it, she knew. She had lived long and studied
much, and had trafficked with hideous creatures which would have scared most
men. Aye, they would run as if on fire had they caught even the smallest
glimpse of these creatures, despite all their bold talk and strutting ways."
Here I am showing what happened.
My immodest suggestion tries to use the 'Show, don't tell!'-rule.
Lee &/or Laurie Goff
Well, I suppose before getting fully into my reply, I should warn all of
you....I am a *massive* King fan, so as a disclaimer (so to speak) I
suppose I should say that I may very well be prejudiced :)...
stevie canuck <ste...@rogerswave.com> wrote in article
<347661...@rogerswave.com>...
> Bob MacAdu wrote:
>
> > My argument is not about the mechanics of fiction, rather the lack of
> > editing and that the need for it is apparently obviated in King's work
> > resulting from the elevated sense of self-worth he has bestowed upon
> > himself.
If you are referring specifically in the above comment to the uncut version
of "The Stand" (and I don't know, as I have just recently subscribed to
this ng)...
In his prologue he stated, quite baldly, that his editors really hadn't
wanted him to publish this work. He warned anyone thinking of buying the
book that this publication was his idea; that there was really nothing
*new* offered; and that he only decided to publish it because 1) he was
interested in the reaction; 2) he liked the first "version" better; and 3)
many fans had asked about it.
As to your allegation that Steve has an "elevated sense of
self-worth"....well, let's just say I emphatically disagree, and leave it
at that.
>
> That's an interesting premise you begin with. Why do you assume the
> alleged lack of editing is by King's dictate? I have heard the equally
> plausible hypothesis that it is the fault of his publishers. The theory
> from that side goes that the publishers know he will sell, so why waste
> time editing.
Frankly, I'm very very glad that his books are not "over-edited". I enjoy
the complexity, the side plots, the deep characterizations...and a lot of
his side-journeys touch me as much, if not sometimes more, than the main
plot itself.
>
> Perhaps, if there is a lack of needed editing, (and I for one do not
> accept this premise to begin with) it is one of the reasons King has
> left Viking.
>
>
> >I read King, buy every book the day it hits the bookstores- always have,
> >always will. However, as a writer, I read for detail and composition,
> >both of which are painfully lacking in his novels of late.
>
I have a hard time understanding how you can say that his more recent works
lack detail, first of all. From Rose Madder to The Regulators, I actually
find *more* detail in his works than in his earlier stuff.
As to composition...again, we probably must agree to disagree on this, at
best, but imo is composition skills have only improved with age. Many
people disagree with the length of his books, or (again) the side-plots.
That's their thing, imo.
Me, I can't stand to read authors who have totally linear plots, with
mostly *stock* characters, and keep their novels to 300 pages or so. I
enjoy, as I said, the complexity; I enjoy being made to think, to pay
attention; and since I read a lot, and very quickly, I'm very grateful for
the length (and, again, complexity) of his books. I can read 300-500 page
books in about 2-3 hours...when I run out of King stuff, I find myself
reading 3-4 books a day!
>
> I think you are the only critic of King's work I have ever heard decry a
> _lack_ of detail in the man's writing. He is frequently chastised for
> unnecessary detail. Of course, you go on to criticize him for that as
> well later on in your post.
Really :)!
>
> >He has become much too complacent, if not lazy, in his style; become
> >the child at the dinner table who wants only to 'gross you out' with
> >stories of boogers and vomit because he thinks that is what 'horror' is.
There has ALWAYS been the element of the "gross out" in King's work. I
think the premier example of this was in Pet Sematary. If you read Danse
Macabre, he explains that in detail. Saying that that is a recent thing
is, to my mind, rather absurd. At best it shows that you haven't really
paid attention to his books over the years.
You mention "Carrie" further down....
What else is the shower scene ("plug it up") but a gross out? Reread
Carrie, reread Misery, reread Gerald's Game, reread Pet Sematary....hell,
reread It.
>
> Again, this seems an odd criticism of King at this point in his career.
> I would much more expect to hear him knocked for avoiding horror all
> together,
Yep. One thing I have noticed in his more recent works is that, in many
ways, he has somewhat gotten away from "supernatural" horror, and focused
more (except in Desperation and The Regulators, I guess) on "psychological"
horror. Too, his novels have become, in many ways, darker. At least imo.
but I am wracking my brain trying to think of examples in his
> last five novels of childish "gross-outs." I guess The Regulators could
> be cited for unnecessary splatter, but I think that was a deliberate
> stylistic choice.
Splatter indeed :)! I guess that's kind of what I meant by darker. And
then, of course, in Desperation the descriptions of the changes wrought in
humans due to "Tak" were pretty graphic.
But he's ALWAYS been graphic like that.
>
> I have a hard time seeing any of the detail in Rose Madder, Insomnia,
> Desperation, The Green Mile of W&G as being childish "gross-outs." Care
> to offer an example or three of this flaw in his work?
>
> >At last count, and believe me, I *do* count them,
>
> I can't help but wonder why? Counting incidents of particular
> grammatical constructions is about the last thing on my mind when I am
> reading King, or any other writer. I can see how being so focused on the
> building blocks would detract from the enjoyment of the overall
> construction though. Why don't you try reading without considering those
> elements?
Well, I must admit that I do that when I attempt to read Danielle Steel's
work. She starts so many sentences with either "but" or "and" (and uses so
many run ons and sentence fragments), that I find myself counting how many
times she begins sentences with conjunctions. Consequently, I haven't read
any of her work in over 10 years!
>
> (snippage)
>
> >Another example from W&G: what point did part 6, chapter 6 of part 3
> >have in furthering the plot? Read it and tell me, or I can answer it
> >for you and save the time - nothing. It was pointless and gratuitous and
> >sorely in need of being edited from the book.
>
> Well, not every reader, nor every writer believes that every word,
> paragraph or passage of a novel needs to explicitly move the plot along.
I certainly don't! The richness of detail, the depth of
characterization...to me, those things are not only integral to his novels,
but interesting and enjoyable in their own right.
And more "mainstream" writers (Clavell and Michener come to mind)
frequently do the same thing. However, since King writes "horror", he gets
consistently attacked for it. Just one more double standard, I suppose.
> It is certainly _a_ theory of writing that anything that doesn't move
> the plot forward should be disgarded, but it is far from a universal
> rule.
Yes, it's a theory of writing taught by English professors and expounded on
by critics. And it's one that I really dislike. Frankly, I find writers
who are slaves to this idiotic tradition incredibly boring, not to mention
pretentious.
>
> I discovered long ago that Stephen King is not an advocate of that
> particular theory of writing. 'salem's Lot, which I believe you cite as
> one of his classics, is a prime early example of this. The extended,
> lyrical passages about the town and its knowledge of evil do not in any
> practical sense move the plot forward. But the book would be a far
> lesser creation without them.
I agree.
>
> >My argument - or arguement, as it is incorrectly spelled in the opening
> >of W&G - is that King needs an editor and to step from his mighty word
> >processing throne on ocassion to familiarise himself with simple story
> >telling without the irritating devices. He once said of Clive Barker
> >that he had seen the future of horror, and he is more than likely right.
> >Until King can return to the simple perfection of 'salem's Lot, Carrie,
I cannot understand how anyone would believe that Steve has a problem
understanding "story-telling", simple or otherwise.
> >
> For my money, Carrie is one of the weakest novels King has ever written.
> it certainly is minimal and to the point, and it was a good enough first
> novel. It was, however, a novel written by a writer still in search of
> his style. And to suggest that 'salem's Lot is "simple perfection" is to
> greatly understate the complexity of that marvelous work.
Yep. Carrie was very good, at least I think it was, but it lacked the
depth of his later work.
>
> >or nearly everything he wrote up to Pet Sematary or The Dark Half, he is
> >going to be considered a 'hack' and panned by more and more readers.
>
Steve will be considered a "hack" forever....he is, after all, a horror
writer.
>
> And here we come to the heart of the matter, IMO. You are a fan of early
> King. You do not appreciate his later works. This is not an uncommon
> position among those who have been reading King for some time. I really
> think it has more to do with King's evolution and growth as a writer,
> and his refusal to continue to write the same narrow range of books over
> and over again, than it has to do with a perceived lack of editing of
> the work.
I have thoroughly enjoyed watching his "evolution and growth as a
writer"...to me, he only gets better with time. And I really respect his
determination to continue looking for the road less traveled; to avoid
repeating himself.
>
> King has been a "wordy" writer since 'salem's Lot. He has written more
> and less verbose books all along the way, and he has written lesser and
> more accomplished books all along the way as well.
Yep! :)
> >
> >And the reason I continue reading him, the Dark Tower in particular, is
> >because I hope one day he will a) finally get to the end of the tale and
> >reveal the secrets of The Tower, and b) learn to write without training
> >wheels and put out something to keep you lying in bed thinking about all
> >night again.
Well, he's certainly kept me up on many a night, thinking about many
things. As to training wheels....well, I too think that he long since
discarded them. If he ever wore "training wheels" at all, it was in
Carrie.
And it's worthwhile, imo, to remember that he *wrote* the first four
Bachman books BEFORE he wrote Carrier....even though they were published
much later.
> >
> I think it's too bad that you can't enjoy King's writing anymore. I
> think it is an even greater shame that you continue to spend your time
> reading writing which you are as likely as not going to find wanting in
> the extreme. There are so many other writers available, including many
> who write in the minimalist style your post suggests that you prefer.
Agreed. Seems kind of odd to continue reading someone you no longer
enjoy...and if Mr. McAdou wants to find out if there "really is a Tower",
well, just stop reading King until the next books in the series come out,
and only read those :).
>
> Ah well, whatever floats your boat.
>
> Stevie C
Later..
Laurie Goff
>
> to e-mail me change .com to .ca
> --
stevie canuck
Trav1701 wrote:
>Doesn't anybody read anymore to enjoy a story.
I do! I do! <VBG>
Stevie C
to e-mail me change .com to .ca
--
Now some people say you should not tempt fate,
And for them I would not disagree,
But I never learned nothin' from playing it safe,
I say fate should not tempt me.
Mary-Chapin Carpenter
Lori Lang
On 25 Nov 1997 00:39:58 GMT, jgmc...@aol.com (JGMcLean0) wrote:
I wrote:
>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Peter Straub who posted an
>>explanation of what really happens after the writer finishes a first
>>draft.
>>
>>I don't recall all the details, but it basically boiled down to
>>several different people reading the draft, making marks on it where
>>errors are found, and attempting to give direction as to how to
>>correct it.
>
Jim wrote:
> That's proofreading. Editing goes quite a bit deeper; an editor will often
>suggest major changes to content, structure, length, focus, etc.
>
> Authors who reach a certain multiplatinum stature can, if they wish, become
>"un-editable" -- the literary equivalent of getting rights to the final cut
>from a movie studio. *This* is the criticism that King, perhaps rightfully,
>takes. The proofreading mistakes I don't think we can really hold him
>personally responsible for.
>
>Jim
Me again:
Okay Jim I get your point. So why does everyone here seem to think
that the editor is responsible for all those nit-picky little mistakes
like spelling and grammar? Those are the kinds of mistakes that are
*mainly* being discussed here, and some ppl seem to think it's due to
a lack of editing.
Sounds like we should really be complaining about Steve's
proof-reader(s). As far as editing is concerned, well, you can argue
both sides of that argument here forever and not reach a solution.
Some people feel that SK sometimes rambles off on a tangent and they
hate it, some folks recognize the rambling but love it, and some don't
SEE it as rambling at all.
Either way, he has a new publisher now, so we should give em a chance
IMHO.
:-) Lori
Change .com to .ca to email me.
Captain Tripps
Bjorn Pedersen wrote:
(snipped)
Blah blah blah, blah blah.
Did this ruin the story for you? If it did, then I'm sorry but you can't
do anything about it. If it didn't, then what are you complaining about?
This reminds me of It, when Bill Denbrough asks why a story can't just
be a story.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Kurt
--
"Let the flesh instruct the mind."
Remove the "remove this" to reply.
Captain Tripps
Forgive my facitiousness but I find his descriptions to be appropriate
and a necessary part of his storytelling. It is also the signerature
Stephen King writing. I'm sure you know what I mean.
Is it because you are a writer and have experienced editing to the point
of rewriting your sentences that you carry this opinion?
Peter David said once that the ideal editor is one who points out
inconsistencies and flaws in logic. Sure we could all do without the
mistakes that have been pointed out such as Rolands mother singing him a
song and then his father doing it later. But to edit someones writing
style?
Again, Happy Thanksgiving,
Kurt
And of course you will be reading this and thinking about my gramatical
errors. =p
Robert Whelan
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Bob MacAdu wrote:
> > I am also a writer, as you also say you are. I am currently studying writing
> > skills and techniques and have currently begun reading IT. Reading the book
> > with the new knowledge I am gaining in my education, I see something I had
> > never noticed before. Subtle techniques used by King in the book that is proof
> > of his knowledge of what makes a narrative tale so good. I see in King what
> > many critics don't see in his work. Well written stories.
> >
>
> I am sorry that you are using It as an education in writing, as I found
> the book an arduous torture from beginning to end; the beginning of
> King's downhill slide towards ponderous tomes with unsatisfactory
> resolutions. When he writes a story which he has thought out prior to
> placing himself before the computer, he writes extraordinarily well.
> When he sits and rambles until a point eventually occurs to him, his
> writing suffers. It needs, in my opinion, needs the letters S & H in the
> initial position.
I hate to bring up this point again, because poor Peter Straub reads
these newsgroups, but I would like to reiterate my feeling that "The
Talisman" was the turning point (though perhaps "Christine" was
a presentiment, as I found it a little stale.). "The Talisman",
necessarily was unedited, except by the authors themselves, and the
end result could not be anything but a horrid compromise of either
writer's own standards if writing alone. But, nonetheless, the
experiment was published...and guess what? It was a success. I don't
know that King learned a bad lesson from this, but a door must have
been opened in his mind at that point. A door with the words "Quick
Exit" on it. King learned, at this point, that you could play around,
and still get paid for it. If he could trust his own style to be
mixed with that of another author and still succeed, why not let his
own style be compromised by himself?
> As you journey towards discovering how writing can be utilised to 'draw
> someone in,' think, too, about how it can be used to adversely effect
> the reader. I think of the doorstop - sorry, novel - Insomnia and how
> good it was at the start and how much crap it became about four thousand
> pages in. King has developed a problem, as I see it, with not carrying a
> given tale to a logical conclusion: evidence of this began with the
> original version of The Stand, where it seemed he had bitten off a bit
> more than he could chew and had got quite bored with writing the story
> and...well let's just blow everybody up and see what happens after.
A great book that I will probably never return to, because of that
ending. Similar endings in..."Talisman" "It". I never finished
Tommyknockers because it started to feel the same way as the
adult half of "It" did.
> When a writer becomes bored, or at the very least tired of what he has
> begun because he can't think his way out of it, the reader suffers.
> This is unfair. And yet people throw huge amounts of cash at him and
> say, 'Give me more!' I want more as well. I want a story which I can
> say, honestly, I marvelled at, something for which I waited years to
> read and can savour again until the next bit comes out. He hasn't done
> that for me. His 'voice' turns me away with an
> I-Don't-Care-What-You-Think-Because-I-Don't-Have-To-Because-I-Make-Millions
> mentality which is not what story-telling is about. Read Pearl Buck,
> about what the creative burning *really* is - and tell me that, as a
> true writer, you don't find a tear of understanding in your eye - then
> read King and his 'Constant Reader' pandering with a new light. You may
> well find it illuminating.
His "Constant Reader" letters have irritated me ever since "Misery"...
which apparently was an undercover expression of his contempt for the
"Constant Reader". This contempt is even more blatant in the "Tales
from the Crypt" type intro to "Needful Things". I am reading
"Rose Madder" now, and it has to be the worst thing he has ever written,
as far as laziness, repetitiveness, people thinking inappropriate and
stupid pointing-out-the-obvious thoughts. What worries me is that he
may be letting his style go deliberately, because he seems to be aping
Romance novels, and seems to have too much contempt for the genre to
do them justice. At page 272, Rose, the feckless heroine, finally met
a supernatural entity that cursed her out in a way I have wanted to
do all through the novel...
Robert
fsm...@mediom.qc.ca
>***** Stephen King is a good writer because he is a wonderful "Story Teller."
>He has many times said he is a story teller and not a literary genious. He
>wants to tell a good story and I for one enjoy it.
>I am sorry that a few people can't enjoy a work that has a mistake or two in
>it. It is sad that a good well told story is lost on those who are so
>narow-visioned to see it for what it is. Entertainment
>
>Shawn
I agree with you, Shawn. And am I wrong if I remember some stories
involving medical knowledge, where SK thanks some doctors for helping?
Those who refuse to read any story containing some errors should read
sci-fi, where it's hard to be wrong when you create almost everything
(but don't take the reader for stupid, neither).
And BTW, "It is the tale, not he who tells it".
Regards,
Fred Smith
Québec, Canada
Lori Lang
Bjorn Pedersen
Captain Tripps wrote in message <347CC3...@erols.REMOVE-THIScom>...
>Did this ruin the story for you? If it did, then I'm sorry but you can't
>do anything about it. If it didn't, then what are you complaining about?
Oh, it didn't ruin it - as you'll see if you read my next post 'Dark Tower
Four'. But since I'm a writer, I like to look at his technique.
Heck, this was shop talk!
I loved Dark Tower Four, because of it's characters.
>Happy Thanksgiving,
You too.
Take care,
Bjorn
---
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/1822
And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the
people is the voice of God, since the rightousness of the crowd is always
close to madness.
- Alcuin, Letter to Charlemagne, A.D. 800, ep. 127
"You should make a point of trying everything once, excepting incest and
folk-dancing."
- Sir Arnold Bax, "Farewell my youth"
And hey, don't forget to do your bit for the HELP fund!!
http://members.tripod.com/~cyberstalked/
Peter Straub
Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> I hate to bring up this point again, because poor Peter Straub reads
> these newsgroups, but I would like to reiterate my feeling that "The
> Talisman" was the turning point (though perhaps "Christine" was
> a presentiment, as I found it a little stale.). "The Talisman",
> necessarily was unedited, except by the authors themselves, and the
> end result could not be anything but a horrid compromise of either
> writer's own standards if writing alone.
Huh? "Poor Peter Straub?" Robert, I had imagined that we had achieved a
sort of rapprochement. Come on. Please know that while I understand your
feelings about King's later work, they do not necessarily correspond to
my own, and that I find the assumptions behind this pitying reference to
myself absolutely unjustified. In fact, "The Talisman" was edited by a
an excellent editor at Viking named Alan Williams who spoke up as
strongly as either King or me and had a great impact on the finished
product.
Beyond that, I want only to say that "poor Peter Straub" is going along
quite nicely, thank you. Really. This sort of condecension is more than
a little irritating.
Peter
ArcAngel / Battle Queen
Wow, Robert, if you don't like a book, who forced you to finish it? I
liked the fairy tale with danger quality of the Talisman myself (have you
read Eyes of the Dragon? -- that would probably give you an aneurysm)
True, there was a great deal of Rose Madder that I didn't like (if the idea
or premise of a story doesn't jibe too well with me it is hard to get into
it, I'm the first to admit it -- which is why I could not stand the
Tommyknockers for the most part. I have found that if you stop thinking of
SK as a horror writer, but as a writer of the eerily odd, and
nostalgia-filled memories of youth, his work is, even measured by the sheer
undertaking of it, pretty damn good.
I think it is very presumptuous of you to suggest that SK gets bored with
his work though -- writing thousands of pages may be boring when you look
at it as a non-writer, but would you drag something out that was boring the
hell out of you? I don't think so; and if it is only for the money, as I
may be mistakenly inferring you were implying about SK, he might get paid
by the word on top of his salary, but he doesn't need to. And I don't
think that is his primary reason for writing.
You need to re-read some of the books you mentioned, I think, and try to
get into them for what they were intended -- as escapes into another world.
Put yourself in the character of Roland, the Gunslinger (pretend as you
did when you were a little boy, playing cowboys and Indians, if you have
to) and then tell me you can't see it has to take a long time to fill in
all the gaps that might otherwise have been left over. Or as Jack in the
Talisman. I am not totally disagreeing with you, though. There ARE times
I think SK likes to hear the sound of his own fingers drumming on the
keyboard, and he has admitted to this in some of his Constant Reader
segues. But I do not think he is doing anything like what you suggest:
belittling or even insulting his audience. Perhaps if you site a passage
to illustrate your point, I could see more of what you mean.
As far as being "drawn in" -- that is accomplish on he front cover.. right
where it says Stephen King...
: > > As you journey towards discovering how writing can be utilised to
:
Robert Whelan
On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Peter Straub wrote:
> Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> >
> > I hate to bring up this point again, because poor Peter Straub reads
> > these newsgroups, but I would like to reiterate my feeling that "The
> > Talisman" was the turning point (though perhaps "Christine" was
> > a presentiment, as I found it a little stale.). "The Talisman",
> > necessarily was unedited, except by the authors themselves, and the
> > end result could not be anything but a horrid compromise of either
> > writer's own standards if writing alone.
>
> Huh? "Poor Peter Straub?" Robert, I had imagined that we had achieved a
> sort of rapprochement. Come on. Please know that while I understand your
> feelings about King's later work, they do not necessarily correspond to
> my own, and that I find the assumptions behind this pitying reference to
> myself absolutely unjustified. In fact, "The Talisman" was edited by a
> an excellent editor at Viking named Alan Williams who spoke up as
> strongly as either King or me and had a great impact on the finished
> product.
>
> Beyond that, I want only to say that "poor Peter Straub" is going along
> quite nicely, thank you. Really. This sort of condecension is more than
> a little irritating.
Peter. I didn't mean to be condescending. By "poor Peter Straub"
I was referring to the fact that you would inevitably read my comments,
as uninformed, or theoretical as they may be, and be forced to comment.
I didn't mean any pity other than for your probable irritation at my
unsupported theorizing. I don't THINK that really counts as
condescencioin, but if it does, I apologize.
Robert.
Bjorn Pedersen
Captain Tripps wrote in message <347CCB...@erols.REMOVE-THIScom>...
>Forgive my facitiousness but I find his descriptions to be appropriate
>and a necessary part of his storytelling. It is also the signerature
>Stephen King writing. I'm sure you know what I mean.
I agree with you, but for a different reason. Part of what I like about
Stephen King is the fact that he *tells* you a story. It is almost an
audible experience, like sitting and listening to someone talk. It is
oratory writing, what King does.
That's a part of the charm. But if you, like me, have gone through your
adult life trying to write stories, you pick up on the editorial habits.
There's good reasons to pick apart Stephen King's writing, and the criticism
is valid - from a technical standpoint.One very good reason to nit-pick is
to find out what works for him, and use it yourself. The opposite is also a
good reason to nit-pick. You want to avoid what he doesn't do so well.
>Is it because you are a writer and have experienced editing to the point
>of rewriting your sentences that you carry this opinion?
Sure. Writing is a job. Like any job it has its techniques. To build a house
you need more than the artistry of the carpenter. To build a novel you need
more than the mastery of language. If that was all you needed then Bill
Palmer would be the champ. If you haven't heard of him, thank you deity of
choice for that. :D
>Peter David said once that the ideal editor is one who points out
>inconsistencies and flaws in logic. Sure we could all do without the
>mistakes that have been pointed out such as Rolands mother singing him a
>song and then his father doing it later. But to edit someones writing
>style?
King's problem is not an editing problem. It is a proof-reading problem.
There is something called the lexicality index. It is a fancy name for
'readability'. Writing tends to become cumbersome if the sentences and
paragraphs are very long, and convoluted. So the reader skips the text, or
he puts the book down. If you try to read Joyce Carol Oates you will see
what I mean. One paragraph can stretch over several pages without much in
the way of commas and periods.
Writing style is a purely technical thing. It has to do mainly with how you
build sentences. But then again, who am I to talk - he's the one who has
sold a quazillion books.
But I love most of his novels, because Steve King can tell damn good tales.
His positives outweigh his negatives.
Robert Whelan
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Jon R. wrote:
> Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> Spoilerssssss*******for Needful Things*****
> And for Rose Madder as well
>
>
> spoiler space
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
>
> > Well, I'm sort of groaning my way through Rose Madder...so I'm
> > interested in why you found such scenes less effective in it. Is
> > it because the story was trying to take itself seriously, and the
> > B-movie elements conflicted? I can understand that.
>
> Partly, I guess my timing was wrong. I had just read Ordeal by
> Linda Lovelace, which dealt with a far worse husband, that one
> real.
I really don't believe it was your timing...
> Secondly, I thought Norman was kind of flat...you know, all bad
> and horrible. If his good sides shone through at times, I've forgotten
> it now. I usually like my characters a bit more complex.
No, his good side never shone through. Not one spot of humanity was
afforded him...
I also
> had some problems with becoming interested in the story, and in
> hindsight I see that I probably read it with too much of a distance.
You seem to be blaming yourself for being too distant. Isn't the author
responsible for drawing one in? I was "distanced" by the overwrought
miscarriage scene at the beginning...Norman was EVIL, Rose a VICTIM,
the baby DEAD. I wasn't allowed to care on my own, but beaten over
the head.
> (This book won't work as good when read like I read Regs and Needful
> Things, in other words.) Stevie, if you read this, I remember you
> posting about how you liked Norman's character, but IIRC, that was
> more towards the end of the book?
Regs, and Needful Things were stuffed with action, and multiple
characters. If the author got bored with some, he just went on to
the next. Rose Madder had long pointless tracks of people standing
around talking (to little effect). The only "Regulators" "Needful Things"
type fun occured when Norman battled Gertie.
>
> Shortly put, I was waiting anxiously for the supernatural bits to
> turn up (I knew about them being there), and I thougt they were
> nicely done, so the ending was okay. I even liked the picture parts,
> mostly for intertextual reasons that probably won't make much
> sense for non-Nordic people.
The supernatural bits had good elements, but I found them as padded
and poorly written as the rest of the book (except for Rose Madder,
who had a personality). I think that the reason was that King was
trying to write as if he had a large cast of characters on an
adventure with Rosie, and kept trying to inject comic relief by have
Rosie talk to herself in comic asides....it didn't work, though it
might have if she had had company...
What do you mean by "intertextual reasons"? As a fan of a Nordic
obsessed writer, (Tolkien) I might understand...
> > It conflicted with my normal expectation of some sort of empathy
> > for the characters being established before the gruesome gore. And
> > King DID do some of his typical character development in that book.
> > Shlock horror, and meaningful horror don't mix well. You can't ask
> > a reader to switch from caring about Polly, or Norris, or Alan,
> > to laughing at Nettie and Wilma, or Georgie and that other creep.
>
> I understand the criticism, and I respect it, it just didn't work
> that way for me. I liked the bad guy, and I cheered for him all the
> way. I find myself doing that from time to time...perhaps I should
> be scared?
>
> Besides, I guess my own reading patterns are a bit to blame. I'm
> used to keeping a distance to the text, seldom actually identifying
> with the characters. Caring, yes; identifying, no.
I always identify with the characters...heroes and villains. I find
that it is the litmus test of whether or not a work is worth ever
reading again. If it has no personal application, or resonance, it
seems to me to be a waste of my life...
I found that by the third book of the "Wheel of Time", the mere
familiarity of the characters had caused me to "care" about them,
in the sense that I knew them as familiar faces and simply wanted to
know what happened next. But none of them really feel "real" to me,
as having problems that have any resonance with real life emotions
and feelings...the "Wheel of Time" is an exception to my reading
patterns, however.
R.
Jon R.
> > Partly, I guess my timing was wrong. I had just read Ordeal by
> > Linda Lovelace, which dealt with a far worse husband, that one
> > real.
> I really don't believe it was your timing...
Maybe not, but I want to leave that option open, at least.
(snip)
> I also
> > had some problems with becoming interested in the story, and in
> > hindsight I see that I probably read it with too much of a distance.
> You seem to be blaming yourself for being too distant. Isn't the author
> responsible for drawing one in? I was "distanced" by the overwrought
> miscarriage scene at the beginning...Norman was EVIL, Rose a VICTIM,
> the baby DEAD. I wasn't allowed to care on my own, but beaten over
> the head.
Well, the point is that I can read a book many ways. That's what
I'm trained to do, after all. A "naive" reading might have worked
better than a "distanced" one, in this case. Or maybe not. I tend
to have some part of my brain noticing technicalities even when
I'm deeply into a story, though. You know, like reading a comic
book for the story, but _knowing_ afterwards how the panels were
arranged, the use of splash pages, whether or not the last panel
on a double pag spread is a "page-turner", etc. My explanation
goes for comic books, but this would be true for books as well,
only that the patterns usually are a bit more complex.
(snip)
> > Shortly put, I was waiting anxiously for the supernatural bits to
> > turn up (I knew about them being there), and I thougt they were
> > nicely done, so the ending was okay. I even liked the picture parts,
> > mostly for intertextual reasons that probably won't make much
> > sense for non-Nordic people.
> The supernatural bits had good elements, but I found them as padded
> and poorly written as the rest of the book (except for Rose Madder,
> who had a personality). I think that the reason was that King was
> trying to write as if he had a large cast of characters on an
> adventure with Rosie, and kept trying to inject comic relief by have
> Rosie talk to herself in comic asides....it didn't work, though it
> might have if she had had company...
I _do_ prefer large casts, as a rule. If the whole thing depends
on me caring about one particular character, it will fall flat to
the ground if I don't care, of course.
> What do you mean by "intertextual reasons"? As a fan of a Nordic
> obsessed writer, (Tolkien) I might understand...
Not Tolkien. I'm referring to people who become part of a painting.
The one you _might_ have read (it's translated to English, although
I doubt it's much known in USA) is a Moomintroll book, where
Moominmama draws flowers on a wall because she misses her garden.
When her internal crisis becomes great enough, she steps into
the painting and looks out from the wall, seeing her family search
for her. A beautiful and deeply symbolic passage.
(snip)
> > Besides, I guess my own reading patterns are a bit to blame. I'm
> > used to keeping a distance to the text, seldom actually identifying
> > with the characters. Caring, yes; identifying, no.
> I always identify with the characters...heroes and villains. I find
> that it is the litmus test of whether or not a work is worth ever
> reading again. If it has no personal application, or resonance, it
> seems to me to be a waste of my life...
We're probably just fundamentally different here, then. I have too
much of a distance to identify with, say, Roland or any of his
ka-tet. I'm not like any of those people! They still interest me,
though.
Of course, when a book _really_ excels, I find myself dragged in,
no matter what. If I moan when someone say anything stupid,
desperately hope that someone will survive/get the girl/whatever,
I guess the book is controlling me, not the other way around.
The passages about Ben in It is a good example of SK doing this
(to me, that is).
> I found that by the third book of the "Wheel of Time", the mere
> familiarity of the characters had caused me to "care" about them,
> in the sense that I knew them as familiar faces and simply wanted to
> know what happened next. But none of them really feel "real" to me,
> as having problems that have any resonance with real life emotions
> and feelings...the "Wheel of Time" is an exception to my reading
> patterns, however.
I'll probably come to that series some time the next ten years...too
many books in my closet!
Jon R.
Jon R.
Bob MacAdu wrote:
> =
> Jon R. wrote:
> >
> > Bob MacAdu wrote:
(snip) =
> True enough. However does it not also seem that, if Roland is the
> storyteller, the books should be written - sorry, 'writ' - in the first=
> person?
I agree. I didn't like that, either.
> I find that I have a difficult time believing many of the things
> the characters do and say - which is true of many of King's books
> recently - because they strike me as being somewhat out of character.
> For example, how likely is it that a drug addict from New York would
> know that L. Frank Baum wrote The Wizard of Oz? Or that he wrote many O=
z
> books for that matter? I consider myself fairly well-read and even *I*
> didn't know there were more books in the 'Oz Cycle' until years later;
> they are not often found in complete sets at bookstores. It seems to me=
> that many King characters know 'too much' or do not strike me as wholly=
> believable in certain scenes, or that they simply do things which
> ordinary people would not generally do. Clearly this is fiction, but is=
> the intent not to make the reader feel as if they can understand,
> identify and/or sympathise with, a character?
But _we_ know this fact now, simply by reading Stephen King! If Eddie
read SK or someone like him back in his own world, maybe that would
be enough? =
(snip) =
> > > > >Another example from W&G: what point did part 6, chapter 6 of pa=
rt 3
> > > > >have in furthering the plot? Read it and tell me, or I can answe=
r it
> > > > >for you and save the time - nothing. It was pointless and gratui=
tous and
> > > > >sorely in need of being edited from the book.
> > I'll have to look that up first...
> Do you really want to bother? It's just so bloody stupid.
Okay, looked it up. I see your point, but if you bear over with me
for a paragraph or two, I'll complicate the situation...
(First of all, a little cruelty to dogs is always fun, IMO.)
So, what does this section tell us? That small boys in the village
look up to the 'villains', and that the supposed bad guy doesn't
care much for it. This can be read as a way of showing (as opposed
to telling, thanks Bj=F8rn!) that who _we_ see as three bullies =
with guns, perhaps are viewed differently by the people in the =
village. Further, it may demonstrate a sort of rottenness among
the locals that actually surpasses that of the bad dudes. And finally,
it gives the villain a bit of humanity...he isn't _all_ bad, and
that's always a plus. Totally one-dimensional characters are seldom
very interesting.
It doesn't further the plot, but that's what I got out of the
section. I may read too much into it, though?
Jon R.
stevie canuck
Jon R. wrote:
> Bob MacAdu wrote:
> > Jon R. wrote:
> > > Bob MacAdu wrote:
>>True enough. However does it not also seem that, if Roland is the
>>storyteller, the books should be written - sorry, 'writ' - in the first
>>person?
> I agree. I didn't like that, either.
But couldn't it be argued that Roland's telling of the tale of his youth
in third person, is another example of the effects of the world having
moved on, and the distance between the Roland who is telling the tale,
and the Roland who lived it?
In effect, the ending of the major portion of the tale, where Cuthbert
and Alain transport Roland's body away from Mejis, represents the "death
and burial" of the young Roland. His later "waking" is a kind of
resurrection, or new beginning.
In this sense, Roland who tells the tale, was _not_ a player in the
Mejis story.
Robert Whelan
On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Jon R. wrote:
> Robert Whelan wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Jon R. wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Whelan wrote:
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > Spoilerssssss*******for Needful Things*****
> > > And for Rose Madder as well
> > >
> > >
> > > spoiler space
> > >
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
>
>
> > What do you mean by "intertextual reasons"? As a fan of a Nordic
> > obsessed writer, (Tolkien) I might understand...
>
> Not Tolkien. I'm referring to people who become part of a painting.
> The one you _might_ have read (it's translated to English, although
> I doubt it's much known in USA) is a Moomintroll book, where
> Moominmama draws flowers on a wall because she misses her garden.
> When her internal crisis becomes great enough, she steps into
> the painting and looks out from the wall, seeing her family search
> for her. A beautiful and deeply symbolic passage.
Hmmm. I had most of the Moomintroll books on my bookshelf as a kid, but
the only ones I loved were superbly translated by Elizabeth Portsch. My
favorites were "Finn Family Moomintroll" and "Comet in Moominland".
Did that take place in "Finn Family Moomintroll"? I remember mama missing
her garden on the island. Somehow, though, the event you are describing
sounds like it belongs in "Moominvalley in November" where they first
arrive in the valley. The passage sounds very familiar.
I never liked the other Moomin books because they had a different
translator, who seemed to have a gloomy outlook, and made the stories
all fall flat. "Moominvalley in November" was always so dreary, I never
finished it (as an 8-10 year old). This may have been due to the tone
of the book, but the translator had a lot to do with it, I believe.
Robert.
Jon R.
Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Jon R. wrote:
> > Not Tolkien. I'm referring to people who become part of a painting.
> > The one you _might_ have read (it's translated to English, although
> > I doubt it's much known in USA) is a Moomintroll book, where
> > Moominmama draws flowers on a wall because she misses her garden.
> > When her internal crisis becomes great enough, she steps into
> > the painting and looks out from the wall, seeing her family search
> > for her. A beautiful and deeply symbolic passage.
>
> Hmmm. I had most of the Moomintroll books on my bookshelf as a kid, but
> the only ones I loved were superbly translated by Elizabeth Portsch. My
> favorites were "Finn Family Moomintroll" and "Comet in Moominland".
> Did that take place in "Finn Family Moomintroll"? I remember mama missing
> her garden on the island. Somehow, though, the event you are describing
> sounds like it belongs in "Moominvalley in November" where they first
> arrive in the valley. The passage sounds very familiar.
The passage is from the second last book, which would literally
translate into "Moominpapa and the sea", although I know some of
the titles are changed around a bit.
Moominvalley In November is the very last book (counting the
thick ones, anyway), and is more of a companion piece for Moominpapa
And The Sea. The Moomin family is not in the valley, and the book
describes how desillusioned (sp?) characters who look up to the
Moomins try to from a family in the Moominhouse.
> I never liked the other Moomin books because they had a different
> translator, who seemed to have a gloomy outlook, and made the stories
> all fall flat. "Moominvalley in November" was always so dreary, I never
> finished it (as an 8-10 year old). This may have been due to the tone
> of the book, but the translator had a lot to do with it, I believe.
Maybe not. The books become more and more 'adult' as the series
progresses, people/Moomintrolls go through crisis after crisis,
but it will always go well in the end.
Finn Family Moomintroll is without a doubt the 'happiest' and lightest
in tone of the series, and this is the one always used most when
the books are made into cartoons or puppet films. Which tone Comet
In Moominvalley had, will depend a bit on which version it's
translated from. The book (and a couple of the other early ones
in this series) was re-written by the author. This was done to make
things consistent throughout the series, i.e. the Moomintroll is
far too adult in the first version of Comet..., palm trees are
replaced with Finnish flora, etc.
If you still have those books around, I'd recommend a re-read. They
will probably go down better for an adult.
Jon R.
Jon R.
stevie canuck wrote:
>
> Jon R. wrote:
>
> > Bob MacAdu wrote:
>
> > > Jon R. wrote:
>
> > > > Bob MacAdu wrote:
>
> >>True enough. However does it not also seem that, if Roland is the
> >>storyteller, the books should be written - sorry, 'writ' - in the first
> >>person?
>
> > I agree. I didn't like that, either.
>
> But couldn't it be argued that Roland's telling of the tale of his youth
> in third person, is another example of the effects of the world having
> moved on, and the distance between the Roland who is telling the tale,
> and the Roland who lived it?
It could, and it probably is the case. I just didn't like it. <shrug>
Jon R.
Burning Daylight
Jon R. wrote:
> Okay, looked it up. I see your point, but if you bear over with me
> for a paragraph or two, I'll complicate the situation...
> (First of all, a little cruelty to dogs is always fun, IMO.)
> So, what does this section tell us? That small boys in the village
> look up to the 'villains', and that the supposed bad guy doesn't
> care much for it. This can be read as a way of showing (as opposed
> to telling, thanks Bjørn!) that who _we_ see as three bullies
> with guns, perhaps are viewed differently by the people in the
> village. Further, it may demonstrate a sort of rottenness among
> the locals that actually surpasses that of the bad dudes. And finally,
>
> it gives the villain a bit of humanity...he isn't _all_ bad, and
> that's always a plus. Totally one-dimensional characters are seldom
> very interesting.
>
> It doesn't further the plot, but that's what I got out of the
> section. I may read too much into it, though?
That section could still have to do with the plot. Not the
sub-story plot, but of the entire DT series. I remember reading
this section and I really had to think that the three boys were or
are going to show up later. I took it as a foreshadowing of future
antagonists. They would most likely still be alive and at this time
(The time of DT4), they would most likely have reached their
goal of being big coffin hunters. Well, at least that's the
conclusion that I came to while reading that part.
It does seem like a loose end in the plot, but, I have never noticed
a loose end that doesn't come together in a King book.
(Perhaps I need enlightening :)
--
Try to remain so open minded that your mind
is open to narrow mindedness.
Bob MacAdu
Denise Panter wrote:
>
> Bob MacAdu <6...@purgatory.org> wrote:
> >Jon R. wrote:
> >>
> >> stevie canuck wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Bob MacAdu wrote, in response to my post commenting on his criticisms of
> >> > King's recent writings:
> >> >
> >> > ... and I got about half way through my response, when I got the sudden
> >> > distinct inpression that I was actually talking to Robert Whelan, under
> >> > a nom de post.
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >> I think you should read the rest of it. To a degree I agree with
> >> Bob many places, and if he should be Robert in disguise, he
> >> certainly fooled me!
> >>
> >> Jon R.
> >
> >Nice of you to say. Wrong, but nice of you. :)
>
> Which was wrong? That Stevie should read the rest of your original
> post? That Jon agreed with you to certain degree in many places? Or that
> Jon didn't believe you were Robert in disguise?!
>
> Denise :)
>
> --
> pc witticism 109:
>
> C:\> File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)
>
> delete nospam to send e-mail
Yes. Exactly.
Bob MacAdu
Robert Whelan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Bob MacAdu wrote:
> > I am sorry that you are using It as an education in writing, as I found
> > the book an arduous torture from beginning to end; the beginning of
> > King's downhill slide towards ponderous tomes with unsatisfactory
> > resolutions. When he writes a story which he has thought out prior to
> > placing himself before the computer, he writes extraordinarily well.
> > When he sits and rambles until a point eventually occurs to him, his
> > initial position.
>
> these newsgroups, but I would like to reiterate my feeling that "The
> Talisman" was the turning point (though perhaps "Christine" was
> a presentiment, as I found it a little stale.). "The Talisman",
> necessarily was unedited, except by the authors themselves, and the
> end result could not be anything but a horrid compromise of either
> experiment was published...and guess what? It was a success. I don't
> know that King learned a bad lesson from this, but a door must have
> been opened in his mind at that point. A door with the words "Quick
> Exit" on it. King learned, at this point, that you could play around,
> and still get paid for it. If he could trust his own style to be
> mixed with that of another author and still succeed, why not let his
> own style be compromised by himself?
>
Again, I've not read The Talisman since it first came out - I almost
never re-read King, the first time being enough - however I do recall it
reaching a few points where I thought the story wandered astray. I also
recall having enjoyed the book overall, but wishing it had been a bit on
the shorter side. As for King learning a lesson from this work, I only
wish it had been to pick up more of Straub's writing ability. Certainly
no writer is without flaws, but in this genre I think Straub has a much
better command of the craft.
> > As you journey towards discovering how writing can be utilised to 'draw
> > someone in,' think, too, about how it can be used to adversely effect
> > the reader. I think of the doorstop - sorry, novel - Insomnia and how
> > good it was at the start and how much crap it became about four thousand
> > pages in. King has developed a problem, as I see it, with not carrying a
> > given tale to a logical conclusion: evidence of this began with the
> > original version of The Stand, where it seemed he had bitten off a bit
> > more than he could chew and had got quite bored with writing the story
> > and...well let's just blow everybody up and see what happens after.
>
> A great book that I will probably never return to, because of that
> ending. Similar endings in..."Talisman" "It". I never finished
> Tommyknockers because it started to feel the same way as the
> adult half of "It" did.
>
I think of The Stand (pick your favourite version) and cannot help but
to compare it, in some respects, to elements of Babylon 5: after the
tatters of war, the survivors sift through the detritus to get their
lives together again. B5 managed to do this quite effectively and keep
the story interesting; The Stand seemed to stagger about aimlessly in
the hope that something interesting might happen if a couple of hundred
pages could be filled up. *Yawn*
I read the first dozen pages of Rose Madder and, getting madder myself,
returned to the bookstore and exchanged it for an HP Lovecraft anthology
I'd my eye on for a while. You are much braver than I to have struggled
with it to the end....
Robert Whelan
In article <65vtnt$g...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Bob MacAdu wrote:
>Robert Whelan wrote:
>>
>Again, I've not read The Talisman since it first came out - I almost
>never re-read King, the first time being enough - however I do recall it
>reaching a few points where I thought the story wandered astray. I also
>recall having enjoyed the book overall, but wishing it had been a bit on
>the shorter side. As for King learning a lesson from this work, I only
>wish it had been to pick up more of Straub's writing ability. Certainly
>no writer is without flaws, but in this genre I think Straub has a much
>better command of the craft.
This is true, and in fact may contribute to the difficulty that people
have in telling who wrote what. King has described his own style as
"silly putty" and I can easily imagine him adopting Straub's style
during the course of the novel. Peter has said that they both did this
quite consciously at certain points..
>I think of The Stand (pick your favourite version) and cannot help but
>to compare it, in some respects, to elements of Babylon 5: after the
>tatters of war, the survivors sift through the detritus to get their
>lives together again. B5 managed to do this quite effectively and keep
>the story interesting; The Stand seemed to stagger about aimlessly in
>the hope that something interesting might happen if a couple of hundred
>pages could be filled up. *Yawn*
One should never start something with an epic feel to it, unless one
knows the ending before hand. Tolkien may have not known the details
of HOW the Ring would get to Mount Doom, but he knew it would happen.
The Stand's climax was as about expected as being hit by a truck, by
both the author and the audience.
>> > When a writer becomes bored, or at the very least tired of what he has
>> > begun because he can't think his way out of it, the reader suffers.
>> > This is unfair. And yet people throw huge amounts of cash at him and
>> > say, 'Give me more!' I want more as well. I want a story which I can
>> > say, honestly, I marvelled at, something for which I waited years to
>> > read and can savour again until the next bit comes out. He hasn't done
>> > that for me. His 'voice' turns me away with an
>> > I-Don't-Care-What-You-Think-Because-I-Don't-Have-To-Because-I-Make-Millions
>> > mentality which is not what story-telling is about.
I've read early essays by King about the publishing process, and he seems
to be painfully aware, very early on, how the cycle of deadlines and
pressure to publish can vitiate the creative drive. "Fear Itself"
describes the trap a writer can get into. In that essay, he seemed to
be very conscious of the possibility of ending up writing without any
feeling, and hoped that he could avoid it. He mentioned Ian Flemings
final three Bond novels as examples. Further comments and "Constant
Reader" letters (in Nightmares & Dreamscapes particularly) seem to
vacillate between an honest fear that he is no longer putting out a
good product, and a defensive feeling that the critics are persecuting
him for snobbish reasons. In "Nightmares & Dreamscapes" he mentioned
Nicholas Baker, who had just written *Vox* to critical acclaim, as a
"meaningless fingernail paring". I agree with him as to the value of
Baker's work in terms of it's being meaningful in any way, but to
a lesser degree, *Vox* and to a greater degree *Fermata* were extremely
WELL written books. The author's purpose was peurile and contemptible,
and *Vox* wasn't particularly fascinating, but *Fermata* was amazing.
I would much prefer King's novels be written with that sort of passion,
as opposed to Baker's post-adolescent pornography boosters.
>I read the first dozen pages of Rose Madder and, getting madder myself,
>returned to the bookstore and exchanged it for an HP Lovecraft anthology
>I'd my eye on for a while. You are much braver than I to have struggled
>with it to the end....
You bought it new? My copy was free. Except for the time wasted
in my life.
R.
Jennifer L. La Starza
I don't think your fully looking at what King is writing, I am a life long
fan, and the reason for this is because Steven King has an extremely vivid
and wonderful imagination. Maybe you should be looking at that aspect of
his books, instead of grammar.