Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 97 posts

Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

#31

Post by pmoriarty »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #20
gnarcoregrizz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wondering the same thing, so I read his book "On Writing" a few weeks ago. I figured there might be some good take-aways for writing software since there seems to be some skill overlap. Here are my (crappy) notes: * The golden rule: read a lot, write a lot. * Have a place for only writing and concentrating. Do nothing else there. * Everyone has an innate talent ceiling. A good writer won't progress beyond being…

And the most important, unspoken one that King would disclose to us if he were a bit more honest with himself: * Learn to ignore your inner critic. The way you write Six Pages a Day No Matter What, as King does, is by not caring all that much whether they are six awesome pages or six mediocre pages. If you've got talent and you exercise it faithfully enough, then sometimes your Six Pages will, indeed, be awesome, and…

It's probably been easier for King to ignore his inner critic ever since his wife fished his manuscript of Carrie out of the trash and it went on to become a bestseller.

On the other hand, this also reminds me of what William Staford answered when asked how he was able to write a poem every day: "I lower my standards."

Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

#32

Post by megaman22 »

mromanuk wrote: post #4

Would be interesting to know, his work process to achieve that output. I'm reading "Deep Work", and I bet Stephen King, did the "lock yourself" and write until it's finished or something among those lines (avoiding all distractions)

Much of his best early work was "Get blitzed on Schlitz and cocaine, and get to it"

I think in On Writing, he claims to have almost no recollection of writing Cujo.

Seriously, though, reading On Writing or Danse Macabre is fun. His style, as I recall is come up with a premise and characters, amd tell the story they lead you to. His experiments with more formal planning and plotting he feels are weaker.

Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

#33

Post by dewitt »

exolymph wrote: post #28
dewitt wrote: post #21

> "Donna Tartt, one of the best American novelists to emerge in the last 50 years, has published just three novels since 1992. Jonathan Franzen, the only American novelist who is her equal." Pynchon. DeLillo. McCarthy. Roth... Edit: Morrison. Updike. Mailer...

It's subjective.

Sure. I'd even put Gibson, Wallace, Stephenson, Asimov, and Martin on my own subjective list, just on pure influence and enjoyment. The other ones though are at least in the running by most objective criteria, I'd imagine.

Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

#34

Post by dewitt »

sudosteph wrote: post #30
dewitt wrote: post #21

> "Donna Tartt, one of the best American novelists to emerge in the last 50 years, has published just three novels since 1992. Jonathan Franzen, the only American novelist who is her equal." Pynchon. DeLillo. McCarthy. Roth... Edit: Morrison. Updike. Mailer...

Pynchon - Born 1937, "V" published in 1963 DeLillo - Born 1936, published first short story in 1960, novel in 1971 McCarthy - Born 1933, first short story published 1959, novel 1965 Roth - Born 1933, won award for "Goodbye, Columbus" in 1959 Updike - Born 1932, first published in 50's and 60s Morrison - Born 1931, first published in 1970 Mailer - Born 1923, first published in 1949 Remember that 50 years ago (from the…

Point made. I think you're right. : )

Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

#35

Post by sudosteph »

dewitt wrote: post #34
sudosteph wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pynchon - Born 1937, "V" published in 1963 DeLillo - Born 1936, published first short story in 1960, novel in 1971 McCarthy - Born 1933, first short story published 1959, novel 1965 Roth - Born 1933, won award for "Goodbye, Columbus" in 1959 Updike - Born 1932, first published in 50's and 60s Morrison - Born 1931, first published in 1970 Mailer - Born 1923, first published in 1949 Remember that 50 years ago (from the…

Point made. I think you're right. : )

If it helps, you just made me realize I really need to read some books by these folks. Shamefully, McCarthy is the only on on that list I was familiar with before.

Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

#36

Post by Barrin92 »

I don't disagree with King's thesis that a prolific writer can, of course, produce great works and many have done so, but I also can't shake the feeling that there is something special about authors who produce great works and then quit when they don't have anything else to say.

bad works don't diminish great works, but it feels like authors who only produce works of great quality and nothing else have a special feel for their craft, it seems like they are so confident in what they have to say that they'd be repulsed by just putting anything out that isn't remarkable, and that at least to me makes them special.

It's like comparing Daniel Day-Lewis and Jim Carrey. The former has taken on roles in remarkably few films, but pretty much every role is amazing and that's what's stuck in my mind when I see him in a film.

Carrey also has participated in films like the Truman show but then I'm also reminded of the Grinch and the Mask, which just ruins it for me a little bit.

Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

#37

Post by senectus1 »

Reedx wrote: post #6

Reminds me of when George RR Martin asked King, "How the fuck do you write so many books so fast?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR7XMkjDGw0

hilarious. But really, they dont write the same sort of books... Martins books are hella complex worlds. King does theme'd stories... I'm not saying one is better than the other, just very different products that require a lot of different sorts of work to complete.

Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

#38

Post by scott_s »

gnarcoregrizz wrote: post #12
mromanuk wrote: post #4

Would be interesting to know, his work process to achieve that output. I'm reading "Deep Work", and I bet Stephen King, did the "lock yourself" and write until it's finished or something among those lines (avoiding all distractions)

I was wondering the same thing, so I read his book "On Writing" a few weeks ago. I figured there might be some good take-aways for writing software since there seems to be some skill overlap. Here are my (crappy) notes: * The golden rule: read a lot, write a lot. * Have a place for only writing and concentrating. Do nothing else there. * Everyone has an innate talent ceiling. A good writer won't progress beyond being…

“On Writing” is amazing and everyone should read it. But, I have one quibble with your list: I think he writes because he needs to.

Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

#39

Post by sudosteph »

Barrin92 wrote: post #36

I don't disagree with King's thesis that a prolific writer can, of course, produce great works and many have done so, but I also can't shake the feeling that there is something special about authors who produce great works and then quit when they don't have anything else to say. bad works don't diminish great works, but it feels like authors who only produce works of great quality and nothing else have a special feel…

Is Jim Carrey really a fair comparison? Most people know him first and foremost as a comedian. He's not even super prolific, has 60 acting credits on IMDB vs Day-Lewis' 30, and many of them are one-off cameo roles on comedic TV shows.

I'd be more interested on your thoughts on, say Gary Oldman's performance quality (credited with 90 acting roles on IMDB) in comparison.

Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)

#40

Post by pmoriarty »

dewitt wrote: post #33
exolymph wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's subjective.

Sure. I'd even put Gibson, Wallace, Stephenson, Asimov, and Martin on my own subjective list, just on pure influence and enjoyment. The other ones though are at least in the running by most objective criteria, I'd imagine.

There's no such thing as objective criteria.

It's all a matter of personal opinion, much as some gatekeepers (like critics and academicians) would have you believe otherwise.

Post reply on HN