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

41–50 of 97 posts

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

#41

Post by sudosteph »

senectus1 wrote: post #37
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.

Are you unfamiliar with the Dark Tower series? King is no stranger to "hella complex worlds". Though tbf, it did take him quite a while to finish the entire series. But he was writing things in the meantime (or getting hit by a truck) for the most part. If you sum up the time he spent actually writing, he still was able to get them much faster.

Edit: Another fun fact, many of King's non-Dark Tower books tie into the same universe, check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(Stephen_King)

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

#42

Post by scentedmeat »

pmoriarty wrote: post #40
dewitt wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's all a matter of personal opinion

I'm all for "enjoy what you want" but to say that there is no objective difference in the writing of, say, Don DeLillo and Dan Brown, is ridiculous.

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

#44

Post by yawz »

sudosteph wrote: post #8

King was my favorite writer growing up. I read "Firestarter" in 6th grade, and then continued working through about 20 or so more of his works until graduation from HS. I was "that kid", always had my nose buried in a paperback from the library, usually one of his. His works were like familiar friends to me. I could step into nearly any library or bookstore and find myself absorbed into some small town in Maine, or p…

I read them when I was around the same age, but a decade earlier than you. They pretty much had the same effect on me. Did you read anybody else at the same period? Koontz, maybe?

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

#45

Post by yawz »

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

Now... Someone who can really write decent fiction fast is Brandon Sanderson[].

[] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Sanderson

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

#46

Post by RickJWagner »

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…

I like the comparison to Jim Carrey. Some of his work is brilliant. (Dumb and Dumber, The Grinch are two of my favs.)

Carry, like King, seems plagued by personal demons. Both have immense talent, but also seem to be prone to these kinds of problems.

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

#47

Post by mr_toad »

aidenn0 wrote: post #27
pmoriarty wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd take Philip K Dick over all of them put together.

With few exceptions, genre fiction doesn't count as Serious Literature.

You mean because it’s not boring?

It’s like serious literature has to eschew anything that would make it a good story, in case it got in the way of being good writing.

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

#48

Post by navait »

sudosteph wrote: post #41
senectus1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you unfamiliar with the Dark Tower series? King is no stranger to "hella complex worlds". Though tbf, it did take him quite a while to finish the entire series. But he was writing things in the meantime (or getting hit by a truck) for the most part. If you sum up the time he spent actually writing, he still was able to get them much faster. Edit: Another fun fact, many of King's non-Dark Tower books tie into the…

I think that actually proves the GP's point. The Dark Tower was started in 1982, and not finished until 2004.

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

#49

Post by pmoriarty »

scentedmeat wrote: post #42
pmoriarty wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's all a matter of personal opinion I'm all for "enjoy what you want" but to say that there is no objective difference in the writing of, say, Don DeLillo and Dan Brown, is ridiculous.

I didn't say there was no difference, just that whether you think one is better than another is not "objective" but a matter of personal preference.

Clearly Dan Brown and Don DeLillo are different. They write different sorts of books that appeal to different sorts of readers. But I struggle to see how those differences make one "objectively" better than the other.

If there are objective criteria by which one could judge whether the one is better than the other, I'd like to know what they are.

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

#50

Post by kbenson »

yawz wrote: post #44
sudosteph wrote: post #8

King was my favorite writer growing up. I read "Firestarter" in 6th grade, and then continued working through about 20 or so more of his works until graduation from HS. I was "that kid", always had my nose buried in a paperback from the library, usually one of his. His works were like familiar friends to me. I could step into nearly any library or bookstore and find myself absorbed into some small town in Maine, or p…

I read them when I was around the same age, but a decade earlier than you. They pretty much had the same effect on me. Did you read anybody else at the same period? Koontz, maybe?

I read a few of each in High school. Koontz was fun but to me felt a bit more targeted for mass appeal (as weird as that feels to say in comparison to King). Then again, for King I was reading stuff like The Stand and The Dark Tower series, which may or may not be indicative of the rest of his work (which I mostly know through the movies made from them)?
Post reply on HN