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
[deleted]
Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)
51–60 of 97 posts
Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)
#52King 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?
Never gave Koontz a try. Frank Herbert and Ray Bradbury were my other favorites. I tried a few other "popular" writers (Grisham, Agatha Christie) but thet didn't really make an impact. Do you recommend Koontz?
Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)
#53Would 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…
Awesome, it's available on Audible so there goes one more of the credits I'm trying to use up so that I can finally cancel my membership. :-)
I watched that interview linked elsewhere ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17307920 ) and also thought this could very much apply to software development, especially for me when tackling new stacks.
Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)
#54Earlier 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.
The people who make the effort to seek out great prose tend to gravitate to the same stuff.
Those who have no interest in leaving their cave defend their sloth by claiming it's all a matter of personal opinion.
Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)?
I recommend checking out one of King's novella or short-story collections for a different perspective. Some of those are actually some of my all time favorites.
Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Ah, didn't know that - that's a great story. Others here might enjoy this:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/53235/how-stephen-kings-wife-...
Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)
#57I 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.
You yourself love "The Grinch", though the other commenter says it makes him like Carrey less. I loved "The Mask". I guess I just don't think "less than brilliant attempts" makes actual brilliance any less enjoyable. If anything I respect the creator for taking risks.
Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)
#58I'm not a published writer, but my thought has always been that "serious" writers don't write less. They just publish less. And they publish less because they have a higher standard for their writing and their art (if I may use that word) than novelists who publish regularly. And (as Barrin92 also noted elsewhere on this thread), they only speak (meaning publish) when they have something to say.
And don't we all take people who speak sparingly and choose their words carefully more seriously?
Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)
#59> "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...
I'd take Philip K Dick over all of them put together.
He also emerged more than 50 years ago though.
Re: Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015)
#60I 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…
There’s a similar issue in sports discussions. I’m specifically thinking of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Do you judge a player by their career totals, their career averages, or best period? Can a player work themselves out of the HoF by having a few terrible years at the end of a great career?
Personally, I think we should focus on something like the best seven years of a player. I don’t believe that someone sticking around too long and underperforming hurts what they did before.