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

91–97 of 97 posts

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

#91

Post by lmm »

sincerely wrote: post #66
mr_toad wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh come on, Vonnegut is one of the most obvious examples of well respected American writers and you could hardly call his work boring. One of the 2016 Pulitzer prize winners (The Sympathizer - not cherry picking, just a recent book that comes to mind) was an extremely gripping/exciting story about escaping the end of the Vietnam war to America but it still managed to receive nearly unanimous praise. On the other hand…

Vonnegut is the exception that proves the rule (perhaps with Atwood).

I found Franzen terrible FWIW, but there is certainly excellent literary writing out there. Prosecraft is a skill, just as plotting and settings are - neither is superior to the other. And there is a real cultural disrespect for the things that SF does well. I wouldn't mind that if good SF was still allowed to continue in its own place, but lately even that seems under threat (e.g. the Hugo awards are lately dominated by literary prose at the expense of the classic SF virtues).

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

#92

Post by erikb »

That one is a surprise to me.

I would argue that the best certainly write more than most. Maybe there's a difference between churning out book after book, and rewriting one book again and again until it becomes good. I think the latter is the one that makes one great. The first one offers little feedback, since three books further the author probably forgot most of the details of the first one. So maybe the problem is that "writing a lot" is measured in books rather than in words typed (and then deleted, to be typed again, in a different form and structure).

Just reading this comment you will probably find a few errors that I will never see, because I won't rewrite it. Let that be an example of my theory.

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

#93

Post by Broken_Hippo »

mseebach wrote: post #88
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many folks can drink again, once they've learned how to control things. That generally means a period of sobriety, though it doesn't always. There are ways to treat the underlying issues while not completely abstaining. Many folks don't get treatment for alcoholism in their early 20's, quit, and drink normally the rest of their life. Unfortunately, many folks think that once an addict, always one. While this is true…

> Many folks don't get treatment for alcoholism in their early 20's, quit, and drink normally the rest of their life. If they don't get treatment, were they ever properly diagnosed? As I understand it, "drinking (way) too much" is something a good number of people in their 20s do, then they cut down without any particular problems. That isn't alcoholism, it's just drinking too much. Even the urge to grab a glass of w…

Sure, a lot of people drink too much when they are young. Most of the people doing so are normal, and a few develop dependencies both mental and physical. it isn't just alcohol here: Lots of folks do drugs when they are young. A portion of those folks get a habit, and a portion of those don't break their habit when their brain stabilizes around 25 or something. I wish I had the information to link to, but it is something they've at least started to study. Similar threads happen with, say, service members addicted to heroin overseas, yet are able to break the habit when they get home and into a different life situation.

Besides, non-diagnosis happens all the time, and is more common when folks either can't afford healthcare of if using healthcare means they put their jobs at risk. People have depression and don't seek treatment, but that doesn't mean they aren't depressed. Folks break toes without treatment. People clean up from harder drugs and we don't question if they were really addicted or not most times. It doesn't mean their toe wasn't broken, simply that they didn't get it treated. Medical-based treatment is expensive and not everyone can afford to get a proper diagnosis.

Going to AA meetings isn't a diagnosis either: They don't require any of that. I can go into AA as an occasional drinker and simply lie about it. If I get in legal trouble during on of those occasional drinking sessions, I might be forced to go.

The uptake of treatment and a proper diagnosis doesn't mean someone isn't addicted, simply that they didn't have official treatment.

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

#94

Post by Chris_Jay »

IIIIIIIIII wrote: post #78

I've tried to read King a few times over the years. I couldn't get over the lack of prose style and find him to be a craftsman of plots that (other) people are enthralled by, but not much of a writer. This is what happens when you're raised in your literary interests by the likes of Joyce and Proust, perhaps. If I'm a snob so be it. When I heard Harlan Ellison wrote novels in bookstore windows in a matter of days I t…

funny - King actually has a quote on this that stuck with me quite a while.

"Some books you read for the story. Don't be like the snobs who won't read a book for the story. Some books you read for the words. Don't be the kind of person who won't read a book for the words either. But when you find a book that you read for the words and the story... treasure that book".

I certainly agree with your assessment that one wouldn't read a King book for the words, but as someone who really likes the scifi-fantasy genre, that's not a standard to which I can afford to hold the authors I read...

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

#95

Post by coldtea »

mseebach wrote: post #88
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many folks can drink again, once they've learned how to control things. That generally means a period of sobriety, though it doesn't always. There are ways to treat the underlying issues while not completely abstaining. Many folks don't get treatment for alcoholism in their early 20's, quit, and drink normally the rest of their life. Unfortunately, many folks think that once an addict, always one. While this is true…

> Many folks don't get treatment for alcoholism in their early 20's, quit, and drink normally the rest of their life. If they don't get treatment, were they ever properly diagnosed? As I understand it, "drinking (way) too much" is something a good number of people in their 20s do, then they cut down without any particular problems. That isn't alcoholism, it's just drinking too much. Even the urge to grab a glass of w…

>If they don't get treatment, were they ever properly diagnosed?

If they had trouble quitting, such as withdrawal symptoms, and only managed to do so after hard attempts, then they don't really need to be diagnosed.

Other than that, the line between alcoholism and drinking too much is really blurry, if it exists at all. Some people manage to function perfectly and be OK while drinking heavily throughout their lives, and are not considered by others or consider themselves alcoholics.

Btw: "One of the most interesting findings, as far as I'm concerned, was that among remitted alcoholics (link is external) the average amount of drinking was around 1.3 drinks per day with a lot of variability, a little higher than that of moderate drinkers (0.8 drinks per day) but lower than that of heavy drinkers (4.0 drinks per day). I see this as a little more proof that people who met criteria for alcoholism at one point don't necessarily abstain forever and don't necessarily continue to have drinking problems (per Moderation Management (link is external), spontaneous remission (link is external), or some other means of stopping their alcoholic drinking)."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-addiction/...

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

#96

Post by zumzumzum »

sorokod wrote: post #77
sudosteph wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A fan of Dark Tower but in a way, the Dark Tower multiverse is of "lower resolution"

Later on in the series he also turned to referencing other series in a way I'm sure he thought was clever, similar to how he wrote himself into his own book. I didn't care for it. He also had the annoying habit of using cultural references as a crutch for world and character building. Oh, see this thing, it's just like a light saber from star wars! Or those flying objects, they're sneetches from harry potter! Well, that's one way to write a book. The DT was a sweeping, intricate, wild ride to nowhere. I'd put it in the same box as LOST. I don't regret either. I enjoyed them both immensely. But they weren't leading anywhere, and I didn't need to reprimanded by King at the end for wanting a satisfying ending.

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

#97

Post by spiralx »

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.

Martin's books are a retelling of a story about the War of the Roses, with a couple of fantasy elements slapped on top. The amount of world-building is pretty minimal for a large-scale fantasy series. The reason Martin doesn't produce a lot of work is because a) he only writes at home, and spends most of his time travelling, b) when he does write, it's other books and not ASoIaF, c) he's had problems with losing chunks of work, continuity errors and other issues that have required rework and/or rewrites, and d) he's just not a fast writer at his best.
Post reply on HN