From: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden)
Subject: Re:    King size writer.
Originator: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:49:19 GMT
Organization: Dobonia


In article <92272.074927KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET>, Jon L. Campbell <KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
|[several paragraphs in which he explains that Stephen King writes 
|poorly in several respects in his recent novel NEEDFUL THINGS.  Jon
|then asks:]
|
|My question for the day is, should anyone use the works of King as the
|standard by which we wish to achieve.  Is King a high enough standard for
|writers entering the market place.  Or should we look to someone who's
|writing may not be as popular, but is by which standard fiction writers
|strive for?

Those who've been reading misc.writing for a while will no doubt groan
to see me climbing this high horse again, but I think your question
starts out in one direction and takes a sharp turn in the middle.  What
I mean is, you criticize King for the literary quality, or lack thereof,
of his writing, and then ask about standards for entering the
marketplace.

I think it is true that one can write a book whose literary values are
so utterly beyond redemption that no one will publish it unless they are
paid all costs in full, in advance, but beyond that I have observed no
correlation whatever between literary quality and the behavior of the
marketplace.  Sometimes great books become bestsellers.  Sometimes books
of complete crap become bestsellers.

If you want to write well (on a literary scale) I think your criticisms
of King's work are probably very useful--you are learning what you want
to avoid when you write.  I think the way you've expressed them is
probably good for us other writers to hear, too.  For example, when the
POV shifts you ask yourself "Is this necessary?" rather than checking
off some mental balance sheet--"POV shifts, deduct 10 points." You
obviously have a good grasp of the fact that rules may be broken.

I notice that you find it sad that you've figured out the plot after
reading the first three chapters.  For this particular novel you may be
justified in your sadness--I haven't read it.  But intricate and
unpredictable plots are not a requirement for good fiction.  In fact,
any plot at all is not a requirement for good fiction.  One of the more
interesting (and ego-inflating) criticisms I've gotten on my own novel
was from a fellow writer who said, when she was about two-thirds of the
way through the book, "I find myself hoping there won't be any more plot
developments--I just want more of these great descriptions!" And the
plot in question is not a terribly twisty one.  To draw examples from
published works that have received critical praise, consider whether
NAKED LUNCH has a plot, or whether the plot of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE could
be considered complicated or difficult to predict.

I think that a more crucial element in the novel is tension.  Plots
often provide this, the tension being "What will happen next?", but
other elements such as characters and settings can serve the purpose as
well.  Tension keeps the reader reading, hoping for a resolution.  It
sounds to me like you think NEEDFUL THINGS loses whatever tension it
creates by the end of the third chapter, and THAT would certainly be a
sad thing.  From what I have read of King's, tension was one of the
things he used to do best.


-- 
--Fred, or another blind 8th-century BC  |  sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
        Hellenic poet of the same name.  |
Newsgroups: misc.writing