Grow up and learn something. If you don't like them, then ignore them and write badly.Quote:
Originally Posted by wat??
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt
Printable View
Grow up and learn something. If you don't like them, then ignore them and write badly.Quote:
Originally Posted by wat??
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt
I have to agree to "knock it off." Anyone who thinks good writing has to follow some established rules made by one guy (even if it is Mark Twain, who I think is overrated) is extremely closed minded.
I don't think Stephen King is a great writer, and definitely not a very deep writer, but he is still one of my favorites. He is a writer who wants to entertain people, nothing more than that, and I don't think anyone can deny that he is very imaginative and creative. And I think he is a very good writer. I still haven't read anyone who can paint a picture as clearly and vividly as SK, whether it be something obscene and gory, or something as simple as a character desc4iption. Plus, any writer as prolific is going to have good books and bad books, much like most other authors.
I read a few of his books just to see what he was like. I read three or four including his On Writing. Now I can hardly remember their titles. Some, like Thinner, weren't bad, but an Edgar Allan Poe he is not.
I've read a good many Stephen King books, he is very good dragging me into the story and creating characters that are relate-able (did I just make that word up?). As with any other writer I didn't care for a few of his books but those I just tossed aside.
Best line of any book:
Nadine, Don't mess with my Disco.
I dob't really think anyone has claimed he is, though. I'm pretty sure even SK himself has said he isn't trying to be a great literature artist, just writing what he likes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
So before Mark Twain wrote this what did people do?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I really like the movies that have come from the Stephen King novels. I love alot of his ideas and he is an easy read when I have that little break at work or have a few minutes before bed; unfortunately, I get really irritable with his anticlimatic endings...the screen writers repair this.
I have to agree with you here. Formulas are for those who lack the self-confidence to do it their own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by wat??
In Misery (his best book in my opinion) the protagonist, who happens to be a novelist, says that he writes two kinds of books: the best sellers and the good ones. Though this isn't entirely true is King's case, it is a good way of putting his writing style. Some of the books he writes because HE likes them (ever read the Dark Tower series? <shudders> I feel dirty now), the others he writes because he knows what the people (or shaved cows trained to walk upright and read novels like people) like.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Cough*
"1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But the
Deerslayer tale accomplishes nothing and arrives in the air."
See J.D Salinger for frequent breaches of this "rule".
"They require that the episodes of a tale shall be necessary parts of
the tale, and shall help to develop it. But as the Deerslayer tale is
not a tale, and accomplishes nothing and arrives nowhere, the episodes
have no rightful place in the work, since there was nothing for them to
develop."
In this context what exactly does necessary mean? If necessary means getting from point A to point B in a story then what isn't unnecessary?
"They require that when the personages of a tale deal in conversation,
the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human
beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances"
Maybe things were different in 19th Century Russia but as far as I can tell people do not speak in long uninterrupted monologues when conducting arguments. Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky are all guilty of breaking this "rule".
"They require that when the author describes the character of a
personage in his tale, the conduct and conversation of that personage
shall justify said description."
Anna Karenina anyone? Tolstoy breaks another one.
"12. Say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.
13. Use the right word, not its second cousin.
14. Eschew surplusage.
15. Not omit necessary details.
16. Avoid slovenliness of form.
17. Use good grammar.
18. Employ a simple and straightforward style."
These seem more of less like common sense for good, technical writing, not rules set in stone. It looks like James Joyce and many other celebrated authors may have ignored number 18.
I've only made up a few examples and they might not be very good ones; but the fact is that there's not a single one of those rules which hasn't been broken (besides maybe some of the minor rules at the end) by a great or celebrated author at one time or another. Telling me to "grow up and learn something" is childish.
On, your idea, WAT?, many authors through time have attempted to create guidelines to be followed when writing (Poe, Orwell, King and Twain, come to mind immediately). This usually stems from the inquiries that a successful writer, or any other type of professional for that matter, will receive; 'what's your secret?' or 'any advice for beginners?' They will then expound upon this idea in the form of an essay which is promptly gobbled up by aspiring professionals of that field.
Though usually the ones who attain the holy grail are those who have paid little to no heed to the advice of the greats and instead have analyzed the works that made them great, which was not the essay on how to write.
Anyone will naturally begin to dissect their own method of working, especially when it is their life's work their dealing with. It is also natural to wish to bestow this wisdom on others, thus multiplying one's influence by the number of pupils. And influence is, after all, one of the primary goals of the artist.
The same as most people still do: They suffered through bad writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wat??
So those old greats who weren't yet aware of Twain's rules (you can't blame them as he hadn't yet been born) were suffering through bad writing?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I'm confused... The rules are clearly broken fairly often, by very celebrated authors no less.
Hi8s endings are weak. Though not always. I loved the ending to The Dark Tower.
Do you people know anything about E.A. Poe? It would seem that you do not. Poe was to his time what King is to ours, although King has had more commercial success (note: I am a Poe fan). Poe is infamous for selling out. He would write about whatever was popular and selling at the time. And I don't blame the man one bit. He was poor and needed what little he did get. I am glad that Herman Melville and later on Nathaniel Hawthorne (those now known as his contemporaries) did not, in fact, sell out. Moby Dick was a commercial disaster in its time and broke Melville but is now considered to be a masterpiece (by myself included). With that said, Poe could write circles around most any writer; he was an artist.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
King on the other hand writes whatever it is that he wants to write and makes no apologies for his doing so. I think that his The Shining, Roadwork, and The Green Mile (especially The Shining) could someday, scratch that, will some day be considered classics. King in my humble opinion is an artist but also is more of a story spinner/weaver than a novelist (much like Neil Gaiman, another of our day from the horror/fantasy genre that I believe will some day be recognized as great). King writes of real people for real people and, like Hemingway, writes in a simpler and more easily understood manner, but could write (and some of his short stories show this) as well as a classicist.
I will make note that I am a classics reader and 90% of the books on my shelves (some 300+) are the accepted classics. I just despise snobbery, especially ill-placed snobbery.