20 Stephen King Quotes on Writing

[Saxon_Hart]

Now, now, Slyc ... you cannot compare Anne Rice with EL James! You may not be a fan of her style or her characters or her stories, but she can actually string words together in a grammatical way that makes sense and is coherent as a narrative. EL James ... not so much.

As for Stephen King ... I am a big fan of his, but his newer books have been ... disappointing. I've been holding on to the last book of the Dark Tower series and haven't read it because 1) once I read it it will be over and 2) I didn't like where the previous one was going and I'm afraid it will be terribly anticlimactic. Does anything beat the first three books of that series, though?

The fourth book is my personal favorite. And if you want to avoid disappointment leave the last book in its wrapper. I was disheartened by the way it all came out. But I will say this. The ending does allow you to re-imagine the whole series.

 

[Saxon_Hart]

And that would be fine, of course. I was referring to the whole "hot, young, rich and gorgeous" vampire trope. I can't stand that. But that's just my personal preference. The majority of vampire fiction turns my stomach.

Amen Slyc. I prefer the old vampire lore. One of my favorite Memes has Grandpa Munster on it and says "In my day, vampires sucked blood, not dick."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I started reading Jack London's short stories last night, 2500 pages of them arranged chronologically.

His first effort is very good. Three people are 200 miles from town, outta food, 165 below zero temps, dogs are dying, and a tree falls on the husband of the pregnant woman. The husband is paralyzed and slowly dying. The dogs start eating each other. Its a bleak scene and painful to read. I think its better than TO BUILD A FIRE.

Then the next few stories aren't so good as the first one, tho they contain the seeds of the writing that made London world class. And I noticed that all the characters speak grammatically correct local vernacular. It amused me.

 

[PennLady]

And that would be fine, of course. I was referring to the whole "hot, young, rich and gorgeous" vampire trope. I can't stand that. But that's just my personal preference. The majority of vampire fiction turns my stomach.

But don't forget that when Rice started with her vampire books, at least as I recall, there weren't exactly a ton of other books like that. You might blame her for starting such a trend but that's different from jumping on a trend.

As for vampires themselves, I do like a good, scary vampire story but I like some of the current take as well. And have written a couple.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

Since this thread is expanding to writing tips, here's Anne Rice:

Thanks for that HeyAll, though I think we're on the same page with our lack of respect for Miss Rice. Personally, I hate her writing style. As for her "Beauty" series, too often she describes things that would be physically impossible to do. Sometimes it's the sex act. Just as bad, though, is when she describes a character facing away from another character and still able to magically see the first character's expression. Sorry, but if I'm facing away from you, I don't know if you're smiling at me or sticking out your tongue unless I turn around and look.

As for the "Dark Tower" series, it's seldom that I force my way through a book (or books), but it was Stephen King and I'm a fan, right? I think I died a little inside reading that monolithic series. I'm sorry, but it just wasn't good. And please, don't ever read "From a Buick 8."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

King is like Madonna and the ROLLING STONES, all shoulda retired gracefully 30 years ago.

 

[PennLady]

Thanks for that HeyAll, though I think we're on the same page with our lack of respect for Miss Rice. Personally, I hate her writing style.

I remember reading "Interview..." by Rice, and enjoying it if only because it was different from what I'd read until then. I think it all declined from there, though. I liked the other vampire books less and less an the Mayfair witches series even less than that. I stopped reading after "Taltos" and have never felt compelled to a) read more or b) re-read anything.

The two things that put me off were the increasing sexual violence (for no reason I could see) and well, it was boring. She kept including these other stories that could have been their own novels and took me out of the story I was reading.

OTOH, she's sold a lot of books so she must know something about hitting the sweet spot with some readers, so to speak.

As for King, I still enjoy his stories most of the time but would agree that for a time now, whether it stems from his accident or before, it's just not been quite the same.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I remember reading "Interview..." by Rice, and enjoying it if only because it was different from what I'd read until then.

OTOH, she's sold a lot of books so she must know something about hitting the sweet spot with some readers, so to speak.

As for King, I still enjoy his stories most of the time but would agree that for a time now, whether it stems from his accident or before, it's just not been quite the same.

I liked "Interview..." for the same reasons. It was different and it was refreshing to have a vampire story on top of the bestseller list. Though, clearly, sales isn't a good measure of artistic merit. Time and perspective give us that.

As for King, I do give him a bit of a pass because I think he's busy exploring his ability to write, including the "Tower" series. I loved "The Green Mile," which was originally released as a serial and that's what he wanted to do: he wanted to try writing/selling a serial. He branched out with his Bachman pseudonym to see if people were interested in reading his writing for his storytelling skills and not because the cover said "STEPHEN KING."

I think King is a better storyteller. That said, I think Koontz is a much better writer. With King, I seldom stop and dwell on how he wrote a sentence or paragraph. With Koontz, I sometimes do. I never have with Rice, except to notice the flaws. Oh, and to be fair to King, I have looked back on several of novels and paying attention to how he moved from point A to point B because he does it so effortlessly.

Additionally, I admire King supporting smaller publishers and trying different genre's.

As for "over the top characters," though, no one beats Carl Hiaasen for me.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What stumps me about most writers is this: Every last one of them knows that the principle character needs to change in some significant way by the end of the story, and the initial problem requires a plausible resolution by the end. And it rarely happens though almost every human knows that fiction models real life. People change and issues are settled one way or another.

I often wonder if writers GET it, that people change and issues get resolved. Its a difficult concept for some people to absorb tho they know of it. Eat your veggies, go to bed early, get the best value for your money, and stay outta other peoples games.

 

[jomar]

And that would be fine, of course. I was referring to the whole "hot, young, rich and gorgeous" vampire trope. I can't stand that. But that's just my personal preference. The majority of vampire fiction turns my stomach.

In that case you might consider looking into The Passage and The Twelve by Justin Cronin.

What stumps me about most writers is this: Every last one of them knows that the principle character needs to change in some significant way by the end of the story, and the initial problem requires a plausible resolution by the end. And it rarely happens though almost every human knows that fiction models real life. People change and issues are settled one way or another.

I often wonder if writers GET it, that people change and issues get resolved. Its a difficult concept for some people to absorb tho they know of it. Eat your veggies, go to bed early, get the best value for your money, and stay outta other peoples games.

Except that there are plenty of successful novel series in which the problem gets solved but the principal character doesn't change.

 

[slyc_willie]

But don't forget that when Rice started with her vampire books, at least as I recall, there weren't exactly a ton of other books like that. You might blame her for starting such a trend but that's different from jumping on a trend.

As for vampires themselves, I do like a good, scary vampire story but I like some of the current take as well. And have written a couple.

Good point. Maybe she started the whole mess, and at the time the concepts she used were relatively new. At around that same time, I had gotten involved in some vampire LARP which, while interesting for the first session, very rapidly degenerated into a bunch of whining and posturing and quoting Rice as if she had written the Bible. So I suppose my aversion to Rice is a version of guilt by association.

Doesn't change my views on the whole genre, but . . . I suppose I could give the lady some slack.

 

[slyc_willie]

In that case you might consider looking into The Passage and The Twelve by Justin Cronin.

I've been seeing mention of those here and there. I'm tempted to take a look.

 

[slyc_willie]

I think King is a better storyteller. That said, I think Koontz is a much better writer. With King, I seldom stop and dwell on how he wrote a sentence or paragraph. With Koontz, I sometimes do. I never have with Rice, except to notice the flaws. Oh, and to be fair to King, I have looked back on several of novels and paying attention to how he moved from point A to point B because he does it so effortlessly.

I fell in love with Koontz's stories back in the late 80s and early 90s. Night Chills remains my favorite of his, because he explored the subject matter in depth and wrote something that was both very plausible and frightening. As with King, most of my favorites of his are his earlier works. The storytelling was direct and everything moved right along . . . but I personally find it hard to really label him as a "horror" writer as it seems he is (or was) often described. I just always took him as a good fiction writer. Some of his stuff was more sci-fi than horror.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I fell in love with Koontz's stories back in the late 80s and early 90s. Night Chills remains my favorite of his, because he explored the subject matter in depth and wrote something that was both very plausible and frightening. As with King, most of my favorites of his are his earlier works. The storytelling was direct and everything moved right along . . . but I personally find it hard to really label him as a "horror" writer as it seems he is (or was) often described. I just always took him as a good fiction writer. Some of his stuff was more sci-fi than horror.

I'll look for NIGHT CHILLS. As yet I have not read any of Koontz's stuff I like.

 

[slyc_willie]

I'll look for NIGHT CHILLS. As yet I have not read any of Koontz's stuff I like.

If I remember correctly, Night Chills was originally published in the 70s. The copy I had was a reprint and included a foreword by Koontz explaining that when the book originally came out, the public reaction was so strong because there was real fear that what he described could happen.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If I remember correctly, Night Chills was originally published in the 70s. The copy I had was a reprint and included a foreword by Koontz explaining that when the book originally came out, the public reaction was so strong because there was real fear that what he described could happen.

I added it to my next Amazon order. Thanks for the post about it.

 

[slyc_willie]

I added it to my next Amazon order. Thanks for the post about it.

No problem. Enjoy.

 

[PennLady]

I fell in love with Koontz's stories back in the late 80s and early 90s. Night Chills remains my favorite of his, because he explored the subject matter in depth and wrote something that was both very plausible and frightening. As with King, most of my favorites of his are his earlier works. The storytelling was direct and everything moved right along . . . but I personally find it hard to really label him as a "horror" writer as it seems he is (or was) often described. I just always took him as a good fiction writer. Some of his stuff was more sci-fi than horror.

I read a lot of Koontz at one point, not quite sure when. I think the first one I read was "Midnight" (the one about computers; I might have the wrong title), and then "Lightning." Then I read a bunch, including some he'd published under another name, and I got very tired of him. The bad guy was either a pyscho, or there were two bad guys, a pscyho and a monster. I haven't read anything in what must be fifteen or twenty years and although I've seen that he seems to have branched out, I can't quite bring myself to read them. My loss, I suppose, but there it is.

 

[sheablue]

Good point. Maybe she started the whole mess, and at the time the concepts she used were relatively new. At around that same time, I had gotten involved in some vampire LARP which, while interesting for the first session, very rapidly degenerated into a bunch of whining and posturing and quoting Rice as if she had written the Bible. So I suppose my aversion to Rice is a version of guilt by association.

Doesn't change my views on the whole genre, but . . . I suppose I could give the lady some slack.

Hmmm ... inter-esting ...


I would say Anne Rice was one of the first if not the first to write Vampire stories in the new, anti-hero way. I like the first few quite a bit. But it got old after a while. Same with her Witches stories. The first two, maybe three were really good. The rest ... meh. I have her new werewolf one on my iPad but haven't read it yet.

But I would say it's true that she's sort of the mother of the people wanting to be Vampire rock stars movement, and her fans can be quite obsessive.

I used to LOVE Dean Koontz, too. His first books were really good. Then he started writing to a formula ... beautiful woman with troubled past is rescued by rough and stubbly cop while battling monster/psycho. There were all the same. Then even more recently he started writing his books like he's in a contest to see who can write the most convoluted sentences with the most words readers have to look up in a thesaurus. All his characters talk the same, no matter what kind of people they are. Tedious and annoying. But his early ones still hold up. Watchers, Strangers, Lightning, etc.

 

[jezzaz]

I've been reading a lot of "how to write" books recently.

I have to say that there is as much conflicting advice as to how to do it as there is how to raise children or have a successful marriage.

About the only thing they all agree on that I can see is "Keep writing, keep doing it. You can only get better at it."

Stephen King wrote a book on how to write and I read it and frankly, it's a treatise on how to write articles, not books. Stephen King came from working in newspapers and makes a great fuss about self editing, and how his mentor would take a sentence and remove words from it until it was 'pure' - and that's great for articles in magazines or in newspapers, were space is a premium. But a book is not. Distillation is definitely essential, but distillation to that degree is removing quite a lot of background.

I personally find background great - even when it's gets to the silly Neal Stephenson levels (where his Baroque Trilogy is essentially ALL background stories with very little plot in between) because I think it makes an environment alive and supports the principle characters decision making - you know they will do X (even though you'd never do X in real life) because of situation or environment is prompting them to do that.

I like a large, consistent world. I love worlds where things have gone left instead of right, and seeing the implications of that explored.

But we are all different.

I prefer works that teach you the mechanics of writing rather than how to determine content. I think we all have our own ways of doing that, and for me, part of the excitement of writing is that while I know where the story is going, and what the characters need to do to get to point X or Y, or to resolve the conflict, sometimes I don't know how they are going to get there, and they then go off on their own tangents.

Sorry. Rambling here.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The essential part of writing is possession of something worth writing. Possession of something you know for certain or is highly probable or plausible.

 

[sheablue]

I've been seeing mention of those here and there. I'm tempted to take a look.

Oh, Slyc, do! I've just recently finished The Passage, and will be reading The Twelve soon. Really such a well written, complex story.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

You know, as I struggle through my entry for the Nude Day contest, this thought occurs to me: for me, it's all about motivations. I don't know if my characters necessarily grown or change as people, but I think it's key that they remain true to their character and true to their motivations. Without a reason for things to happen, well, there's not reason for something to happen, is there? Maybe not the deepest thought, but one that feels very pure to me at the moment.

 

[slyc_willie]

You know, as I struggle through my entry for the Nude Day contest, this thought occurs to me: for me, it's all about motivations. I don't know if my characters necessarily grown or change as people, but I think it's key that they remain true to their character and true to their motivations. Without a reason for things to happen, well, there's not reason for something to happen, is there? Maybe not the deepest thought, but one that feels very pure to me at the moment.

I can relate to that thought process. Now that I'm getting back to the series I was writing when the FAWC idea took everything over, I'm having a little trouble getting back inside the heads of my characters. Each one has their own motivations, ways of speaking, personal mannerisms, and so on that I've tried to portray and stick to, but now that it's been a couple of weeks, I'm staring at the last paragraph I wrote, wondering, "now, how would he say this?"

Because if I inadvertently change a minor but interesting detail, you can bet it'll be pointed out. Guess I'll just have to go back through 120 pages of text and read it all . . .

 

[BuckyDuckman]

Because if I inadvertently change a minor but interesting detail, you can bet it'll be pointed out. Guess I'll just have to go back through 120 pages of text and read it all . . .

I so know that feeling. I tend to write and edit at the same time. I try to leave a work in the middle of a thought so when I sit back down to write, I can pick up the thread I left. But while I'm away, the wheels keep turning and I begin to think, "Okay, that wasn't the best thing..." So, I go back to change a detail.... realize how crucial that detail turns out to be... scrap several hundred words (sometimes, more) and then wonder, "Why the fuck am I doing this?"