to write sophisticated (present) or to write whatever

Can you give some example? Not having read much of King's work, I am not sure what you mean exactly.

Natural, easy and potent. I'm working on editing skills, so I've joined three crit groups (plus doing a friend's novel on the side) and the #1 problem I see is weak language, has and hads and haves and wases, stories more like laundry lists of actions with cliche feelings inserted. The writers show some talent, but the stories are not enjoyable at all treading through all the I had beens and such.

Stephen King can write just about anything he wants and get it published. Keep that in mind when you're looking to emulate his style.

So read his early works.

For that matter, why not go find the first novels of a bunch of today's best sellers and read them. What do they have in common?

IIRC, Carrie was King's first book.

I also figure since he has sold so many books, and coninues to sell (he is a household name after all and is considered a Charles Dickens–which not too many people are compared to greats are they?), why not learn something from him?

Click to expand...

Because both he and his publishers know that his name alone is enough to sell his books. I'm not saying his books are good or bad. In fact, most of the ones I've read (half a dozen or so) I've enjoyed a lot.

But if he wants to try something experimental, if he wants to open with a dream sequence, have a flashback in every chapter, and write the entire thing in present tense, there's a good chance that a) he could pull it off, and b) enough people will buy it because he wrote it to make it profitable to the publisher to let him try.

Seriously, like James said, look at first books by bestselling authors; not their thirty-first.

John61480 said:

I'm thinking maybe he grew out of that style, especially after reading from the Bachman collection book "The Long Walk". That story had been written like some of the stuff I've seen posted here in AW.

Click to expand...

Ouch...

King

I disagree completely about King's later books. "Carrie" was written the way it was because of the kind of story King was telling. He used a style that fit. Carrie was King's first published novel, but he'd written several novels before this, and had also written a pretty large number of short stories. He was hardly a beginner.

The Dark Tower books are also written in a style that fits the story, and the writing changes as the books go along. Only emulate the writing style in these books if you're trying to tell the same kind of story.

It's easy to say a famous writer can write anything he wants, in any way he wants, and it will be published. In the small picture, this is true. It happens on extremely rare occasions. In the large picture it's pure nonsense, and it's an insult to editors, fans, and writers. The moment King thought his editor wasn't doing the job, he demanded, and received, a new editor who took the hint and treated King like he was a beginner. And readers do not keep reading a writer who stops doing the job that brought the readers to him in the first place. They just don't. Nor do many writers get lazy and stop trying to write the best way they possibly can.

King's writing hasn't gotten worse, it's gotten better. Carrie was a good novel, but it was far from King's best writing. He's doing his best writing righ now, and his style is at its best right now. But his style does reflect the story he's trying to tell, and you can't just look at Carrie and a Dark Tower novel and say either one is the style you should use. What matter is the story you're trying to write, and the style it demands.

Looking at a writer's early work usually lets you see the writer's worst writing, not his best, and this is certainly the case with King. The reason to look at any writer's early work is not because it's his best, it's precisely because it's nearly always his worst, and it's usually less intimidating because of this.

It's just nonsense to say a writer's style or stories get worse just because he's now famous and could publish a grocery list. With very few exceptions, every writer out there, famous or not, gets better as he gets older, and tries harder with every effort.

Jamesaritchie said:

The moment King thought his editor wasn't doing the job, he demanded, and received, a new editor who took the hint and treated King like he was a beginner.

Click to expand...

Is this a true story?

Jamesaritchie said:

It's easy to say a famous writer can write anything he wants, in any way he wants, and it will be published. In the small picture, this is true. It happens on extremely rare occasions. In the large picture it's pure nonsense, and it's an insult to editors, fans, and writers. The moment King thought his editor wasn't doing the job, he demanded, and received, a new editor who took the hint and treated King like he was a beginner. And readers do not keep reading a writer who stops doing the job that brought the readers to him in the first place. They just don't. Nor do many writers get lazy and stop trying to write the best way they possibly can.

Click to expand...

I realized last night after I went to bed that what I was saying could really boil down to this: You'll trust King to do the job right, however he does it. I never meant King could literally not even try and he'll get published or that he's not trying any more (I haven't even read the book in question; I have no way of knowing). Or that his readers would stick with him if he did. I haven't read Robert Jordan's latest book, because I felt his previous work was so poorly done I couldn't bear to read any more. He lost my trust. King could get away with that for maybe one or two books before he was dropped, and that's only because he's so prolific and popular to begin with. What I meant was, he can do things that are on the "don't try" list for unpublished writer and get away with it. He's proven himself capable, and he has a following that will stick it out even when it seems weird.

Most of us probably have an author or two whose works we will buy sight-unseen. These authors have already proven themselves to us, so we know that whatever they write, we're going to enjoy it. So those guys can start off slow, they can begin with two pages of backstory, no dialogue for the first chapter, or whatever technique they felt was necessary for the story, and we'll keep reading. And that's why I don't recommend trying to emulate the styles of bestselling writers who have been at the top of the food chain for a long time. They don't get to write poorly, but they do get to try things that are much harder for newbies to get away with. Unpublished authors don't already have that level of trust in place. We have to grab an agent's or editor's attention fast enough to keep them from tossing the manuscript aside, because they have no other reason to keep reading.

DeadlyAccurate said:

Most of us probably have an author or two whose works we will buy sight-unseen. These authors have already proven themselves to us, so we know that whatever they write, we're going to enjoy it. So those guys can start off slow, they can begin with two pages of backstory, no dialogue for the first chapter, or whatever technique they felt was necessary for the story, and we'll keep reading. And that's why I don't recommend trying to emulate the styles of bestselling writers who have been at the top of the food chain for a long time. They don't get to write poorly, but they do get to try things that are much harder for newbies to get away with. Unpublished authors don't already have that level of trust in place. We have to grab an agent's or editor's attention fast enough to keep them from tossing the manuscript aside, because they have no other reason to keep reading.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I adore Dean Koontz. So every book that comes out, I buy it without even reading the description. Why bother? I know it'll be great. Well, his new book, The Husband, sucked, IMO. Will I buy the next one? Absolutely. I have at least 45 of his books on my shelf that have bought my faith and loyalty. If the next book sucks, I will be a bit more wary. But because he's been so awesome for so long, he will have the benefit of my doubt for a long time.

Other authors? Particularly new ones? If the first book I read of theirs isn't good, I'm not going to waste my money - or my precious time - on anything else of theirs.

That said, as a reader, I'm pretty easy. I'll follow the author wherever they're taking me as long as they're competent and believable.

Willowmound said:

Is this a true story?

Click to expand...

As far as I know, it is. I've heard it before a couple of times, and it sounds like a very Steve King thing to do.

Remember that when you're looking to Mssrs. King and Dickens for your writing style, remember that what you want to emulate is their openness, their comfortable prose, their ability to make you forget for stretches at a time that you're reading a book at all.

Copying writing styles is no great sin, and no one's going to hate you for it. Every writer imitates when they first start writing, and eventually I think they imitate so many writers as once that it sort of decomposes into something which turns out to be Your Very Own Style (my, what a lovely image).

But just remember, you cannot write like Stephen King, because you may be able to completely grasp Stephen King's use of language (whichcase, I applaud you) but you cannot grasp at the things that are in King's head, or his heart, and that means you won't come off the same.