Stephen King and craft

cornflake · May 12, 2016

I don't think it always works the same in everyone who has talent, but I absolutely believe in innate talent -- and that some people won't ever get great, no matter what they do. I also don't think it's so bad to tell someone that aspiring to something as a profession isn't likely to succeed. Doesn't mean they can't still do it for love, or fun, or even that they can't try.

I don't know why in physical pursuits, and in some artistic pursuits, like music, the 'you'll never be a pro' thing is much more accepted. People don't tend to tell teenagers who can't make the NBA that they can if they try hard enough. Music teachers can be pretty straightforward. I know a number of musicians, and they're really blunt about their abilities - like 'I'm good enough to book decent gigs and play in minor orchestras, but, though I spent my whole childhood and adolescents deeply devoted to this, and have pursued it seriously for years since, I'm not good enough for the NY Phil.'

I think, though I'm just guessing, that it harkens back to the 'everyone can write,' thing. Tis' true, but they can't all write at the same level. Doesn't again, mean I think they shouldn't pursue passions for their own sake.

Roxxsmom · May 12, 2016

cornflake said:
I don't think it always works the same in everyone who has talent, but I absolutely believe in innate talent -- and that some people won't ever get great, no matter what they do. I also don't think it's so bad to tell someone that aspiring to something as a profession isn't likely to succeed. Doesn't mean they can't still do it for love, or fun, or even that they can't try.

I only ever did that once in my career (told someone they might not be going for the right career). It was a pre-nursing student with severe ADHD who wanted to be an ER nurse, and she was complaining that the department couldn't accommodate her in the lab practical exams the way it did for the lecture exams (by allowing her to take it in a special cubicle at the testing center with 2.5x more time than the normal class time to complete). She said she needed to take the entire exam in a separate room, because her disability made her unable to concentrate and remember things in rooms with lots of people and noise, and practical exams are set up in the lab room and students are proctored through timed stations by the instructor.

I asked her how she thought she'd be able to function in the noise and chaos of an ER. She broke down and started crying, and I felt like the worst human being ever (to be honest, I'm pretty sure I couldn't function in the noise and distraction of an ER). I'd probably be fired for that now, as the law has changed and we are required to schedule special private lab practicals for ADHD students, which (to put it very mildly) is a pain in the butt to work in with tightly scheduled lab rooms that are in use from 8 AM through 10:20 PM.

I don't know if this helps anyone or if it cruelly strings them along in false hope that they'll be able to function in a job that can't provide the same accommodations. I have to give them a chance, though.

I don't know why in physical pursuits, and in some artistic pursuits, like music, the 'you'll never be a pro' thing is much more accepted. People don't tend to tell teenagers who can't make the NBA that they can if they try hard enough. Music teachers can be pretty straightforward. I know a number of musicians, and they're really blunt about their abilities - like 'I'm good enough to book decent gigs and play in minor orchestras, but, though I spent my whole childhood and adolescents deeply devoted to this, and have pursued it seriously for years since, I'm not good enough for the NY Phil.'

I think sports (and maybe music too) are easier to be pretty certain about early on, as there are more quantifiable or objective performance criteria, and they have a limited window of entry into the profession in terms of age. Someone needs to be at a certain level very early in life if they're going to have a shot of success. And if an athlete loses the competition, they probably have an idea where they screwed up (even if it's just, "I ran slower than the other person.")

Writing is a bit different, in that the skills needed to achieve a professional, potentially publishable level (let alone mastery) of competence don't generally peak early in life, are somewhat more subjective (once basic competence is achieved) and in fact, there are examples of writers who didn't publish their first books or receive critical acclaim or awards until later in life or after multiple failed attempts. There are also some who weren't as well regarded in their own lifetimes as they were later. I don't think this is true of athletes or musicians (though it is true with some composers).

Contrast this with the experience where someone queries a novel, gets a few agent requests that turn into no thanks, and all they get are a few vague or canned comments. So the person won't really know why it was rejected. It might be the quality. Or it might be quite good, but it's not the kind of story, voice, narrative, or protagonist the market wants right now.

Re-modernist · May 13, 2016

The music example is partially valid. In different styles--classical music, jazz, rock, pop, metal--there are different standards of what it is to be 'good enough' at playing, composing, and singing. A person who totally sucks in some of those, could be a giant in another.

And even if one is very very bad at playing the instrument, and can't sing, and the compositions are falling apart--in some genre attitude and conviction will be enough to become a star, and even kick-start whole new genres into existence. For example what Sex Pistols did for punk rock and what Venom did for extreme metal. It's hard to listen to Venom's first album without cringing, and yet inside you hear packed a whole spectrum of thousands of contemporary bands, whole enormous genres like thrash, death, black, that grew out of this.

Punk and metal started out as crazy gibberish on the fringes of mainstream pop culture, with musicians recording themselves in basements and garages, establishing their own tiny labels, and so on. And that's with 1970's-early 80's pain in the ass technology.

Today, with the indie publisher and ebook revolution, anyone who is "not good enough" to become a pop diva or a jazz pianist or a philharmonic violinist can totally go punk and metal and do their own thing and create their own niche.

But for this to happen, this person needs a) a minimum of intuitive grasp of what's going on in the field, and b) burning passion, something to say, and say it in an interesting way, and with conviction, overpowering with creative joy and bravado the deficiencies in technique and structure.

Not everyone has that. There are people whose musicianship or writing are both "subpar" by conventional models, and also do not have that special spark which would make it work anyway.

So, returning to the initial thought on music--one's level in the field is only partially measured by objective means, there's a huge territory where "irrational" forces play a very serious role. And in other fields too, I suppose. Even in the hard sciences I imagine someone may be worse at generic stuff than their colleagues, but be capable of intuitive leaps which make them special. And in sports too--one may be a slower soccer player than the others, and never score a goal, but be a very important mid-field guy who has a special knack for passing the ball on to people who can score, and for getting in the way of the opponents...

Roxxsmom · May 13, 2016

Re-modernist said:
The music example is partially valid. In different styles--classical music, jazz, rock, pop, metal--there are different standards of what it is to be 'good enough' at playing, composing, and singing. A person who totally sucks in some of those, could be a giant in another.

This is true, but it's also true for athletics. Someone who has the potential to be a great baseball player might not be cut out for a different sport at all. And with writing, I'm guessing some people have inclinations (whether they're innate or shaped by reading habits and interests, of course, is a question) that make them better at one genre or literary style than another.

For example what Sex Pistols did for punk rock and what Venom did for extreme metal. It's hard to listen to Venom's first album without cringing, and yet inside you hear packed a whole spectrum of thousands of contemporary bands, whole enormous genres like thrash, death, black, that grew out of this.

This is where the subjectivity thing comes in with art. Some people are excellent instrumentalists. Some are excellent composers. Some have great voices. Some are excellent showmen/women with a special on-stage charisma or energy that enraptures audiences. Some people have just one of these traits, but they're good enough to have a successful career. Many of the most highly regarded popular musicians have more than one of these traits (or maybe all of them, like Prince did).

Some are able to capture an emotion or energy or capitalize on a sentiment that speaks to a particular demographic as well. The Sex Pistols may well have exemplified this. To many people, their music was dissonant noise, but it appealed strongly to many from the get go, grew on others with time, and defined a genre. Maybe this is the musical equivalent of voice.

I'm wondering if some writers may do something similar. They may not write with a certain technical finesse (whether or not they could learn to is another question), but their work speaks to a particular audience, and their success may be in part about being in the right place at the right time with the right story/message/voice. This may well explain some really successful writers that many of us scratch our heads over, like Stephanie Meyer. She had a story, told with a voice that speaks to a particular demographic of reader.

Another difference between writing and (say) sports is that books aren't quite such a zero sum game. With sports, there's often an opponent who, to some extent, defines your own performance. A team with an awesome offense may not score its usual number of goals against a team with the best defense in the league. And sports teams by definition have a finite number of slots with fairly pre-determined requirements. Criteria evolve over time, but it seems unlikely that basketball will suddenly change into a sport where guys who are 5'6" will become the optimum body morph. Horse racing is unlikely to change so that animals built like Clydesdales will start winning the Kentucky Derby. By definition, some teams will have winning seasons and some will have losing ones. Sports are about championships and establishing who has the *best* record overall.

While there is probably an upper limit to how many novels can possibly become super profitable in a given year, one novel selling well doesn't necessarily mean a novel by a "rival" author has to sell poorly. In fact, success by one might spill over to other writers. The absolute number (and which novels break through) of critically acclaimed, let alone successful, novels are not necessarily constrained by what's been successful in the past.

Re-modernist · May 13, 2016

A stylistic aside

Roxxsmom said:
/.../
This is where the subjectivity thing comes in with art. Some people are excellent instrumentalists. Some are excellent composers. Some have great voices. Some are excellent showmen/women with a special on-stage charisma or energy that enraptures audiences.
/.../
Some are able to capture an emotion or energy or capitalize on a sentiment that speaks to a particular demographic as well. The Sex Pistols may well have exemplified this. To many people, their music was dissonant noise, but it appealed strongly to many from the get go, grew on others with time, and defined a genre. Maybe this is the musical equivalent of voice.
/.../

A stylistic aside for anyone stumbling into this thread:
The above is a pretty good example of confident narration one would find in a strong 1st person POV or a strong Omni, and even various thirds. If one can maintain this for the length of a story one is telling, it would be a very strong point in its favor.
This type of systematizing confident narration is a type of "voice" (especially in thrillers, but to an extent everywhere, even romance and high lit) which puts readers at ease and helps them trust the writer. Especially with "facts" thrown in at various strategic junctions, like time and date, weather, make of clothes, type of engine in car--all this will only raise the "reality" of the experience, combined with the confident voice.
For example this dissection into separate elements:

"To many people, their music was dissonant noise, but it appealed strongly to many from the get go, grew on others with time, and defined a genre."

is what separates a writer from a "normal person".

shadowwalker · May 13, 2016

Roxxsmom said:
When I refer to personality, though, I'm not really talking about what most would call a "bad" personality (i.e. being rude, unpleasant, unkind etc), but having qualities that make it harder to do or stick with certain things, even if one has talent. What I don't know is how malleable personality is.

My earlier response was to your statement about not being able to tell the difference between personality, intelligence, and talent. But iit appears here that you're actually talking about how personality affects one's ability to take advantage of one's talent and/or intelligence.

As to malleability, I personally think there are certain core traits individuals have, and those are "refined" through experiences, upbringing, etc. One can have hair-trigger temper, for example, and how that's dealt with as a child can affect other aspects of the personality - enhancing one's self-discipline to control it or letting it negatively affect social adaptability. The temper doesn't change, but how one deals with it does. I think the prime example for writers is procrastination. To me, that's a "symptom" of a core personality trait. One has to determine which trait is causing it - laziness, timidity, lack of self-confidence, etc - and then determine how to modify. It isn't easy, but it can be done.

So as to how malleable personalities are, I would say it depends on methods used by others in childhood and our own willingness to control them in adulthood.

realityfix · May 22, 2016

I have not read King's book so I have no right to comment on the book itself but I would like to state what King as an author means to me. When you go back to the early 19th century in America, writing books was a scholarly or a refined persons' pursuit. People of wealth and education were expected to write. I mean look at the authors that were part of the transcendentalist movement; Hawthorn. Thoreau, Emerson, etc. were not the plumbers and waiters of their times. But around that time came good old Mr. Poe. He was an opium addict and had been kicked out of West Point. No one of his time expected him to write yet alone be successful at writing. To me, Poe broke the mold. He did not go to college to become a writer. He just wrote and discovered that people of his time secretly en joyed reading about the macabre.

The pulp fiction era of Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard really opened the door for authors who had not been classically trained to write. I agree with some of the criticism that Howard and Lovecraft were not masters of character development nor were they experts of convoluted plots but there will always be a place for their writing style. For those of you who write in the genre of horror, can you deny that Poe or Lovecraft influenced more recent authors like Thomas Ligotti or Poppy Z. Brite?

King received a BA in English, not Literature, Creative Writing, or Journalism. He was educated to teach English in a public school. Thus, like Poe who came way before him, he also broke the snobbery barrier that early 19th century writing had erected by becoming extremely popular and very rich. What King means to me, and I know I have been a bit hard on him in my original thought strand, is that someone who is passionate about writing, someone who will patiently wait for the right time and the right place, and someone who is stubborn enough to believe that he can and will write, does have a good chance at being discovered. The comments that others say King made in his book "On Writing" concerning natural talent versus hard work and constantly learning makes me hope that Mr. King has not become a legend in his own mind and has not forgotten how he came from nowhere and from nothing. I would be happy if I ever became a published author with even 1/100th of his popularity and name recognition and I certainly would not turn down a lunch with him.

Horror is not my writing genre but I like to read it. I own copies of all of Ligotti's stuff and I thought he was a great horror author. The internet says that he has retired from writing. I would like to hear from the horror writers out there about what you thought of Ligotti's style and Brite's style. I heard that she no longer writes horror.

Re-modernist · May 23, 2016

Ligotti is today's undisputed God of the atmospheric horror short story, hands down. His only living competitor is Ramsey Campbell.

BTW, for those who like post-Lovecraftian stuff in a more finicky Brit version--Basil Copper has some absolutely excellent shorts (and longs). His The Flabby Men stands as a towering classic in this subgenre. Also The Great White Space.

So, RealityFix, these are two britishers who will give you variations in the Lovecraft Ligotti continuum--Ramsey Campbell and Basil Copper. Others, in a more vintage way, include T.E.D.Klein, Donald Wandrei, Fritz Lieber, the early Robert Bloch, the early Brian Lumley, Frank Belknap Long.

Also, pre-Lovecraftians--Algernon Blackwood (utter God; the Willows, the Wendigo); Chambers; Machen.

I_love_coffee · May 28, 2016

I owned and read King's On Writing a few years back before I wrote my own novel. This thread had me searching unsuccessfully for my copy. Must have donated it when I moved two years ago. So, I re-bought it and re-read it this week. I am status post Novel # 1 and about to start Novel #2, and I have to say it's really resonating with me this time around.

RedWombat · May 29, 2016

When I was in college, I took a ceramics class, and I was bad at it. Like...not just unskilled, but there were things other students did in term of sculpture that I just couldn't even THINK of. I wasn't just not able to execute the sculpture, I couldn't even have thought of the sculpture in the first place.

It made me nuts. I took three semesters of it because at that point, I had never yet encountered something that I WANTED to be good at and wasn't able to learn. (Generally if I wasn't good at something, I also didn't want to do it, so it worked out well)

And if this was an inspirational tale meant to uplift the reader, I would reveal that I am today a master potter, but I'm not. I achieved a bare competency at wheel-throwing, which is a largely technical skill. I never learned any skills at ceramic sculpture beyond strictly representational stuff. I'm glad I did it for a lot of reasons, but I'll likely never pick up clay again and probably never notice the lack.

It was weird, how utterly and completely I couldn't do it. I quite simply did not have a talent. And if someone had encouraged me and told me to stick to it, by God!...well, they would have done me no favors.

I've learned from any number of failures, but that was one of the more valuable.

dragonfliet · May 30, 2016

realityfix said:
I have not read King's book so I have no right to comment on the book itself but I would like to state what King as an author means to me. When you go back to the early 19th century in America, writing books was a scholarly or a refined persons' pursuit. People of wealth and education were expected to write. I mean look at the authors that were part of the transcendentalist movement; Hawthorn. Thoreau, Emerson, etc. were not the plumbers and waiters of their times. But around that time came good old Mr. Poe. He was an opium addict and had been kicked out of West Point. No one of his time expected him to write yet alone be successful at writing. To me, Poe broke the mold. He did not go to college to become a writer. He just wrote and discovered that people of his time secretly en joyed reading about the macabre.

The pulp fiction era of Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard really opened the door for authors who had not been classically trained to write. I agree with some of the criticism that Howard and Lovecraft were not masters of character development nor were they experts of convoluted plots but there will always be a place for their writing style. For those of you who write in the genre of horror, can you deny that Poe or Lovecraft influenced more recent authors like Thomas Ligotti or Poppy Z. Brite?

King received a BA in English, not Literature, Creative Writing, or Journalism. He was educated to teach English in a public school. Thus, like Poe who came way before him, he also broke the snobbery barrier that early 19th century writing had erected by becoming extremely popular and very rich. What King means to me, and I know I have been a bit hard on him in my original thought strand, is that someone who is passionate about writing, someone who will patiently wait for the right time and the right place, and someone who is stubborn enough to believe that he can and will write, does have a good chance at being discovered. The comments that others say King made in his book "On Writing" concerning natural talent versus hard work and constantly learning makes me hope that Mr. King has not become a legend in his own mind and has not forgotten how he came from nowhere and from nothing. I would be happy if I ever became a published author with even 1/100th of his popularity and name recognition and I certainly would not turn down a lunch with him.

Horror is not my writing genre but I like to read it. I own copies of all of Ligotti's stuff and I thought he was a great horror author. The internet says that he has retired from writing. I would like to hear from the horror writers out there about what you thought of Ligotti's style and Brite's style. I heard that she no longer writes horror.

Not that it matters, and you're free to feel anyway about King that you want, but writing wasn't particularly "a scholarly or a refined persons' pursuit." I mean, it was, but not nearly to the exclusion of other things, as you're implying. Nathaniel Hawthorne, for instance wrote the following in the mid 1800s, and there have been plenty of instances of similar stuff WAY before:

America is now wholly given over to a damned mob of scribbling women, and I should have no chance of success while the public taste is occupied with their trash-and should be ashamed of myself if I did succeed. What is the mystery of these innumerable editions of the 'Lamplighter,' and other books neither better nor worse?-worse they could not be, and better they need not be, when they sell by the 100,000.

In fact, the very popular, and the rich have very often been people OTHER THAN the very famous, historically. Popularity has never been a demarcation of greatness. Some greats are popular, other's not, some who are mediocre or terrible are popular, or not, etc.

All of which, moving away from this comment, and back to the thread, why it is terrible to ever tell someone that they won't ever make it as a writer. Lets be honest: talent is a component, but a small one when it comes to writing. So much of it is getting something into the right place at the right time. There are people that couldn't write their way out of a paper bag that have made incredible livings as writers, and every variation thereof. And unlike something like the NBA, or the philharmonic, even WHEN we can all agree on a person's talent (which isn't even close to always), it says nothing of the popularity of their stories, because it could be gorgeously written yet fall flat with most, or be tedious prose yet set fire to the imagination.

I think the only advice for a writer is how they can improve what they are doing. Not that they should be doing x or y, but if they are doing z, how they can make it the best it can be. Not to tell them to give up, or that they don't have the talent, but to give them good advice on the difficulty of the path, and to encourage them to do what they want.

Amadan · May 31, 2016

dragonfliet said:
All of which, moving away from this comment, and back to the thread, why it is terrible to ever tell someone that they won't ever make it as a writer. Lets be honest: talent is a component, but a small one when it comes to writing. So much of it is getting something into the right place at the right time. There are people that couldn't write their way out of a paper bag that have made incredible livings as writers, and every variation thereof. And unlike something like the NBA, or the philharmonic, even WHEN we can all agree on a person's talent (which isn't even close to always), it says nothing of the popularity of their stories, because it could be gorgeously written yet fall flat with most, or be tedious prose yet set fire to the imagination.

I think the only advice for a writer is how they can improve what they are doing. Not that they should be doing x or y, but if they are doing z, how they can make it the best it can be. Not to tell them to give up, or that they don't have the talent, but to give them good advice on the difficulty of the path, and to encourage them to do what they want.

Well, if your only goal is to be a bestseller, sure, you might get lucky and do that even if your writing is terrible.

But if your goal is to be a good writer, and your writing is terrible, it's not a kindness to lead on someone who really has no talent.

I don't think I (or Stephen King) would ever tell someone "You suck, you will never be a writer, and you should give up." But a lot is being misconstrued about King's simple statement - he just said not everyone can be a great writer, for some (probably personal) definition of "great." He didn't say not everyone can be a competent writer, or a published writer, or even a bestselling writer.

Laer Carroll · May 31, 2016

... while it is impossible to make a competent writer out of a bad writer, and while it is equally impossible to make a great writer out of a good one, it is possible, with lots of hard work, dedication, and timely help, to make a good writer out of a merely competent one.

King makes two false statements in this three-part sentence. A good writer can never become a great writer is perhaps the silliest.

It contradicts everyone's everyday experience. In every skill area, in every profession, people move up the ladder of capability. Few reach the topmost rung, but some do. And they reach it by stepping up from the previous rung. We roll over, crawl, stand, toddle, walk, then run. Some of us then run very fast.

Part of the problem is the assumption that quality resides within the individual. An artist or athlete is thus bad, good, or great. This is untrue. They are only CAPABLE of turning out works which are bad, good, or great. Very often even the best of us turn out merely good or even outright bad work. Sometimes, even often, an artist or athlete who could turn out great work never does. There are plenty of Mute Miltons in the world, or Lazy Miltons, or Unlucky Miltons with a bad home life or debts that handicap them.

--------------------------------------------

Rather than focus on the writer, it makes more sense to focus on the work they do. Is it bad, good, or great?

This has obvious problems. Among them, the quality of an art work is a judgment, and no two people ever perfectly agree. One person's great is another person's crap.

If we want any objective measure of greatness we must rely on numbers. But what numbers?

One possibility is the number of awards. This is a problem because usually they are given by a very few number of people. In the literary world the most prominent awards are usually done by academics and critics. Their judgments tend to be biased in certain ways that other award givers disagree with, and with which the larger population disagrees. So we're pitting judgments against judgments.

Another measure is number of works sold. Academics and critics tend to pooh pooh this measure. They feel that mere popularity among the grunting masses is worthless.

Another measure is longevity of sales. Shakespeare's plays come to mind, still being sold and produced centuries since he lived. Jane Austen's works come to mind, too, especially Pride and Prejudice. In 2001 when Nielsen's BookScan was launched it sold more than 100,000 printed copies despite being in the public domain. In 2007 it sold 318,000. Or more, since NBS reports on only about 75% of commercial bookstores, and not at all on used bookstores.

--------------------------------------------

If we assume that longevity is a useful measure of greatness, what does that really mean?

Looking at the style of a "great" work is not useful. Others have adopted Hemingway's style, but only Hemingway's stories remain generally considered great. Austen's style is utilitarian. So is that of most popular writers. Made into movies or plays their style is lost. It is converted to the most pragmatic possible style: who said what when and where.

Yet their stories, their contents, endure. Their characters and their situations remain with us. To me and many others Elizabeth Bennet is more real than our distant relatives, than the most influential historical and real and important people. To me Lizzie is just a long-distance plane flight away. I almost feel that I could pop by Longbourne and peek over the hedge to shame-facedly stalk her and her sister, and cringe from being screeched at by her mother.

--------------------------------------------

So what do YOU think great literature is? Not just some laundry list of "great" works of art. I dare you to break it down, to be specific.

And if the unlikely happens and you do a good enough job, maybe even we poor scribblers can dare to hope we will someday create something others will label great.

AW Admin · May 31, 2016

realityfix said:
The pulp fiction era of Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard really opened the door for authors who had not been classically trained to write.

This is ahistoric nonsense. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Sterne, both Brontes, Dickens, Joyce, Frost, etc. etc. were not "classically trained to write." Nor was Poe or Twain or Melville.

Milton was trained as a theologian; he wrote propaganda for a living.

AW Admin · May 31, 2016

Laer Carroll said:
So what do YOU think great literature is? Not just some laundry list of "great" works of art. I dare you to break it down, to be specific.

Nature to advantage dress’d
What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express’d

blacbird · May 31, 2016

Amadan said:
Well, if your only goal is to be a bestseller, sure, you might get lucky and do that even if your writing is terrible.

Your chances improve a hell of a lot if your writing is really good.

caw

James D. Macdonald · May 31, 2016

Do the best you can and hope it's good enough.

shadowwalker · May 31, 2016

Laer Carroll said:
So what do YOU think great literature is? Not just some laundry list of "great" works of art. I dare you to break it down, to be specific.

I think my personal definition would be literature that, regardless of the setting, captures characters being humans. It's why Romeo and Juliet can be redone in so many different settings and time periods, just as a quick (and obvious) example. Literature that can make people believe in the characters because they reflect the way humans actually think and act and react, regardless of time or place - that's what I consider great literature.

JimRac · May 31, 2016

... while it is impossible to make a competent writer out of a bad writer, and while it is equally impossible to make a great writer out of a good one, it is possible, with lots of hard work, dedication, and timely help, to make a good writer out of a merely competent one

Due to this thread, I am in the process of reading King's book.

It is interesting to me that, taking his quote in context, King intended his message to be one of hope. In context, what he is saying is that no matter how hard you work, you can't become a genius. But if you are competent and apply yourself, you can become really good.

That being said, I must agree with Laer Carroll: quality resides within the work, not the individual.

AW Admin · May 31, 2016

Laer Carroll said:
Another measure is number of works sold. Academics and critics tend to pooh pooh this measure. They feel that mere popularity among the grunting masses is worthless.

This is bullshit. Seriously.

The reasons we have early literature, even early printed literature, is because it was popular, popular enough to spend the time, effort and sheer labor to copy it.

The owner of the forum, MacAllister, wrote her M.A. thesis on Stephen King's Pet Sematary for one of the leading Hemingway scholars in the world, someone who absolutely did not dismiss popularity. Neither did Hemingway, or any writers living by their pen. Which, by the way, includes an awful lot of academics and critics.

Shakespeare was writing primarily for "the grunting masses." So was Dickens. So was Fielding. So was Twain . . . and on an on. This is at best a canard.

Helix · May 31, 2016

Laer Carroll said:
King makes two false statements in this three-part sentence. A good writer can never become a great writer is perhaps the silliest.

It contradicts everyone's everyday experience. In every skill area, in every profession, people move up the ladder of capability. Few reach the topmost rung, but some do. And they reach it by stepping up from the previous rung. We roll over, crawl, stand, toddle, walk, then run. Some of us then run very fast.

Part of the problem is the assumption that quality resides within the individual. An artist or athlete is thus bad, good, or great. This is untrue. They are only CAPABLE of turning out works which are bad, good, or great. Very often even the best of us turn out merely good or even outright bad work. Sometimes, even often, an artist or athlete who could turn out great work never does. There are plenty of Mute Miltons in the world, or Lazy Miltons, or Unlucky Miltons with a bad home life or debts that handicap them.

I was going to write a much longer comment, but I lost the will to live half way through it. So I'll be quick, before the black kites settle.

A lazy Milton is no Milton. If someone doesn't ever produce a great work, how can you assess their greatness?

Or is this some literary koan?

Amadan · Jun 1, 2016

JimRac said:
It is interesting to me that, taking his quote in context, King intended his message to be one of hope. In context, what he is saying is that no matter how hard you work, you can't become a genius. But if you are competent and apply yourself, you can become really good.

Yes. This is not the first time King's comment has come up and been taken out of context. Some people get really upset when it's suggested that not everyone is born with the same potential to do everything. They want to believe that there really is an Olympic athlete or a chess grandmaster or a Pulitzer-prize winning novelist inside them, and if they never achieve that, it's just because life got in the way or they decided they really didn't want it. Well, no. Most people just don't have that kind of potential. And if you really had that kind of talent and drive, you'd have wanted it and life would not have gotten in the way. But if you do have enough drive and willingness to persevere, anyone can do reasonably well - you can do sports well enough to enjoy it, you can be a good chess player, you can be a competent writer. But greatness isn't luck or the whim of historical hindsight. It's a rare thing.

Roxxsmom · Jun 1, 2016

Amadan said:
But if you do have enough drive and willingness to persevere, anyone can do reasonably well - you can do sports well enough to enjoy it, you can be a good chess player, you can be a competent writer. But greatness isn't luck or the whim of historical hindsight. It's a rare thing.

I don't think most people think they can be an Olympic athlete or a world champion chess player if only they tried hard enough, but there seems to be more disagreement over the definition of what a great writer is, and that could be part of the reason his comment sticks in some craws. King says he isn't a great writer, for instance, but in a world where literally hundreds of people struggle to publish a novel for every one who succeeds, and only a tiny fraction of people who succeed at getting trade published become bestsellers even a fraction as successful as King, it's a bit strange to say that someone (aka King) who clearly IS in the major leagues and in whatever passes for the writer's Hall of fame isn't the literary equivalent of an elite athlete.

So it might be more a matter of disagreement over whether literary greatness is calculated (as is one's athletic greatness) by one's actual record of success in terms of relative performance when measured against one's peers, or whether there's some other quality that decides one's talent as a writer that has nothing to do with popularity or sales ranks. If it's the latter, what is it, how does one recognize it in a writer, and how does one know if one has that potential oneself?

I think literary talent is different from talent from some other endeavors in this respect. There seems to be a lack of an objective yardstick for greatness (since some critics actually seem to discount the literary greatness of any writer who is too popular or commercial), or to put it another way, there's a lot of subjectivity. This is one of the things that's maddening about writing. We all know what terrible writing looks like, and we all know what competent writing looks like, but we may disagree vehemently about what really good, let alone great, writing looks like.

And there's a maddening truth: we've all seen writers who, by whatever criteria we personally use to ascribe competence, goodness, or greatness or whatever, don't seem to be more skilled than we are who have achieved relative success. I certainty can't say this about any pro athletes or chess players I know.

shadowwalker · Jun 1, 2016

Roxxsmom said:
And there's a maddening truth: we've all seen writers who, by whatever criteria we personally use to ascribe competence, goodness, or greatness or whatever, don't seem to be more skilled than we are who have achieved relative success. I certainty can't say this about any pro athletes or chess players I know.

I'm not sure that's true. I've known people who were great athletes but never became pro. Some kept trying, kept working, and eventually got selected. Others didn't. Why? For as many reasons as writers don't get an agent or don't get a publisher. And one needs only look at pro teams to see athletes that aren't "great" but still earn a good living. Even among the 'stars' of sports, that designation is not always unanimously held. Not to mention that many championships are decided by one play, or even one call by one referee, and one team that played no better or worse than the other gets the glory.

But anything creative is hard to pin down as far as "greatness" because, pretty much as you said, there's minimal objectivity.

Cramp · Jun 2, 2016

My problem with "potential" and "talent" is that it all makes so much more sense in hindsight. It's not too difficult to construct a narrative around the person whose early work lacked vigour and spark and that ineffable greatness, but one day, after years of perseverance they found it and that's how we got A Nonymous, the famous and universally lauded writer of manatee romances. Equally, we have the story of A Nonymous whose early work lacked vigour and spark and that ineffable greatness and they kepy plugging at it and they just didn't know when to quit and they should have put that effort into getting a real job. (Or vice versa - the writer whose early work shows such promise and playfulness of language... and oh how we could see them for what they would become even in those immature stumbles. Or oh, how they never bloomed despite that flutter of gold dust.)

I'm sure there is a "great" writer for every kind of possible back story. So it becomes almost pointless to speculate on who can become great or not.

Stephen King and craft

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

Re-modernist

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

Re-modernist

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

realityfix

Re-modernist

I_love_coffee

that's what it's all about....

RedWombat

Runs With Scissors

dragonfliet

Amadan

Laer Carroll

Aerospace engineer turned writer

AW Admin

AW Admin

blacbird

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

JimRac

AW Admin

Helix

socially distancing

Amadan

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

Cramp

Pain in the writing wrist