Stephen King finally cracks The Atlantic

My favourite quote from that interview (and the reason I found this thread - I searched to see if anybody had beaten me to it. You had) is this;

I'm delighted that The Atlantic is publishing the story. It's a dream, because I can remember sending stories to The Atlantic when I was a teenager, and then in my 20s and getting the rejection slips. So this feels like a real benchmark. It's a great thing.

Click to expand...

I love that at this stage in his career King still has these kind of dreams, goals that he wants to hit. That's awesome.

Great news! Nice interview, too. Being in a snarky mood, I particularly liked this bit:

SK: And so many of the 400-pagers [novels] are disposable in themselves. When I see books by some of the suspense writers that are popular now, I think to myself: "These are basically books for people who don't want to read at all." It just kind of passes through the system. It's like some kind of fast-food treat that takes the express right from your mouth to your bowels, without ever stopping to nourish any part of you. I don't want to name names, but we know who we're talking about.

I was thinking the other day that the "brand name" best-sellers are particularly attractive to occasional readers -- people just looking for some pages to pass the time. They're the books available everywhere, no need for a trip to the bookstore. Airport, pharmacy, grocery store, and there they are, and their very ubiquity is a sort of guarantee, not of freshness, but of minimal palatability.

His overview of the decline of the short story was also interesting. I agree with him about the sad bleeding away of general fiction magazines. I'm not so sure that the e-book revolution is bad for shorter fiction. I'm seeing a lot of sub-novel-length offerings at the e-presses. That's the great thing about the e-format -- the story can be as short or as long as it needs to be without the production costs varying much.

Chris P said:

That is awesome. His books don't interest me very much (not my genre), but I'm getting more and more impressed with the man himself the more I know of him.

I'll have to keep an eye out for that story.

Click to expand...

I really want a copy of the magazine when it comes out, but I can't find a way to buy it in the UK and I can't afford a subscription. Oh well.

I think opinion on King as both a writer and an individual is pretty divided. When he's on form his writing is fantastic, though when he's not it can be pretty forgettable. I've got heaps on respect for the man, though, and On Writing is moe or less the most helpful book I've ever read, as well as just being a great read in general.

His son - Joe Hill - is also a pretty good writer, and a really nice guy to boot.

Phaeal said:

His overview of the decline of the short story was also interesting. I agree with him about the sad bleeding away of general fiction magazines. I'm not so sure that the e-book revolution is bad for shorter fiction. I'm seeing a lot of sub-novel-length offerings at the e-presses. That's the great thing about the e-format -- the story can be as short or as long as it needs to be without the production costs varying much.

Click to expand...

One thing he said that I found was very interesting was the comment about a lot of magazines only being bought by writers who want to see what they publish, and not by readers buying puely for entertainment. I think there's probably a lot of truth in that, though I'd love somebody to prove it wrong. If it is true it's a sad state of affairs.

pangalactic said:

One thing he said that I found was very interesting was the comment about a lot of magazines only being bought by writers who want to see what they publish, and not by readers buying puely for entertainment. I think there's probably a lot of truth in that, though I'd love somebody to prove it wrong. If it is true it's a sad state of affairs.

Click to expand...

I dunno, I think it's more complicated than that. As a reader first, I believe strongly in supporting short fiction venues because the influx of new writers and new ideas is a necessary part of the vitality of the body of work available for me to consume, and for many of them (though certainly not all) short fiction is a way in. Would I be as aware of the role of magazines, and the fairly dire straits magazines are in, if I wasn't a writer? Probably not.

Still, before I decided to try my hand at writing, I still subbed to several magazines whose fiction I found worthwhile. How many, and for how long, depended a lot on personal variations in poverty and shifts in the content of magazines. It's not, I think, too surprising that as a writer I tend to sub to those same markets, since after all I know they print stuff I like, and theoretically at least I write stuff I like, so there's a better chance of a match. If I stopped writing right this instant and never wrote another word of fiction again, I'd still sub to those same mags. Now, there are other magazines I sub to *because* I'm a writer and they support that endeavor more directly (Locus, frex) and, because I'm a writer, I hear about magazines and webzines and other markets I probably wouldn't have been aware of as a casual reader, and I'll often buy a single issue of a magazine that seems up my alley to check it out. Would I do that if I wasn't a writer? Probably not nearly as much. On the other hand, if I gave up writing I'd have a lot more time to read, so maybe. (-:

Or: as writers we have a vested personal interest in the health of short fiction markets, but I would hope that our interest as writers is trumped by our interest as readers and as members of the community of readers of our chosen genre(s) first.

So that was a long rambly answer, sorry.

-Suzanne

ETA: Since it's already rambly, adding some stats:
Magazines I currently subscribe to: 5
Of those, ones I'd stay subbed to if I wasn't writing: 3, possibly 4.
Single issues bought in past year: 6 (I think)
Number of those I would have bought even if I wasn't interested in investigating them as a possible venue to submit work to: 4

dgaughran said:

I think you are bang on the money there. However, what I think King might have been referring to is certain literary magazines. You know, the ones that are usually attached to an English Lit Dept of some prestigious university. I have heard quite a few times that their submissions outweigh their subscribers, and I think it's fair to say that a lot of those subscribing are doing so to learn the style and how to get into the magazine.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, quite possibly true. My own experience/interests are very solidly in genre fiction (-:

-Suzanne

You make some good points, Suzanne. I can obviously only speak from my own experience, which is that I've only ever subscribed to two 'zines and never been able to renew them, simply because I can't afford it. I buy the odd issue here and there for research, but again it's money I don't have. I know that, had I the money, I'd be subscribed to about 8 or 9 'zines, but I couldn't say if that's because I love to read (which I do) or because I'd like to one day be published in those same pages. I think it's a combination of the two, but I can't say for certain, and I've no way of knowing how I'd behave were I not a writer; there's never been a time in my life that I wasn't sure that this is what I want to do.

Long answer, to basically say...I don't know.

I don't see what's wrong with a field filled with writers. Obviously it would be better to have a hundred thousand readers, but I'm a writer and a reader. Not just one or the other. I don't have a subscription to F&SF or any other magazine because I want to break into them. It's true that I do, but the reason why is that they publish good fiction, fiction that I (as a reader) enjoy reading. Why does it make me less of a reader if, afterwards, I mail them a story?

As for the subscribers v. submissions, there's also the fact that the same person can send dozens of submissions but probably won't get more than one subscription (why would you?). F&SF rejects my stuff in one to two weeks. I've sent them a new story every time. From a brief glance at my chart (and probably miscounting all of it), I've subbed six stories in the time that I've had my one subscription.

I've heard literary magazine editors say the same thing King does about the magazines, that almost all the readers are writers, and even that very few who buy the magazines actually read more than one or two of the stories. I've never heard a genre magazine editor say this.

I know I read magazines by the hundreds long before I even thought about being a writer, and still do. There is a business aspect to my reading now, but if I didn't enjoy the reading immensely, I wouldn't read or write.

I would like to know where King got the notion of not writing down ideas. I've been doing the same thing for twenty-five years because another famous writer told me that was what he did.

Writing down an idea does freeze it, and you end up with a bunch of bad ideas that you feel you have to turn into stories. When we forget an idea, it wasn't worth remembering. The good ones stay with us, change, grow, won't leave us alone, and we can't forget them.

I don't buy for a second that "disposable" novels are for people who don't really like reading. That's just silly. Those who read such novels love reading, and read more than anyone else out there. They read so much that there aren't anywhere near enough non-disposable novels, if such a thing exists outside of pure pretentiousness, to feed them. They love reading to death, and they read everything. They are, in fact, the smartest readers, in my opinion. No pretensions, just a love of a rousing story and enjoyable characters.

They're the ones who know hamburger from Porterhouse steak, but happen to love both.

And a God Almighty lot of people out there would place most of King's writing squarely in the disposable camp.

dgaughran said:

Hi James,

I would love to know your thoughts on the story itself. It's in present-tense, and I have heard you saying before that you have never read a story in present-tense that wouldn't have been better in past.

I started reading this and had to stop. I will give it another go later.

Dave

Click to expand...

Well, I usually say I've never read a present tense novel that wouldn't have been better in past tense. I can sometimes make it through a short story in present tense. It's just that present tense gets old very fast for me.

Honestly, I'm not sure I would have finished this story if it had a name other than King on it, but I did finish it. Not one of his best, but good, and the present tense wasn't as bothersome as with most writers.

But I am glad I read it.

Edited to add: It also doesn't hurt that I've always enjoyed reading Herman Wouk. I haven't read all his work, but I love all I have read, Youngblood Hawke, The Caine Mutiny, The Winds of War, War and Remembrance, and Marjorie Morningstar.