
Stephen King: Can a Novelist Be Too Productive? (2015) - lermontov
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/opinion/stephen-king-can-a-novelist-be-too-productive.html
======
sudosteph
King was my favorite writer growing up. I read "Firestarter" in 6th grade, and
then continued working through about 20 or so more of his works until
graduation from HS. I was "that kid", always had my nose buried in a paperback
from the library, usually one of his. His works were like familiar friends to
me. I could step into nearly any library or bookstore and find myself absorbed
into some small town in Maine, or perhaps a more fantastical setting in some
cases. Some books I remember better than others, some left me frustrated at
the end (looking at you "Cell"), but mostly I just felt like I was a hanger-
on, privileged to be hitching a ride into King's imagination. It wasn't just
his imagination though, it was his experience as a human that I think I really
craved. It sounds sort of funny to say I learned a lot about human nature and
society from reading his books (and reading them in the 2000's no less, 20+
years after many of them were written), but I did. His characters were never
stupid or shallow or boring just because they were female. His characters had
flaws and issues, motivations and fears, and the world around them was not
often a nice or sensible place. I can relate to that, and I needed to relate
to that growing up.

I don't read his books as often now, but I do love the man and his works for
how much they mean to me. I never regretted reading any of them (even ones I
may not have finished). I'm glad he doesn't regret writing them either.

Favorite quote from that piece that I think applies to many of us, in any
creative field:

> But I also understand that life is short, and that in the end, none of us is
> prolific. The creative spark dims, and then death puts it out. William
> Shakespeare, for instance, hasn’t produced a new play for 400 years. That,
> my friends, is a long dry spell.

~~~
yawz
I read them when I was around the same age, but a decade earlier than you.
They pretty much had the same effect on me. Did you read anybody else at the
same period? Koontz, maybe?

~~~
kbenson
I read a few of each in High school. Koontz was fun but to me felt a bit more
targeted for mass appeal (as weird as that feels to say in comparison to
King). Then again, for King I was reading stuff like The Stand and The Dark
Tower series, which may or may not be indicative of the rest of his work
(which I mostly know through the movies made from them)?

~~~
sudosteph
I recommend checking out one of King's novella or short-story collections for
a different perspective. Some of those are actually some of my all time
favorites.

~~~
saltycraig
"Different Seasons" is my favourite collection, and out of the 4 total stories
in it, 3 became movies (The Body became Stand By Me, Apt Pupil, and The
Shawshank Redemption). Can't recommend this collection highly enough.

------
Reedx
Reminds me of when George RR Martin asked King, "How the fuck do you write so
many books so fast?"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR7XMkjDGw0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR7XMkjDGw0)

~~~
senectus1
hilarious. But really, they dont write the same sort of books... Martins books
are hella complex worlds. King does theme'd stories... I'm not saying one is
better than the other, just very different products that require a lot of
different sorts of work to complete.

~~~
sudosteph
Are you unfamiliar with the Dark Tower series? King is no stranger to "hella
complex worlds". Though tbf, it did take him quite a while to finish the
entire series. But he was writing things in the meantime (or getting hit by a
truck) for the most part. If you sum up the time he spent actually writing, he
still was able to get them much faster.

Edit: Another fun fact, many of King's non-Dark Tower books tie into the same
universe, check out:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(Stephen_King)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_\(Stephen_King\))

~~~
sorokod
A fan of Dark Tower but in a way, the Dark Tower multiverse is of "lower
resolution"

~~~
zumzumzum
Later on in the series he also turned to referencing other series in a way I'm
sure he thought was clever, similar to how he wrote himself into his own book.
I didn't care for it. He also had the annoying habit of using cultural
references as a crutch for world and character building. Oh, see this thing,
it's just like a light saber from star wars! Or those flying objects, they're
sneetches from harry potter! Well, that's one way to write a book. The DT was
a sweeping, intricate, wild ride to nowhere. I'd put it in the same box as
LOST. I don't regret either. I enjoyed them both immensely. But they weren't
leading anywhere, and I didn't need to reprimanded by King at the end for
wanting a satisfying ending.

------
Barrin92
I don't disagree with King's thesis that a prolific writer can, of course,
produce great works and many have done so, but I also can't shake the feeling
that there is something special about authors who produce great works and then
quit when they don't have anything else to say.

bad works don't diminish great works, but it feels like authors who only
produce works of great quality and nothing else have a special feel for their
craft, it seems like they are so confident in what they have to say that
they'd be repulsed by just putting anything out that isn't remarkable, and
that at least to me makes them special.

It's like comparing Daniel Day-Lewis and Jim Carrey. The former has taken on
roles in remarkably few films, but pretty much every role is amazing and
that's what's stuck in my mind when I see him in a film.

Carrey also has participated in films like the Truman show but then I'm also
reminded of the Grinch and the Mask, which just ruins it for me a little bit.

~~~
RickJWagner
I like the comparison to Jim Carrey. Some of his work is brilliant. (Dumb and
Dumber, The Grinch are two of my favs.)

Carry, like King, seems plagued by personal demons. Both have immense talent,
but also seem to be prone to these kinds of problems.

~~~
sudosteph
You yourself love "The Grinch", though the other commenter says it makes him
like Carrey less. I loved "The Mask". I guess I just don't think "less than
brilliant attempts" makes actual brilliance any less enjoyable. If anything I
respect the creator for taking risks.

------
magpi3
I'm not a published writer, but my thought has always been that "serious"
writers don't write less. They just publish less. And they publish less
because they have a higher standard for their writing and their art (if I may
use that word) than novelists who publish regularly. And (as Barrin92 also
noted elsewhere on this thread), they only speak (meaning publish) when they
have something to say.

And don't we all take people who speak sparingly and choose their words
carefully more seriously?

------
Animats
There's William Butterworth, who has about 11 pseudonyms and over 100
published novels. I've read too many of them. You start seeing the same stock
scenes coming around again. He writes good potboilers.

"Tom Clancy" books are still coming out, even though he died years ago.

~~~
WalterBright
As a boy I began working my way through Ian Fleming's "James Bond" series.
After a few I noticed that they followed a formula, and abandoned the rest.

------
crooked-v
I'm reminded of Lovecraft, who would use a thesaurus to pad his paid-by-the-
word word counts by inserting various adjectives that sounded scary but didn't
actually mean anything in context.

~~~
ahansen
That's quite interesting! Does that not detract from how well his work reads,
though? I suppose not by much given how popular he is.

~~~
saudioger
It definitely does detract from it. It's just so over the top ornate. There's
a beauty to it, but you can lose sight of the story in the style.

I'd liken it to trying to read a book written in calligraphy. Here's an
example of what to expect:

>In youth he had felt the hidden beauty and ecstasy of things, and had been a
poet; but poverty and sorrow and exile had turned his gaze in darker
directions, and he had thrilled at the imputations of evil in the world
around. Daily life had for him come to be a phantasmagoria of macabre shadow-
studies; now glittering and leering with concealed rottenness as in
Beardsley's best manner, now hinting terrors behind the commonest shapes and
objects as in the subtler and less obvious work of Gustave Dore. He would
often regard it as merciful that most persons of high Intelligence jeer at the
inmost mysteries; for, he argued, if superior minds were ever placed in
fullest contact with the secrets preserved by ancient and lowly cults, the
resultant abnormalities would soon not only wreck the world, but threaten the
very integrity of the universe. All this reflection was no doubt morbid, but
keen logic and a deep sense of humour ably offset it. Malone was satisfied to
let his notions remain as half-spied and forbidden visions to be lightly
played with; and hysteria came only when duty flung him into a hell of
revelation too sudden and insidious to escape.

------
mromanuk
Would be interesting to know, his work process to achieve that output. I'm
reading "Deep Work", and I bet Stephen King, did the "lock yourself" and write
until it's finished or something among those lines (avoiding all distractions)

~~~
gnarcoregrizz
I was wondering the same thing, so I read his book "On Writing" a few weeks
ago. I figured there might be some good take-aways for writing software since
there seems to be some skill overlap.

Here are my (crappy) notes:

* The golden rule: read a lot, write a lot.

* Have a place for only writing and concentrating. Do nothing else there.

* Everyone has an innate talent ceiling. A good writer won't progress beyond being a merely good writer.

* Story > plot. Stories can 'write themselves,' it's hard to plan up front.

* He doesn't write for symbolism or metaphor directly, but may notice it as he's writing and fold some in.

* Let the first draft age for a while before revisiting. His ideal time is 6 weeks.

* "Kill your darlings." Aka be willing let a concept go even if it seems great.

* Have an ideal audience in mind when writing. He says that his is 1 person - his wife. He says it should be 1 person.

* 2nd draft = 1st draft - 10%

* He's not a fan of adverbs

* Research is inevitable for backstory. He wanted to write a story that took place in a specific location, so he went there to see how it was so he wouldn't get things too wrong. He doesn't worry about it _too_ much though, unlike a writer like Tom Clancy.

* He writes because he likes to, ostensibly not for money or anything else

* He gets a TON of angry letters and criticisms, particularly for his use of vulgarity.

* A lot of characters are based on people or stereotypes he encountered in his working class upbringing.

One thing that struck me is how much he reads. He had a list of suggested
books to read in the back page, and there were probably hundreds

Obviously not all of the points apply to all types of writing, his list is
very King-centric. If you've ever read him then the points will make more
sense in context. For example, story > plot is definitely a "king-ism" since
his stories are off the cuff and meandering. I couldn't even get through half
of the Dark Tower series since it seemed like the plot wasn't going anywhere.
In any case, I don't think you'll get very far writing software without
identifying some of the "plot" up front.

~~~
CamperBob2
And the most important, unspoken one that King would disclose to us if he were
a bit more honest with himself:

* Learn to ignore your inner critic.

The way you write Six Pages a Day No Matter What, as King does, is by not
caring all that much whether they are six awesome pages or six mediocre pages.
If you've got talent and you exercise it faithfully enough, then sometimes
your Six Pages will, indeed, be awesome, and nobody will even remember the
rest.

None of the other points he lists in his books and advice columns matter
anywhere near as much as that one. Unfortunately, what that means is that what
works for King will not necessarily work for everyone else.

~~~
pmoriarty
It's probably been easier for King to ignore his inner critic ever since his
wife fished his manuscript of _Carrie_ out of the trash and it went on to
become a bestseller.

On the other hand, this also reminds me of what William Staford answered when
asked how he was able to write a poem every day: "I lower my standards."

~~~
sundvor
Ah, didn't know that - that's a great story. Others here might enjoy this:

[http://mentalfloss.com/article/53235/how-stephen-kings-
wife-...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/53235/how-stephen-kings-wife-saved-
carrie-and-launched-his-career)

~~~
SyneRyder
That was fantastic and just what I needed to read today. Thanks for sharing
the link.

------
IIIIIIIIII
I've tried to read King a few times over the years. I couldn't get over the
lack of prose style and find him to be a craftsman of plots that (other)
people are enthralled by, but not much of a writer. This is what happens when
you're raised in your literary interests by the likes of Joyce and Proust,
perhaps. If I'm a snob so be it. When I heard Harlan Ellison wrote novels in
bookstore windows in a matter of days I thought "that makes sense."

~~~
stupidcar
Speaking as a relative non-snob, I'm always a bit baffled when people cite
Joyce like this. I mean, he clearly had an unrivalled mastery of language, but
do people actually _like_ reading prose like that? Even his supposedly more
accessible stuff like Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist just seemed so
dense and obtuse that while I could objectively admire the skill on display, I
never once really found myself _enjoying_ them.

I'm not saying art should exist purely for the sake of entertainment. But,
ultimately, if I'm investing the time to read a book, I need to get something
out of the experience from moment to moment, and generally I find I get more
from reading a bad writer with fun ideas than an expert stylist who makes no
concessions to enjoyment.

~~~
Mediterraneo10
Bloomsday celebrations frequently include reading _Ulysses_ aloud where a
series of people have a go at it. They love Joyce's prose and want to share
the music of it with others. It is OK if it is not your thing, but there is
certainly an audience out there who sincerely love _Ulysses_ in all its
facets.

------
erikb
That one is a surprise to me.

I would argue that the best certainly write more than most. Maybe there's a
difference between churning out book after book, and rewriting one book again
and again until it becomes good. I think the latter is the one that makes one
great. The first one offers little feedback, since three books further the
author probably forgot most of the details of the first one. So maybe the
problem is that "writing a lot" is measured in books rather than in words
typed (and then deleted, to be typed again, in a different form and
structure).

Just reading this comment you will probably find a few errors that I will
never see, because I won't rewrite it. Let that be an example of my theory.

------
coldtea
> _I’m a recovering alcoholic, haven’t had a drink in almost 27 years_

OT, but what does that even mean? Recovered maybe, recovering, no. He is just
someone that hasn't been an alcoholic for 2+ decades...

It's like saying "I'm recovering from a broken ankle, I had my surgery in 1983
and have had no pain at all, and no fractures either, and been running ultra-
marathons and doing base jumping ever since 1986".

~~~
ramblerman
> and been running ultra-marathons and doing base jumping ever since 1986

Your own analogy doesn't hold up because by that logic then a recovered
alcoholic would be 'fit' to have a drink again

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Many folks can drink again, once they've learned how to control things. That
generally means a period of sobriety, though it doesn't always. There are ways
to treat the underlying issues while not completely abstaining. Many folks
don't get treatment for alcoholism in their early 20's, quit, and drink
normally the rest of their life.

Unfortunately, many folks think that once an addict, always one. While this is
true for some folks, it certainly isn't true for everyone. You really can be
"fit" to drink again.

~~~
mseebach
> Many folks don't get treatment for alcoholism in their early 20's, quit, and
> drink normally the rest of their life.

If they don't get treatment, were they ever properly diagnosed? As I
understand it, "drinking (way) too much" is something a good number of people
in their 20s do, then they cut down without any particular problems. That
isn't alcoholism, it's just drinking too much. Even the urge to grab a glass
of wine to relax, when it's just a habit, isn't an addiction.

~~~
coldtea
> _If they don 't get treatment, were they ever properly diagnosed?_

If they had trouble quitting, such as withdrawal symptoms, and only managed to
do so after hard attempts, then they don't really need to be diagnosed.

Other than that, the line between alcoholism and drinking too much is really
blurry, if it exists at all. Some people manage to function perfectly and be
OK while drinking heavily throughout their lives, and are not considered by
others or consider themselves alcoholics.

Btw: "One of the most interesting findings, as far as I'm concerned, was that
among remitted alcoholics (link is external) the average amount of drinking
was around 1.3 drinks per day with a lot of variability, a little higher than
that of moderate drinkers (0.8 drinks per day) but lower than that of heavy
drinkers (4.0 drinks per day). I see this as a little more proof that people
who met criteria for alcoholism at one point don't necessarily abstain forever
and don't necessarily continue to have drinking problems (per Moderation
Management (link is external), spontaneous remission (link is external), or
some other means of stopping their alcoholic drinking)."

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-
addiction/...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-
addiction/201201/stress-about-alcohol-heavy-drinking-versus-alcoholism)

------
JJMcJ
In the Victorian era, Anthony Trollope was very productive. His rule was seven
pages a day. If he finished one novel, he started the next one.

Contemporary publishing, with book tours and other publicity, can't really
absorb more than a book a year or so from a single author.

And the book tours, etc, take up a lot of a writer's time.

------
dewitt
> "Donna Tartt, one of the best American novelists to emerge in the last 50
> years, has published just three novels since 1992. Jonathan Franzen, the
> only American novelist who is her equal."

Pynchon. DeLillo. McCarthy. Roth...

Edit: Morrison. Updike. Mailer...

~~~
pmoriarty
I'd take Philip K Dick over all of them put together.

~~~
aidenn0
With few exceptions, genre fiction doesn't count as Serious Literature.

~~~
mr_toad
You mean because it’s not boring?

It’s like serious literature has to eschew anything that would make it a good
story, in case it got in the way of being good writing.

~~~
sincerely
Oh come on, Vonnegut is one of the most obvious examples of well respected
American writers and you could hardly call his work boring. One of the 2016
Pulitzer prize winners (The Sympathizer - not cherry picking, just a recent
book that comes to mind) was an extremely gripping/exciting story about
escaping the end of the Vietnam war to America but it still managed to receive
nearly unanimous praise.

On the other hand, one could argue that if your works require elaborate
setpieces and a fantastical setting then you're drawing attention away from an
inability to write captivating stories. A plot summary of a Jonathan Franzen
novel for example sounds incredibly boring but his writing is nearly
impossible to tear yourself away from and will have your mind going for days
or even weeks after you finish. It's perfectly fine to enjoy sci-fi/fantasy
etc but there's no need to develop a victim complex about its position in the
literary world.

~~~
lmm
Vonnegut is the exception that proves the rule (perhaps with Atwood).

I found Franzen terrible FWIW, but there is certainly excellent literary
writing out there. Prosecraft is a skill, just as plotting and settings are -
neither is superior to the other. And there is a real cultural disrespect for
the things that SF does well. I wouldn't mind that if good SF was still
allowed to continue in its own place, but lately even that seems under threat
(e.g. the Hugo awards are lately dominated by literary prose at the expense of
the classic SF virtues).

------
ratnakarsays
Yes, I guess writers are creative people

------
RickJWagner
I really like some of King's writings. But it's a mixed bag-- some are really
good, some are really bad.

When he's gone, I'll miss his best fiction. But I won't miss his public rants,
they've been an embarrassment to him.

~~~
barneyrubble
Links to some rants please?

My Google fu is weak today.

------
CharlesMerriam2
Can we stop with the random posting of non-technical nytimes.com articles?

~~~
mromanuk
I think prolificacy is an interesting subject, and this type of articles add
to the richness of HN.

