🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello, everyone in netland.  I'm glad to be here, so to speak.  After
you read this, you may thank yourselves for staying in there no matter
how much negative feedback you received from your writing.

I have been reading one of the supposed 'masters' of the horror genre
lately, and lo and behold, I am tickled pink.  Why, you ask?  Well for
starters, I am thrilled that Mr. King is such a big hit with his style
of writing and the depth of his plots.  Because . . . this means that
he has circumvented a lot of the basic elements of writing and has
gotten away with it.

I will not go into depth on the specifics of his fictional mechanics,
but rather broadly examine some of the rudimentary failings of his and
let the net pick out others.  Why, you ask?  Because, if King can write
novels that lack the fundamental principles of creative writing, then why
should their be rules in the first place.  I'm speaking of such things as:
Point of view, voice, grammer, construction, story development, etc.

In reviewing one of King's recent works, Needful Things, I found numerous
inconsistencies in the rules of fictions as they apply of my understanding
of creative writing.

First of all, in chapter 2, I believe, King himself intrudes into the novel
by writing a single sentence the comments on the use of certain adjectives.
I was surprised that he would do this, because the comment interrupted my
concentration on the scene and I found it rude -- is the best word to
describe what I felt.

Secondly, his pov shifts in several of the chapters is evident, and I found
myself asking 'was this necessary' and did the antagonist really need to
interrupt the pov of one of the characters scene to tell us what he thought
of the person.

Thirdly, I felt that King was condescending to the reader, showing us that
he knows something that we don't and there.  My overall impression on this
subject is that King has decided to write in a style that is less third
person and more author intrusion.  Not direct intrusion, but subtle.  So
that, we the reader is reminded that events in this book are somewhat
related to another book and we best read the other book(s) to understand
what he is referring to when he flashes back to past events.

Grammer, I found several mistakes in this area that I felt could or
should have been discovered and corrected during the editing process.
The editors or editorial staff should have made note of the obvious
errors in grammer and they should have been changed before the galley
proofs were returned.  For example, I found a couple of comma splices
and improper punctuation in several of the first three chapters that
I read.

King has a tendency to ramble, not unlike myself at times, but I find
the verbose descriptions of scenes unneccesary and distract from the
main idea of the story.

I've only read the first three chapters of the book so far, but I am
starting to believe that King is not unbeatable as I first thought.  My
creative writing professor has said numerous times to find the author
and genre you most want to be like and write like and do better.  Write
better dialogue, better descriptions of scenes, better everything and
someday you will be better.  From what I've read of Stephen King's
recent novel, I'm encouraged to continue learning and developing my
writing skills.

My question for the day is, should anyone use the works of King as the
standard by which we wish to achieve.  Is King a high enough standard for
writers entering the market place.  Or should we look to someone who's
writing may not be as popular, but is by which standard fiction writers
strive for?

Oh, by the way.  I haven't said anything about the plot yet.  But, I plan
on addressing this later when I've read more of the book.  I can tell you
this though, I suspect that I've already figured out the plot in just the
first three chapters.  Which is sad.


Jon - Inspired, yet frugal.