I'm in my mid-30s now but I've been reading Stephen King's work pretty solidly since before I was a teenager. My dad was a big fan of his, and he passed his books on to me as he'd read them. Which was very quickly.
I worked as a writer for a few years in various capacities. I still write a little on the side for fun. Most of my "writer" friends from college have moved on and have kids and other things to do besides READ, much less WRITE.
So I had to reach out to gush about something to people who would know. I'd send this to King himself (I've technically received a letter from him - I won one of the magnets back when Green Mile was being serialized ), but naturally that's not a viable option.
I never could understand what it was, exactly, that was always a draw for me - or my father - to King's work. We both liked to read, but we'd both be drawn to King like inevitable creaking to a ceiling fan. And we'd even have discussions afterward where we'd be in hushed tones talking about how ... Stupid ... The "story" was in whatever latest King work.
My dad passed about ten years ago, but in that time we were able to figure out what it was. The story is almost always entirely incidental in King's work. That's my opinion, and my dad started to share it after thinking about it more, though he didn't apply it with as broad a brush as I did. His favorite of King's books, for instance, was The Stand, and he said - and maintained - that the book survives as a story alone. As did several of the other "monstrous tome" books King wrote.
What I mean by that is that you can tell them to somebody out loud in your own words and still hold their interest, for as long as the story goes on, and in as much detail (if you had the memory).
To me, that's not true of the huge bulk of King's stories. Note that I don't think that's at all a bad thing. Quite the contrary. It's always about something else in King's work, and the stories are never The Real Story.
It's commonly known, for example, that Misery and The Shining were about Cocaine and Alcohol, respectively. But I think that mapping is the case with most of his stories, though even he seems that he may be unaware of it at the time.
Now, both of those are great stories. Even within my construct. You can re-tell The Shining to someone and have them follow along. But I was given the perfect example to explain to my dad what I was talking about when they made the TV Movie of The Shining, which was more faithful to the book.
King notoriously hates Kubrick's version. Kubrick's version is a retelling of the story that is ... Uh ... Wrong. I love the film, and I love Kubrick, but it's not the same thing as the book. Not really.
The TV version was and... It sucked.
So what's the difference? Nuance. These aren't stories. They're literary works.
For some reason when I compare King to a living Shakespeare people think I'm joking, or that I'm wrong, but I truly believe this.
Which leads me back to the thing I wanted to gush about. It brings me . . .
To Danse Macabre.
King gave us a look under the hood and exposed a lot of AWESOME writing tips, and even some fantastic new ways to read a story. And he does it with love, unlike someoene like Joseph Campbell, who wrote about the Hero's Journey with a vitriolic subtext that has ruined so many things for me that other people love. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and on and on and on and on and on . . . . All just ... The Hero's Journey.
King doesn't always follow that.
But he does always follow what he says in Danse Macabre.
And in describing his process right down to the nuts and bolts, he exposes something that I think is a peculiarity that may have unconsciously drawn my father and I to his writing, and completely explains why we could read an entire work and enjoy every second while reading, but then afterward have a level of cognitive dissonance as to how we could've POSSIBLY ENJOYED A STUPID STORY ABOUT HOW A BOX ATE A TABLE, OR WHATEVER!? : )
Stephen King's biggest fear is adverbs.
He irrationally hates them. So much so that the preceding sentence just made him cringe. And I think it makes his work wonderful to read.
King breaks TONS of "rules" while writing. For instance, that last sentence above started with "And I think," which some people would refer to as bad form. I learned it from King. My one-sentence "paragraph" above "Stephen King's biggest fear is adverbs" is anathema to what they are teaching in public schools in the US. I learned it from King, and I swear by it. He was prophetic with those kinds of sentences, by the way, in that most people growing up now learned how to read email, and proper email form even says that this paragraph is too long.
On the TV show "House," at one point Dr. Wilson is talking to Dr. House and says "You know, some doctors have the Messiah complex. They need to save the world. You've got the Rubik's complex. You need to solve the puzzle." My dad and I were both like that. Without realizing it, we were engaged in the puzzle of King's writing.
When it comes down to it, even if the Constant Reader doesn't know why, King has always had a very distinctive voice.
I posit that his voice is the direct result of his aversion to adverbs.
It may not be just because it's unnatural (people speak with adverbs...Constantly). In fact, I don't think it's that at all, as I think King's dialogue is known for sounding incredibly natural.
I think it's because an aversion to adverbs makes it so that you need to review your writing. Closely. And frequently. And repetitively. And it makes it so your writing is so tight that there are no mistakes at all. Reading King's work almost requires a constant footnote of "Do you see what I did there?" much like when I just said people speak with adverbs "Constantly" (do you see what I did there?).
King also hates parenthetical remarks too, by the way, and thinks they should be worked into the sentence if they're relevant (otherwise they're not). It's another Rule that makes review necessary.
What you're left with when you apply these rules ........ Is a PUZZLE! Even trying to do the reverse of either thing - include as many adverbs and parenthetical comments as possible - is a puzzle. A trick. An exercise.
I know from personal experience! For a while I tried ensuring that everything I wrote lacked adverbs, but I'd write without thinking. Transcribing thoughts. Stream of consciousness. I'd go back and remove the adverbs - they were everywhere - and I'd be left with much tighter writing, though mine wasn't anywhere near as natural as King's when it came to dialogue.
So, I don't know. There are plenty of other things that I think make King a great writer. For one, I feel the need to point out that I was Devil's-Advocating a bit as a rhetorical tool to my own point when I say his stories aren't good. His stories are usually pretty solid. The Shining and Misery read as awesome stories when you don't know what they're "About," and they play as awesome films (even if Kubrick did drive King crazy by calling him at 3am asking if he believed in God and other such nonsense). Even King himself admits that some of them have been silly at best, though. But I've never put a King book down as not an enjoyable read.
For another, I don't at all think he's a good writer just because of the self-imposed rules. "The Cat in the Hat" was written as a result of a bet where someone bet Dr. Seuss (I know that's not his real name, but it's funny to me to refer to him as such) that he couldn't write a story with fewer than a very small number of distinct words.
To me, that bet is the same as when I bet my friend $1 that the cigarette I was smoking would be my last. I bet him that fully intent on quitting, and I haven't lost my dollar ten years later. The bet was just for fun.
That said, King's constraints he puts on himself aren't at all constraints at this point. The real reason I think he's awesome is because of his character development, above all else. The stories - however good or bad - are always an aside. It's his ability to create such strong characters, even in such a short span, that makes him great. That's why The Stand seems to be the fan favorite, I think. It has the most characters!
So, while reading over the Bazaar of Bad Dreams and looking for a specific type of word... I'd get side-tracked and find myself paying too much attention to the story.
His skill really is all in the craft. I conceived of the exact same story - almost EXACTLY THE SAME - as the one in "The Dune," and even started writing it. Four or five drafts in, I couldn't even hold my own interest.
Bottom line?
I can wax philosophical about it all I want. Truth is, I have no idea how he does it.
I didn't know how Alex Grey made his awesome paintings either, so I had to see for myself. I went to one of his all-night parties and watched him paint for about 12 hours.
Spoiler... He does it with a paintbrush.
To quote the story that brought this on:
"So some of the magic comes from me. It must come from me. The question is, how much?"
I worked as a writer for a few years in various capacities. I still write a little on the side for fun. Most of my "writer" friends from college have moved on and have kids and other things to do besides READ, much less WRITE.
So I had to reach out to gush about something to people who would know. I'd send this to King himself (I've technically received a letter from him - I won one of the magnets back when Green Mile was being serialized ), but naturally that's not a viable option.
I never could understand what it was, exactly, that was always a draw for me - or my father - to King's work. We both liked to read, but we'd both be drawn to King like inevitable creaking to a ceiling fan. And we'd even have discussions afterward where we'd be in hushed tones talking about how ... Stupid ... The "story" was in whatever latest King work.
My dad passed about ten years ago, but in that time we were able to figure out what it was. The story is almost always entirely incidental in King's work. That's my opinion, and my dad started to share it after thinking about it more, though he didn't apply it with as broad a brush as I did. His favorite of King's books, for instance, was The Stand, and he said - and maintained - that the book survives as a story alone. As did several of the other "monstrous tome" books King wrote.
What I mean by that is that you can tell them to somebody out loud in your own words and still hold their interest, for as long as the story goes on, and in as much detail (if you had the memory).
To me, that's not true of the huge bulk of King's stories. Note that I don't think that's at all a bad thing. Quite the contrary. It's always about something else in King's work, and the stories are never The Real Story.
It's commonly known, for example, that Misery and The Shining were about Cocaine and Alcohol, respectively. But I think that mapping is the case with most of his stories, though even he seems that he may be unaware of it at the time.
Now, both of those are great stories. Even within my construct. You can re-tell The Shining to someone and have them follow along. But I was given the perfect example to explain to my dad what I was talking about when they made the TV Movie of The Shining, which was more faithful to the book.
King notoriously hates Kubrick's version. Kubrick's version is a retelling of the story that is ... Uh ... Wrong. I love the film, and I love Kubrick, but it's not the same thing as the book. Not really.
The TV version was and... It sucked.
So what's the difference? Nuance. These aren't stories. They're literary works.
For some reason when I compare King to a living Shakespeare people think I'm joking, or that I'm wrong, but I truly believe this.
Which leads me back to the thing I wanted to gush about. It brings me . . .
To Danse Macabre.
King gave us a look under the hood and exposed a lot of AWESOME writing tips, and even some fantastic new ways to read a story. And he does it with love, unlike someoene like Joseph Campbell, who wrote about the Hero's Journey with a vitriolic subtext that has ruined so many things for me that other people love. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and on and on and on and on and on . . . . All just ... The Hero's Journey.
King doesn't always follow that.
But he does always follow what he says in Danse Macabre.
And in describing his process right down to the nuts and bolts, he exposes something that I think is a peculiarity that may have unconsciously drawn my father and I to his writing, and completely explains why we could read an entire work and enjoy every second while reading, but then afterward have a level of cognitive dissonance as to how we could've POSSIBLY ENJOYED A STUPID STORY ABOUT HOW A BOX ATE A TABLE, OR WHATEVER!? : )
Stephen King's biggest fear is adverbs.
He irrationally hates them. So much so that the preceding sentence just made him cringe. And I think it makes his work wonderful to read.
King breaks TONS of "rules" while writing. For instance, that last sentence above started with "And I think," which some people would refer to as bad form. I learned it from King. My one-sentence "paragraph" above "Stephen King's biggest fear is adverbs" is anathema to what they are teaching in public schools in the US. I learned it from King, and I swear by it. He was prophetic with those kinds of sentences, by the way, in that most people growing up now learned how to read email, and proper email form even says that this paragraph is too long.
On the TV show "House," at one point Dr. Wilson is talking to Dr. House and says "You know, some doctors have the Messiah complex. They need to save the world. You've got the Rubik's complex. You need to solve the puzzle." My dad and I were both like that. Without realizing it, we were engaged in the puzzle of King's writing.
When it comes down to it, even if the Constant Reader doesn't know why, King has always had a very distinctive voice.
I posit that his voice is the direct result of his aversion to adverbs.
It may not be just because it's unnatural (people speak with adverbs...Constantly). In fact, I don't think it's that at all, as I think King's dialogue is known for sounding incredibly natural.
I think it's because an aversion to adverbs makes it so that you need to review your writing. Closely. And frequently. And repetitively. And it makes it so your writing is so tight that there are no mistakes at all. Reading King's work almost requires a constant footnote of "Do you see what I did there?" much like when I just said people speak with adverbs "Constantly" (do you see what I did there?).
King also hates parenthetical remarks too, by the way, and thinks they should be worked into the sentence if they're relevant (otherwise they're not). It's another Rule that makes review necessary.
What you're left with when you apply these rules ........ Is a PUZZLE! Even trying to do the reverse of either thing - include as many adverbs and parenthetical comments as possible - is a puzzle. A trick. An exercise.
I know from personal experience! For a while I tried ensuring that everything I wrote lacked adverbs, but I'd write without thinking. Transcribing thoughts. Stream of consciousness. I'd go back and remove the adverbs - they were everywhere - and I'd be left with much tighter writing, though mine wasn't anywhere near as natural as King's when it came to dialogue.
So, I don't know. There are plenty of other things that I think make King a great writer. For one, I feel the need to point out that I was Devil's-Advocating a bit as a rhetorical tool to my own point when I say his stories aren't good. His stories are usually pretty solid. The Shining and Misery read as awesome stories when you don't know what they're "About," and they play as awesome films (even if Kubrick did drive King crazy by calling him at 3am asking if he believed in God and other such nonsense). Even King himself admits that some of them have been silly at best, though. But I've never put a King book down as not an enjoyable read.
For another, I don't at all think he's a good writer just because of the self-imposed rules. "The Cat in the Hat" was written as a result of a bet where someone bet Dr. Seuss (I know that's not his real name, but it's funny to me to refer to him as such) that he couldn't write a story with fewer than a very small number of distinct words.
To me, that bet is the same as when I bet my friend $1 that the cigarette I was smoking would be my last. I bet him that fully intent on quitting, and I haven't lost my dollar ten years later. The bet was just for fun.
That said, King's constraints he puts on himself aren't at all constraints at this point. The real reason I think he's awesome is because of his character development, above all else. The stories - however good or bad - are always an aside. It's his ability to create such strong characters, even in such a short span, that makes him great. That's why The Stand seems to be the fan favorite, I think. It has the most characters!
So, while reading over the Bazaar of Bad Dreams and looking for a specific type of word... I'd get side-tracked and find myself paying too much attention to the story.
His skill really is all in the craft. I conceived of the exact same story - almost EXACTLY THE SAME - as the one in "The Dune," and even started writing it. Four or five drafts in, I couldn't even hold my own interest.
Bottom line?
I can wax philosophical about it all I want. Truth is, I have no idea how he does it.
I didn't know how Alex Grey made his awesome paintings either, so I had to see for myself. I went to one of his all-night parties and watched him paint for about 12 hours.
Spoiler... He does it with a paintbrush.
To quote the story that brought this on:
"So some of the magic comes from me. It must come from me. The question is, how much?"