I know we've mentioned this before and that people are not necessarily fond of James Patterson's methods, but I find this guy fascinating (even though I have never read any of his material). Here is an article about him:
James Patterson mostly doesn’t write his books. And his new readers mostly don’t read — yet. - The Washington Post
What I find really fascinating is the comment in the article about mortality -- he has so many ideas that, realistically, he won't be able to get to them all himself. Obviously, I don't think the way he does what he does is necessarily original...although I can't think of any off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure there have been other publishing factories.
Sorry to bother Bev Vincent again -- I asked him a question in another thread -- but I am curious what you think Bev about this, as a King scholar. Could King pull this type of thing off? I would think you might want to see more of King's ideas expressed, even if it had to be in a Patterson-like way. Using co-writers maybe is no more anathema than selling a book to Hollywood, and King has basically stated that it is fine to do that, even if there are changes along the way -- i.e., in the case of the Patterson method, the idea would still be there, in King's notebook, untarnished, and he could always write his version someday anyway.
Let's take a specific example. Remember that idea about the planet whose raindrops causes cannibalism? It was mentioned in the forum several months ago, and I believe it was stated that King has basically dropped that idea. Imagine if he said to you, Bev, that he would like you to write it from a synopsis? I assume you certainly wouldn't mind doing that, but do you think that would negatively impact his legacy? I don't think it would -- I think it simply means we would have more King product out there, and that, even if every effort wasn't the height of art, that we would be exposed to more of his ideas.
Curious about your opinion on this, and about Patterson. Thanks.
James Patterson mostly doesn’t write his books. And his new readers mostly don’t read — yet. - The Washington Post
What I find really fascinating is the comment in the article about mortality -- he has so many ideas that, realistically, he won't be able to get to them all himself. Obviously, I don't think the way he does what he does is necessarily original...although I can't think of any off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure there have been other publishing factories.
Sorry to bother Bev Vincent again -- I asked him a question in another thread -- but I am curious what you think Bev about this, as a King scholar. Could King pull this type of thing off? I would think you might want to see more of King's ideas expressed, even if it had to be in a Patterson-like way. Using co-writers maybe is no more anathema than selling a book to Hollywood, and King has basically stated that it is fine to do that, even if there are changes along the way -- i.e., in the case of the Patterson method, the idea would still be there, in King's notebook, untarnished, and he could always write his version someday anyway.
Let's take a specific example. Remember that idea about the planet whose raindrops causes cannibalism? It was mentioned in the forum several months ago, and I believe it was stated that King has basically dropped that idea. Imagine if he said to you, Bev, that he would like you to write it from a synopsis? I assume you certainly wouldn't mind doing that, but do you think that would negatively impact his legacy? I don't think it would -- I think it simply means we would have more King product out there, and that, even if every effort wasn't the height of art, that we would be exposed to more of his ideas.
Curious about your opinion on this, and about Patterson. Thanks.