.... I just read the preview of Awaken.
Has this guy even read "On Writing"? No matter how boring it feels to write -- and as a (bad) writer, I know the feeling -- just put "said" at the end of dialogue unless you have a damn good reason to do otherwise, and then, put "said" anyway. If you, as a reader, don't know how it sounds from the words in the dialogue itself, the dialogue and description between are bad, period.
Anyway, yeah, Amazon shouldn't connect this to "The" Stephen King's webpage, but that is likely automated to a degree, yet . . . either this has already been fixed, as of today (June 3, 2016), or my page is different than yours. . .your's. . .*google it* yours. XD
I click the Stephen King in that Awaken book's page and get a bunch of books "The" Stephen King didn't write, so. . .. Is this fixed? Or is it just me?
Aside:
Yes, Redstone has a cool cover. Actually, all of them do, but only Awaken and Descendants have ones I might confuse for a Stephen King cover.
Totally Different Topic:
Why do most Stephen King books have such bad cover-art? Joyland stands alone as fantastic -- and it wouldn't be, if it had been published two or three decades earlier, and it is far from timeless all the same -- most of his covers are boring and/or tasteless (Duma Key, From A Buick 8, )- --- nevermind, I just drug thru my Stephen King shelves and I think I know. It's Pulp Fiction (now called Mass Market Paperback) and a tacky-as-heck 1/3-1/2 of the cover is Stephen King's own name, like that's all that matters (which is true, but still. . ..) The rest is a time-sensitive image of some kind, and most my books are second or third printings, usually with the original cover art, and most of that is so dang dated. Finder's Keepers new mass-market cover is a great example of a current and beautiful cover -- but I think the original cover is a much better example of a 'classic' cover.
What I mean by 'Classic', by the way, is a cover which appeals to the most basic and generally contiguous of human aesthetic pleasures. Dada-ism exists to this day, but what is truly pleasurable to almost everyone has always been something clean, something simple, and yet appealing. Classical re-prints sometimes have paintings from or that look as they are from the time, but many are just simple, unobtrusive colours and words -- The Fault in Our Stars is cloud/thought-bubble/speech-bubble, and it will never be unusable --- The first SK books on my shelf is Desperation
^^ -- I'm going to include this 'totally different' topic because I did a lot of research regarding this as I wrote and my conclusion is this -- my Stephen King covers suck (by and large, both classically and modernly) because I bought the paperbacks for all but six books. I owned the hardcovers once upon a by, but then there was a fire, and, well, I replaced them with paperback non-first editions because I didn't have my mother’s collections of the books before my time, nor the funds to procure them, at the time -- or even now, when it comes to funds, I could have hardcovers for Mr. Mercedes and books from 2010 or so on, but the cost is a dear 20 bucks or so, and the cost of a used paperback never comes more than 'Half Price Books!' at 3-5 USD a book. Except, of course, when I find a copy or two in the real-life Half Priced Books in the dollar section (where most of my replacements came from).
The hardcovers aren't the covers of classic books, I reckon, and by and large, but there are a couple exceptions as far as I can see. In Exempli: Desperation, as long as Salvador Dhali, or (at least) surrealism, the 1st Ed. hardcover will be classic, 11/22/63 is not exactly classic, but it will last as long as remembrance of newspapers does, and it can get a classic one easily (I expect it shall on reprinting) mostly because it does not lend easily to crap imagery -- the hardcover covers are more of the time of their publication, with the ability to hold thru (at least to me, at 26), at least until today. I don't really see any classics in King's publications, but the paperbacks suffer most from the exact reason of their printing -- King's name makes up the bulk of the thing, and any old thing is tossed in to fill the rest of the page. Sure, some are what I consider cool, and King has something to do with my consideration of 'cool' (whether I'll ever like anything by the Beetles or not) --- but most are pretty poor, and almost all are a far cry from 'classic' . .. because it's pop fiction of course.
I realize this might have no business here, but this tpic really did get me thinking about this -- so, here it is.
