Only if you're not wearing a swim suit.That's an interesting take on it...if I ever hit the big time, my plan is to keep my enormous pile of money in a bin and swim in it, Scrooge McDuck-style. Is that...is that frowned upon?
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Only if you're not wearing a swim suit.That's an interesting take on it...if I ever hit the big time, my plan is to keep my enormous pile of money in a bin and swim in it, Scrooge McDuck-style. Is that...is that frowned upon?
Aww, ok, I'll make a note of it for future use...Only if you're not wearing a swim suit.
I'm probably a unique member in this regard, but I do find the process of making money almost an art unto itself. I actually believe it is more of an artistic feat to, say, have ten financially-popular music hits in a row than to have ten critically-popular music hits in a row; I think that's a more difficult thing to do, and therefore perhaps more fascinating. I also do some freelance writing in the financial markets, so you'll have to forgive me, money does inform my commentary. And, of course, money is important in life.
Golden Years, while a great counterexample, is a work that wouldn't be done today in the age of Breaking Bad. At least, it wouldn't be done in the same way. One could remake Years, but it would have to be done differently, and with a social-media context backing it. And that is exactly what I am talking about -- King still has great ideas, and I think his brand deserves even better than what it already receives in the marketplace. Yes, his brand equity is significant, but I just see so much more. And for all either of us know, his agents may have some plans for the future that would surprise us both. A licensing deal with Comcast for a Stephen King World at one of its theme parks? Probably not, certainly, but it might not be as crazy as it sounds; many years from now, you never know what might happen.
On the dollar-baby issue: We've discussed this before, and I've thought about the problem with them a lot. Here's what my solution would be: I would order my agents to tell prospective option buyers that there are some dollar-baby projects attached to the property -- deal with it, or don't option the property. If what you say about King not caring about money is accurate, then that shouldn't be a problem. However, the agents, of course, don't want any friction with the buyers, because while King may not care about money, they do. Strangely, in this era of fan fiction and digital piracy, I'm surprised a few legitimately-sanctioned dollar-baby films would cause much of an issue. Again, they actually would serve as cheap forms of marketing, sort of like a crowd-sourced thing, if you will.
Now, here's perhaps the most salient part of the discussion. Really think about this -- if King doesn't care any longer about money, should he? Is he morally obligated to do so? Not in an Ayn Rand way, of course -- absolutely not, do not misunderstand -- but from the viewpoint that he could donate more money to worthwhile causes. If King could, say, generate an extra $10 million for himself, after taxes, above and beyond what he already makes, why not do it? I bet you that is a doable number. He, like I am, is not appreciative of the current climate of inequality; however, there's not much either of us can do about it, we just do what we can. In my case, I vote; in his case, maybe he could take more money from powerful media companies and put them in the pockets of deserving folks. He could order his teams to create businesses that employ people and pay them good wages. There's all sorts of things he could do. This is not a critical thing I am saying, just something that popped in my head one day; if he does none of that, that's okay. Just as an academic exercise, I do wonder, what is his moral obligation? If he isn't leveraging his brand equity to maximum advantage, is that something he should consider? The economic surpluses he could create for himself and then redistribute sound like a win-win for someone in his position. He wouldn't even need to do a lot of work. He could simply start a machine like some authors do, using co-authors and the like (as I believe skimom alluded to, although not in a positive sense, I must add to be clear). As an example, didn't Tom Clancy start a big licensing empire that way? And, although I am not saying this is true -- I'll repeat, I do not know this as fact -- I have read some things that indicate R.L. Stine may have used ghostwriters to expand his publishing empire. You know, all in all, the whole Goosebumps/Fear Street/etc. franchise is a thing of wonder to me, you have to give that brand credit. I've read a few of the books, and they're fun.
Is King leaving too much money on the table, given what he could do with it? I think it's a worthy question.
Of course, I enjoy his work, as well. In fact, I am loving The Bazaar of Bad Dreams. It isn't the same as Night Shift, but it is giving me a similar feeling of enjoyment. Yet, again, a confession: every time I come to a tale I wonder, almost in the spirit of the anecdote in the introduction to Skeleton Crew, how much money did each tale make before it was collected? How much did the audiobook make, how much did the appearance in this or that magazine make? King even mentions in the story note to Ur that he apparently still gets royalties on that work. He also mentioned, by the way, that one of his agents came up with the idea for serializing The Green Mile. I think that lends credence to the idea that King's associates would love him to grow his revenue base, and that King is merely happy to write. I love writing, too -- I'm not that good at it, and I'll never be a big author, but I understand the joy of writing for its own sake. Still -- authoring a business plan is writing of another kind, isn't it, just as coding an arcade game is likewise credited to software writers? It's just scored in a different way.
Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the "loser" King novels -- based on general consensus i.e. What I've observed -- seem to be:
Tommyknockers
Gerald's Game
Insomnia
From a Buick 8
Lisey's Story
....keep in mind I love all five of these novels-- just saying what I've observed.
Oh NOES! **starts going door to door with a huge stack of The Eyes of the Dragon books. "Excuse me, ma'am, but have you heard the Good Word?" **
Look at the discussion on another thread about Mr. King self-referencing and creating connections between books.
I can't remember. I got irritated, too--lol. When that happens, I check out.Yah! (Where is that thread by the way?) I think that thread was starting to get to me so I took a break for a day or two!
Looks like we are allI can't remember. I got irritated, too--lol. When that happens, I check out.
Well one sequel i thought was better then the original was blackhouse,i like it alot better then the talisman and even that was a good book to.i just liked the blackhouse story the best,especially with characters like beezer.loved it.*Hand in the air* Me. And this is why: when a well-written story is over, it's over. Done. Kaput. Most sequels are inferior; if a writer is lucky and good, what they come up with is only a little derivative and draggy. Most of the time, they're cold literary leftovers. Franchised work becomes WORK; it's rarely a labour of love and inspiration for long. I won't name names, but most series disintegrate over time, and a single arc is stretched beyond the breaking point. The work becomes repetitive, or worse desperate: "What can I toss in here to spice up this watery stew? What? You say it doesn't make sense within the rules and world I created in the first book or two? Who cares! The readers are clamoring for more!" It just doesn't work over time. Money is great, and we all want it. It would be a cockadoodie lie to say that those in publishing don't care about money--of course they do. But if they're writing purely for money and the love of story isn't there... even a good writer shrivels. We can all probably name at least one writer whose work has become stale, and I'd bet a good number of those are pumping out franchise books that they no longer give a damn about.
As far as pleasing the Constant Reader, I don't see that as an across the board thing either. Look at the discussion on another thread about Mr. King self-referencing and creating connections between books. I'd say that the people here are in general tremendous fans, but even we can't agree on the value and acceptability of that tack.
Mr. King is one of the most daring and experimental writers I can think of. I'd hate to see him go the way of *name the 'big name writer' of your choice* and put aside love of the craft for monetization.
Oh my Lord, YES!! I'm not a prude either, but sometimes it's awkward. And can I just say that I learned some things 'n some stuff from flipping through my mom's King collection when I was...er...young. (Heehee, well, until I looked long enough at the cover of The Shining to be scared out of her room, that is.)I just about can't read a King sex scene. I'm no prude, trust me--ick, some of the things I've read--and I know it isn't as though Uncle Stevie pours on the sleazy, but still...it's like hearing your Uncle talk dirty and it makes me uncomfortable.
All that cockadoodie potty-talk, it's just bad.
One that got me (in a good way) was the scene between Roland and Susan in Wizard & Glass. I thought it was just lovely.I just about can't read a King sex scene. I'm no prude, trust me--ick, some of the things I've read--and I know it isn't as though Uncle Stevie pours on the sleazy, but still...it's like hearing your Uncle talk dirty and it makes me uncomfortable.
All that cockadoodie potty-talk, it's just bad.
I just about can't read a King sex scene. I'm no prude, trust me--ick, some of the things I've read--and I know it isn't as though Uncle Stevie pours on the sleazy, but still...it's like hearing your Uncle talk dirty and it makes me uncomfortable.
All that cockadoodie potty-talk, it's just bad.
I just about can't read a King sex scene. I'm no prude, trust me--ick, some of the things I've read--and I know it isn't as though Uncle Stevie pours on the sleazy, but still...it's like hearing your Uncle talk dirty and it makes me uncomfortable.
All that cockadoodie potty-talk, it's just bad.
That was exactly one of the scenes I was thinking of, too!Even reading 'The Raft" god knows how long ago.. I was thinking, these two people are the only ones left - they just saw the friend sucked down between two boards only a ring left ....... And you are doing WHAT now? now?
Moderator, why did SK change the ending of Batman and Robin? In the story published in Harper's, the old man cries at the end; in the story published in the book, he doesn't.Oh no, I most certainly don't think the Shining book sucks, far from it ! It's just that in the context of this story, I think I prefer Kubrick's cold, detached way of telling the story.
Moderator, why did SK change the ending of Batman and Robin? In the story published in Harper's, the old man cries at the end; in the story published in the book, he doesn't.
Moderator, why did SK change the ending of Batman and Robin? In the story published in Harper's, the old man cries at the end; in the story published in the book, he doesn't.