> On May 24, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Richard Aiken <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Of course, I'm personally of the opinion that King himself goes just a bit overboard with description. I find his non-fiction and his shorter work very readable: one of the few works of his that I've read more than once are the stories in his "Everything's Eventual" collection, particularly "Lunch At The Gotham Cafe.". But King's full-sized novels tend to put me to sleep.
>

King suffers more than a little from "Tom Clancy Syndrome”

His earlier stuff, written in semi obscurity and edited by folks who didn’t consider him a massive bestselling author is tight, well written and benefitted by tough editing. His later stuff has slipped. His plots and story arcs have grown enormously ,huge and ambitious, and his editors have let him get away with a lot; thus the difference between earlier stories and bookshelf-busters like ‘The Stand’. It’s readable, it’s just not as good, and uses more words to say what he wants.

Clancy is a prime example: “The Hunt for Red October" is, imo, far and away his finest work, because he spent a lot of time on it, a lot of rewrite and a lot of editing. It’s polished, tight and clean. Later ones, not so much, more rough edges, more unnecessary description. Some of the latest stuff has almost become self-parody; almost the Thomas Kinkaid of that particular genre...

On the one hand it’s easy to spend years polishing a work when it’s your first one and hasn’t sold, or honing your craft writing short stories (like King), which require a lot more editing, rewrite and polish than multivolume novels.

It’s a lot harder when you’re huge, and have a contract to produce *another* blockbuster.

In a year.

And everyone is telling you that you’re the greatest thing since sliced bread and all your writing is glorious and oh, by the way is Chapter Seven done yet?
--
Bruce Johnson

"Wherever you go, there you are." B. Banzai, PhD