Is Stephen King a good WriterStephen King a good writer?
Stephen King a good writer? - Been blogging
He is one of the most famous writers in the game. When you consider that he released his first volume less than 40 years ago, he is a quite productive writer, and a good number of his volumes are recognizable by name, not just filling volumes in a writer's writing careers that ultimately go unrecognized (at the end of this paper I enumerate his volumes from the top of my mind, which I think would most likely make folks recognise the name, even if they are not acquainted with Stephen King... and it was a lot).
They can' say that Stephen King is not succeeding. Is it good, though? The problems with King's writings usually have to do with his phrase structures and his wordy type. 1 ) Character. King's personalities are usually quite complicated and well-designed. When I read many of his novels, I see his personalities as "courageous".
His less coveted personalities can be true arseholes, whether they are child molesters, wife-beaters or psychic thieves. It really goes into the depths with its protagonists and gives them a great deal of background story. Readers are really able to get into a character's mind. Although his personalities are fantastic, King can sometimes get too immersed in them.
In the Duma Key story, the protagonist had so much alone that he was subject to the full range of his thoughts and recollections. I' m in conflict with that, because most of the times I find his fiction interesting enough that I don't care, but I've also been reading novels in which personalities, attitudes and themes clearly get through without having to fill out these additional pages.
It' fun because he says in his on-writing textbook that an author should take out 10-15% when revising the first work. And come on, most of his ledgers are 10lbs! 3 ) Record layout. König often uses brackets and hyphens to break his phrases. Although you may or may not like it as a readership, I would not suggest its phraseology as something that a writer should work for.
It illustrates the kind of non-Orthodox structures he uses in his writing: It' really conspicuous here because I know that this is Stephen King who says these things and we can see where his thoughts are dispersed or disordered. Reading his works often has more characteristic effects on me, as I see the thoughts dispersed as a mirror of personality.
Well, maybe I was prejudiced against him and don't have as many problems with his phraseology as others. I think King is really shiny here. He/she does not depend on bloody and bloody things to frighten the readers, but on emotions, the construction and lifting of unbelief. Let's face it, some of King's ends can really stink.
Occasionally it felt like he had all these great stories, storylines, turns and figures and just didn't know how to pack them in the end. When you' ve seen IT or insomnia, you know what I'm on about. He is one of the most influential authors of our times, and he is certainly my favourite.
In all honesty, it was only when a very competent and seasoned journalist said to me that he was a "bad writer" that I began to look at him from this point of view. As a writer, how is King?