despite the flack I'm going to get....

[jeno]

1) JK Rowling is NOT a good writer, she is popular there is a difference

JK Rowling is a successful writer. Her world building was superb and her stories entertained people from all over the age spectrum. The sales for Harry Potter all over the world were astronomical, especially for a kids' series. Until I'm able to say the same, I think I'm gonna hold back from throwing stones. :/

And for that matter - Stephanie Meyer is a successful writer. She had a target demographic and she exploited it perfectly, whether or not that was what she meant to do. For all the crap we like to lob her way she is still a published, successful, widely known author.

I'm interested in learning from the successes of these women. Do they have their flaws? Of course. Are they still crazy successful authors? Hell yeah. And frankly, it's studying their accomplishments that can help us, not sulking over the flaws that their agents and editors and publishers and readers didn't care much about.

...and if they did care, it wasn't enough to hurt their sales. 
 

[Biffy Pyro]

JK Rowling is a successful writer. Her world building was superb and her stories entertained people from all over the age spectrum. The sales for Harry Potter all over the world were astronomical, especially for a kids' series. Until I'm able to say the same, I think I'm gonna hold back from throwing stones. :/

And for that matter - Stephanie Meyer is a successful writer. She had a target demographic and she exploited it perfectly, whether or not that was what she meant to do. For all the crap we like to lob her way she is still a published, successful, widely known author.

I'm interested in learning from the successes of these women. Do they have their flaws? Of course. Are they still crazy successful authors? Hell yeah. And frankly, it's studying their accomplishments that can help us, not sulking over the flaws that their agents and editors and publishers and readers didn't care much about.

...and if they did care, it wasn't enough to hurt their sales.
 

i wasn't throwing stones, just stating an opinion, Rowling did a very good job of capturing the imagination of a generation and she marketed very well, and did a lot of things that are vital to becoming successful but successful does not equal good in terms of writing quality. I love the books, have read them several times and still enjoy them now but it is not studying their accomplishments that aspiring writers should be doing its studying how she writes, and her use of bad story devices, poor characterisation and lack of limitations on the powers of the characters (other than good manners) takes away from the story. Her use of deus ex machina is the worst part, she sets up situations that cannot be solved until something completely unexpected and unpredictable happens, for example: in the last book when harry has to kill voldemort she drops in the deathly hallows, without them harry would never have been able to kill voldemort, or when harry gets the philosophers stone out of the mirror, that was a deus ex machina, or when he pulls the sword of gryffindor out of the sorting hat, or when his parents come out of voldemorts wand and allow him to escape, the list goes on. the main reason she is successful is that she found a story that spoke to the adolescent emotions of everyone "do I belong?"

she got her market dead on and deserves to be congratulated for that, but you cannot deny her use of poor story devices. aspiring writers should look at both the flaws and and the good points, that is the only way to learn

[daranthered]

I'm interested in learning from the successes of these women. Do they have their flaws? Of course. Are they still crazy successful authors? Hell yeah. And frankly, it's studying their accomplishments that can help us, not sulking over the flaws that their agents and editors and publishers and readers didn't care much about.

If you hope to match their success, you must realize that what initially got them published was luck.  What made them successful was luck, and good marketing.  The same goes for many writers mentioned  in this thread.  

I love Mr. Butcher's story about crashing an invitation only writers, publishers, and agents mixer. http://www.jim-butcher.com/jim/

My point being, learn to write as well as you can.  Don't make intentional mistakes for styles sake.  Ultimately it's networking and luck that get you published.  And don't write anything like Meyer's book.  There's a glut of that type of thing in the markets right now.

[jeno]

If you hope to match their success, you must realize that what initially got them published was luck.  What made them successful was luck, and good marketing.  The same goes for many writers mentioned  in this thread...

My point being, learn to write as well as you can.  Don't make intentional mistakes for styles sake.  Ultimately it's networking and luck that get you published.  And don't write anything like Meyer's book.  There's a glut of that type of thing in the markets right now.

Oh, I agree completely.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

JK Rowling is a successful writer. Her world building was superb and her stories entertained people from all over the age spectrum.

i would be inclined to say that JKR's worldbuilding is largely derived; an awful lot of that world is taken for a long tradition of classic boarding school stories.  The single stroke of genius there is that using magic to set aside what makes your kids who go to boarding school Special short-circuits the way the classic boarding-school story is usually inherently doing nasty classist/racist/sexist things. I find the magical side of her world-building pretty shoddy, tbh.  (Nobody dares mention the dark lord's name, but everyone knows what it is ?  And how exactly does a secret society of villains identifying themselves with tattoos not get picked up by any half-way competent policing in short order.

I'm interested in learning from the successes of these women. Do they have their flaws? Of course. Are they still crazy successful authors? Hell yeah. And frankly, it's studying their accomplishments that can help us, not sulking over the flaws that their agents and editors and publishers and readers didn't care much about.

It would be nice if it worked that way. I am not at all convinced to what extent it does; it would be interesting to have some sort of statistically detailed survey of how much of authors who a) get published b) make a career out of writing and c) are bestsellers is raw luck and how much is planning.

[Piotr1600]

Well, IMO it wasn't just "luck and marketing" that got Rowling and/or Meyers published.

They both had to at least conceive and then write a story that connected with their audience in the first place.
That's a matter of skill & perseverance.
Heavy on the  perseverance.

Those things had to take place 100% prior to any 'luck' or 'marketing'.
Virtually every author professionally published will have some story variant of how much sheer perseverance it took to get noticed and published.

Luck plays into it here - Once they had something to sell, and that something was recognized by *someone* reading the slush pile  (or however it happened for them) as "Hey! This has a market - I can make some cash with this stuff!"

THEN the marketing comes in.
And, generally speaking, the real big marketing isn't done by the author. It's done by the publisher. 


And while I would not say that either authors works are the kind of thing where one starts reading and cannot put it down because of the gripping narrative, or deathless prose, (or whatever superlative works for you), it isn't exactly "bad".   (I've browsed the slush pile before. The word is usually dreck. Or gawdawful. Or "Pleasemakeitstopnooo!")

Both authors works tap into a certain commonality of human experience, and despite the writers limitations, they manage to do it well enough to sell boatloads of books.

The Backstreet Boys aren't Bach. But they are exceptional for what they are. 

Ditto Rowling & Meyer.

[Biffy Pyro]

Well, IMO it wasn't just "luck and marketing" that got Rowling and/or Meyers published.

They both had to at least conceive and then write a story that connected with their audience in the first place.
That's a matter of skill & perseverance.
Heavy on the  perseverance.

Those things had to take place 100% prior to any 'luck' or 'marketing'.
Virtually every author professionally published will have some story variant of how much sheer perseverance it took to get noticed and published.

Luck plays into it here - Once they had something to sell, and that something was recognized by *someone* reading the slush pile  (or however it happened for them) as "Hey! This has a market - I can make some cash with this stuff!"

THEN the marketing comes in.
And, generally speaking, the real big marketing isn't done by the author. It's done by the publisher. 


And while I would not say that either authors works are the kind of thing where one starts reading and cannot put it down because of the gripping narrative, or deathless prose, (or whatever superlative works for you), it isn't exactly "bad".   (I've browsed the slush pile before. The word is usually dreck. Or gawdawful. Or "Pleasemakeitstopnooo!")

Both authors works tap into a certain commonality of human experience, and despite the writers limitations, they manage to do it well enough to sell boatloads of books.

The Backstreet Boys aren't Bach. But they are exceptional for what they are. 

Ditto Rowling & Meyer.

i agree that they had to conceive and write the books and that they had good ideas, but jk rowling herself admits it was luck as she gt publish the second time she sent it away, i could quote but i can't be bothered to did out my 2010 copy of the writers and artist yearbook

[MoSeS]

Holy Cow...... I have never made a comment and then come back after the weekend to see soo many good replies.

Everyone makes some really good points.

@Starbeam
My comparing of Rice, Dickens, Tolkien, and King was a really bad example.

I guess it equates to comparing the war tactics of Ghenghis Khan, King Arthur, Colonel Custard, Hitler, Napoleon, and Alexander the Great. All very different times and technology.

@Thrythlind
I struggled and never finished the Silmilarion because I bought some old copy from a library (green hard back with some gold symbol on it, I lost it though) and I struggled with the English in it, I think it was an early translation or not translated at all. I don't know if they have different translations of this?

as for Rice, Interview is probably the least interesting in the series, the best one is Memnoch the Devil, if you ever read only one Anne Rice book, that should be the one. That story is just kind of awesome bunch of FAUSTness going on.

@Biffy Pyro

I don't hate twilight per se but i hate the massive amounts of attention it gets and the fans

I think that's what a lot of people dislike about it, the huge following from young people.

However, no one really gets ticked when there is a Pokemon fad or Dragon Ball Z fad, but when it hits close to home for us long time vampire/werewolf fans, I think that's what bugs us.

On the same token, more power to those successful authors for figuring out what sells.

@Enjourous

Hemingway is not a good example of good prose. He's a reporter at heart and it shows in his lexicon and syntax. For good prose look to: Twain (for his use of dialect) Orwell, Steinbeck, and for someone writing in a similar time and style Jack London has much better prose than Hemingway

Totally agree, again, I was kind of ranting and just pulling names out of the air, Hemingway was a bad example. All you named are WAY WAY better examples.
Thank you.

And I agree with your first statement mostly too. I just feel like King is over-rated, but that is probably my bias because the entire time I was reading the Dark Tower I was thinking Jebus Chris!, what the hell is going on, and then at times it was like, ok now he seems to be sobering up (the author i mean) then it's like oh no, i think he just dropped some acid.

Then as someone else stated, it's like he never knows how to end the books, he just makes up some terrible ending when he gets tired of writing the story, and I get that with King "its all about the journey" but for me a book needs a good conclusion, otherwise it kind of ruins the whole thing for me.

As for King's prose, maybe his prose isn't that bad and I just can't see past the story.

@Piotr1600

Agreed! I couldn't have said this better myself. I think you hit the nail right on the head.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

However, no one really gets ticked when there is a Pokemon fad or Dragon Ball Z fad,

I certainly do, when the young 'uns in question talk about those fads as if that's when gaming started and need some curmudgeonly cane-shaking at and being told to get off my lawn.

On the same token, more power to those successful authors for figuring out what sells.

I am entirely unconvinced they did figure anything out, though. The more people in the publishing industry, writers, editors, agents and others, I hear talk, the more convinced I become that ultimately William Goldman is right and nobody knows anything.

[Enjorous]

And I agree with your first statement mostly too. I just feel like King is over-rated, but that is probably my bias because the entire time I was reading the Dark Tower I was thinking Jebus Chris!, what the hell is going on, and then at times it was like, ok now he seems to be sobering up (the author i mean) then it's like oh no, i think he just dropped some acid. Then as someone else stated, it's like he never knows how to end the books, he just makes up some terrible ending when he gets tired of writing the story, and I get that with King "its all about the journey" but for me a book needs a good conclusion, otherwise it kind of ruins the whole thing for me. As for prose, maybe he's prose isn't that bad and I just can't see past the twisted stories he writes.

Well I'll say that King doesn't remember writing Cujo he was so messed up and he's admitted as much. As for the Tower, it is about the journey and it is about the cycle. "Ka is a wheel" and it comes full circle, with enough of a change that one could  see that the end of the series is the beginning of the final journey. But a lot of his books do conclude the story arc, but are always somewhat open on the characters in them.

[MoSeS]

I am entirely unconvinced they did figure anything out, though.

Ok ok....maybe figuring out was again another poor choice of words.

I guess what I meant was more to power to them for hitting what equates to the author's LOTTO.

[MoSeS]

Well I'll say that King doesn't remember writing Cujo he was so messed up and he's admitted as much. As for the Tower, it is about the journey and it is about the cycle. "Ka is a wheel" and it comes full circle, with enough of a change that one could  see that the end of the series is the beginning of the final journey. But a lot of his books do conclude the story arc, but are always somewhat open on the characters in them.

Exactly, but unlike the movie Ground Hog's Day (forgive the bad example) or Run Lola Run, we know that with each cycle, he or she get's closer and closer to getting it right.

However with the Dark Tower it's like we are only seeing day 3 of a 7 day book. (i am just using day figuratively here, could be week or month or year if you want, or any numbers)

And I get that it leaves something to the imagination, but I am not completely satisfied with that ending and I think it was kind of a cop-out ending.

The cool thing about Run Lola Run and Groundhog's Day is that we get to see where they make correction in the loop each time. With Dark Tower, King ingeniusly lets the reader imagine what happens so that King doesn't have to do the work.

I also get that sometimes endings are meant to be open ended, like the recent Inception, but in my heart I feel like King used it as a scapegoat to just get away from the series because he couldn't tie it up. Because honestly, what happens when Roland does get it right? I don't think King knows.

I think another flaw is why does the loop begin half into the story, it doesn't actually come full circle but more like a question mark shape. Therefore are we actually experiencing the very first occurance of the loop? since we experience the events before and outside of the loop. I think Dark Tower is riddled with fundamental story arc flaws. Not to mention I am not crazy about his heavy borrowing of artifacts from Marvel, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc. I guess the are meant to make me go "awesome, light sabers" but for me it's more like " WTF, Light Sabers!?!"

Anyhow, I guess this discussion is probably better suited for some Stephen King forum, but I only care to write in the Jim Butcher forums.  

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

However with the Dark Tower it's like we are only seeing day 3 of a 7 day book. (i am just using day figuratively here, could be week or month or year if you want, or any numbers) And I get that it leaves something to the imagination, but I am not completely satisfied with that ending and I think it was kind of a cop-out ending.

The cool thing about Run Lola Run and Groundhog's Day is that we get to see where they make correction in the loop each time. With Dark Tower, King ingeniusly lets the reader imagine what happens so that King doesn't have to do the work.

I also get that sometimes endings are meant to be open ended, like the recent Inception, but in my heart I feel like King used it as a scapegoat to just get away from the series because he couldn't tie it up. Because honestly, what happens when Roland does get it right? I don't think King knows.

I think another flaw is why does the loop begin half into the story, it doesn't actually come full circle but more like a question mark shape.

Major Dark Tower spoilers:

(click to show/hide)

The version of the story we are told is, I think, the last one before Roland succeeds.  It loops back to him chasing the man in black because he's done better than he ever did before - that's why the horn, which he lost in the battle he flashes back to at the start of book 5, is suddenly in his pack at the end.  He does not have to redo it from the very beginning, he has to redo it from the point at which he starts going off-focus.

His quest is to get to the Tower, recite the names of his companions, and blow the horn.  It's not to enter the Tower.  I think the way he wins, ultimately, is by letting having found a new family overcome his Tower obsession/addiction and learning to walk away once he has done what needs doing.  I think that's all in the text; King does not need to spell it out because he's given the reader enough clues to put it all together.

[MoSeS]

Oh, that sounds like a good theory.

To be honest, I kind of quit thinking about the deeper meaning because I was really turned off by many of the silly events.

I almost quit reading it after he put himself in as a character, but only because of the way he did it.

Really just a lot of other little things.

I also feel like a lot of the crap going on is pointless.

Like Mordrid, his role inevitably was pretty moot.

But enough about Dark Tower, this thread was suppose to be about.......well I don't remember now.  

*Oh yeah, about Stephanie Meyer's book The Host

[Enjorous]

I agree completely. It's probably why I liked the series so much, it wasn't tied up in a neat package, but it was a do it yourself kit so you could put together your ending.

@neurovore

(click to show/hide)

I think it's also necessary for Roland to make it to the tower with the ka-tet of 19 and 99 intact.