Currently, I'm reading Full Dark No Stars and Under the Dome, by Stephen King Although I'm enjoying the books, I couldn't help but notice his voice and style has changed. Some readers in the following Discussion forum- Stephen King, attribute this to two different periods in his life. They argue that his earlier works were the product of alcohol and substance abuse, while the later ones were from his post rehab period.
Whatever the reason, I definitely see a difference in his writing. At the very least, it lacks the rawness I remember in Salem's Lot, Misery, It, Needful Things, The Shining and The Stand, Not only did these novels make for an interesting read, but also a unique one. Although the plots were chaotic and overloaded with exposition, the characters were distinct enough to make up for any shortcomings in the writing.
In stark contrast, Full Dark No Stars and Under the Dome are free of the aforementioned problems, but are not as engaging as King's earlier works. I no longer feel the same connection with the characters as I did in the above noted stories, and the plots don't elicit the same book-clenching fear I used to feel. In essence, I miss King's old voice and style.
The changes in his writing got me to thinking about my Work-In-Progress. Is it possible that some crudeness in technique can be a good thing? Perhaps polishing out all the imperfections can also take away from the overall uniqueness of a piece. At the end of the day, don't we all strive to have an edge to our writing that sets us apart from everyone else? I certainly do. What do you think? I'd also be interested to know if those King fans out there see a difference between the voice and style in his earlier works and his later ones.
I'll be in Vegas with friends for the next few days, but will periodically check my blog, so please be patient if I don't respond straight away. Until next week, happy writing.
Whatever the reason, I definitely see a difference in his writing. At the very least, it lacks the rawness I remember in Salem's Lot, Misery, It, Needful Things, The Shining and The Stand, Not only did these novels make for an interesting read, but also a unique one. Although the plots were chaotic and overloaded with exposition, the characters were distinct enough to make up for any shortcomings in the writing.
In stark contrast, Full Dark No Stars and Under the Dome are free of the aforementioned problems, but are not as engaging as King's earlier works. I no longer feel the same connection with the characters as I did in the above noted stories, and the plots don't elicit the same book-clenching fear I used to feel. In essence, I miss King's old voice and style.
The changes in his writing got me to thinking about my Work-In-Progress. Is it possible that some crudeness in technique can be a good thing? Perhaps polishing out all the imperfections can also take away from the overall uniqueness of a piece. At the end of the day, don't we all strive to have an edge to our writing that sets us apart from everyone else? I certainly do. What do you think? I'd also be interested to know if those King fans out there see a difference between the voice and style in his earlier works and his later ones.
I'll be in Vegas with friends for the next few days, but will periodically check my blog, so please be patient if I don't respond straight away. Until next week, happy writing.
I agree with you. I think some honest rawness can go a very long way!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jessica. Sorry it took me so long to reply, but for some reason, I could not do so from my iphone in Vegas. Anywho, it's good to know I'm not alone in my opinions. Thanks for stopping in.
DeleteI haven't read enough of King's earlier works, and the few I have were years ago, to really know if his voice has changed, but I will say that Under the Dome could have been so much better! It was such a frustrating book because the one character I connected with, Barbie, sort of faded away in the middle of the book. I hated pretty much all the other people and didn't care what happened to them or the town.
ReplyDeleteI almost didn't buy 11/22/63 because of how disappointing UtD was, but I did and I'm glad. While it's not horror or even scary at all, it was interesting and I connected with the character. It's not in my top 20 books I've ever read, but it was good.
As far as polished--I didn't think Under the Dome was all that polished. I read the hardback and for one thing, there were a bunch of typos in it! Not only that, so much could have been cut but wasn't and it felt very bloated.
Hi M.P. Sorry it took me so long to reply, but for some reason I couldn't do so from my iphone. I'm still reading Under the Dome, and it isn't as good as Full Dark No Stars. King was a bit wordy in his older works, but I didn't find this to be the case in the later ones. I haven't noticed the typos yet but will keep an eye out for them now.
DeleteI haven't read a lot of Stephen King's work, so I can't answer your question, but I do know it's possible to edit to the point where our work becomes almost bland.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, J.L. A document can be edited to death.
DeleteFascinating post, and as a Stephen King fan, I'm intrigued. I thought it was lack of editing but perhaps it's that he's lost his edge as you suggest. I think they take his work and just put it out there figuring it'll sell since it's Stephen King. The one I recently read was so badly in need of editing that I was really disappointed in it. I can't think of the title because it's numbers, but it's the one about the Kennedy assassination/time travel.
ReplyDeleteHi Karen, yes, I've heard that 11/22/63 was interesting, but needed editing. I'll have to buy that one once I finished my current read. You might consider reading Full Dark No Stars, it was pretty good, but very dark.
DeleteIt wouldn't surprise me if the publisher just put King's books out there without editing them. They probably figure he's as knowledgeable as any editor in the field. Still, regardless of how good you are, it's difficult to catch ALL the mistakes.
Sorry it took me so long to reply. For some reason I couldn't do so from my iphone in Vegas. Thanks for stopping in, it's always good to hear from you.
I'm not sure if I don't enjoy his more recent works because I'm different or as you say, they lack the true horror of his earlier works. I found, Under the Dome, as too predictable.
ReplyDeleteHi Susan, thanks for stopping by. Sorry it took me so long to reply. For some odd reason, I couldn't do so from my iphone in Vegas. I'm not sure about predictable, but I'm finding Under the Dome to be a bit wooden. It's certainly isn't as good as Full Dark No Stars.
DeleteI haven't read much Stephen King (gasp) but what I often find with popular authors is that they get less editorial work on them. I'm not sure why this is the case. I like your theory though. I do believe that sometimes we do tend to get too caught up on the writing rules and polish our stories to a point that the story and the characters get lost.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Lidia. Once a book shines there's no need to keep polishing it. Thanks for stopping in.
Delete