Dark Regions Press book announcement thread

[Murder.Of.Crows]

I must fall into a third category then. I hate Stephen King because he is a sell out author that pumps out bullshit and only makes the money he does because of his name. His stories are completely ridiculous as well. Now there are a few of which I have enjoyed, but 3 out of his, what, 2,000 books is a bad statistic. He irritates me because he gets away with it.

Stephanie Meyer, yes she sucks , but I seem to want to defend her. It's like Justin Beibier, I loathe his music, and I don't really care for him personally, but the kid has talent and I give him that. That talent his squandered away however and that is... well irritating. Not that I am saying that Stephen King does not have talent. Yes, he is leagues above Meyer, but fuck, he pisses me off.

[Chris_Morey]

The problem is, Stephanie Meyer DOESN'T have talent. She sucked all the vampire teenie bopper girls into literature successfully, I give her that. Somehow she pulled them away from their Jonas Brothers to read books, it's an admirable feat.

I only had to read one of her books to realize she has a severe lack of skill in prose and story-telling ability. It's truly written for teenage girls, which is a great economic group to go after, mind you.

Stephen King pumps out bullshit? I would wager that you haven't read hardly any of his recent work, and are just making assumptions. Many of his newer works (Bag of Bones, Duma Key to name but a couple) are actually quite good.

I read almost everything King puts out (along with many other authors) and he's certainly not pumping out "bullshit." Yeah, he's a very prolific writer. Something tells me if you were paid as much as he is to write you would be sitting your ass in front of the computer for four hours a day yourself.

Originally Posted by Murder.Of.Crows

I must fall into a third category then. I hate Stephen King because he is a sell out author that pumps out bullshit and only makes the money he does because of his name. His stories are completely ridiculous as well. Now there are a few of which I have enjoyed, but 3 out of his, what, 2,000 books is a bad statistic. He irritates me because he gets away with it.

Stephanie Meyer, yes she sucks , but I seem to want to defend her. It's like Justin Beibier, I loathe his music, and I don't really care for him personally, but the kid has talent and I give him that. That talent his squandered away however and that is... well irritating. Not that I am saying that Stephen King does not have talent. Yes, he is leagues above Meyer, but fuck, he pisses me off.

[MissCheyenne]

Speaking as someone who has also read almost everything Stephen King has put out, both old and more recent works, some of it IS bullshit. Thing I've found with him is that when he's good, he's really really good but when he isn't, the results are awful.As golden as that goose might be, not all it's eggs are made of gold.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Chris_Morey

People who say Stephen King sucks generally fall into two categories:

1. Contrarians ("Oh, that something that I like is popular now, that means I'll stop liking it.")
2. Literary snobs ("There's not enough purple prose in this writing, and the author isn't using a thesaurus to find archaic adjectives in every sentence!")

King rose to the forefront in fiction because of his skill. There were plenty of other horror authors during the time of his rise that didn't see anything close to a similar ascent.

OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD!!! WE ARE ACTUALLY HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT LITERATURE! IN THE LITERATURE FORUM!!!

SQUEEEE!

I reiterate: I am SO fucking proud of you Chris_Morey. You have come such a long way.

Anyway, on Stephen King:

Once again: I am not a fan. From what I have read (granted not much) I find his prose abominable, and his characters cliche'd and uninteresting. Granted I'm basing this opinion off one book (Cell) and the various Stephen King movies I've seen (IT, Rose Red, The shining remake, that vampire one, Pet Cemetery, The Langoliers etc.)

There are some good ideas he's working with but more often than not in my experience MAN OH MAN is the execution off.

This is not to say that I wouldn't give his work another chance, given the opportunity. With a body of work as large as his there are bound to be some gems.

That Said Chris, you're right on the money about Meyer, the woman has no talent. I'm not sure how she managed to strike such a chord with popular culture, perhaps simple luck? right place and time? (coupled with some awesome cover-art and a slick marketing campaign).

My roommate keeps telling me that I need to just write some overly simplistic/formulaic bullshit to appeal to the average idiot, but I'm not convinced. My opinion on the matter is that Marketing is what made twilight what it was, and luck got it published in the first place. Shit without luck and marketing is just shit at the end of the day.

Your opinion as an industry professional?

[Murder.Of.Crows]

I think it had to do with Harry Potter coming to an end in it's series and people trying to fit a replacement. Twilight was simply enough written that any 14 year girl could pick it up and read it, educated or not. Thus it's popularity. I agree that the books suck, but have a hard time saying, for some unknown reason I cant put my finger on.

And yes, we are talking literature in the literature forum. This makes me so freaking happy, that and Chris Morey isn't just ad service anymore, he's actually giving his opinions and interacting with the natives. Desp. you are my hero for making this happen.

[Despanan]

Trawlin' for Justice.

[Chris_Morey]

Desp, if you've only read Cell then it's completely understandable how you formed your opinion on King. Go read The Shining, Salem's Lot and The Stand and you'll come to find he writes some of the best characters in post-modern fiction.

Sure, his ideas aren't always the most original, nor does he write in an overly complicated, literary manner, he writes popular fiction. Whether or not you're more of a reader of literature or pop fiction, that doesn't change what King is best at. There are few authors who can create such well developed, three-dimensional characters as King.

Originally Posted by MissCheyenne

Speaking as someone who has also read almost everything Stephen King has put out, both old and more recent works, some of it IS bullshit. Thing I've found with him is that when he's good, he's really really good but when he isn't, the results are awful.As golden as that goose might be, not all it's eggs are made of gold.

MissCheyenne, not all of his work is masterful, but his ratio of good work to bad work has been pretty solid recently. There was a time when his work was sagging (shortly after the accident) but since then things have picked up. I'd like to know which of his recent work you would consider "pumped out bullshit."

[Despanan]

There you go, that's how you do it!

If I find the time, I'll pick up a title or two. I've got 2 other books on my reading list and I've been so damn busy lately, I haven't really had time for novels.

Maybe I'll try out that E-book reader I got for christmas...

edit: oh btw, grats on the award win. I forgot to say that earlier.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD!!! WE ARE ACTUALLY HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT LITERATURE! IN THE LITERATURE FORUM!!!

SQUEEEE!

I reiterate: I am SO fucking proud of you Chris_Morey. You have come such a long way.

Anyway, on Stephen King:

Once again: I am not a fan. From what I have read (granted not much) I find his prose abominable, and his characters cliche'd and uninteresting. Granted I'm basing this opinion off one book (Cell) and the various Stephen King movies I've seen (IT, Rose Red, The shining remake, that vampire one, Pet Cemetery, The Langoliers etc.)

I'm delirious with gravol so humour me. I get super mad at Stephen King when I spot cliches, and he writes so much crap, but The Shining novel was really good, so was Misery and to an extent Dolores Claiborne (I hate how in his books abusive husbands/boyfriends are just eeeeeevil to the core, and one dimensional, but otherwise its good) Duma Key was good although a few things were reeeaaally predictable (like who's going to die), and his short story Everything's Eventual is probably my favourite short story ever. He's by no means my favourite author and I think with him, he gets an idea and just rolls with it even if its a repeat, I think he just really enjoys writing, so sometimes its good, and sometimes its like he just wrote it for the hell of it.

My roommate keeps telling me that I need to just write some overly simplistic/formulaic bullshit to appeal to the average idiot, but I'm not convinced. My opinion on the matter is that Marketing is what made twilight what it was, and luck got it published in the first place. Shit without luck and marketing is just shit at the end of the day.

If I ever find the time I'm going to try this out, and try to make a romance story between a girl and a elf, and make elves the new vampires.

PS. Desp, I wouldn't recommend The Stand for you. It gets extremely preachy half way through. Think of what a tolerant hippie I am and trying to imagine how preachy it has to be for me to be pissed off and give up the book.

[Chris_Morey]

I've read (and finished) both the extended and regular editions of The Stand and I never found it to be too preachy at all. In fact, many King fans consider it his best work (though it's not his favorite of his own).

Thank you Desp, we will be flying out to New York in June to accept the award, it's very exciting!

Originally Posted by Saya

I'm delirious with gravol so humour me. I get super mad at Stephen King when I spot cliches, and he writes so much crap, but The Shining novel was really good, so was Misery and to an extent Dolores Claiborne (I hate how in his books abusive husbands/boyfriends are just eeeeeevil to the core, and one dimensional, but otherwise its good) Duma Key was good although a few things were reeeaaally predictable (like who's going to die), and his short story Everything's Eventual is probably my favourite short story ever. He's by no means my favourite author and I think with him, he gets an idea and just rolls with it even if its a repeat, I think he just really enjoys writing, so sometimes its good, and sometimes its like he just wrote it for the hell of it.



If I ever find the time I'm going to try this out, and try to make a romance story between a girl and a elf, and make elves the new vampires.

PS. Desp, I wouldn't recommend The Stand for you. It gets extremely preachy half way through. Think of what a tolerant hippie I am and trying to imagine how preachy it has to be for me to be pissed off and give up the book.

Though Chris has been effectively integrated, I still stand by my brand.

Chris, now that you seem to be a part of this community, I think you're an asshole.

Business as usual.

[Chris_Morey]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Though Chris has been effectively integrated, I still stand by my brand.

Chris, now that you seem to be a part of this community, I think you're an asshole.

Business as usual.

I understand, you're secretly in love with me but will express it through insincere distaste.

I agree to your terms.

Die in a clean burning fire, you ferret breathed shit tempest of a mongrel.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Chris_Morey

I've read (and finished) both the extended and regular editions of The Stand and I never found it to be too preachy at all. In fact, many King fans consider it his best work (though it's not his favorite of his own).

The first half was fantastic. I'd compare it to Anne Rice's Servant Of The Bones. Wonderful beginning! Okay...we're going to get religious now? Okay, I'll roll with it...wait, seriously? SERIOUSLY? Like, bad things happen to cool characters because they weren't righteous enough or whatever? He takes an Old Testament road with it and thats fine, but there's little moral grey area there, you're either on the good side or the bad side, and the god of the good side is one harsh motherfucker.

I should also note it was only a few months ago I got over halfway through the uncut edition, and its one of his older books so I can't criticize it too much for it, but when you identify a Stephen King trope it fucking irritates me whenever I come across it now. Like the Magical Negro trope. The Stand has quite a few examples of that. So, there's shit like that combined with the very clumsy religious stuff.

[Chris_Morey]

There's not that many tropes in The Stand and the ones that are there are largely character based. You do realize we all have our own personal tropes right?

I wouldn't call it very clumsy religious stuff. I partially agree with you, I'm not huge on the religious overtones, but overall I think it's handled pretty well.

Originally Posted by Saya

The first half was fantastic. I'd compare it to Anne Rice's Servant Of The Bones. Wonderful beginning! Okay...we're going to get religious now? Okay, I'll roll with it...wait, seriously? SERIOUSLY? Like, bad things happen to cool characters because they weren't righteous enough or whatever? He takes an Old Testament road with it and thats fine, but there's little moral grey area there, you're either on the good side or the bad side, and the god of the good side is one harsh motherfucker.

I should also note it was only a few months ago I got over halfway through the uncut edition, and its one of his older books so I can't criticize it too much for it, but when you identify a Stephen King trope it fucking irritates me whenever I come across it now. Like the Magical Negro trope. The Stand has quite a few examples of that. So, there's shit like that combined with the very clumsy religious stuff.

[MissCheyenne]

Originally Posted by Chris_Morey

MissCheyenne, not all of his work is masterful, but his ratio of good work to bad work has been pretty solid recently. There was a time when his work was sagging (shortly after the accident) but since then things have picked up. I'd like to know which of his recent work you would consider "pumped out bullshit."

I didn't specifically mean that his newer works were bullshit. I meant in terms of his overall production that SOME of it is utter crap. I can see how you may have misinterpretated what I said though. Forgive me, I'm running on less than two hours sleep a night at the minute so I'm not as sharp and devastatingly witty as usual.

[Despanan]

Enjoy NYC Chris, it's a great town, and watch out for bedbugs, 90% of the Manhattan hotels have them.

Originally Posted by Chris_Morey

There's not that many tropes in The Stand and the ones that are there are largely character based. You do realize we all have our own personal tropes right?

While Tropes are not cliche's that doesn't mean that it's always the best idea to reach for a magical blackman.

I can definitely identify recurring tropes and themes in my own work, most if not all writers have a great deal of unity between works, and some tend to just retell the same story over and over again, and this isn't always bad.

The problem with King's use of these tropes and Cliche's is that they aren't particularly well-developed (at least in my experience). When I was reading Cell I noticed that the main character's profession (comic-book artist) was horribly underdeveloped (If you read my previous complaint, I really harped on the fact that he had simply bought his son a Spiderman comic, not The Spectacular Spider-man, or The Amazing Spiderman, or Holy Shit! It's Spiderman just spiderman.

That's lazy, a character who works in comics is going to have a passion FOR comics, just as I have a work in theatre, I have a passion for theatre. If I wrote a play where a character is an actor, I'm not just going to say "He was in the Merchant of Venice" I'm going to say something like "X played Shylock in a Dinner theater adaptation of the Merchant of Venice, it was billed as a Moft Excellent Time but this was largely lost on the legions of senior citizens who thought it was a typo and overall, were more interested in their fried-chicken and comparing X to Al Pachino, who had done the role to some acclaim in Central Park the summer before..."

The use of Tropes in and of themselves is not bad, but you have to REALLY be good to pull off some discredited/cliche'd tropes (like the afore-mentioned magical negro) to any sort of success.

[Chris_Morey]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the Magical Negro is a trope in King's writing, I think it's a certain level of oversensitivity. Yes, there are African Americans with special powers in six out of his seventy-five something novels. However, there are also *gasp* Caucasian folks who have special powers in many of those books as well. So, perhaps people with special powers is actually one of King's tropes? Or, perhaps, elements of the fantastic and dark! In fact, I think putting words on a page is a King trope... should I keep going?

Desp you're right about the comic book artist profession being largely underdeveloped for Clay, and many folks dog on Cell, but hell, I found it entertaining. When I set that book down I didn't think it was brilliant, nor did I think it would stick with me for the rest of my life, but I did have a fun ride with it, and sometimes that's all I really want.

Again, it's hard to generalize King's work when you've only read one of his books. Yes he has habits, yes he has reoccurring themes and ideas like any human writer has, but the fact of the matter is he's still one of the best at what he does, despite some low points in his career.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Chris_Morey

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the Magical Negro is a trope in King's writing, I think it's a certain level of oversensitivity. Yes, there are African Americans with special powers in six out of his seventy-five something novels. However, there are also *gasp* Caucasian folks who have special powers in many of those books as well. So, perhaps people with special powers is actually one of King's tropes? Or, perhaps, elements of the fantastic and dark! In fact, I think putting words on a page is a King trope... should I keep going?

It's a trope in anyone's writing. In my entire body of work I have never written a magical negro, but if I DID it would fit the Magical Negro trope, and I damn well better do it well or I deserve to be criticized for it.

(Besides, the Magical Negro trope is more than just being black and magical (in fact, neither of those characteristics are required), you just have to be a minority, serve an advisory/mentorship role in the story and NOT save the day (that's reserved for the white Main characters).

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Desp you're right about the comic book artist profession being largely underdeveloped for Clay, and many folks dog on Cell, but hell, I found it entertaining. When I set that book down I didn't think it was brilliant, nor did I think it would stick with me for the rest of my life, but I did have a fun ride with it, and sometimes that's all I really want.

Fair enough. We may want different things out of books. Usually, I'm not looking for mindless entertainment in my novels, I need something deeper if I'm going to devote the time to read. If I want a popcorn plot, I'm going to watch a movie and eat popcorn.

Again, it's hard to generalize King's work when you've only read one of his books. Yes he has habits, yes he has reoccurring themes and ideas like any human writer has, but the fact of the matter is he's still one of the best at what he does, despite some low points in his career.

Depends what we're defining as "Best" I will say that he's one of the most read authors in the world, but I really wouldn't consider him one of the "best" writers in the world in terms of skill (though once again, perhaps this opinion is un/under educated). Still I think most would agree that his work doesn't really compare to Vonnegut or Gaiman or Pratchett or Douglas Adams etc.

[Mr.Doobie]

I've read Stephen King books. Even "good" ones like It, Carrie, and the Shining. And I have to say, I still don't think he's that good. His payoffs are lame and/or stupid, he abuses cliches, and he recycles his ideas constantly (ie: unexplained child psychics of plot convenience).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I7Ue2wX6iQ

[Chris_Morey]

Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie

I've read Stephen King books. Even "good" ones like It, Carrie, and the Shining. And I have to say, I still don't think he's that good. His payoffs are lame and/or stupid, he abuses cliches, and he recycles his ideas constantly (ie: unexplained child psychics of plot convenience).

You consider Carrie one of his good ones? Most King fans (and I know a lot of them) consider that on the lower end of King's work. His payoffs aren't always the best, and yes sometimes he uses cliches, but not always.

Desp, what King is one of the best in the world at is creating fully realized, three-dimensional characters that you fall in love with (or despise) by the time the book is over (or they die). For example, in The Shining there's one hundred pages of characterization before they even get to the Overlook hotel. And yes, Cell is not the greatest example of his character development skills.

I've read my fair share of Gaiman, and it's very hard to compare King to Pratchett, but it's not that King doesn't compare to those authors, he has a very different style, very different visions. They are all very talented in different ways, but Stephen King wouldn't have risen the way he did over other great authors at the time (like Peter Straub) if he wasn't great at what he does.

[Despanan]

I suppose I'll give you that. While sales alone aren't what I would consider an adequate gauge for skill (Otherwise I would have to conclude that Stephanie Meyer, Daniel Steel, and the like are particularly talented) I will say that there's only so far and so long marketing can push a work before it has to stand on its own merits. King HAS earned himself a place in history as one of our era's greatest horror writers. Will his work have enough staying power to allow him to become a "classic" author like Poe and Lovecraft? I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by Chris_Morey

You consider Carrie one of his good ones? Most King fans (and I know a lot of them) consider that on the lower end of King's work. His payoffs aren't always the best, and yes sometimes he uses cliches, but not always.

I used quotes around "good" because that's what King fans tell me to read when I say "Stephen King sucks".

I notice you don't seem to have a problem with him endlessly recycling characters, plot points, etc. to the point that you'd think new ideas are the leading cause of carbon emissions.

His payoffs aren't the best? You're understating it a bit, I think, as a lot of Stephen King books have payoffs that are plot-smashingly dumb. It was a lot scarier when It was a shape-shifting clown, instead of a gigantic, cosmic demon spider that is the enemy of the giant god-turtle that created the world after a particularly bad bout of indigestion. The fact that Stephen King thinks this idea is good enough that he's made it a part of his canon and repeats this plot point time and again just goes to show you how stupendously silly Stephen King can get.

I thought King books were basically other authors who had a good book, but they slapped King's name on the book to boost sales.