Mad at the King

Before you become alarmed...relax, I am not mad at Elvis. (Breathe sigh of relief here.) But, I am mad at Stephen King. (Regret previous sigh of relief now.) That is almost (but not quite) hard for me to say. I love Stephen King. As a writer, he does something I long to do. He is a storyteller that people want to listen to. He crafts characters that keep you reading page after page (after page after page). I have, in the past, defended him vehemently (not that he needed my help) against those that say he is "just a horror writer", a hack.

It goes without saying (yet I persist) that being a "successful" writer depends on your definition of success. Are you an artist? Or are you a storyteller? I am sure many a writer aspires to both in equal measure, but I think most would be happy to qualify as one. As a storyteller, I have to believe the measure of success is in the desire of the audience to keep reading/listening. In that sense, it is hard to argue that Stephen King is anything but a success. Book after book, year after year, people keep reading.

I hate horror, but I love Stephen King because I think he rarely loses sight of the fact that the story is all about the people. I especially adore his novellas, "Different Seasons" would come with me to a desert island, should I be given the choice. "On Writing" gets at least a yearly reading, I can see in that book that being a storyteller comes in being able to see the potential in the collision of the everyday life and a fantastic imagination.

But then he had to go and rag on Stephenie Meyer. I read the Twilight books. I was entertained by them. I had my teenage girl moment and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Why? Because the story is intriguing and it captivates the imagination. Did she achieve the goal that I suspect she had for the books. Absolutely, she told a story that people wanted to hear and they loved her for it. Is it the most elegant prose? No. Do the vast majority of her readers care? No. It is the force of the characters and their impossible conflicts that drive the story forward. And, in this case, that is enough.

I think maybe Stephen King has lost sight of what he is. He may be insanely well paid, but he is still a storyteller and he should have some respect for others trying to do that job. If Meyer was truly a sucky storyteller we would never have heard of her.

So I am left to ponder...Is this case of sour grapes? Was the encouragement he wrote to aspiring writers in "On Writing" just a bunch of b.s.? Does he feel he is far superior to other "popular" writers? Is it because the book is mainly geared toward a young to middle-age female audience (one that many an adult male seems to scorn and deem less important)? Clearly this has me fretting. King made this comment 16 days ago and yet it is what I find myself thinking about while running my slow and plodding miles on the treadmill.

If his point was that he is a better writer than Meyer, then it is hardly one he has to make. It's not just the all mighty dollar, his books (at least large parts of some of them) are well written. There are parts of the Twilight series that will make you cringe (and yet you read on). But think about all of the pages upon pages of writing King has on Meyer. My friend, Sally, likes to remind her writing students that writing is, at least at first, an exercise in abundance. You have to write and write and write and let out the good and the bad. Then you take a look at what you have, strive to create more like the good and revise the bad to make it more closely resemble the good. So in the numbers game of writing, he has years and thousands of pages on her.

I want my hero back.

Should I ever be so lucky, I resolve to keep my big mouth shut about other authors. Except, of course, this time.