The internet has been swarming with rabid Twilight fans eager to sink their teeth into Stephen King after the details of the interview he gave to USA Weekend -- you know, the one in which he said that Twilight author Stephenie Meyer "can't write worth a darn" and is "just not that good"? -- emerged earlier this week.
The overwhelming majority of Ms. Meyer's defenders have tried to refute Mr. King by relating how obsessively fascinating they found the Twilight books, how people who have never read a book willingly in their lives devoured the Twilight series in a day, etc.. Most Twilight defenders equate Mr. King's condemnation of Ms. Meyer's writing with a criticism of her ability to spin a tale that holds the reader's attention.
However, nearly no one has directly addressed Mr. King's actual assertion: that Ms. Meyer is a lousy writer; he didn't call her a lousy storyteller -- he called her a lousy writer.
Which begs the question, is the ability to tell a good story the same as good writing? And, if not, what is good writing?
If you look at fiction writing, you'll see that most works fall roughly into one of two categories:
1. Stories that have an interesting plot with little to no character development or deeper meaning
2. Stories in which the plot itself is subordinate to the emotional and mental trials of one or more characters in reaction to certain events
While there is an infinite number of variations on these two themes, the most basic of all is the story that is a bare bones account of fictional events with no call upon the reader to draw any moral or philosophical meaning from the tale. In other words, just an interesting story.
Twilight falls into this category. The characters don't change or grow in any meaningful way; the plot does not involve any sort of great sacrifice or universal human struggle; there is no call upon the reader to contemplate any issue or cause greater than themselves. The allure of Twilight is based solely on the reader's reaction to the romance between Bella and Edward and their own emotional reaction to the characters themselves.
Now, don't get me wrong here: I am not saying that Twilight is not a compelling story. What I am saying is that Ms. Meyer did not in any way try to elevate the story above that of teenage angst.
But what about Mr. King's own writing? you sneer. How can he get off dissing Twilight when his own work is about resurrected children getting murderous and possessed cars and killer dogs? In fact, Mr. King's work does rise far above the level of mere freaky storytelling. In each of his novels, Mr. King presents us with ordinary people who are confronted with extraordinary horror and evil and explores the very human struggles that the collision of the two causes.
Consider Pet Sematary. In that story, Mr. King isn't just trying to freak us out over the thought of killer zombies -- he's addressing one of man's most primitive instincts: ambivalence and fear of death. Death is everywhere in Pet Sematary: the main character, the father, is a doctor; his own father died when he was three; his wife doesn't like any reference to death because of her memories of the death of her sister when she was young; the cat dies; the neighbor's wife dies; their own son dies. When the father, knowing exactly what is going to happen (and that it isn't going to be anything good) buries his son in the cemetary, he is acting out what every human since the beginning of time has wanted to do, regardless of the cost -- to cheat death in any way conceivable. It's impossible to read that story and not ponder about what he does -- and come to the realization that we would do the same thing too.
And what about that classic of Halloween and teenage slumber parties, The Shining? Ask 1,000 people and you'd be lucky to get one person who won't say that The Shining is nothing more than a story about a haunted hotel and a crazy looking Jack Nicholson. Yet, The Shining (we're talking the book here, not the movie), is actually more focused on the father's struggle to get his abusive and alcoholic act together for his family's sake. In fact, Mr. King has repeatedly criticized the much celebrated film adaptation of The Shining for taking the focus away from this struggle and placing it on the more terrifying elements of the story.
All great writing, whether it be Pride and Prejudice, Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter has a theme larger than itself. These works show the progression of characters who either succeed or fail in their struggle to become the kind of person that can accomplish what they have been called on to do or face. But great writing isn't just about great ideas; the presentation of those ideas -- the nuts and bolts of the writing itself -- is just as important.
Inexperienced writers all suffer from one common failing -- they inevitably rely too heavily on description to hammer their point into the reader's head. They use lots of adjectives and adverbs and lengthy, emotive passages to tell the reader what their characters are thinking and feeling instead of using carefully crafted sentences, word choice, and punctuation to convey the same things more effectively and without obvious effort. That is why the very best and most emotional writing seems so effortless -- because the writer hasn't just thrown words on the page; he or she has labored over each word, each syllable, each comma and semi-colon to make sure the words convey the right feel without the reader even being aware of it.
If you want to see some damn good writing, take a look at Dorothy L. Sayers' first Lord Peter Wimsey mystery, Whose Body? (especially the chapters near the end of the book), Cormac McCarthy's The Road, Toni Morrison's Beloved, James Joyce's Ulysses, and any essay E.B. White ever wrote. You'll notice that these authors don't ever tell you what their characters think or feel, yet somehow, you just know. How? The sentences have been specifically crafted to do just that, that's how.
I would even go so far as to include Mr. King's writing along with these greats. Even as a kid, sneaking Christine and Pet Sematary off my Dad's bookshelf so I could read them in secret in my bedroom, I could tell Mr.King had a way with language that plenty of other writers just didn't have. What I picked up on didn't have anything to do with the actual storylines and everything to do with his ability to make the words and dialogue leap off the page and grab you by the throat.
Stephenie Meyer, on the other hand, fails to utilize any sophisticated writing techniques in the Twilight books. They are all straightforward, first person narrations that rely heavily on Bella telling the reader exactly what she thinks and feels at all times.
Some fans might argue that Ms. Meyer couldn't have used complicated writing techniques anyway since her goal was to tell the story simply and honestly from Bella's perspective. However, a number of gifted writers have used deceptively simple first person narratives to convey incredibly complicated and unvoiced ideas to great effect. An excellent example is Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. The narrator, Kath, seems transparently honest and straightforward; however, the more you read, the more you realize that the important parts of the story lie in what Kath carefully avoids saying. Humans are such impossibly complicated creatures -- they don't just try to deceive other people, they try to deceive themselves as well, and Never Let Me Go captures that complexity to perfection. Ms. Meyer does not attempt this at all. With her prose, what you see is what you get -- which is what keeps the series from being anything greater than an interesting story.
If Stephen King is to be faulted in any way for his comments about Ms. Meyer, it really could only be in that he didn't consider John Updike's Number 1 rule of book reviewing:
Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.
Twilight is not an example of good writing, but, really, it wasn't a serious attempt at it either. Stephenie Meyer did achieve what she was attempting -- to tell a compelling story spiced with a bit of danger and a bit of romance. Let's celebrate what she and the Twilight series have achieved, without pretending that it is anything more.
Comments
Brava for a wonderful op-ed piece on this issue! It's nice that someone actually looks at what Mr. King said, and doesn't think all he did was pan Ms. Meyer's books.
The issue raises the classic question, who is the writer writing for? Stephenie obviously wrote for her readers, not for the National Book Awards judges. And the readers know that, feel that. If Stephen had been aware that the "safe joining of love and sex" formula would bring in a lot of moolah, I wonder if he still would have written Carrie the same way. On the whole, I think Stephenie was just the clever one. I personally would rather be a phenomenal commercial success than a critically acclaimed so-so.
Stephen King is both, though. <3
That is sort of sad. You would rather be commercially successful than critically acclaimed? What kind of person would become an author if that was their goal, surely that type of person would be a businessman.
exactly! If you enjoy the Twilight series, good for you. I'm on the 3rd book and they are an ok story, but nothing compared to the writings of Mr. King.
Couldn't agree more. I never read Mr. King's books when I was younger...they were really scary. Ha. But since I've gotten older I've delved into It, The Stand, Tommyknockers, Carrie, and many more. He is the kind of writer who crafts with words. Twilight is just so freaking boring I don't see how anyone outside of highschool could be remotely interested in it, simple because it tackles no real issues and the characters don't grow. But, hey, whatever. I'm at least glad it got people reading...
Well Rin tin tin Telesforo, I must say that the "safe joining of love and sex" is as old as sex itself, and Stephen King could easily, artfully join the two (and scare the heck out of us all while “doing it”). And the fact that sex sells is the second gimme. Stephen -- good or bad or ugly -- knows that too. But he doesn't pander to it. And that speaks to his character. Stephen's problem is he's devoted to the craft of writing. He's a literary Leonardo Da Vinci, and second raters don't do well on that stage. Yes..., they may make money (like Milli Vanilli). But can they stand up and compare to the greats of today of decades ago? No... To paraphrase a line from the Harry Potter books, bangs and flashes are the tools of amateur wizards, and the same applies to writers.
The issue raises the classic question, who is the writer writing for? Stephenie obviously wrote for her readers, not for the National Book Awards judges. And the readers know that, feel that. If Stephen had been aware that the "safe joining of love and sex" formula would bring in a lot of moolah, I wonder if he still would have written Carrie the same way. On the whole, I think Stephenie was just the clever one. I personally would rather be a phenomenal commercial success than a critically acclaimed so-so.
michelle, im the national business and finance examiner. if you have some time, i was wondering if you can check out my pacquiao mayweather article series and provide some feedback on strengths and weaknesses in terms of writing. given your background, i would really appreciate it. thx!!
Amen, sister.
Very astute! I agree with you that there is a big difference between telling a good story and being a good writer. Another example is Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" Very clever premise and story but told in a very straight forward manner.
Very well written! I agree with you completely about Meyer's writing style. She relies way too heavily on using big words and lengthy descriptions to get something across. She uses no technique whatsoever, but manages to write an entertaining story that evokes your emotions and manipulates the hormones of teenagers. I once was enchanted by the series until I realized that Meyer just uses repeated passages of Edward's topaz eyes and bronze hair combined with words she probably got from a thesaurus to fill up the pages. Since then, the saga has lost its magic for me.
Well put Michelle. It's easy to get lost in a long defense of someone or something, and lose the point, the issue, and the conclusion. But you got it exactly right. And you know I'm not kissing your ass. Thank you for defending Stephen King. Especially his work. Often considered low-brow, King's work shines because of his ability to make any crazy situation he can dream up real. And inhabit his novels with living, breathing characters.
He's also a MASSIVE Rowling fan, so I'm sure a little pro-Potter, anti-Twilight angst bubbled to the surface in his interview. I'm sorry Twi-Hards, but he's right. Rowling chews up Meyers and spits her out as far as literary skill is concerned. King too.
Oh and in your list of great writers, I would have added Larry McMurtry. King talks alot about Larry's work in his book On Writing. McMurtry writes so well, and so clean, he can make anyone believe that it's the easiest thing in the world to achieve.
I'm sure Michelle can toss a mighty Huzzah! on this: Writing is a complete BITCH. The experts, cruel demented bastards that they are, make it look much, much easier than it is.
Wonderful post, I'm sorry I'm just now seeing it. While I'm not a fan of the Twilight series (I did read them), I can see why a whole load of teenage girls find them compelling. But that doesn't mean she's a great writer by any means, and I think that's what King was getting at.
I need to read more of King's stories. The few that I have read, I've enjoyed.
Very well said. I must admit that I was drawn into the argument over King's statement, however I see the pointless nature of my defense of his statemnt (which is true). Why pointless you may wonder? Simply because as per your quote, I cannot fault a book for something it lacks (in this instance, poor writing) if that was never the authors intention.
However, this may seem idealistic and naive of me, but I would expect that a book or series that is such a success should have been a success not ONLY for the story, but also for the superior writing!
Exactly. Stephenie Meyer wasn't writing a serious novel, she was writing her own fantasies down. I've read fanfiction a thousand times better. Stephenie Meyer has none of the depth of writing that J.K. Rowling does.
Mr. King is right. I LOVEEEE twilight like crazy... but he is right :S... and you are right too Michelle, 100% right "the ability of telling a good story is NOT the same as good writing" sometimes we readers are lucky and read a book that is great in both ways but is not always the case... I love twilight BECAUSE of the story and the plot, but by any means I do not love it because of meyer's endless descriptions, excessive use of the SAME adjectives and the none growing of personages... so is hard to fight the true, we twilight lovers may not like it but he IS right and I think that as readers we have to be objectives.
Clearly, this article is written by someone who "can't write worth a darn" and is "just not that good". -wink-
Seriously, IMO, this is a bunch of intellectual puffery, something I had to endure for four years at one of the top universities in the U.S.
Stephenie Meyer is a competent writer, and depending on the book a very good to outstanding storyteller (I'm a huge fan of "The Host"). I'll take a great storyteller and competent writer over a competent storyteller and great writer any day.
Ouch, George, that hurt! You stated your case well, but I have to say I still disagree. I'd like to hear more about your opinions and what your favorite books are. Call me a masochist, but I'm interested. And what university are we talking here? You didn't happen to suffer under Harold Bloom, did you? If so, I would like to shake your hand. Anyone who could listen to him drivel on and come out of it without being treated for suicidal tendencies has my vote of confidence.
Michelle Kerns
well everyone is entitled to their opinion and stephen king has been writing for years. So I think his word can be taken into consideration. I wonder why twilights fans are so quick to defend stephanie meyers. Come on evryone has an enemy or some one who just doesn't like you or your woork it happens just suck it up. You like her and want to read them that's all that matters so just sit down shove your nose in between the pages and keep your mouth quiet.
Very good argument with which I agree with 100%. Stephanie Meyer did not really make me feel as connected with the story as did King did with his book Carrie. I must admit though, Carrie seems like more of a tougher girl than Bella. This article, was very well written. I have read the Twilight books and was disappointed by each one.
As a 31 year old man & King fan with a 28 year old wife who, in a span of 2 months, read all 4 Twilight books 5 times and then dragged me to the movie, I can't help but applaud my man King for being truthful. After seeing the first movie I tried to start reading New Moon so I could have something to go on when my wife drags me to the next movie. I couldn't even make it 8 pages in. The writing is horrid. I have read better fan fiction online. My wife is a strong independent woman and it just blows my mind that she finds Bella interesting and Edward appealing. SM isn't even in the same league as a writer who caters to the same age group, lets say Terry Brooks, let alone Stephen freaking King.
Do you think she's a bad writer? If so, then to you she is a bad writer as well. If you think she is a good writer then she is a good writer. That is that. Now relax and read what you enjoy. Are you going to not eat your favorite meal because someone claims it's poorly cooked, even though you love it? I think you would most likely not care what their opinion is.
I read two pages of Twilight and had to stop because the writing was so inane even though I am a high school teacher and consider it part of my job to know what my students are interested in reading.
twilight sucks
stephen king is far more interesting
thrilling
and for the deeper minds
good for stating an opinion , and an obvious one at that.. i even tried to watch the twilight move, but it so bored me that i could not imagine to read this book.
I am more of a tom robbins read, but have read and enjoyed lots of king, tried to read harry potter , but was bored with the style.
I am a fan of Stephen Kings works, I like his writing and the Stand is one if my favorites. I tried to read the Twilight book since my daughter is interested in reading it. I also love the Potter books. My favorite books are from Laurell K Hamilton so I obviously don't hate the Vampire parts. Maybe I just need to give the books another chance, but I got bored really fast in Twilight.
I agree completely with this article. Although I haven't read any of Meyer's books, the impression I have got of them is that they are enjoyable reads, and very captivating, but do not really have anything beneath the surface.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be too critical. I myself enjoy reading a fluffy page-turner once and a while. Like the Artemis Fowl series. It would be quite taxing to read nothing but intellectually deep, thought provoking writing. Wonderful, but taxing. Everyone needs something light once and a while.
Great article. I'm a huge fan of the Twilight series, and I completely agree with your analysis. What Stephenie Meyer came up with was a great idea in terms of a romantic, conflict-driven (at the surface level) plot, that is a great deal of fun to fantasize over. It is very timely in that society has really turned to fantastical escapism in both books and movies in this post-9/11 era. As much as I enjoyed the story that Meyer created, I couldn't help but feel disappointed over how poorly it was executed. Imagine if someone who could truly write had put the idea to paper! All the same, I enjoyed Meyer's rich imagination, and appreciate the books for what they are--a compelling (but flat) romantic, action-driven story. Good for her for creating something marketable, and achieving something spectacular for herself and her family!
i'm not here to verbally abuse any twilight fans. i just find that what Mr. king said was right. stephanie myer's writing abillty is far below par for a line of books so highly rated. you can describe edwards statuesque body only so many times before it gets repetative. i think she could have done a much better job on the books if she had take more time. for example in the end edward and bella have a baby, so so so many things wrong with this biologically. here let's go with the idea that becoming a vampire doesn't change your biological makup in any way except for the things described in the books. after that edward has no blood flow, thus no erection. aswell as him being ice cold and as soft as play-doh. his skin is hard as stone, would any woman, i don't care how in love you are want a ice cold mushy rock in your vagina? i rest my case.
Wow, this is probably the best Twilight related article I have ever seen. I will use this as a reference often.
Good writing = not twilight. Easy enough.
Mr. King may not be absolutely correct in his assumption that the Twilight saga is solely for teenage females who are insecure in regard to sexuality. Personally, I believe that the saga is marketed towards novice readers. These readers are people who seldom read and typically chose the escapist novel when forced to do so. Twilight lacks literary quality, as it is pure pulp fiction. Thus, it has acquired popularity amongst readers who are not accustomed to higher standards. However, Mr. King's opinion has a substantial basis. The main character "Bella" is an obvious Mary-Sue. This allows the reader to place their own personality in the character, since the character itself is void of one. Doing this allows the reader to imagine an idealistic romance that they have absolutely no hope of entering in the real world. This, if described in a Freudian manner, would be the latent function of the saga.
That was an amazing article.
thank GOD Someone publicly put twilight in its place, and even better that its King, I am a boy, yes i read the entire series of Twilight to make sure i know what im talking about. Its much less a compelling story and much more a soft romance put in book format =/ I just hope that more people take a stance like King, and set the record straight for where these books stand
Though I have enjoyed many of Stephen King's books, one statement you made describes his work perfectly. "Inexperienced writers all suffer from one common failing -- they inevitably rely too heavily on description to hammer their point into the reader's head. They use lots of adjectives and adverbs and lengthy, emotive passages to tell the reader what their characters are thinking and feeling instead of using carefully crafted sentences, word choice, and punctuation to convey the same things more effectively and without obvious effort." If you notice one thing about King's works, it's that he has a way of taking 10 pages to describe every little detail about his characters, environment, etc.
..Finally A true Horror Master finally give the most brutally honest comment most Twilight fans Fail to understand ..Thumbs up Mr King I am an avid book reader but yet I just Couldnt understand this whole Twilight Craze ... ive always said Twilight is the Poor mans "Underworld" it posseses NO ORIGINALITY!! ..all Stephenie Meyer did was take the Vampire mythos and buttered it towards Teenagers!! ..have any of you ever picked up an Anne Rice Novel ?
Stephen King was not dissing the Twilight stories! Yes, the stories did not appeal to him, but he states that the way the stories were told was good. What he is actually discussing are JK and Stephanie's command of the written English language. In his opinion, JK has far better mastery of language. Period.
I have always assumed that SM's Twilight series was aimed primarily at teenage girls. Enough said.
Twilight is a simple story that teens and adults like and find interesting. But her writing is mediocre at best. Even my well read 13 year old daughter says her writing is not great at all. In regards to Stephen King I've always like his books he's an excellent writer but he has gotten a bit wordy in the last ten years. Because of his vast amount of experience he is fully qualified to give an opinion on another authors writing.
This is a rather pointless debate, as it is all a matter of opinion. I like both Stephen King and Stephanie Meyer. I also think this articles point of trying to state the Twilight is mere fluff (essentially), is just an opinion. Stephen King writes a much darker story, and I have loved him since I was a kid. I find his stories compelling and interesting, but I also find it so with Stephenie Meyer. If you were to look a bit deeper, and if writers did not have such a prejudice against "romantic' based novels, they would see that the story is also about overcoming differences in love. I also think it is nice to have a story where people can be romantically involved without being sexual. It is a good lesson in allowing love to grow without following lust, which can be considered a good lesson for teenage girls. There was personal sacrifice, but in a more emotional personal way that I think many women can understand.
This is a rather pointless debate, as it is all a matter of opinion. I like both Stephen King and Stephanie Meyer. I also think this articles point of trying to state the Twilight is mere fluff (essentially), is just an opinion. Stephen King writes a much darker story, and I have loved him since I was a kid. I find his stories compelling and interesting, but I also find it so with Stephenie Meyer. If you were to look a bit deeper, and if writers did not have such a prejudice against "romantic' based novels, they would see that the story is also about overcoming differences in love. I also think it is nice to have a story where people can be romantically involved without being sexual. It is a good lesson in allowing love to grow without following lust, which can be considered a good lesson for teenage girls. There was personal sacrifice, but in a more emotional personal way that I think many women can understand.
I have been a fan of Stephen King and his mastermind novels since I was in 6th Grade. I am also a fan of the Twilight Series but do think it is a mixture of Anne Rice's Interview With the Vampire, Charlaine Harris's True Blood, and Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series spit back out, simplified, and geared towards the average non-reader. It's "Vampire Light" at it's finest and a very easy read for all ages. I definitely see SK's point and believe he is more than qualified to give his opinion on the matter, and for all the rabid Twilight fans out there let us not forget that he gave his opinion simply because he was asked for it.
Great article!!!
I personally think Steven King is absolutly right! I Love Steven King Books and I love to read period but I just couldn't get into the whole Twilight books. The books sucked and the movies aren't all that. As for what gives Mr. King the right to critizise Ms. Meyers. HE'S STEVEN KING PEOPLE! If he doesn't know who does! I'm glad someone finally told the truth.
Stephen King is the greatest writer of his time.... and who is this Stephanie Meyer??? LOL... This is kinda like if Jack Nicholson did an interveiw and said Ben Affleck couldn't act! I mean who cares... its Jack Nicholson!!! or if Dan Marino or Joe Montana or Terry Bradshaw said Big Ben or Eli Manning were awful Quarterbacks... who cares! LOL I dont know what the big deal is... if you like her books then read them, if you dont then read something else.. hmmm like Stephen King! LOL
Stephen King is a very talented writer and well what he said is true. J.K Rowling is a terrific writer and is very original while Ms.Meyer has samples from other books. I not a real fan of twilight because the books don't make that much sense to me and i know the book is based on forbidden love and the supernatural biut really there has been many books that involve this. And most of Stephen's books are turned into great movies such as the horror film :the Mist". So if Mr.King is that talented in writing and knows what good writing is i WILL defend him from twi-hards that are bashing on this great writer.
I read a comment from one of the twilight fans. The comment was that Mr.King writes completely different books. True, he does, but that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't ride a good romance novel under a pen name every now and then, and I swear to god if one those Twilight obsessed trolls comes along and throws out 50 different reasons as to why Twilight is more than a romance novel, i'm going to punch a hole through my computer screen so fast that the speed of my punch will cause a rip in time that will send said troll back to when she was born, and, without a doubt, I will make sure that the doctor spanks the posterior (where the trolls brain is) harder than any other so that when the troll grows up again, he/she will have some sense as to what defines a true New York Time Best Seller and what the definition of cr*p on paper is.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!