How are some writers capable of producing so many books?
some of them enjoy writing or feel the need to write things out and when you have a lot of time to do it you do it
I think you know the answer to this anon. Not even a half, no, a fourth, or his books are well thought out in the slightest. And the one's that have something going for them have some of the shittiest endings I've ever seen.
Better example would be RL Stine's copious number of Goosebumps books he's written. Not one of them is not utter formulaic trash that's even bad by YA-standards
>>8071221
>"Not one of them is not"
>criticizes others' prose
James Patterson puts out multiple books every year. They do it for money.
Aren't readers kind of sceptical when someone publishes a book every year? Like feeling like he hasn't done enough of a good job, that the book is rushed?
>>8071246
They don't really care. They just want to see what happens next in the story (as authors who write that much usually write series of novels). It has the same appeal as soap operas.
>>8071221
>implying that Goosebumps: Welcome to Camp Nightmare wasn't a good book
just fuck off loser
>>8071204
they lack the impulse to self-criticize
>>8071237
"James Patterson" is a team of writers all writing under the name. It's a racket.
they save a lot of time by not really putting any effort into them
>>8071640
This is true. Stephen King probably actually writes his own shit, but it's still shit.
How many writers who were extremely prolific were actually good? All that comes to mind for me are Lope de Vega, Honore de Balzac, and Anthony Trollope.
King is a fetishist, there's no other explanation for the amount of pure unfiltered garbage he's capable of writing.
Either that or it's just all ghostwritten
Because shitty writing is easy to produce
>>8072585
Nah, I don't think his shit is ghostwritten. He seems pretty sincere about his fetish so I'd at least believe that he wrote it himself.
Patterson is a money grubbing whore through and through though, so his definitely is ghostwritten.
>>8072569
More possibilities: Walter Scott, Leo Tolstoy, Henry James. Though you have to count nonfiction for all of them
>>8072569
Isaac Asimov
>>8072738
Lmao !
>>8072585
No, he was an alcoholic coke fiend. Just look at his drugfucked face. Why y'all talk like you know shit when you don't
dumb
>>8072738
Good if you want to learn about science, I guess.
>>8071204
One of these days I want to go through Nietzsche's commentaries and criticisms of good and bad habits of authors and post them all here.
Stephen King is basically his definition of a bad author. The core trait of a bad author is that first there is an idea for a book in his head, then he figures out what he is going to write. A good author thinks about things and arranges his thoughts into a book once they are matured.
Nietzsche hates authors who write 'through' an experience and prefers authors that write about experiences after the fact but it doesn't really apply to someone as shallow as King.
I don't like King, and I don't recommend reading him. But I count him as a 'genuine' writer, and not a hack.
To me a hack is someone who tries to use cheap tricks to appear having grasped greatness.
King doesn't hack at SOC writing or native decay or unreliable character narration or pomo style time jumps.
He's just the modern day equivalent of the guy who would haver told campfire stories for free back in the day.
It's pleb as fuck, and his ego had gotten a little uppity with his success; he's tone deaf to real writing, but these are all different than hackishness.
Dude what if a werewolf attacked the gas station I work at? Lmao scary
>>8072569
Simenon, Wodehouse
I'm a part time writer. As in, I have a real job that takes up 40 hours a week. I've written a full first draft of a novel about every 3 years from 1993 to 2006. There's no reason a full time novelist couldn't release a book every year or every other year. Even at an anemic pace of a thousand words a day, you have a first draft in months.
In the case of king, at least if taking his book "on writing" as truth, I would genuinely believe him when he says he's at his desk at 9 every morning and just writes without self-criticism, nonstop until 12. then he goes on with the rest of his day, and revises and reworks at night.
>>8071624
this is critical to success. his work has gotten to the point where he just knows his formula. he doesnt write to self analyze the shit out of himself until theres nothing there, he knows he's kind of just rolling the dice, but 2 out of 5 times he has something pretty decent from the same storyteling/plotpoint "formula". he doesnt follow most conventional storytelling rules that assert that you must have the ending before you have the beginning, and other shit you'll read from pixar's 22 rules or whatever bullshit that subliminally tell you to self criticize until youre dead with nothing to show for it.
there are the few rockstars who write 1 to 3 masterpieces by being true artists/perfectionists. and then there's the kings of the world who crank out because its their drug/escape, ultimately end up being formulaic but successful, financially.
and then in 90% of cases where its some CEO or politician or shitforbrain like patterson its much wiser to assume its a ghostwriter or team of spookies.
>>8071221
He has the ability of writing something that can be easily understood by anyone.
Lots of free time
Also, dude probably wakes up at 6am to write and has the same job ethics as a Japanese drone: He writes until lunch, has lunch, keeps writing until 10pm.
You could be equally prolific... if you weren't in this Chinese cartoon board.
Also, read Revival the other day and the shit just drags on. Could have been a very good story but he just keeps on going on and on about rock and half the book seems unnecessary. I think his best works (besides IT or the DT) are his short stories.
>>8074145
Telling interesting stories is no better or worse in literature than being (or appearing) "deep" or writing beautiful prose. All of those have the same purpose - entertainment, occupying and/or distracting the mind. Different strokes for different folks, and the end result is the same for all of us anyway.
And it seems far more genuine than trying to impress by artificially weaving an elaborate net of metaphors, leaving the reader - satisfied with his deciphering results or not - wondering whether he "correctly" divined the meaning or if it was all a sham, or worse, inflating his own ego out of an impression of superior intellect and taste.
How is one shitposter capable of producing so many threads?
>>8074166
They're mostly just for fun tho.
Most of them are shit
>>8074145
I completely disagree with your definition of hack. Stephen King --is-- a hack even though he's a genuine hack. A hack is anyone who has no idea what they're doing but keeps on trucking anyway because they like doing it and/or other people like it when they do it.
>>8074169
First drafts aren't that big a deal once you've gotten at least one or two books under your belt. It's final drafts that take time if you actually put effort and thought into each revision.
>>8074227
Genrepleb:the post
Please, please, please, please kill yourself.
>>8076256
Actually a hack is someone who creates trash for cash, and that's exactly what Stephen King does
>>8074227
Opinions which triggers pretentious hipsters: Volume I.
>>8074227
>All literature is, like, equal man
Glad to see that Chuck Tingle is on the same level as Flannery O'conner.
>>8072605
You'd know.
>>8071204
all hes doing is telling a story. thats it. theres no layers to it.
hes been doing it for so long it just comes naturally to him now
>>8076317
lol, anon, you wish you could write half of what this "hack" writes.
How's your novel going on? How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice little story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for three years? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protagonist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Little story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? Yeah, talking about that three years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah? No, no, you deserve some time off.
>>8076348
ill tingle your flannery
>>8076354
Stevey king doesn't do most of that either tho, um fammer lammy
>>8076354
i wish people wouldnt do this bullshit le epic hannibal lecter postulating online. its really embarrassing
>>8076354
As much as your criticism might hurt some people, better to be a benign influence on literature than an actively malicious and destructive one, like King is.
>>8076354
You know someone's been BTFO when they think a faggy family guy joke is going to impress people as an insult.
>>8072569
Donald E. Westlake.
If you have no idea who that is, open your copy of Bleeding Edge.
>>8076354
Embarrassing, anon
>>8071368
Your opinions are fueled by nostalgia dear anon
>>8071640
Ya. He just writes outlines, it's a whole machine. DESU he seems like the only person on the fiction side of publishing who knows how to make money. The rest exist in this gray area where they are pathetic at both commerce and championing good writing
>>8076354
Why did that response cause this reaction? "Hack writer" means exactly what he said it does. The writer writes for money.
>>8071221
>Not one of them is not utter formulaic trash
Good to know you've read every Goosebumps book.
>>8071204
You know, I'd like to think if the situation came where the novel I had just written had a shit deus ex machina ending out of nowhere and there was no feasible method to rework it, I'd scrap the whole thing and start with a new novel.
But then I also think, if I had already made it big and was throwing away what was practically guaranteed money, that I was taking some pointless moral high ground for some piece of fiction that in no way was going to change the world at any rate, I'd probably release all that shit as well.
>>8074097
I'd like to read his writings on that subject, if you have the time to post them.
>>8079568
kek
>>8071221
Goosebumps is a children's book series.
I don't see you criticizing Winnie the Pooh and The Boxcar Children by that same standard
>>8081430
>duhurrrr writing for children is an excuse to be shit and i think kids should be raised to be retards who only read garbage
When will this meme end? Winnie the Pooh is actually good, btw.
>>8071204
You'd be surprised at the sort of shit they put out. There's this one bell-end on an author forum I visit that claims they can easily put out a novel every month. Of course, they keep themselves anonymous, so nobody can call them on their bullshit.
But with Stephen King, all he has to do is spam some pages and then put his name as the biggest thing on the cover. He can sell an entire 60k word story called "The Raptor Drawer" if he just rides on his own fame.
>>8081998
>who is Richard Bachman
>Boy.I sure would like a new swimming pool
>Writes scholck book in a month
It takes me about thirty minutes to shit.
>>8082035
And yet so little to shit-post
>>8078204
>open your copy of Bleeding Edge.
>implying I read Pinememe's trash.
>>8074145
>real writing
How to spot a pretentious twat that understands shit about literature: he speaks about "real writing" and labels popular authors as trash without explaining why, just because they're popular and he's a shitty retarded hipster.
>>8076354
What did you think you were doing by posting this?
>>8076317
>creates trash for cash
Yeah, this is why he writes 1-2 books a year even now that he's old enough to jizz glue. This is why even when he was in the hospital with half his bones broken, he still wrote (by hand) a 800 pages novel. He does it for the cash.
Guess those 400 millions he's worth aren't enough to scrape by.
>>8076353
And he clearly said numerous times that's all he wants to do: tell a story.
Meaning and morale come authomatically, if the story is good. His usually are.
