I Dont Get It.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Except your theory doesnt explain the deterioration of the prose.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm thinking you're seeing the effects of the downsizing of the publishing industry. Fewer editors, and fewer experienced editors.

Most of us sell our first book years after we wrote it, and it's been reworked a billion times, in every possible way.

Second book, the publisher tells us they have an editor to take care of all that. We go over it ourselves, because we know better, at the cost our entire lives while we fight for deadline extensions to get the work done.

Third book, ahh... who gives a fuck. It's going to sell anyway.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm thinking you're seeing the effects of the downsizing of the publishing industry. Fewer editors, and fewer experienced editors.

Most of us sell our first book years after we wrote it, and it's been reworked a billion times, in every possible way.

Second book, the publisher tells us they have an editor to take care of all that. We go over it ourselves, because we know better, at the cost our entire lives while we fight for deadline extensions to get the work done.

Third book, ahh... who gives a fuck. It's going to sell anyway.

Youre likely right. Higgins' said it took 17 years to sell his 1st novel, and it was a hit after it came out. The next 3-4 were clones of the first, then he started cooking them like hamburger patties at a greasy spoon.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So anyway chapter one sux from the git-go till the end. I have no idea what I read.

Then chapter 2 starts off great and catches fire. The writing is excellent. You gotta wonder how and who added chapter one.

 

[sr71plt]

OG

I'm speaking of writers who create a few terrific books and then make every basic writing error possible. I mean, their good books prove they know how to write...and then its like they forgot how....static verbs, tons of prepositional phrases, adverbs for every verb, etc. Plus 4 syllable words when a simple word works better.

TE999

Matheson is better than the average bear.

This is a popular misconception--that authors start off with a few good books and go down hill. In most cases, it's an arc. Authors have started off with books no one has heard of and aren't all that good, then they write a new/fresh one or two (with readers misconstruing that as their first published books) and then they are locked into contracts that have them repeating what they wrote that was new/fresh then and isn't now (because they've already done them) and they are now bored about writing that same book over and over again. This, I know from talking to him, was what happened to John Grisham. He's locked into a contract for xx number of legal thrillers. He's trying to write other books on the side, with limited success.

But it's not usually a top-to-bottom trend; it's usually an arc. An example of this is Sara Gruen of Water for Elephants fame. Her first published books, Riding Lessons, was so-so. Then a blockbuster. And her next one (I don't even remember the title) is bust.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm thinking you're seeing the effects of the downsizing of the publishing industry. Fewer editors, and fewer experienced editors.

Not entirely true (but it is, partially). Not entirely true because the basic premise is false. Read a book from the 1930s and before and you'll find problems with that too--especially in the first edition. But it's true that there are fewer editorial passes through a book now (not necessary fewer editors or fewer experienced editors). (And go back into the 19th century and you'll find the books weren't edited at all--just as is often the case now.)

There also are pop authors now like Tom Clancey, who, after hitting fame (with, in Clancey's case someone else doing most of the work), refuse to let their books be edited.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This is a popular misconception--that authors start off with a few good books and go down hill. In most cases, it's an arc. Authors have started off with books no one has heard of and aren't all that good, then they write a new/fresh one or two (with readers misconstruing that as their first published books) and then they are locked into contracts that have them repeating what they wrote that was new/fresh then and isn't now (because they've already done them) and they are now bored about writing that same book over and over again. This, I know from talking to him, was what happened to John Grisham. He's locked into a contract for xx number of legal thrillers. He's trying to write other books on the side, with limited success.

But it's not usually a top-to-bottom trend; it's usually an arc. An example of this is Sarah Gruen of Water for Elephants fame. Her first published books, Riding Lessons, was so-so. Then a blockbuster. And her next one (I don't even remember the title) is bust.

Makes sense.

Chapter one is so incoherent, and incongruent with what follows, it puzzled me. Apparently time was up and Higgins needed some wares to send to the publisher.

 

[jomar]

Why is it that popular writers get worse with time?

I cant name one writer who improved as time passes. All of them crank-out 2-6 books that are commercial winners, then spend the next 30 years cobbling crap.

Bernard Cornwell, Lee Child, Patrick O'Brian, John Sandford, others...

A corollary question would be how do such authors stay excellent.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Terry Pratchett wrote some mediocre books in his young days, jumped on the parody train with "The Color Of Magic" and then the Discworld series turned into a passionate well-written series that has explored more human issues than most people get to in a lifetime... Even now, he hasn't slowed down. There have been a handful of books that aren't as good-- but none that are outright bad-- and none that are badly written.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Bernard Cornwell, Lee Child, Patrick O'Brian, John Sandford, others...

A corollary question would be how do such authors stay excellent.

The answer is: State of the art skills. Improve your writing every opportunity that comes along. I dont suggest that writers lose sleep or obsess about it, but when they stumble over something that works better, use it. Its the whole point of reading, to see what the competition is doing.

 

[jomar]

The answer is: State of the art skills. Improve your writing every opportunity that comes along. I dont suggest that writers lose sleep or obsess about it, but when they stumble over something that works better, use it. Its the whole point of reading, to see what the competition is doing.

In other words, don't let up.

Yes, the authors I mentioned started out strong and maintained not only compelling stories, but pace and style/voice across books.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I tend to enjoy Lumley because he is heavily influenced by Lovecraft. Even a lot of his Necroscope work can be traced to The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.

I agree on King. Salem's Lot the Stand (original not the one with the 300 extra pages), Pet Sematary were some of the best books I've read. I think Dark half was good as well except for that he needs to find someone with the stones to say he's lost it. Then again like I said if he is making money they dont; care about quality.

.

Part of me wonders when you've last read his work. The Dark Tower books were intense, and quite original. He may not have been the first to write this sort of thing, but it put the idea on the map. As much as the Necromicon was "put on the map" King brought about a new mixed genre of his own.

If you're wondering if the old man still has it, you might want to pick up those lengthy books, or maybe just dive into Lisey's Story, or Bag of Bones. Both are excellent work by a master crafter.

You guys have to remember, it's not about being blatantly anal about structure like it used to. That went down the drain with Faulkner. Who says you can't write good work with run-on sentences. Faulkner never wrote a sentence that didn't at least jog-on for a while.

I would have to agree mostly king's books make better movies then something to read he's way to wordy and drawn out while exhausting details on every little thing. As for rice I was never a fan of hers just wasn't me.

This is the opposite of most opinions, I think. I feel King's work is drastically deteriorated when put on screen. Too much is lost in translation.

Not to be rude, but Lovecraft's work was kinda "Jekyl and Hyde"-ish to me. He wasn't the greatest "writer" in terms of fluency and whatnot. It was like deteriorated Poe IMO. He may have been influential, but so was Henry Rollins Band to music; thanx Henry, for making way for better music. Do you sing, by the way?

Q_C