Everyone on NMA is a writer but you. We wanted it to be a surprise.
In the future, zombies go "Rargh"
- Thread starter Per
- Start date
Re: Head 'em Off At The Past!
A psychological thriller is best summed up as a combination of mystery and thriller yes, but it also has greater emphasis on the characters themselves, which means that the chance of the writing itself being incredibly trite is lessened.
There's also a lot more freedom, you can make internal struggles far more interesting and relevant if there's some sort of psychological slant to it, there doesn't even need to be some convoluted physical plot, a psychological thriller can be completely in the mind of the protagonist or protagonists as it is in my case.
Ruined.
4too said:Head 'em Off At The Past!
Eyenixon said:
So ""who done it"" is reversed engineered to fabricate / facilitate ""it done by whom""?
Jus' askin'.
4too
A psychological thriller is best summed up as a combination of mystery and thriller yes, but it also has greater emphasis on the characters themselves, which means that the chance of the writing itself being incredibly trite is lessened.
There's also a lot more freedom, you can make internal struggles far more interesting and relevant if there's some sort of psychological slant to it, there doesn't even need to be some convoluted physical plot, a psychological thriller can be completely in the mind of the protagonist or protagonists as it is in my case.
Per said:
Ruined.
Has anyone even seen them in the same room at the same time
There's something fishy about that
There's something fishy about that
Quaid
Give dese people air!!
Thank you NMA for posting this topic. I just read up on the author (Stephen North) and not only am I intrigued by his stories, I am delighted to be living right in the middle of his stories' settings. I went to high school in Pinellas Park, my family lives in St. Petersburg and I currently live in Tampa.
I just purchased Beneath the Mask online and can't wait to read it as sci-fi is my genre of choice. I am not the biggest zombie fan but a futuristic zombie story like Barren Earth sounds like it may have enough sci-fi to hold my interest.
Thank you Stephen for taking the time and effort to craft these stories!
I just purchased Beneath the Mask online and can't wait to read it as sci-fi is my genre of choice. I am not the biggest zombie fan but a futuristic zombie story like Barren Earth sounds like it may have enough sci-fi to hold my interest.
Thank you Stephen for taking the time and effort to craft these stories!
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
wait. so you guys don't get that alec's post was made to poke fun at you guys? i mean, this Robert whatever's stuff might very well be good but his out-put (especially since it's all within a very trendy genre) resembles something closer to a romance novel author than somebody who will be remembered beyond his own time.
jus' sayin'.
jus' sayin'.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Could be that he just got published and just submitted a few years worth of work to the publishers.TwinkieStabllis said:
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
i think you guys are missing the point. 2 years or 20 years, it's more than most important writers submit. i mean, it basically sounds more like commission work than anything really groundbreaking. which is fine, if there are people out there who get off on zombie stories, great. i read those Star Wars books when i was a kid...if he's getting published there's obviously a demand.
i'm just reinforcing alec's supposition that most good literature can't just be shat out that quick. and of course, this is just a guess. not like i'm really lining up to read zombie books.
EDIT: i take that back. i just thought of P.K. Dick. 20 years is probably pretty reasonable to put out a lot of great stuff if you're a brilliant writer, a lot of good stuff, if you're a great writer. a lot of bad stuff if you're a good writer. or a lot of terrible stuff if you're a decent writer.
i'm just reinforcing alec's supposition that most good literature can't just be shat out that quick. and of course, this is just a guess. not like i'm really lining up to read zombie books.
EDIT: i take that back. i just thought of P.K. Dick. 20 years is probably pretty reasonable to put out a lot of great stuff if you're a brilliant writer, a lot of good stuff, if you're a great writer. a lot of bad stuff if you're a good writer. or a lot of terrible stuff if you're a decent writer.
Well writers like Philip K. Dick had put out work pretty regularly compared to people like Pynchon who take several years.
I think it's just the level of obsession it takes, you're either obsessive to the point of insanity (Dick) or you just aren't all that concerned with quality if it's adequate (Stephen King).
Right about the market thing, but there are contrary examples, it's just personal preference and method which is so different between authors in the realm of writing that it's difficult to present some sort of reliable average, so I wouldn't say it's exactly true that short duration in the process of writing is synonymous with something being rushed.
I think it's just the level of obsession it takes, you're either obsessive to the point of insanity (Dick) or you just aren't all that concerned with quality if it's adequate (Stephen King).
Right about the market thing, but there are contrary examples, it's just personal preference and method which is so different between authors in the realm of writing that it's difficult to present some sort of reliable average, so I wouldn't say it's exactly true that short duration in the process of writing is synonymous with something being rushed.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
whoa! i was editing before i saw yr post! that's hilarious!
Eyenixon said:
I used to think so as well. Then I read his "novel" On Writing and I was immediately converted. He's at his best in his shorter works, but the man is more obsessed about the writing process than most other authors that I know of. His style suits his stories just perfectly, but that's not just a matter of talent. That's skill. That's mastery. He basically allows you a look into his kitchen in On Writing. Interesting stuff for all the professional writers on these boards.
Twinkie: <3 + c==3 4ever
I read that too but I still consider him a mechanical writer whose writing doesn't posses much depth. He can utilize whichever methods he wants but if the results are similar to what he puts out now I still won't be convinced.
Eventually it's the voice, not the author I judge, the words on the page, not the name on the cover. He knows suspense, but as you said, he's a craftsman, not an artist, writing theory is all fine and dandy, and I've read plenty of books on the subject, but there's a point where you begin to disregard simple technique and wish to expand beyond the limitations it imposes, that's something Stephen King hasn't done. It's like the difference between Dubliners and Ulysses.
I'd say that point is somewhere around reaching the zenith of your ability, and I don't mean talent or creativity, I mean raw writing ability, technical stuff, knowing how to pace and structure your writing, but that's simply knowing, you always grow as a voice, and quite frankly, you can't write a book on that and improving that voice is a constant process. In the case of Stephen King it inches by book by book, he never takes great strides in expanding the breadth of character in his voice.
Eventually it's the voice, not the author I judge, the words on the page, not the name on the cover. He knows suspense, but as you said, he's a craftsman, not an artist, writing theory is all fine and dandy, and I've read plenty of books on the subject, but there's a point where you begin to disregard simple technique and wish to expand beyond the limitations it imposes, that's something Stephen King hasn't done. It's like the difference between Dubliners and Ulysses.
I'd say that point is somewhere around reaching the zenith of your ability, and I don't mean talent or creativity, I mean raw writing ability, technical stuff, knowing how to pace and structure your writing, but that's simply knowing, you always grow as a voice, and quite frankly, you can't write a book on that and improving that voice is a constant process. In the case of Stephen King it inches by book by book, he never takes great strides in expanding the breadth of character in his voice.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
King once referred to himself as the "burger and fries" of literature. i'd say that's about right.
Eyenixon said:
I beg to differ. I think the French oulipo group and an author like Perec in particular actually benefited from the constraints of rules and theory. I get what you mean, but there are exceptions. Even more so in poetry where language is allowed to be free, constraints to that freedom (for instance sonnets) have not seldom delivered the most beautiful and memorable poems.
You're thinking that rules and theory are naturally restrictive in that regard, they aren't, ultimately what creates the best works when an author accepts these standards are manipulation of the meaning behind theory and rules. That's how you can create something deftly composed in a rigid manner beautiful in structure and flow of language, but that takes a certain amount of talent that few people possess. There's willingly submitting to these rules and expanding outward from them, and then there's accepting these rules but choosing to build upon them by stretching their application, that gives you Shakespeare or Herman Melville, the former gives you Stephen King or hell, Lovecraft even.
I think the best way to demonstrate my point is to look at the difference between King and Poe, Poe has an inordinate amount of subtext in his works, he doesn't simply play off of fears but generally introduces themes such as the 'soul' of family, guilt, and madness, (specifically in Fall of the House of Usher) but he introduces these themes precisely and in totality, there's very little that isn't connected and doesn't affect the story's expression of morality. It's expertly crafted, but it's also very complex and indepth. Poe is someone who didn't exactly amaze with intuitive narrative, but his writing was spectacular and he made sure to push at the boundaries of rules with every word, he didn't limit himself with them but eventually used them to his own benefit.
I don't feel that with King, even with his better books such as The Stand I see this very stoic narrative that doesn't always factor in every event and exchange of dialog as meaningful. There's the desire to build plot, to develop character, but ultimately the story itself and the characters almost feel separate.
It's a strange sensation in writing that I tend to call 'Unintended Isolation', essentially the characters become independent from the plot as it seems to be that there's a thread of fate, or in fact destiny, which cements the eventual outcome of the story in stone and the characters simply meander along in concurrence with their eventual fate and accomplish tasks and experience events that eventually lead to the ending, but the characters themselves seem encapsulated between the beginning and end. The middle is their freedom, but it's ultimately lacking as the threads don't tie to the main narrative. This turns into mechanical writing.
To be noted is the difference between a book that emphasizes fate and this phenomena, I definitely don't mean novels that carry fate as a theme and explicitly factor it in as a major plot-point, but rather books that seem to have the beginning and end stick out starkly in comparison to the rest of the narrative. The beginning seems to be merely an introduction, the end a conclusion. The ideal book causes these two to flow together, the middle is simply a joining of the two and the transition between events is seamless.
Stephen King in my experience is very much a beginning/end author. His endings typically suck, yes, but despite that I always feel that his middle segments exist merely to reach the ending, rather than to establish a regular flow of relevant events.
But I guess that's why you prefer his short stories, which are typically much better, but I still feel that disconnect.
It may be preference, but often I miss that totality of Poe, of Melville, of Joyce, everything is meaningful and nothing is superfluous, nothing is meant for the purpose of pace, or carrying the story effectively, it's only through the inherent nature of writing that establishing that totality delivers satisfying work.
I think the best way to demonstrate my point is to look at the difference between King and Poe, Poe has an inordinate amount of subtext in his works, he doesn't simply play off of fears but generally introduces themes such as the 'soul' of family, guilt, and madness, (specifically in Fall of the House of Usher) but he introduces these themes precisely and in totality, there's very little that isn't connected and doesn't affect the story's expression of morality. It's expertly crafted, but it's also very complex and indepth. Poe is someone who didn't exactly amaze with intuitive narrative, but his writing was spectacular and he made sure to push at the boundaries of rules with every word, he didn't limit himself with them but eventually used them to his own benefit.
I don't feel that with King, even with his better books such as The Stand I see this very stoic narrative that doesn't always factor in every event and exchange of dialog as meaningful. There's the desire to build plot, to develop character, but ultimately the story itself and the characters almost feel separate.
It's a strange sensation in writing that I tend to call 'Unintended Isolation', essentially the characters become independent from the plot as it seems to be that there's a thread of fate, or in fact destiny, which cements the eventual outcome of the story in stone and the characters simply meander along in concurrence with their eventual fate and accomplish tasks and experience events that eventually lead to the ending, but the characters themselves seem encapsulated between the beginning and end. The middle is their freedom, but it's ultimately lacking as the threads don't tie to the main narrative. This turns into mechanical writing.
To be noted is the difference between a book that emphasizes fate and this phenomena, I definitely don't mean novels that carry fate as a theme and explicitly factor it in as a major plot-point, but rather books that seem to have the beginning and end stick out starkly in comparison to the rest of the narrative. The beginning seems to be merely an introduction, the end a conclusion. The ideal book causes these two to flow together, the middle is simply a joining of the two and the transition between events is seamless.
Stephen King in my experience is very much a beginning/end author. His endings typically suck, yes, but despite that I always feel that his middle segments exist merely to reach the ending, rather than to establish a regular flow of relevant events.
But I guess that's why you prefer his short stories, which are typically much better, but I still feel that disconnect.
It may be preference, but often I miss that totality of Poe, of Melville, of Joyce, everything is meaningful and nothing is superfluous, nothing is meant for the purpose of pace, or carrying the story effectively, it's only through the inherent nature of writing that establishing that totality delivers satisfying work.