shadowkat: (Default)
1. Stephen King on writing, films, etc. )

Why do readers always ask writers where they get their ideas from?

I was asked this as well.

Answer? No clue, they just come to me. From the world around me, from what I've seen, heard, thought about...read.

Usually it's like a movie unfolding inside my head or that I'm channeling.

And I have to put it on paper to make sense of it. Or tell it aloud. I used to just tell it aloud.

Whether anyone else wants to read it or hear it, doesn't seem to matter. I remember being surprised that this doesn't happen with everyone. You don't have stories constantly unfolding every few months in your head? Weird.

What King states? "I'm working on a novel and I don't know if it will ever get done. I don't plot, it unfolds as I write it. I don't know it will be a novel until it gets done, until I finish it."

I'm the same way. Sometimes I finish, sometimes I don't.

Some writers know everything ahead of time, like John Irving writes the last line first -- I tried that once, it doesn't work for me. I lose interest. As King puts it, "It's like eating the icing on the cake first." Why eat the cake after that?

Another good bit..."when writing a character, you have to look, you have to see, you have to be curious about people." One of the problems he has with third rate fiction is the writer puts the character through the paces but they don't really grow or evolve, you don't get to see the character.
And his critique of 50 Shades - I agree with. "The problem with it is that Ana, the main character, really only has two default settings -- if things get good? Oh my!, and if they are bad, "Oh god". And it's every other line." He's right. That was my problem and I read all three of them. Also, he's right -- what works in them is the sex scenes (also the text messaging is hilarious) -- this is actually the critique that I'd make of James Patterson's novels as well, the action scenes are fine, but it reads like an outline with characters that are rather stock and have no depth.


2. How the Original Star Wars was saved in the editing room )

They show various bits that were in the unedited version and what happened when they were deftly removed and the film improved considerably. Also explain the number of edits and rewrites. The film that Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, etc made wasn't the one that aired -- a lot of scenes they did never made it to the screen. Small wonder that they were shocked by its success. It was a bad movie that a good editor made into a good one.

(Last Jedi suffered from bad editing, a lot of that film made no sense, and it didn't follow the arc set up in the first film. It's a mess because the director had too much control and JJ Abrahams and others ...didn't take a stronger hand in the editing room. I know a lot of folks liked it, but most of the people I've met either went to sleep during it, or were completely lost. I'm a long-time fan and I could barely follow it and felt it drug in places.)
shadowkat: (writing)
Picked up Stephen King's The Stand at the local bookshop over the weekend, and have begun to read it. Am a moody reader and this for some reason or other is hitting my mood at the moment. Have never the book, just seen the made for tv miniseries. But over the years, it has been recommended to me by numerous people - the latest a bookshop clerk.

In the preface, King explains why he reissued The STAND with the 400 pages that had been deleted from the original version restored.

The reason was not an editorial one: if that had been the case, I would be content to let the book live its life and die its eventful death as it was originally published.

The cuts were made at the behest of the accounting department. They toted up production costs, laid these next to hardcover sales of my previous four books, and decided that a cover price of $12.95 was about what the market could bear. I was asked if I would like to make the cuts, or if I would prefer someone in the editorial department to do it. I reluctantly agreed to do the surgery myself. I think I did a fairly good job, for a writer who has been accused over and over again of having diarrhea of the word processor.


(Shudder - this dear friends is one of the many reasons I am not pursuing a career as a professional novelist. Death by paper-cuts sounds less painfully annoying. )

If all of the story is there, one might ask, then why bother? Isn't it indulgence after all? It better not be; if it is, then I have spent a large portion of my life wasting my time. As it happens, I think that in really good stories, the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts.

He goes on to give what amounts to a summary statement of Hansel and Gretal - demonstrating how less sometimes is a like looking at "a Cadillac with the chrome stripped off and the paint sanded down to dull metal."

Then he states something interesting about books being made into movies and vice versa:

"In the end, I think it's perhaps best for............[he lists the characters in the Stand] to belong to the reader, who will visualize them through the lens of imagination in a vivid and constantly changing way no camera can duplicate. Movies, after all, are only an illusion of motion comprised of thousands of still photographs. The imagination, however, moves with its own tidal flow. Films even the best of them, freeze fiction - anyone who has ever seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and then reads Ken KEsey's novel will find it hard or impossible not to see Jack Nicholson's face on Randle Patrick McMurphy. That is not necessarily bad...but it is limiting. The glory of a good tale is that it is limitless and fluid; a good tale belongs to each reader in its own particular way."

He ends this preface with one sentence that I keep pondering.

Finally I write for only two reasons: to please myself and to please others.
Read more... )
shadowkat: (writing)
[First off - have a book to recommend, entitled CRAFTIVITY - you can get it at Amazon or Barnes and Noble. Great book. Well laid out with some good advice. It is basically about how to crochet, knit, build, sew, hand-make stuff. Worth a look-see. Also am sort of enjoying Chris Moore's "Lamb", funny book, not at all what I expected. Indirect satire, with a good solid and touching story at the heart. Sort of like Borat in that respect, albeit less offensive and crude, more subtle if slightly irreverent.]

Yesterday, read an interesting discussion in Entertainment Weekly with Stephen King and the producers of the TV show Lost which shed further light on the differences between writing a novel and creating a tv show. Here's a few quotes from the discussion:

snippets of fascinating interview between King and Abrams, Lindelof, and Cuse (producers/writers of Lost) taken from EW, for full interview read this past week's EW. )

A novel writer has the luxurary (sp? - can't spell this word to save my life) of knowing how his book will end, when it will end, and ensuring it will end the way he wants it to. The novel writer who is not writing a frigging serial of novels, also has the luxury of killing off whomever he/she chooses without fans dictating not to do it. Not so, the TV show creator. First off, the TV show creator does not own the TV show - the network does. He/she is under contract to the network to deliver a product that will make money and last at least five seasons. Less then that, it does not make money. Twin Peaks for example may have been cool but made no money because only two seasons and cult doesn't make money. They were told by network to create a show about a bunch of plane crash survivors. They intended to kill Jack in the first episode, network head told them not to. They wrote an episode that revealed more about the island's secrets, network got nervous and told them to change it. If you start killing off too many characters - network starts to get nervous. Rightly so. Because as King reported - that would upset the fans of the books. This, by the way, annoys the bejeesus out of me. I think the author has the right to do whatever they damn well please to their characters - they are writing the book, we are reading or watching their story. If I wanted to read the frigging fans' version - I would read fanfic - I don't, well rarely, and mostly out of curiousity, boredom and oh alright, for the porn. In short, I think Rowlings should ignore her fans and write the story. Kill Harry, if it works for your story. Don't cater to fans. And in books and movies you can sort of get away with that. Used to get away with it with tv shows. Stupid internet has made that more difficult. Now we are hyper-aware of what everybody thinks about everything. Which wouldn't bug me if the people creating the product did not pay so much attention. Stephen King is right in the interview when he states - whatever you do, however you tell it, there will be thousands of people upset with you over it. Because it's NOT what they wanted. If you pay attention to the them - you might as well be writing a paint-by-numbers or by committee. Because the story isn't yours anymore. You aren't telling it. They are. And that is the death of your story. You've sold out. And when creators do that? I stop paying attention. What's the point?
shadowkat: (writing)
Odd day. Cloudy. Cool. With breaks of sunlight. Breaks of drizzle. Yellow leaves. Subdued colors. My own clothes - the turqoise purple jacket - a shout of color against the browns. I think this now, looking out at a sun that jumps in and out of gray clouds like a child playing hide and go seek, after a day looking at art, and a morning reading snatchs of writing from word artists.

I have odd obsessions, I know this, and they tend to be culturally oriented. My current one is magazines, and not just any magazines, but literary, science, political, film, art and culture magazines. Fashion mags such as Vogue, Cosmopolitian, and Marie Claire don't interest me - they are ad heavy with more pictures than words. At any rate, I've been compulsively picking up magazines lately the way some people might compulsively buy chocolat bars. They travel well on subways and make great reading during commericial breaks - with one little problem, occassionally the article is more intriguing than the tv show I'm watching. Cultural multi-tasking - yes, I've discovered a way to do it.

At any rate here's a few snatchs from my morning reading my current fav literary mag, TinHouse:

On Memory - from a Stephen King short story I finished this morning. Perhaps the best I've read from King since The Body. )

Writing from an interview with Roddy Doyle, a succesfful Irish writer. About the duty of a writer. And the process of writing. )

On why writing description is important. From the same interview )
On religion, also the same interview. )

Stanzas selected from a poem entitled Self Search. About our relationships with ourselves. Speaks to what I've been writing lately in lj and reading lately. )

On communication - paraphrased from a foggy memory of a writeup next to collage seen at an artist's studio on the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn. It made me laugh. )

On Books ...from Proteus Gowanus, a museum featuring installations associated with a monthly theme, this months theme is libraries. )

Those are the snatchs wandering about in my brain at the moment, requiring additional pondering.
Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 11:01 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios