The writosphere is aflutter after Stephen King said, in an interview with USA Weekend: “The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good.”
After some further thoughts on Erle Stanley Gardner (King: “terrible”), Jodi Picoult (good), Dean Koontz (good and bad) and James Patterson (bad), King said further:
“People are attracted by the stories, by the pace and in the case of Stephenie Meyer, it’s very clear that she’s writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It’s exciting and it’s thrilling and it’s not particularly threatening because they’re not overtly sexual. A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that’s a shorthand for all the feelings that they’re not ready to deal with yet.”
The whole situation is not without its irony. After Stephen King won a National Book Foundation award for “distinguished contribution” to American letters (and surely books as well), the critic/professor Harold Bloom wrote in the Boston Globe:
“What [King] is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis. The publishing industry has stooped terribly low…”
Aside from putting books in the news, which, hi, doesn’t happen very often, this whole spat raises some interesting questions. Or rather one interesting question: who decides what is good anyway?
Is it the readers? After all, if Meyer is so successful she has to be doing something right. And in this world of American Idol, everyone fancies themselves an expert. But surely there is some difference between commercial success and artistic merit, right? Are we ready to crown the most successful books the “best” books?
Is it the critics? Should we leave “good” to the people who devote themselves to sifting through the books and movies and decide what’s good and bad? Surely there’s something to be said for expertise, right?
Is it the writers? Who knows better than the people who are actually writing the books, right? Or do they?
Is it the scholars? Yesterday’s potboilers are today’s classics. Yesterday’s drivel is today’s unappreciated genius.
What do you think?
other lisa says
Me.
Okay, I have strong opinions, and I think I can usually back them up.
But rather than my opinions, I would like to share this piece of fan-made art – Bella’s Womb.
Also an interesting discussion about the messages of Twilight over here.
Rick Daley says
I think we should just judge all books by their covers 😉
Joel Hoekstra says
I agree with Geoff Thorne: from the writers point of view, the people who actually pay money to read their words are the only critics that “matter” when it come to deciding what’s “good” or “bad.”
After I finished reading a book, what makes the book “good” or “bad” in my mind is whether or not I was satisfied with the ending. Did the main characters accomplish their goals (or not)? Was the conflict resolved satisfactorily (or not)?
Outside of satisfactory ending, the books I “love” are the ones I keep coming back to, the ones I deem worthy of re-reading. Perhaps I’ll notice something I missed the first time, or perhaps I’ll feel differently about a character’s actions/decisions because I’m a different person than I was before. Maybe I’ll root for a different character than last time, or maybe I’ll discover a plot hole that I willfully ignored because the author succeeded in diverting my attention from it.
In order to generate that kind of interest, I really have to care about whether or not the protagonist can overcome whatever obstacles are laid in his/her path. Or perhaps the world that character inhabits is so different from my own that it’s worth my while to go back and explore some more. Which book posited a moral dilemma that is relevant to my own life? How did the author resolve that dilemma in the plot? Was the resolution plausible? Was it just wishful thinking? Do I still agree with how the conflict was resolved or has my thinking evolved on the subject since then?
The number of books I “love” can probably be counted on one hand. These are what I consider to be “good” books. The writing in these tomes may not be perfect. There might be the occasional spat of Lists in the descriptive text, or not enough descriptive text, or overused phrases, etc. None of that matters in the final analysis. What matters it whether or not I love the book enough to pass it on to the next generation, typos and all.
King and Meyer’s words will both be with us so long as their books are loved, regardless of their literary “merit.” 😉
A “well written” book I don’t love is just going to sit on the shelf…gathering dust.
Doug says
I have always been a believer in letting the market decide. If you follow that thinking then both King and Meyer are good writers. Whether one or the other calls the other one a bad writer is immaterial because it comes down to taste, and in matters of taste, there is no right answer.
JS says
Anonymous wrote:
JS,
“Grownups do not criticize each other because they’re “jealous”.”
They don’t say stupid stuff publicly either.
Please understand that Stephen King is a critic as well as a novelist.
I understand that you don’t agree with his opinion of Stephenie Meyer’s writing. That’s fine.
But he’s a critic and a novelist and that’s his opinion. And because he’s a really famous, really successful writer, his opinion makes headlines.
Your calling it “stupid stuff” doesn’t make it so, any more than someone’s suggesting that he’s “jealous” makes it so.
Again, life != high school.
Anonymous says
Nathan,
Yep I have to say I feel insulted by this “And for girls, that’s a shorthand for all the feelings that they’re not ready to deal with yet.”
and if you think I’m dramatic go check out some of the fan blogs. They would throw him under the bus if they saw him. And apparently jealousy is a common sentiment from them (no matter the age difference.) There is backlash whether we think there should be or not.
Christine says
There is a reason why blockbuster movies don’t normally win Oscars.
When Meyer, a not so good writer finds her massive market (from 10 year old girls who wanted to be bitten by Robert Pattinson to 80 year old grandma who dreamed about becoming Mrs. Cullen), then she has her success.
Lynn Irwin Stewart says
For me, the bottom line is not who’s a good writer or who’s a bad writer but, rather, why did Mr. King feel the need to say this out loud? What did it get him — other than a bit of free publicity, maybe? This made him sound like he had a mouthful of sour grapes — and whatever for?
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
You really find that insulting (honest question)? I’ve read some very positive reviews that talk about how Meyer tapped into that very same feeling that King is describing, namely the balancing of desire/sex and restraint and exploring that tension, which, although I never was one myself, seems to be of some importance to teenage girls. Meyer explores it in a safe and yet dangerous fashion.
Lupina says
It’s a wide, wide world out there. There is room for every quality of literature, as long as something about it enables it to gain an audience. People watch crummy sitcoms and soaps and reality shows for fun, but no one is surprised when My Big Fat Ugly Fiance doesn’t win the Emmies.
And Stephen King has every right to critique other writers, probably knowing full well that he risks having it thrown right back at him.
JS says
Why so defensive of Meyer?
Meyer has a big Internet fan base. Koontz and Patterson do not. This may be because the former’s writing is targeted at teens, while the latter two target adults twenty-something and up.
I think that a lot of the people who are so vociferously defending Meyer here aren’t actually regular readers of Nathan’s blog, but people who have “Stephenie Meyer” on Google Alerts and/or who were sent here by an online Meyer fangroup.
BarbS. says
Other Lisa,
Please remind me to never, ever take a mouthful of tea when I go to click on things like Bella’s Womb.
It’s a good thing she wasn’t having octuplets.
I DID write octuplets, not octupi, right? I can’t see, really…all that tea I sprayed…
Wonderful. Wordver is a car advert: ford
JS says
Why so defensive of Meyer?
Meyer has a big Internet fan base. Koontz and Patterson do not. This may be because the former’s writing is targeted at teens, while the latter two target adults twenty-something and up.
I think that a lot of the people who are so vociferously defending Meyer here aren’t actually regular readers of Nathan’s blog, but people who have “Stephenie Meyer” on Google Alerts and/or who were sent here by an online Meyer fangroup.
Mira says
I think Stephen King is saying that Myers isn’t a great craftsman.
He’s done this before. His book ‘On writing,’ is filled with judgements of other writers and whether they are good craftsmen or not.
(As an aside, I thought his book ‘On writing,’ was the least useful book about writing I’ve ever read. There were maybe 2 pages that I found at all useful out of the whole book. The rest was biography or potification. Useless.)
I wonder why Stephen does this. Has anyone asked him why in any interview? I’d be curious as to his motives.
Is he trying to ‘save’ the state of writing, where books that are published are better crafted? Or does he just want attention? Or both.
Nathan Bransford says
JS-
Actually, judging from the incoming traffic, all appears normal. I think Meyer fans and blog readers overlap some.
JS says
why did Mr. King feel the need to say this out loud?
Because he’s a cultural critic as well as a novelist. He writes a regular column for Entertainment Weekly, for instance. He’s written a couple of books about writing. He’s written about film and TV.
Critics have opinions. That’s what being a critic is about.
Calling any of this “sour grapes” or King looking for “free publicity” is nonsense. He was doing an interview and was asked what he thought. He said what he thought.
That’s how it works.
Anonymous says
An old woman does find implying she read a book for safe sex insulting. Check out the new’s pages.
BarbS. says
Oh! Other Lisa,
I forgot to say thanks for the link! Hysterical…and clever as anything!
JS says
Nathan Bransford wrote: Actually, judging from the incoming traffic, all appears normal. I think Meyer fans and blog readers overlap some.
I bow to your wisdom, then.
But I have seen Twilight fangroups make calls for their membership to comment on articles and blogs that are seen as overly critical of Meyer in the past.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
The quote: “And for girls, that’s a shorthand for all the feelings that they’re not ready to deal with yet”
I don’t think he’s talking about women.
Anonymous says
Nathan,
I love you to death, but if she is a bad writer and safe sex for girls, why would old people read it? And lots do. What is left?
T. Anne says
Other Lisa…
So wonderfully gross. I should be so lucky to have fans like that. Apparently I have the lousy writing part down pat (so say the query wars). 😉
BarbS. says
Ohdear…I suppose, when all is said and done, it would appear that SK has done what he’s always done…
He’s opened a can of worms.
Get it? Worms? Graveyard stuff?
Ak. Pretty bad when you’ve got to explain them, LOL 😉
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
Not sure I completely understand the question, but I think King was talking about one important slice of the appeal. Surely there is never ONE reason why people do or don’t read a book. I just think he was talking about a particular one that may be common among Meyer’s young fan base. Older people might get something completely different out of it. I don’t understand how all of this is mutually exclusive.
J. M. Strother says
Time is an exceptional judge. Will people still be reading Meyer in fifty years? Rowling? King? Perhaps all are destined to become classics our grandchildren will read. Or they may all fall into the out-of-print bin. If I was betting, I’d put my money on Rowling and King, but only time will tell.
~jon
Anonymous says
Ah ha,
Pretty much my point.There is more to the book than what he wrote.
Love you and keep stirring. (I mean love you as in your blog, not you personally, although I do really like you a lot. Not a lot in a perverted way, just OH never mind…You know us old women and our hormones. BLUSHINg 🙂
Anonymous says
Maybe the question isn’t so much “what is good?” as it is “what is good enough?”
An agent has to decide if what I’ve written is good enough to represent. A publisher has to decide if it’s good enough to publish. A reader has to decide if it’s good enough to spend money on.
There are a few writers who are universally accepted as excellent. There are many who are viewed as good. But whether you enjoy a published writer’s works or not, you have to acknowledge that on some level they were good enough.
I do like the discussion on language vs. storytelling. That’s useful to me as a writer, to remember that the two together give me a better chance of surpassing “good enough.”
Anonymous says
What is a deep story? I don’t get it. Is it detailed, or hidden meanings? What is deep?
Anonymous says
There’s a difference between saying (as SK did) SM “isn’t good,” and saying, “I don’t care for her style. One implies an absolute — that she sucks, the latter makes allowance for the fact that others may find her work interesting.
I’m not a fan of Stephenie Meyer, but it does seem harsh for a best-selling author to label another author as “not good” publically.
Though they’ve both probably increased their sales dramatically from all the hoopla. Quick, someone get online and tell me I suck, maybe the editor that has my fast-fading novel will decide to buy it!!
Christine says
If you read Meyer’s website, it took her 6 months from dreaming about the story to getting the book deal. Yes, 6 months and not a whole lot of query letters. And she openly admitted that her query letters were awful.
The story sold her books. Who cares if she can’t write.
PLOT! PLOT! PLOT! Like Nathan has always said.
:)Ash says
I found it to be a hilarious statement, coming from King. He and Meyer have the same best-selling quality: creativity. Neither are masters of language.
And JK Rowling… well, there’s no comparing her to anyone. She’s in a league all her own. In fact, she may be a witch herself…
Polenth says
I think it’s a personal choice. I know what’s good to me, but I can’t predict whether someone else will think it’s good. I tend to word book opinions in terms of “I didn’t like it” rather than “this is bad” for that reason.
I don’t see a problem in authors having opinions on other books. I don’t think your right to share your views is surgically removed when you become famous. If we can discuss books/authors we love/hate, so can he. You might not like what he says or how he says it… but that’s life. Everyone’s different.
Though if my book was slammed by Stephen King, I’d be happy. You can’t buy that kind of publicity. Think how many people will buy the book just to see if he’s right.
AC says
It ought to be a little of everybody deciding what’s good–just as it has been.
Most of us read for different reasons, so we want different books at different times. If I want brain candy I’ll read something like Twilight. If I want to be edified I’ll read something else, and educated, something else. There’s room in bookland for King, Meyer, Rowling and everyone else.
Although I will say King is right on the money that Rowling is head and shoulders (and probably knees and toes) above Meyer in terms of both writing and plotting. Doesn’t mean Meyer doesn’t deserve her success.
wickerman says
Someone help me! I’m confused! Why is it that Stephen King (or Meyer or ANYONE) feels his opinion is worth jack (you know what!)? Who cares what he thinks! So he has sold a lt of books – milli vanilli sold lots of records – does that mean they are great? (My apologies to anyone too young to know who Milli were.)
Now, I’m not really comparing Sk to Milli Vanilli, but come folks! Really – WHO CARES? If Stephen King said ‘hey I like lamb chops and pork chops suck’ would anyone get bent out of shape? Is he an ‘expert’ because he sells lots of books? He reads alot? So do I. Am i an ‘expert’ now?
People get way too wrapped up in what a celebrity, an author or an entertainer says. These authors, actors, musicians etc are all wrapped up in themselves to begin with. Seriously, who the hell are they? If you don;t agree with someone – fine. Stephen King is one guy. If you like Twilight, fine. If Stephen King doesn’t, how does that hurt anyone else. It doesn’t. Yet, for some reason, SK feels like his opinion on other authors SHOULD matter. That makes him a jerk in my book.
I don’t read horror and I ave never read Stephanie Meyer – she is writing YA and as a 35 year old guy it just isn’t my thing. Hanna Montana isn’t my thing either – so why the hell should I care if kids like it? Would it make me feel better to make fun of it? I don’t see why.
Good books are the ones you happen to like. IF some nimrod comes along and says ‘that isn’t a REAL book – it isn’t literature’ so what? If you don’t like Moby Dick – considered by many to be THE great American novel – does that mean you know nothing about literature? Maybe it means you don’t like Moby Dick. If you think Twilight is the greatest book ever, good for you – it obviously touched a note with you. It doesn’t make you dumb. Arguing writing is arguing taste and taste is subjective.
No one can tell you a book you like really isn’t any good any more than they can tell you that anchovies really DO taste good and you are just tasting them the wrong way. Let Stephen King cry about Stephanie Meyer and others all he wants. At the end of the day he is some guy who writes books. Despite what we have all been told, being a writer(or an athlete or a singer) is no greater calling than being a doctor, an accountant, a waitress, a plumber or a janitor. It’s just a job. It’s a job I’d liek to have, mind you, but it would not make me better than the next person or somehow a fountain of profound knowledge like all of these big shots seem to think they become because they sell books, cds, football game tickets etc… They are just people like you and me. They sit on the toilet every night and stink just like you and me.
Joe Iriarte says
I think the problem that comes up every time this issue is raised with respect to art is that we claim to be arguing about one thing, but we are actually arguing about another. We’re not really arguing about what is “good.” We’re arguing about what is “better.”
If your work of art moves someone, touches someone’s soul, it is good. That’s it.
Just one, I say. Who can set a minimum threshold, and say that X people have to agree that your work is good? The novel Ordinary People saved my life, I believe. If every other person who’d read that book hated it, would that make it not meaningful? Is there some Platonic Ideal Book somewhere that books are measured against, making them good or bad independent of the effect they create in a reader?
I don’t think so. I think art exists only to act on the observer*. Therefore, the only meaningful measure of quality is whether or not a work succeeded in touching an observer, and it’s not about discrete criteria, nor is it a numbers game.
So:
Stephen King: Good. Obviously.
Stephanie Meyer: Good.
James Joyce: Good.
Judith Guest: Good.
René Magritte: Good.
Jackson Pollock: Good.
*gulp* Terry Goodkind: Good.
Their works have resonated; their works have been powerful for someone. How can I possibly say that what resonates with me is meaningful but what resonates with you is not? Well that’s exactly what we say when we say that Stephanie Meyer is no good.
The problem, I think, is that some people think something is just plain wrong if we equate Meyer’s accomplishment with Herman Melville’s. So we look for some way to say her art is less good than his. Or less good than Updike’s. Or less good than King’s. We look for flaws to point out as evidence of this. But it’s all bogus, because grammar, characterization, prosody, plotting, etc. are all just means to an end: the effect on the observer. And now we come back to the fact that one observer isn’t worth more than another.
All we can make are personal pronouncements. And we can certainly give reasons why we individually feel as we do, but when we try to use those as some sort of objective evidence for the universal truth of our personal pronouncements, we’re missing the point. We’re either saying that these criteria are more meaningful than the cumulative effect a work has, or we’re saying that the effect a work has on some other observer isn’t worth as much as the effect it has on me.
I’d say that Stephen King is a better writer than James Joyce. Of course, what I really mean is that King’s works have moved me, entertained me, and been meaningful for me, whereas the single work of Joyce’s that I read failed to affect me on all three fronts. Does that mean King is really better? No, it means King was more effective in moving me. It would be the height of arrogance for someone else to suggest that moving or impressing some famous literary critic is a more meaningful accomplishment than moving me is, but there’s an awful lot of arrogance in the world.
* Of course, the artist is an observer too.
Anonymous says
Bravo Joe & Wicker
Marilyn Peake says
Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight novel received quite a few rejections and scathing comments when she first submitted it to literary agents. From Stephenie Meyer’s own website:
—————-
I sent out around fifteen queries (and I still get residual butterflies in my stomach when I drive by the mailbox I sent the letters from—mailing them was terrifying.). I will state, for the record, that my queries truly sucked, and I don’t blame anyone who sent me a rejection (I did get seven or eight of those. I still have them all, too). The only rejection that really hurt was from a small agent who actually read the first chapter before she dropped the axe on me. The meanest rejection I got came after Little, Brown had picked me up for a three-book deal, so it didn’t bother me at all. I’ll admit that I considered sending back a copy of that rejection stapled to the write-up my deal got in Publisher’s Weekly, but I took the higher road.
My big break came in the form of an assistant at Writers House named Genevieve. I didn’t find out until much later just how lucky I was; it turns out that Gen didn’t know that 130,000 words is a whole heck of a lot of words. If she’d known that 130K words would equal 500 pages, she probably wouldn’t have asked to see it. But she didn’t know (picture me wiping the sweat from my brow), and she did ask for the first three chapters. I was thrilled to get a positive response, but a little worried because I felt the beginning of the book wasn’t the strongest part.
Lynn Irwin Stewart says
JS, thanks for setting me straight. I actually have a subscription to EW but find Mr. King’s column only mildly entertaining — I guess I didn’t even realize he was a professional critic as well as an author — my bad! Haven’t read his novels in years and have never read Ms. Meyers — neither one is my thing nowadays — nothing to do with the talent of either one of them. I guess one author criticizing another just seems in bad taste. But, hey, what do I know? I’m just a lowly reader.
As one of the people who have posted here for the first time today (though I read often), it has nothing to do with defending Ms. Meyer personally — I would have spoken up no matter who it was.
Anonymous says
Slightly off topic, but Stephenie Meyers did have a ‘top writer’ friend who was also agented at Writer’s House, so excuse me for saying that I don’t agree with the consensus that her books were just that good that they went from idea to published in six months. please.
Kate says
I think King’s comments get at the issue of what attracts people to books. And that something is not the same for all readers. Nor is it the same for all critics and all scholars. Some people love a gripping story and care very little about the individual words that make up the story. Other people want to really get to know there characters, but don’t seem to care if the story has a plot. Then others enjoy plays on words and want every detail to be perfect.
This is why there are so many different genres in the literary world. And it is why Stephanie Meyer can sell millions of copies of a book that Steven King hates. King and Meyer have different writing styles and appeal to audiences with different reading styles.
You could say they are both “good”, or they or both “bad”, or that “good/bad” are the wrong words to describe literature – be it Twilight or Carrie.
other lisa says
@BarbS, @T. Anne – happy to amuse, and sorry about the keyboard….
Oh my. Word verification: “hotbode.”
Christine says
To Merilyn
15 query letters land you an agent who could sell you to a big publishing house in matter of months is extremely good fortune. Just ask around here. I bet a lot of writers have been rejected a whole lot more than 15.
Anonymous says
I have never admired Stephen King more than I do today.
You go, SK!
Carley says
Wow. This sounds a lot like the conversations my 14 year old and I had regarding Meyer! She loves her, I didn’t. However, I read all four books, they were entertaining, a quick read, and perfect for the genre they were written for. She nailed what it feels like to be a teenager. SM got teens everywhere to quit texting and start reading, so I’m not complaining. My teen will now even read things I suggest.(she’s become a bookworm of the worst kind) However, I can’t stand the middle aged women that went bonkers for her, that is just wierd, and a whole other ball game.
JKR, IMO, is brilliant. Her stories have more depth. SK is good as well, but not my cup of tea. Really, it’s all subjective. It’s also quite American to have an opinion and voice it. Not everyone will agree but that’s what makes us tick. Critics, writers and readers, all have their own input. Some like, some don’t, ultimately, it’s the readers who make the writer money, the critics who make the books ageless and the writers who give both of them the ability to have a voice at all in the matter.
other lisa says
@ink – To me it’s all about intent. A story has its own internal logic, and a good story teaches you how to read and experience it within its own narrative. The story creates its own expectations, and much of its quality, of whether it’s “good” or not, is dependent upon how well it satisfies those expectations.
I think this is exactly right.
gerriwritinglog says
Personally, I’d like to divide storytelling from writing because I think that’s the crux of King’s comments.
Quite frankly, Meyer can’t write, IMO. Her sentences are loosie-goosie, her descriptions are overwrought, and her dialogue needs to be tightened up with a rachet. I only read the first book, and my eyes glazed over many, many times as the prose ground through yet another iteration of the same thing. I want to go after that manuscript with a pair of scissors and a shredder. She could have done a heck of a lot better at presenting the story she had.
OTOH, Meyer can tell a story. She’s got the classic vampire love story down cold, and she knows how to sell it to the teen girl and their romantic mom audience. Large specialized audiences are wonderful. In my opinion, these books are acutally aimed at a subset of that audience, given Meyer’s known Morman background. That subset are the good girls who have stayed good and hope to be rewarded by getting their own prince in sparkling skin.
Does Meyer have universal appeal? No. That’s King’s point, I think. Rowling does have universal appeal. She gets everyone reading.
On the other side of the equation…
King is a writer. His prose is tight, polished,and he doesn’t drag things out anywhere near as long. He’s master at setting a mood as well as the setting, and he knows how to use words to wind people up.
King as a storyteller? Not to my tastes. What little I’ve read of him shows him to be a manipulative writer, but not a manipulative storyteller.
I’m glad King spoke up. This kind of controversy is helpful. Makes at least some people think.
Marilyn Peake says
Christine,
I realize that. LOL. It’s tough to get published. My point was that Stephenie Meyer received scathing remarks from some literary agents, and she got picked up partly as a fluke because an assistant didn’t realize how many pages her word count involved.
T. Anne says
Christine,
Yes, 15 query’s sounds suspiciously low…but when you read anon @12:45 it paints a clear picture.
Now if I only knew somebody who was on a first name basis with a literary agent outside of a blog….
Rick Daley says
What does Cormac McCarthy, a Pulitzer Prize winner, consider good?
This is interesting, from Wikipedia:
McCarthy…reveals that he is not a fan of authors that do not “deal with issues of life and death,” citing Henry James and Marcel Proust as examples. “I don’t understand them,” he said. “To me, that’s not literature. A lot of writers who are considered good I consider strange.”…Oprah Winfrey chose McCarthy’s 2006 novel The Road…for her Book Club…McCarthy agreed to sit down for his first television interview…McCarthy told Winfrey that he does not know any writers and much prefers the company of scientists.
Here is a link to the interview on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNuc3sxzlyQ
Ink says
Other Lisa,
Thanks for the seconding, there. And, really, every day that I see a mutant womb hand-crafted from felt must be a good day. I’m pretty sure.
My best, as always,
Bryan