Scan barcode
A review by theangrylawngnome
Bare Bones: Conversations on Terror with Stephen King by Tim Underwood, Chuck Miller, Stephen King
4.0
Q: You're from the tradition of the storyteller. Your books not only read well, they listen well.
KING: The story is the only thing that's important. Everything else will take care of itself. It's like what bowlers do. You hear writers talk about character or theme or mood or mode or tense or person. But bowlers say, if you make the spares, the strikes will take care of themselves. If you can tell a story, everything else becomes possible. But without story, nothing is possible, because nobody wants to hear about your sensitive characters if there's nothing happening in the story. And the same is true with mood. Story is the only thing that's important.
P. 116, Chapter 3, Terror Ink
Look at Joseph Heller. It took him seven years to write [b:Something Happened|10718|Something Happened|Joseph Heller|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388183272s/10718.jpg|2703812]. Now, it doesn't take seven years to write a book. You're jerking off is what you're doing. You're writing a little bit, and they you're jerking off, and then you write a bit more. To me, that's a waste of energy.
P. 153, Chapter 5, Partners in Fear
An absolutely fascinating series of candid interviews King gave, ranging from 1979 through 1987. If [b:On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft|10569|On Writing A Memoir of the Craft|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1436735207s/10569.jpg|150292] is more polished, more current and probably at the end of the day the better read, I would submit that these interviews might actually represent a better view into the mind of ol' Steve-o, at least at the time he gave them.
And yes, I chose the two quotes above largely because (a) I thought they were instructive and (b) I am curious as hell to find out if he still agrees with either or both of them. To my mind he probably still agrees with the first in a qualified sense and disagrees with second. Else why didn't he inquire over the obviously chapped and calloused state of George RR Martin's sadly abused member during this evening they spent together? Or such would be an logical inference from the above, as ol' GRRM is now edging toward a decade since the last installment in A Song of Ice and Fire series. Or perhaps GRRM is ordering lotion by the crate? But, nope, all King does is praise Martin's writing to the skies.
As to the former -- and far more interesting quote -- I think it presents in very short form what we can still describe as King's greatest strengths and weaknesses. To this day. His books tend to ramble, his characters tend to not be particularly memorable (except when they truly are...), but damn, the man can spin a tale, usually. (The less said of a mess like [b:Rose Madder|10619|Rose Madder|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1375870513s/10619.jpg|833191] the better.) With King it is indeed story. At his best the reader is grabbed by their short and curlies and yanked along forcibly, at worst we get a six year old's shaggy dog story (somewhere in the middle volumes of the The Dark Tower books, yes I'll speak that blasphemy.)
What I do wish I'd bothered to unearth were some of his quotes about how he'd never disliked anything he'd ever published. How he disliked right-wing Jerry Falwell like censorship, and so on. And there were several such sprinkled throughout these interviews. Yet bend the knee to censorship he did with [b:Rage|66370|Rage|Richard Bachman|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1299003176s/66370.jpg|1657128]. So, clearly his views have "evolved" through the years, to the point where only right wing censorship is bad. I suppose we're all hypocrites in our own way. Just wish King would at least be honest in his hypocrisy.
Finally, his view of [b:Pet Sematary|33124137|Pet Sematary|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1480069533s/33124137.jpg|150017] was interesting, as he was downright ambivalent about how it ended. He didn't find it optimistic. And didn't like that. That I never knew; I've certainly not heard that view expressed elsewhere.
The presentation as transcripts of interviews that other reviewers have found tended toward repetition and discursion I actually never found that way. King is one hell of an interesting interviewee, far moreso than most authors or most anybodys.
KING: The story is the only thing that's important. Everything else will take care of itself. It's like what bowlers do. You hear writers talk about character or theme or mood or mode or tense or person. But bowlers say, if you make the spares, the strikes will take care of themselves. If you can tell a story, everything else becomes possible. But without story, nothing is possible, because nobody wants to hear about your sensitive characters if there's nothing happening in the story. And the same is true with mood. Story is the only thing that's important.
P. 116, Chapter 3, Terror Ink
Look at Joseph Heller. It took him seven years to write [b:Something Happened|10718|Something Happened|Joseph Heller|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388183272s/10718.jpg|2703812]. Now, it doesn't take seven years to write a book. You're jerking off is what you're doing. You're writing a little bit, and they you're jerking off, and then you write a bit more. To me, that's a waste of energy.
P. 153, Chapter 5, Partners in Fear
An absolutely fascinating series of candid interviews King gave, ranging from 1979 through 1987. If [b:On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft|10569|On Writing A Memoir of the Craft|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1436735207s/10569.jpg|150292] is more polished, more current and probably at the end of the day the better read, I would submit that these interviews might actually represent a better view into the mind of ol' Steve-o, at least at the time he gave them.
And yes, I chose the two quotes above largely because (a) I thought they were instructive and (b) I am curious as hell to find out if he still agrees with either or both of them. To my mind he probably still agrees with the first in a qualified sense and disagrees with second. Else why didn't he inquire over the obviously chapped and calloused state of George RR Martin's sadly abused member during this evening they spent together? Or such would be an logical inference from the above, as ol' GRRM is now edging toward a decade since the last installment in A Song of Ice and Fire series. Or perhaps GRRM is ordering lotion by the crate? But, nope, all King does is praise Martin's writing to the skies.
As to the former -- and far more interesting quote -- I think it presents in very short form what we can still describe as King's greatest strengths and weaknesses. To this day. His books tend to ramble, his characters tend to not be particularly memorable (except when they truly are...), but damn, the man can spin a tale, usually. (The less said of a mess like [b:Rose Madder|10619|Rose Madder|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1375870513s/10619.jpg|833191] the better.) With King it is indeed story. At his best the reader is grabbed by their short and curlies and yanked along forcibly, at worst we get a six year old's shaggy dog story (somewhere in the middle volumes of the The Dark Tower books, yes I'll speak that blasphemy.)
What I do wish I'd bothered to unearth were some of his quotes about how he'd never disliked anything he'd ever published. How he disliked right-wing Jerry Falwell like censorship, and so on. And there were several such sprinkled throughout these interviews. Yet bend the knee to censorship he did with [b:Rage|66370|Rage|Richard Bachman|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1299003176s/66370.jpg|1657128]. So, clearly his views have "evolved" through the years, to the point where only right wing censorship is bad. I suppose we're all hypocrites in our own way. Just wish King would at least be honest in his hypocrisy.
Finally, his view of [b:Pet Sematary|33124137|Pet Sematary|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1480069533s/33124137.jpg|150017] was interesting, as he was downright ambivalent about how it ended. He didn't find it optimistic. And didn't like that. That I never knew; I've certainly not heard that view expressed elsewhere.
The presentation as transcripts of interviews that other reviewers have found tended toward repetition and discursion I actually never found that way. King is one hell of an interesting interviewee, far moreso than most authors or most anybodys.