Stephen King Fans discussion
The King Himself
>
How would you react if SK was a name for ghost writers?
date
newest »
newest »
I liked Dr. Sleep (though I could've lived without it. The Shining needed no improvement or sequel, but I didn't hate it.), but I would like to find the person who actually wrote Mr. Mercedes and treat them to a nice hit and run with an ice-cream truck playing Pop Goes The Weasel. I refuse to believe that Stephen King actually wrote it.
I would be disappointed but at the same time I would be impressed by the dedication from the actor thats been portraying him for decades.
Becky wrote: "I liked Dr. Sleep (though I could've lived without it. The Shining needed no improvement or sequel, but I didn't hate it.), but I would like to find the person who actually wrote Mr. Mercedes and t..."I have to admit that I was tempted to think the same thing Becky. It didn't feel like a King book much of the time. The only thing is that there were the little catch phrases he tends to use through out a book. I can't recall what was used in Mr. Mercedes but I know there were some anyway. I was underwhelmed too.
As to the question about Stephen King being a ghost name, if it were to happen I would no longer be quick to buy new releases without question.
Catherine wrote: "The only thing is that there were the little catch phrases he tends to use through out a book. I can't recall what was used in Mr. Mercedes but I know there were some anyway. I was underwhelmed too."I know. I said as much in the comments of my review. It has his style all over it, but it was a complete phone-in, if you ask me. By far the worst he's ever written in my opinion. I really only wish it had been ghost-written.
It would be disappointing and I wouldn't be as quick to buy his books anymore like I do now.
This whole thread is too close to heresy for me and now I have to go and shower to get the dirt off.
Seems impossible, too many writerly quirks, turns of phrase, favorite idioms; maybe some of the books after Joyland, but it still I don't think so.
Mod
I honestly don't think Stephen King would ever use a ghost writer. Just my opinion but I think the man has too much talent and integrity and would never do that to his readers.
I know its just harmless musing but can't help an impish comment, Seeing how much the quality varies across his career, after one drink too many he surely wishes he could wash his hands of a couple of them by saying there is a band of ghost writers involved.
What would be really cool is if the ghost writers were the characters themselves, who are all as real as us.So Misery was really written by Paul Sheldon, The Shining by Jack Torrance.
And the creepiest one - IT as written by Pennywise...
;-)
Great question. I would be very surprised if that was the case. King can't help but put himself into his narration.
I'd feel duped, nevertheless.
Angelo wrote: "What would be really cool is if the ghost writers were the characters themselves, who are all as real as us.[-] And the creepiest one - IT as written by Pennywise..."
CREEPY... IT written by Pennywise - that sent shivers down my spine
; p
Maybe Pet Semetary was written by Rachel Creed; or better yet, Victor Pascow! ;DIt'd be nice to think King wasn't responsible for the trash of the expanded version of The Stand; that he's above such a horrible vanity project, but probably not.
I would be shocked! The manpower needed and the secrecy required over so many years would be astounding!The greatest shock, however, would be if he were not just a ghostwriter, but a "ghost" writer.
Chris wrote: "Well Revival was great, but you should be slapped upside the head for Doctor Sleep lol :pSeriously though....I would be incredibly disappointed because Stephen King has been a huge inspiration fo..."
Sorry to reply to an old post, but I think he wrote Mr. Mercedes, I just think he was trying to show a little range and step away from the supernatural for a novel. I also think he was looking for literary awards which he got with the Edgars Award. My opinion. I still liked it.
Ben wrote: "Several decades ago, I thought Stephen King was Ghost -Writing for his wife Tabitha."I like Tabby's books that I have read and definitely see some similarities in their writing, but also very big differences.
Mod
I think that I would go into a state of perpetual mourning and eventually my soul would become an empty sack destined for nothingness.
I would cry in despair and then admit I believe in ghosts.
Erin wrote: "It would be disappointing and I wouldn't be as quick to buy his books anymore like I do now."Same here. One thing that would REALLY enrage me would be to discover that I had been conned all these years.
Angie wrote: "Honestly I would be pretty ticked. I can't stand authors who use ghost writers."Me too. You just wonder, don't you (King aside here), how many of these big names actually DO avail themselves of the discreet services of ghost writers occasionally. It is a horrid thought.
We can all relax. King would never use a ghost writer. He has said so on many occasions and expressed his disgust with people who do use ghost writers. The man has way too much yankee pride and integrity to stoop to something so low.
Jake wrote: "We can all relax. King would never use a ghost writer. He has said so on many occasions and expressed his disgust with people who do use ghostwriters. The man has way too much yankee pride and int..."Glad to hear that. I believe him, and some of his works are just too quirky to have been written by someone else (Revival for one). If there was a "studio" of King writers - the way the painters used to do it during the renaissance - I think I'd stop reading him altogether.
Jake wrote: "We can all relax. King would never use a ghost writer. He has said so on many occasions and expressed his disgust with people who do use ghost writers. The man has way too much yankee pride and int..."Well said Jake!
I'm not sure how I'd feel, it would be a shame to see the body of work written by a group of randoms. But I don't think it wouldn't make sense; the writers could easily have a file of SK favourites to sprinkle into every story to throw off the scent ;-)No matter what anyone says, The Stand (expanded) is fantastic, and I really liked Doctor Sleep (especially loved the first half). It would suck if he didn't write them.
Hm, very interesting question. My reactions? 1- disbelief.
2- denial.
3- anger.
4- frustration.
5- annoyance.
6- depression.
7- devastation.
One of my favorite authors was a fraud? In the end I’d be disappointed at how easily I was sucked into the whole con. And I would not only never purchase another Stephen King book, I’d probably try and sell off my whole collection. Oh, and I’d have to cancel my advance order for If It Bleeds.
Rick wrote: "Hm, very interesting question. My reactions? 1- disbelief.
2- denial.
3- anger.
4- frustration.
5- annoyance.
6- depression.
7- devastation.
One of my favorite authors was a fraud? In the e..."
I think you have it just about right. Although I've enjoyed quite a bit of Shakespeare without being sure if he was who the history books tell us he was.
Folks have asked this before and the same answer applies: No way, no how. They would never get the mood right, get the way Derry "feels" or bring the characters into the room with you.BTW, I enjoyed MR Mercedes and Finders Keepers was completely awesome. My opinion, but there it is.
I would be very offended. I wouldn't read any of his books anymore. There is an author that I do wonder about. Amy Cross. I just can't help but wonder if it is one person, or many, that write Amy Cross books.
Nick wrote: "I think you have it just about right. Although I've enjoyed quite a bit of Shakespeare without being sure if he was who the history books tell us he was. “I agree with you there, and if I was coming from a historical perspective on King, I’d feel the same way. It’s different for me when it’s something that’s being written while I’m reading it, while I’m invested in the author. I’d feel like the victim of a con game, that I’d been given fraudulent information and was taken advantage of. From a historical perspective it isn’t personal. Does that make sense?
Rick wrote: "Nick wrote: "I think you have it just about right. Although I've enjoyed quite a bit of Shakespeare without being sure if he was who the history books tell us he was. “I agree with you there, and..."
Makes perfect sense Rick. But so does Michael. If the book is great it's great regardless of who wrote it. Still, I would feel like I was being conned if a group of authors got together and started cranking work out to a formula.
And that’s, at least for me, the problem. King has troupes and conventions that he uses, but he doesn’t really write through a formula. At least not like many other bestselling novelists that DO use ghost writers and co-authors to crank out their material (I refuse to name names).
The more I think about it, the more I think it wouldn't change anything for me. I love his books. Period. If they ended up not being really his books how would that change how I feel about them? I would probably stop collecting and ordering special editions, but I would enjoy the stories the same as I do now.
I'd be shattered and probably would never read another book.
Seriously though....I would be incredibly disappointed because Stephen King has been a huge inspiration for me in my own writing. He was the first author I started reading that didn't write specifically for children. To find out it was all a lie would shatter my illusions. I'd still enjoy the books that I grew up with and loved....but it wouldn't be with the same enthusiasm as once before.