wrote in message
...
Joy wrote:

My theory about Stephen King is that he's an exception, and can do
whatever
he wants. His books badly, *badly* need editing, but why would his
publisher pay an editor? His books are going to be bestsellers no
matter
what's in them.

Many of King's books have been big ones, although none as big as this
one.
I'm well into it now, and, while it isn't at all what I was expecting
(at
least not so far), it's holding my interest as most of his books do, and
not
grossing me out as much as many of them.

I wasn't talking so much about the size, but rather the redundancy of
his wording. He'll use 3 metaphors to describe something when one would
do just fine. I know he likes to write in a conversational tone, which
is one of the things that makes his books appealing, but that doesn't
mean he has to ramble on.

About 10 or 15 years ago there was a trend of celebrities getting gigs
reading books for audio recordings. These weren't like Books On Tape,
because they were abridged. This is usually objectionable, but not with
Stephen King's books. I remember one book, "Desperation", from 1995 or
so. The physical book was over 700 pages, but I had the audio book. The
cuts they made for the audiobook made it into a reasonable-length story.


Incidentally, a couple of Isaac Asimov's books were pretty large, and he
refused to use a computer or word processor.

I didn't know that. Asimov, one of the masters of "hard" science
fiction, a Luddite?

--
Joyce

Yes, very much so. He even refused to fly. He wouldn't travel anywhere
unless he could go by train and take his typewriter with him. He 'had' to
spend at least six hours a day writing.

Joy