At 260 pages, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon is shorter than the typical King novels. The book also has a very simple concept. The first 40-pages provide a basic introduction to the novel's main plotline.
"Plot is, I think, the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice."
Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft
I am a late arrival to Stephen King's books. I think he gets a bad rap sometimes. I never really had a desire to read any of King's novels when I was younger because I had a preconceived perception that he only wrote graphic horror novels.
Right now I am reading Blaze and earlier this year I read Cell and Misery. All of them are very good, but I notice a very different writing style compared to some of my other favorites like Tess Gerritsen, Lisa Scottoline and Michael Connelly.
My efforts to write fiction are often criticized for providing too many details. Astounding character details and in depth description of setting are King's strengths. If you believe what you read on certain writing "guru" websites and forums, you would wonder how the man ever had even one best seller -- let alone fifty. In his memoir, King explains that he prefers to focus on the characters and let the plot take care of itself. I realize we can't all be Stephen King, but I think the man makes a point. He prefers to put the characters in a situation and let them work their way out of it.
Would you rather write predictable, cookie-cutter novels, or would you prefer one-of-a-kind storylines set in unpredictable surroundings and presented with unforeseen circumstances?
I started reading Cell last night. I've only read the first two chapters, but so far it's been difficult getting started. The first two chapters in this book by Stephen King is in direct stylistic contrast to 4th of July, the James Patterson novel I finished earlier in the week.
King uses a lot of narration to "set-up" the novel and provide the proper context for events through the point of view of Clayton Riddell on the streets of Boston. Whereas the James Patterson work was chapter after short chapter of non-stop action, the point of view in the first two chapters of Cell bogs me down.
It's a good lesson for me. I gravitate toward a narrative style versus a "tellling" point of view and reading these novels back to back has taught me how much I dislike it.
My latest reading assignment is Stephen King's Misery. I saw the movie while in college, but I don't remember much about it except that it starred Kathy Bates and James Cann. I need to watch it again.
The book really has only two main characters, Annie Wilkes, a former nurse; and Paul Sheldon, a fiction writer. I have not read many Stephen King books, but I've really enjoyed Misery.
King has intertwined a lot of information about how writers approach the writing process into the storyline. He talks about the "gotta" factor in a book that makes the reader "gotta" read just "20 more minutes" and if the book is really good, he explains that readers will sacrifice almost anything to continue reading the story to find out what happens to their favorite characters.
I've noticed the "gotta" factor at work first hand. In most books, I start out reading slowly at first for the first several chapters. It's a chore to get through the first few chapters to learn about the background for the story's main characters and what makes them unique.
While reading Misery I really picked up the pace after about 180 pages, which is roughly half way through. By that point in the book I began to postulate on the eventual outcome of the story. I've stayed up until past midnight the last two evenings speeding toward the climax ending.
Although I'm sure I'll be wrong, guessing what's going to happen versus what really happens is half the fun.
