Links and Stuff
It’s the end of September. How are we all doing with our goals for the year? A few months back I resolved to write a short story per month. Granted, that’s hardly a year-goal since I only started it at the beginning of Summer. But I have a few stories written, though my September story may have to be finished up at the beginning of October. But that’s okay. The point was to light a fire under my behind to get some saleable writing done. I need to start treating my writing more like a second job (at least until it becomes the primary job), and giving more time to it. Maybe after the move. Speaking of which…
… we are at a critical juncture in the house situation. We’ve had inspections done (house, pest, and HVAC), and while there are some things that need attending to, on the whole the assessments were good. We’re asking the seller to take care of the more costly items, so whether or not they do could be a deal-breaker for us. And so we await the seller’s response with bated breath… I’ll keep you all posted! Now to this week’s links.
It seems James Patterson planned to write a novella in his “Book Shots” series called THE MURDER OF STEPHEN KING, in which the famed horror writer is haunted by a stalker who re-enacts scenes from his books. However, once Patterson learned that King had had some actual, real-life death threats, he pulled the book, not wishing to cause distress to Mr. King and his family. Mr. Patterson claims to be a fan of King’s work, but King has apparently called Mr. Patterson “a terrible writer.” Mr. Patterson dismisses this as “hyperbole.” I’ve not read any of James Patterson’s work, but when it comes to criticism of fellow writers, Stephen King is not given to hyperbole. Sorry, James, but I don’t think the fandom is mutual. Maybe even less so now!
Speaking of Stephen King, this is an interesting article about How Stephen King Made Pop Culture Weird. The author contends that television and movies–particularly TV–have trended toward the “weird” (e.g., “Stranger Things” and “True Detective”) in recent years, and the popularity of Stephen King is largely to blame. King has been producing weird books since before it was fashionable to be odd, and now King’s brand of odd is becoming mainstream. Whether the stories are scary and horrible, or just a bit mind-bending, it is to King’s credit that he still has such a cultural impact, and has a style that still appeals to a large number of people. So much so that now TV and movies have to have a Stephen King-type spin to captivate an audience.
Finally, it was announced this week that Disney is re-making “The Lion King.” If this re-make is along the same lines as the re-make of “The Jungle Book” (i.e., live action), I’m not sure exactly how this is going to work. There are no humans in “The Lion King,” so they would be effectively re-animating it, only this time with life-like CGI. Or maybe they plan to use real lions and hyenas? My main question with this, however, is WHY? It seems such a blatant attempt to squeeze more money out of the story. What is it about the original animated story that is lacking? It still looks good to me! It can’t be that Disney is running out of movie ideas, can it? A while ago I wrote about the fact Hollywood seems to be making more and more movies based on novels. Now they’re resorting to remaking 20-year-old movies because… they can? I say let the original movies stand the way they are, and devote your energies to new projects, new ideas.
That’s all I’ve got. How about you? How do you feel about the Disney re-makes, and the popularity of movie adaptations of books? Do you think movie makers are becoming lazy when it comes to storytelling?
No, no! Don’t tell me Lion King is 20 years old!
sigh….where did the time fly? And what a thought-provoking article about pop culture and Stephen King. It’s all about the chicken and the egg isn’t it? The public was ready to receive something weird and King was in the right place at the right time with the right brain-thoughts. He tapped into something deep.
Good luck on the continuing unfolding of the house saga. I’d forgotten how exhausting it could be. I have a new neighbor across the street. Moved in over the weekend. Yesterday he was already putting new shutters on the house. Wow. Wish I were handy like that. I still have half a kitchen wall to scrub wallpaper-adhesive off of a month later! Took my daughter and me 2 hours to do the first half. blech.
I know! Time flies… I think the lesson for us all with Stephen King is not to be afraid to be ourselves. Don’t write for a market; write what you love, even if it’s a bit strange, or out-of-step with what everyone else is doing. You may get lots of rejections, or you may be a trend-setter. Either way, you’ll sleep better at night. 🙂
Thanks for the well-wishes, Lisa. This limbo period is the most frustrating, much like waiting to hear back on queries. Hopefully we’ll be able to move ahead soon.
The Patterson/King story is quite interesting.
As for The Lion King’s remake, I too have to ask “Why?”
Why indeed, though I don’t doubt money has something (a lot?) to do with it. After all, you know loads of people will go to see it just to see what it’s like. I just think of all the millions Disney will pour into this project as opposed to developing something fresh and new… or maybe feeding the hungry… 🙂
Looking at the Stephen King article, I am just not persuaded he’s that *fundamental* a force, culturally speaking. A great force, yes – but this writer clearly hasn’t sampled a wide variety of entertainment before the 1980s. The name Rod Serling leaps nimbly, if not actually aggressively, to mind here. The Outer Limits. Heck, even The Monkees, Lost in Space, and the Batman television show were cradles of pop cultural weirdness, and even a certain kind of horror, especially the latter. Torture was the order of the day in that cartoonish, camp outing. Even in the article itself, King’s own citations of his inspirations – which the writer clearly has not actually read – display plentiful weirdness and off-kilter obsessions.
I’m always annoyed at the idea that any given cultural/social construct was invented recently. The 20th century is particularly rife with illusions of recency, and it’s all predicated on the idea that (a) humanity actually changes and (b) evolution itself is heading toward some sort of whig-historical idea of greatness. Balderdash.
People have been bizarre since we’ve been people. The weirdness of our psyches is plain to see going back thousands of years, with even a casual acquaintance with history and the arts.
Are you saying we’re all weird? I represent that remark! 😉
What you say is true, and from what I’ve read, King knows that he is the product of those who went before, the horror/suspense comics and stories and movies of the Fifties and Sixties that used to tickle his creative sensibilities. Of course, he has his own particular take on things. He’s not merely regurgitating the past; he has digested the past and repackaged it in his own style, which is clearly very popular. Perhaps it would be better to credit him not so much with inventing weird, but with giving permission to others to be weird, just as The Twilight Zone and Lovecraft did for him.
Akuna matata! (I have no idea how to spell that) but the Lion King was my daughters favorite movie and we played the CD ad nauseum in the vehicle anytime we went somewhere. She’s going to love knowing it’s being remade b/c the grandkids are a great age to (especially Payton) to watch it.
All of these remakes/do overs of popular movies or shows (MacGyver – are you KIDDING me) is almost comical. Can’t anyone think of anything new? Oh wait, says the writer who keeps coming up with components of old stuff she’s written about before.
🙂
Ha! Well, I think there’s a difference between recycling old ideas to create something new, and simply adapting or remaking an “old” book or movie. With the first, you are actually attempting to write a new story, even if you’re utilizing old tropes and old ideas to create the new thing (think of these “old” components as ingredients in a recipe–the end result can be new and exciting, even if the ingredients are common and much-used). Remakes and adaptations have the plot and characters handed to them, so all that initial invention is already done. I’m not saying there isn’t creativity involved in the script writing and animation/acting, but if you’ve seen the original, or read the book, you already know the story. And more often than not, the remake/adaptation isn’t nearly as good as the original.
That said, have you started mentally casting the DIXIE DUPREE movie? 😉