Ehhh, there's different methods of writing comics. Some rely more on the writer, some on the artist. A good team allows for both their strenghts-- i doubt an aritist would want their work dictated down to the last detail.
The other end of what you're suggesting is the old Marvel Method: writer writes a story outline, artist does the art and leaves dialogue balloons, writer fills in the diaglogue. Worked for Lee and Kirby, doubt it would for anyone else.

See you, space cowboy.

~~~~~~~~~

"Shared pain is lessened, shared joy is increased, and thus do we refute entropy."-- Spider Robinson

http://lon.blogspot.com -- Its a slightly less eloquent me.

Until Joel Schumacher directs Spider-Man 3, Make Mine Marvel!

I whole-heartedly agree that Gaiman is an immensely better writter and story teller when compared to Stephen King. The marketing idea though, was a good one. Not because Stephen King is a good writter, but because he is that well known and seen as a great one. A lot of people believe him to be the best, but that's because they haven't read a really good read. Stephen King is read because he's popular. There's nothing wrong with using his name to draw people into the light of a really good book that can be read dozens of times over, and still put a smile on the reader's face.

...or maybe I get a bit too worked up over a good book and am too picky? O-o;

King isn't just read because he's popular. His books aren't really great literature, but he can tell a story and tell it well.

See you, space cowboy.

~~~~~~~~~

Those who are different must stand united!

"Shared pain is lessened, shared joy is increased, and thus do we refute entropy."-- Spider Robinson
http://lon.blogspot.com -- Its a slightly less eloquent me.

Oh, and i'm sure "he's read by lots of people becuase he's popular" is some sort of logical phallacy, though at this point its true. It just sounds weird if you think about it...

See you, space cowboy.

~~~~~~~~~

Those who are different must stand united!

"Shared pain is lessened, shared joy is increased, and thus do we refute entropy."-- Spider Robinson
http://lon.blogspot.com -- Its a slightly less eloquent me.

But King my big fat hairy arse!!!!!
there are two people in this world who I believe are avastly over rated writhers one is king the other is Shakespear. king because he goes over the top man who needs to know that muxh about a chair?? and shakespear don't even get me started that waste of space!!!!!
in my opinion Gaiman beats both hands down but then again so do most people!!

I'd argue with you, but you're obviously either a 13 year old boy or an idiot (or both), so trying to debate the merits of Shakespere with you is pointless.

(In other words, come back when you get some grammer)

See you, space cowboy.

~~~~~~~~~

I am a hunter of peace, chasing the mayfly known as love. -- Vash the Stampede

"Shared pain is lessened, shared joy is increased, and thus do we refute entropy."-- Spider Robinson
http://lon.blogspot.com -- Its a slightly less eloquent me.

*gives evil look at LON*
Lon, c'mon now.

Sorry. I could have been polite, but i really didn't feel like it. If you want, i can edit the post...

See you, space cowboy.

~~~~~~~~~

I am a hunter of peace, chasing the mayfly known as love. -- Vash the Stampede

"Shared pain is lessened, shared joy is increased, and thus do we refute entropy."-- Spider Robinson
http://lon.blogspot.com -- Its a slightly less eloquent me.

quote:

Originally posted by Marvinmarymac:
Did you read the same Dark Tower as me? I started the first book last week and I really am not seeing the point. Maybe its just the start of it but it seems to be quite badly written, apart from anything else. If I handed up stuff that quality I'd be chucked off my course. I know he can write better than that, having read a lot of his stuff over the past two summers. I'm also pretty sure that Neil Gaiman has, apart from anything else, a lot better grasp of the language and narrative structure. On the other hand, its probably unfair to compare them. Go re-read the first Dark Tower book, re-read American Gods, and then tell me that King is better. And as far as the gunslingers of the Dark Tower stuff goes, David Gemmell does it better in the Shannow novels.

Take in mind that King was 19 when he started The Gunslinger, also I highly recommend you start The Drawing of The Three.

I haven't read very much of king(honestly I only sorta like his movies and the only book of his i ever read all the way through was everything's eventual) but I gotta say neither one is really -better- as a writer in general. I think Neil is more creative and keeps his fantasy stuff reality based, I also think Gaiman's charecters are more relatable and personal, where the few King stories in Everything's Eventual were darker, and theres a word I want to use, but i don't know if it works, they were better excersize, I guses. Since it is difficult for me to read in general, the excersize was good, but I guess for other people it would be something else entirely.

Stephen King makes sure to drop in tons of references to songs by Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen, thus keeping many of my favorite songs constantly in my head and giving me insights into the plots/characters

Tori references don't do it for me the same way, though the occasional Elvis Costello ref does

I read King a great deal in middle school and high school, and I definately prefer Neil. Not that King is bad, but I have a few points against him.
Many of his main characters are authors. (The Shinning, It, Misery, etc.) I find this more than a little masturbatory. Secondly, his books are heavily homophobic.
Also, I think he goes back and retreads his early ideas too much. (He's done the haunted car thing several times, for example.)
I haven't read "Dark Tower," though, so I can't comment on that work. At the time, I liked "Eye of the Dragon," but it doesn't compare to Neil's work.

My favorite Steven King book is Salem's lot. I read that when I was eleven,and even now at eighteen I still am shocked at how scary and interesting it is. I like his short stories, like The Mist, and the Raft (after reading the raft I was getting the creeps when I'd go out in my kayak). I've read mostly all his books and I enjoy them. I wouldn't put him on par with Neil and his Sandman works, but I do like the things he has written.

quote:

Originally posted by Lone Phoenix:
Secondly, his books are heavily homophobic.

Out of interest, how do you mean this? I can't remember that many gay characters in his books (apart from the one who's killed horribly in IT, and there it's the characters who are homophobes). Then again, it's been years since I read any King.

Personally I think that King at his best is a very good storyteller. King at his worst relies way too much on clichés, cheap shock effects and the same motifs over and over and over again.

Yeah, Gaiman is really way better'n King. I quite enjoyed the first three or four books of Kings Dark Tower but the rest of them seemed quite forced and you shouldn't open most of the other books he wrote.
Gaiman on the other hand is very, very good. His books make sense and seem much more 'real' for me. Good Omens with Terry Pratchett is genuine (I'm Pratchett fan, too ) and so is AG. King never wrote something as good.

I have to disagree, but I think it’s unfair at this point. The only book by Neil so far, that I had the “awe” feeling was with American Gods. King had three for me: The Stand, Pet Semetary, and It.

I think Gaiman will reach that 3 books that awe me point, but he just hasn’t written enough, yet. Sorry, but Good Omens, Stardust and Neverwhere haven’t done it yet, even though they are all good. When Neil does, I’ll consider him an equal to King.

One thing of note, King has written a lot more garbage than Neil, but again, he has written more work. I’m sure Neil will have a few duds in him before his time is done, as every author does.

I would say, though, at this point in Neil’s career compare to a similar point in King’s career as consistency of work, and literary notoriety. Neil has a chance to be as good as King or better, and whatever you King bashers may think, that’s a hell of a complement.

Disclaimer: I've only read the first three posts in this thread.

Okay, well, Neil Gaiman is my favorite living author, no doubt about it, and I have long been defending him against the hordes of Stephen King fans who darken the earth. But the fact was i'd never read any King. Finally a friend, who is also a huge Gaiman fan, convinced me to read The Dark Tower series. I. Was. Amazed. The first book was good, a little off, but only because it was early on in his career (I didn't read the new edition), and the following books just kept getting better and better. I read the entire series in about a month. Long story short, I was hugely dissapointed with the ending, but I felt that the prose was some of the best i'd read in a long time from a contemporary novelist. He isn't as good as Neil Gaiman, but he's nothing to sneer at.

I've read quite a lot of King and have enjoyed most of it.

Frankly, I think that Gaiman is one of the best writers we have today. King is excellant but I don't think he's quite there.

For one thing, King once said something to the effect that, if he couldn't scare you to death, he would gross you out. In other words, if he can't get you with quality, he'll get you with gratuitous additives. The problem there is that he is quite capable of getting you with quality and the gratuitous additives simply reduce the quality. Therefore, his writing isn't nearly as good as it could be.

As best I can tell, Gaiman's writing is almost pure. I have a hard time finding anything out of place (and even then, I could be wrong).

BTW, Gaiman has written quite a lot if you include his comics and most of that is nothing short of exquisite.

First, as a disclaimer, I've never read any of the Dark Tower books (or King's short stories.) After reading this thread, maybe I'll give it a go.

It's hard to compare authors, and I haven't read all of Neil's work, and certainly not all of King's. Still, from what I've read, I like Neil better, which is to say that at his best I like him better than King at his best (from what I've read) and at his worse, I don't want to throttle him as much as I want to throttle King at his worst.

King can write a great suspenseful setup perhaps better than anyone I've ever read. He really has an amazing raw storytelling ability. Neil can write descriptive little vignettes (I'm thinking of the American Gods interludes, and bits of Sandman) better than anyone.

Both seem to struggle a bit making the voices of their characters unique and distinct from their own. Neil does this mostly with main characters; members of the supporting cast, especially the eccentric or unusual ones, are handled better. King slips into this all over the place, with far too many characters sounding like the generic King voice, regardless of generation, personality, or origin.

Neil's use of language is cleaner. While King can write extremely tight for big scenes, in the middle parts, his language gets really sloppy. You might get a sentence like "He wasn't just scared of her, he was scared for her." And you really just wish his editor had sat him down and told him to pick the appropriate preposition and not dither about casting aimlessly for it.

Both seem to write organically, by which I mean they don't seem to use lots of pre-determined structures or pre-planned plotting. They just follow the story where it goes. With Neil, this can be frustrating if he's writing a serendipidous journey story, like Neverwhere, or Stardust, or Mirrormask, where the protagonist finds the right clue at the right time to open the blue door and then is on to the next thing. When it isn't handled carefully, the story comes across as arbitrary. On the other hand, King, for all his ability to brilliantly suck you into a story with great setup after great setup, he struggles with his endings, finding a way to bring it all together and tie things up in some meaningful way (I'm looking at you, IT.) Rarely do I find myself emotionally satisfied by a King climax (heh) or ending. Neil seems to go in with some underlying kernel of purpose behind his works that allows him to work things out more naturally, and you don't feel like he got to page X and had to find SOME way to end it (which is how King usually leaves me feeling.)

King tends to annoy me more than Neil, because King is a really great storyteller, and I just feel that if he'd spent a little more time tightening his language and working out the problems with his endings, he could be really amazing. I feel like Neil needs a bit of prodding to keep him on track, whereas King needs a few good thumpings on general principle.

But, as I said, I haven't read any Dark Tower novels, and if that's truly his best stuff, it's an unfair comparison. As much as I love American Gods, it still pales to the lightning in 75 bottles that was Sandman.

(Truth be told, I thought King's Insomnia was so extremely crappy that I just haven't wanted to read him since.)

But I will say that I think both are extremely talented, and I'm really quite happy to have some excellent books by both.