There’s a disturbing trend I’ve noticed among many aspiring writers. It’s something I first noticed in my own attitude as a writer, but it’s appeared throughout my peers. Often, writers in general form a Stephen King, John Grisham or Janet Evanovich complex. I shudder to think what a James Frey complex would look like.

In addition to reading their favorite author’s work, new writers can have a tendency to use that author’s success as an excuse for their own.

When asked about plans after college, writers tend to use Stephen King as a textbook example of getting noticed while simultaneously working a college-trained job as a teacher.

But these fans can overlook how Stephen King lived in a trailer between college and “Carrie.” Or how J.K. Rowling was poverty-level poor before “Harry Potter” bore best-seller gold. These same experiences clearly influenced and amplified the authors’ works, and therein many aspiring writers miss the message — the first-hand experience of a writer is as important, if not more so, than his or her skill or talent.

New writers also should be encouraged to look at their favorite authors objectively and critically, at least in regards to their own writing style. What makes King’s “It” work and where does it fail? This process isn’t about having the right opinions, it’s about using critical thinking to improve one’s own writing skills.

Think about the mistakes your favorite authors make in their plot, stories and style, and try to avoid them. Develop your own strengths, and original weaknesses will come soon enough.

Every day I strive to have a Richard Pulfer complex. He’s a bit of a pain, but he has his moments. Everyone should do the same — have your own complex (but not my complex — one Richard Pulfer is more than enough). Because in the world of writing, there is nothing sincere or flattering about any form of imitation.