# How is Stephen King's "On Writing"?



## chunkyleechong (May 19, 2007)

It was recommended to me. Is it worth reading?


----------



## Krim (May 19, 2007)

Yes.


----------



## valeca (May 19, 2007)

The search function is your friend.  

Here.

And here.

I know there are others, but that should get you started.


----------



## Banzai (May 20, 2007)

It's worth reading as an autobiography, but it is not a writing guide. It's King explaining how _he_ writes, and what he thinks about the craft. If you go into it with the wrong expectations then you'll be disappointed.


----------



## Rob (May 20, 2007)

It's not the best book of its kind that I've read if you're looking for something to help you improve your writing, but we all come at writing from different backgrounds, with different abilities, and with different experience, so what works for you may differ from what works for me. It won't do you any harm, but don't expect too much from any single book.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## Mike C (May 21, 2007)

Rob said:
			
		

> It's not the best book of its kind that I've read...



I'd tend to disagree, because King doesn't set out to teach you to write. It's one man's perspective. My opinion of the 'how to' books is pretty low, but I found 'On Writing' to be informative and entertaining.


----------



## Stewart (May 22, 2007)

It's probably the most page turning thing he's written.


----------



## starStuff (May 22, 2007)

that is an interesting thought, stewart. that a fiction book he wrote isn't the most page turning thing he wrote, but rather a book on how he writes those books. :-k

i've yet to read it, btw. i just might pick it up (after i finish the other 6 books i've started -- yeah its a bad habit.)


----------



## Stewart (May 25, 2007)

starStuff said:
			
		

> that is an interesting thought, stewart. that a fiction book he wrote isn't the most page turning thing he wrote, but rather a book on how he writes those books. :-k


 
I think it's because it's non-fiction and it's Stephen addressing the reader. For that, I can accept his voice when reading as it's just like a (one-sided) conversation with someone. But, when it comes to his fiction, I just don't think that he has the talent that keeps me interested and, as he has said before, he knows that.


----------



## bexyb (May 27, 2007)

I really enjoyed reading this book. I wouldnt go as far as the most page turning, but definately one of the most, because it gives an insight into the man, and not just the mind. you see him as an actual person. I also found it very informative.:thumbl:


----------



## CaptainFreedom (May 28, 2007)

I think his advise for writing wouldn't work for me.  I like to plan things out instead of just writing whatever comes to mind and throwing out the poop.  I don't think any writer with a real job or life has time for that.

The book was totally funny though.  The best part was at the end when he writes about the time he got hit by a car. 

CF


----------



## TinyMachines (May 28, 2007)

CaptainFreedom said:
			
		

> The best part was at the end when he writes about the time he got hit by a car.


Don't you mean the worst? It's so annoying to hear him whine about it over and over again. Other than that I really liked the book, but he takes it way to personally when someone makes a mistake that harms him. He acts like the person _meant_ to hit him, and everyone knows that isn't the case.


----------



## CaptainFreedom (May 28, 2007)

The guy didn't step on his foot or cut him off in traffic , he turned Stevie's leg into potato salad and almost killed him.  Then he didn't even come visit him or attept to apologize.  I'd say he's jutified in taking it personally.

CF


----------



## Banzai (May 28, 2007)

He does act a bit miffed towards the driver, yes, but I think that's fair since the guy almost killed him. But I did find it amusing when he woke up and saw the guy just sitting there next to him. 
"Is it just a sprain?" 
"Nope, it's definitely broken"
Haha, that made me laugh.


----------



## red lantern (May 30, 2007)

I have heard mixed reviews about that work by King, I must admit I am sort of an on/off fan of his works. I enjoy his books as page turners but I do not find them scary or haunting or shocking - and the ending to the dark tower series made me want to choke him. 

I am reading it now and it is informative and in parts humorous. It does offer some insights but for me personally he does go on a bit about his car accident, no doubt a life changing event but please one chapter is enough


----------



## lauren_1992 (Jun 4, 2007)

Yes. Comes highly recommended from me. I believe that people can't teach you to write, but King shares his writing experience and I think it helps a lot. If you're a King fan, it'll be even more brilliant for you .


----------



## Sundown (Jun 4, 2007)

I agree with what some of the other people on here have said.  It's an interesting read about King, his life, and how he writes.  If you like Stephen King, then I would recommend it. I enjoyed it myself.

~Sundown


----------



## belmont (Jun 4, 2007)

I have the audio book on my ipod. I like to listen to it on shuffle.


----------



## invisible ink (Jun 5, 2007)

I loved it, personally. His writing isn't my style, but I enjoyed learning about his. Very interesting.


----------



## Lise (Jun 6, 2007)

I'm a big fan of Stephen King. I think he is a genious writers - that's an explanation of his success. No other American writer had captured the attention of millions of people. 
All true fans of King must read this book! To least to know better the master of modern literature. Stephen reveals his personality in this book.


By the way, my favourite book is Dolores Claiborne


----------



## Rob (Jun 6, 2007)

Lise said:
			
		

> No other American writer had captured the attention of millions of people.


Don't talk rubbish.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## Stewart (Jun 6, 2007)

Lise said:
			
		

> No other American writer had captured the attention of millions of people.


Oh, let's see. Mark Twain. JD Salinger. Herman Melville. Henry James. John Updike. Philip Roth. Don DeLillo. Cormac McCarthy. Saul Bellow. F. Scott Fitzgerald. Ernest Hemingway. Joseph Heller.

Read some books, would you?




> To least to know better the master of modern literature.


 I think you'll find that King is nowhere approaching the description of "master of modern literature" and acknowledges this himself. He's the greasy burger to the lipsmacking steak of those (and many more) that I listed above.


----------



## BillinNC (Jun 6, 2007)

Best book on writing ever written..


----------



## Lise (Jun 12, 2007)

Ok, guys, may be my statement was too categorical. Don't think that I'm easy-minded, I've read Mark Twain, Don DeLillo, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway from the above list. 

But I don't agree with your "greasy burger to the lipsmacking steak of those", if you do not like him personally - it's your problem (I suppose). 

Don't you see that the majority likes him. Another proof - it's BillinNC who says that it is the best book on writing ever written


----------



## Swift84 (Jun 12, 2007)

Actually, I'll agree with Lise about King being the best modern American writer. But when I say "modern," I'm not including the Modern Period from the early part of the 20th century. I'm referring to the 1970s and onward. I can't think of a single more powerful American writer from that span. (Note: I realize guys like Vonnegut and Salinger were alive during this period; however, their best stuff came out either before King's work or just during the first decade of King's work.)


----------



## Rob (Jun 13, 2007)

Lise said:
			
		

> Don't you see that the majority likes him. Another proof - it's BillinNC who says that it is the best book on writing ever written


Anyone can claim anything.

I´ve read King´s and I´ve read several others and I don´t rate King´s as highly. Still, it´s just an opinion and doesn´t prove a thing. If some people read King´s book and find it useful, great. I do wonder though, when this thread pops up, as it often does here, how many of those who fall over themselves to claim King´s book as ´the best´ have actually read any others, and my suspicion is that few have. Also, I find a lot of people rate the first decent how-to book they ever read as great, even if they´ve read good ones since, perhaps because being all new they tend to learn more from the first decent book they find.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## Stewart (Jun 13, 2007)

Lise said:
			
		

> But I don't agree with your "greasy burger to the lipsmacking steak of those"


That's fine. I'll reinforce it by saying that while he has the skill to put together a novel, he has little skill with words - how they sound, how they shape something on the page. That's where my gastronomical comparison comes in - King has a cloth-ear for English. 



> if you do not like him personally - it's your problem (I suppose).


It would be hard not to like him personally, given that I don't know him personally. But I don't personally like his work as my review of his latest, _Lisey's Story_, shows.



> Don't you see that the majority likes him.


I can see that. I would also assert that the majority don't know their arse from their elbow in that they play safe when it comes to reading and no doubt aren't savvy to the myriad alternatives.



> Another proof - it's BillinNC who says that it is the best book on writing ever written


 
That's not proof; that's BillinNC's opinion.


----------



## Lise (Jun 26, 2007)

Stewart said:
			
		

> That's fine. I'll reinforce it by saying that while he has the skill to put together a novel, he has little skill with words - how they sound, how they shape something on the page. That's where my gastronomical comparison comes in - King has a cloth-ear for English.



It's more clear of course.
And I like your gastronomical comparison although I don't agree with it.
It's your opinion.


----------



## Dan (Jun 26, 2007)

Stewart said:
			
		

> Oh, let's see. Mark Twain. JD Salinger. Herman Melville. Henry James. John Updike. Philip Roth. Don DeLillo. Cormac McCarthy. Saul Bellow. F. Scott Fitzgerald. Ernest Hemingway. Joseph Heller.
> 
> Read some books, would you?
> 
> ...


Literature?  No.

Storytelling?  Yes.

There are at least four writers on your list who I count among the most overrated authors I've ever read.  I've noticed over the years that most "great literature" becomes viewed as such with the passage of decades.  In fact, I'd wager a year's pay that if the best works of the authors you listed (and others you didn't) were first released today as popular fiction, they would be the greasy burger to other past steaks.

We see the same "nostalgia effect" with beloved old movies.  I love the classics as much as the next guy, but I also recognize how, even in the greatest of these, the acting and plotting are _horrendous.  _Were they released today as originals, they would get rightly slammed as slop.


----------



## talesofsomething (Jun 27, 2007)

very good!! ^^ although he is biased sometimes, and I personally don't always agree with what he says...but it's a good read. humorous, witty, and such. I would definitely recommend it.


----------



## Stewart (Jun 28, 2007)

Lise said:
			
		

> And I like your gastronomical comparison although I don't agree with it. It's your opinion.


 
Even better than it being my opinion, it's King's own opinion. If your read the introduction in _Different Seasons_ he acknowledges that he's the Big Mac of fiction.


----------



## WordWeaver (Aug 3, 2007)

Stephen King is nowhere near the "modern literary master." As King himself as well as others on this forum have said, He's a master STORYTELLER. There's a difference between writing literature and writing mainstream fiction.

Regardless, I find it to be a very interesting book and I agree with a lot of his points. "You can't make a good writer out of a bad writer, you can't make a great writer out of a good writer; however you can make a good writer out of a competent one." 

I also agree with his advice on horrible books; if you read some of the crap that people publish, it's almost added incentive to get out there and submit material that you know is far better.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 3, 2007)

Stewart said:


> It's probably the most page turning thing he's written.



Haha

My own opinion is that once he gets past his life story, which is more than half the book, the actual writing tips were really damn good.  The man cares about quality, gives copious examples, and isn't afraid to tell you what's great and what sucks.  

Too many people give advice telling you you should "follow your heart" and _**~keep writing~**_ and not pay attention to what critics might say, as if good and bad were merely relative.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 3, 2007)

WordWeaver said:


> I also agree with his advice on horrible books; if you read some of the crap that people publish, it's almost added incentive to get out there and submit material that you know is far better.



I've been using the Harry Potter 7 audiobook for exactly this.  It doesn't take more than 10 minutes for it to whip me into a creative rage.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 3, 2007)

Stewart said:


> Oh, let's see. Mark Twain. JD Salinger. Herman Melville. Henry James. John Updike. Philip Roth. Don DeLillo. Cormac McCarthy. Saul Bellow. F. Scott Fitzgerald. Ernest Hemingway. Joseph Heller.
> 
> Read some books, would you?
> 
> I think you'll find that King is nowhere approaching the description of "master of modern literature" and acknowledges this himself. He's the greasy burger to the lipsmacking steak of those (and many more) that I listed above.



Melville is the five pounds of _fromage bleu_ to King's greasy burger.


----------



## astralis (Aug 3, 2007)

I liked the book.  It demystifies the process of storytelling.  King worked hard to write his stories -- they didn't just appear on the page as it seems when yet another one of his huge books is released.  The only thing disappointing about the book is that he couldn't explain how he wrote a story because he said he didn't know.  He would get ideas, he said, and then start writing.  But he did say earlier in the book that he read tons of stories and still does, as well as writing.  That tells me that he subconsciously deduced the form of storytelling and is able to tell a great story (although I think the major complaint about his ending is a cause of this).  He also admits that learning the craft (reading other works) maximizes talent so that if you have a bit of talent, it can be nurtured.



> There's a difference between writing literature and writing mainstream fiction.


What is the difference?  My opinion is that much of it has to do with marketing and genre classification.  Also, King's endings often leave much to be desired.  I think this is because he doesn't plan his stories and they sometimes lack a controlling idea.  Sometimes he hits it, sometimes he doesn't.  Anne Rice has the same issue, I believe.  His and her endings are a jumble and they seem to rush through them.


----------



## Rob (Aug 3, 2007)

astralis said:


> The only thing disappointing about the book is that he couldn't explain how he wrote a story because he said he didn't know.  He would get ideas, he said, and then start writing.  But he did say earlier in the book that he read tons of stories and still does, as well as writing.  That tells me that he subconsciously deduced the form of storytelling and is able to tell a great story


Yeah, that's the impressive thing about King. He just read a lot and subconsciously deduced the form of storytelling. The fact that he went to university and studied English is not relevant, despite what some people will try to tell you.

I'm a bit like King. When I was a kid I used a lot of electrical equipment, you know, televisions, cassette recorders, that kind of stuff. Through that I deduced how electrical things work, and when I left school I fixed jet aircraft for a living for a number of years, you know, radars, radios, missile control systems, that kind of gumph. I also did a 3 year avionics course, but, you know, we mostly bummed around and drank a lot and chased girls, so it was probably nothing to do with that.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## astralis (Aug 3, 2007)

Agreed.  English classes (including Creative Writing) don't teach you how to write a story.  They stopped doing that in the 1960s and generations since (including King's) have not had the luxury of learning how to write a story.

King's English classes didn't teach him how to write a story at all.  But they did afford him more time to read.

Instead English classes today teach the intrinsics of writing such as character flaws, gender identity, and other details that I believe should be taught after the elements of storytelling are taught.


----------



## Mike C (Aug 3, 2007)

The thing that most impressed me about 'On Writing' is that, unlike every other  how-to book out there, King states that if you're a bad writer, you'll never be a good writer. If you're a good writer, you're unlikely to ever be a great writer. 

Teaching can improve a writer, but only to a degree. King's about the only person I've seen with the guts to say it out loud.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 3, 2007)

Mike C said:


> The thing that most impressed me about 'On Writing' is that, unlike every other  how-to book out there, King states that if you're a bad writer, you'll never be a good writer. If you're a good writer, you're unlikely to ever be a great writer.
> 
> Teaching can improve a writer, but only to a degree. King's about the only person I've seen with the guts to say it out loud.



hear hear


----------



## astralis (Aug 3, 2007)

I think the saying is, "craft maximizes talent".


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 3, 2007)

Did anyone who heard the audiobook notice the part where King talks about George Carlin, then talks _like_ George Carlin for the next ten minutes?  I'm not even sure he did it on purpose.

To me that was a greater insight into the workings of King's mind than anything else.


----------



## WordWeaver (Aug 3, 2007)

Mike C said:


> The thing that most impressed me about 'On Writing' is that, unlike every other how-to book out there, King states that if you're a bad writer, you'll never be a good writer. If you're a good writer, you're unlikely to ever be a great writer.
> 
> Teaching can improve a writer, but only to a degree. King's about the only person I've seen with the guts to say it out loud.


 
He also said that it is possible to turn a competent writer into a good one, so there definately _is_ a learning curve, but you either get it or you don't.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 4, 2007)

Not to imply that I am a better writer than he is, but the idea of Stephen King telling people how to write is like a lemming telling the other lemmings where the cliff is.  

Success does not make one a great writer, but a great writer can become successful.


----------



## Truth-Teller (Aug 4, 2007)

I fucking love that quote.

If you formed it in your own cesspool, all the more better.


----------



## Truth-Teller (Aug 4, 2007)

ClancyBoy said:


> I've been using the Harry Potter 7 audiobook for exactly this. It doesn't take more than 10 minutes for it to whip me into a creative rage.


 
Hahahhahahahahahaha! So true. :king:



Rob said:


> I'm a bit like King. When I was a kid I used a lot of electrical equipment, you know, televisions, cassette recorders, that kind of stuff. Through that I deduced how electrical things work, and when I left school I fixed jet aircraft for a living for a number of years, you know, radars, radios, missile control systems, that kind of gumph. I also did a 3 year avionics course, but, you know, we mostly bummed around and drank a lot and chased girls, so it was probably nothing to do with that.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rob


 
:-s 

King did nothing like that. 

You are not King.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 4, 2007)

"I fucking love that quote.

If you formed it in your own cesspool, all the more better. :smile:"

Which one?


----------



## Rob (Aug 4, 2007)

Truth-Teller said:


> You are not King.


Er, yeah. Just in case anyone here was confused about my post, when I said 'King', I was talking about Stephen King. When I used 'I', I was talking about me.

Truth-Seller is right, I'm not King.

At least, I could be, this is the internet, right? But let's assume I'm not.

Can King fix aircraft? No. Can he hell as like. He's a waster. Spent his whole life telling silly stories, that's all.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 4, 2007)

Edgewise said:


> Not to imply that I am a better writer than he is, but the idea of Stephen King telling people how to write is like a lemming telling the other lemmings where the cliff is.



When people assemble to bash popular writers I'm usually right there with my lead pipe.

In King's case it simply isn't true though.  The man is a brilliant writer, though some of his stuff is better than others, and I think he tried harder in his earlier novels than in some of his later ones. 

The only thing that separates King from writers of so called great literature is his choice of themes.  He is completely _un_pretentious and does not use his gift to try to win awards or impress a small group of literary snobs the way people like Yeats and Joyce do.  In my mind that might even put him a step above.

 I think _The Shining_ in particular is truly great.  It's more a psychological novel that explores the mind of a violent drunken psychopath than it is a thriller.  It's not light reading, not one bit.  If he had continued in that vein for the rest of his career I don't think anyone would have any trouble calling him a great writer.  If he had done that he wouldn't have been nearly as popular though.

Bashing King just because he writes about vampires and aliens and is liked by a large segment of the uncritical drooling public is not really valid criticism of his writing, and is really pretty unsporting.  If you can cite specific flaws that might be something different.


----------



## Mike C (Aug 4, 2007)

Edgewise said:


> Not to imply that I am a better writer than he is, but the idea of Stephen King telling people how to write is like a lemming telling the other lemmings where the cliff is.  .




King taught writing before he became successful. You may not respect his writing in general, but consider two things: Virtually every pro writer I know owns this book, and many have found it inspirational. Plus, every writers forum on earth has an 'On Writing' thread, And I've yet to see anyone say that King's advice is flawed.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 4, 2007)

Rob said:


> He's a waster. Spent his whole life telling silly stories, that's all.



I'm not sure what to make of the juxtaposition of this comment next to the Woody Allen quote in your sig.


----------



## Rob (Aug 4, 2007)

ClancyBoy said:


> I'm not sure what to make of the juxtaposition of this comment next to the Woody Allen quote in your sig.


I don't think the Woody Allen quote has much relevance to the comment, but the comment is best seen in the context of my other comments in the thread.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## Mike C (Aug 4, 2007)

ClancyBoy said:


> The man is a brilliant writer,




Oh dear.



ClancyBoy said:


> The only thing that separates King from writers of so called great literature is his choice of themes.



No, what separates him from writers of great literature is his word choice. You confuse 'theme' with 'subject', also; many literary works have dealt with the same themes as King.



ClancyBoy said:


> He is completely _un_pretentious and does not use his gift to try to win awards or impress a small group of literary snobs the way people like Yeats and Joyce do.



You do know that Yeats and Joyce are dead, right, Nancy?



ClancyBoy said:


> In my mind that might even put him a step above.



So this just has to be irony.

You have me confused, Nance. In other posts you make pretentious noises about wanting to produce 'art' rather then populist mass-market appeal pulp, now here you praise the pulp-meister. Not only praise him, but seem to suggest that he is one of the all-time literary greats.

I don't like King, but he has his place. He's good at what he does. But to compare him favorably to Yeats and Joyce? Even King would laugh in your face.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 4, 2007)

Mike C said:


> You do know that Yeats and Joyce are dead, right, Nancy?



Why do you keep calling me that?  I have I done something to offend you personally?


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 4, 2007)

An open question.

If Yeats turned away from classical themes for whatever reason (he renounced fascism, turned to socialism, and became enamored with the writing of "the people") and turned to writing pulp would he cease to be great?


----------



## Rob (Aug 4, 2007)

ClancyBoy said:


> An open question.
> 
> If Yeats turned away from classical themes for whatever reason (he renounced fascism, turned to socialism, and became enamored with the writing of "the people") and turned to writing pulp would he cease to be great?


If we make this more open and consider a common writer, rather then Yeats, because it doesn't depend on the writer being Yeats: no, I don't think so. A writer achieves greatness through their best works, and the fact that some is of a lower standard or a different type doesn't usually change that. Reputation might suffer, then again it might not. If a common writer turned from whatever made him 'great' in the first place, then became a _successful _writer of pulp fiction, probably no harm.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## Non Serviam (Aug 4, 2007)

What an extraordinary thread.

I enjoyed "On Writing".  I wasn't a great fan of King before I read it; now I'm still not a fan, but I'm more tolerant of his occasional failings.  The book's completely frank about what Stephen King thinks and feels, and it has some deliciously biting sarcasm about writers' workshops that I loved.

It's nice to see straight, nuts-and-bolts writing advice from someone who's actually used these techniques to become an unarguably successful writer.

I think the strength of King's writing comes from the same source as the weaknesses -- he starts off by creating a character that really interests him, sticks the character in a situation that interests him, and then just starts writing to find out what's going to happen.  Which makes for interesting characters and situations at some points in his novels.

Unfortunately he tends to fall back on the same old defaults when he runs out of ideas.

To answer Clancyboy's question I think a writer is usually revered for his best work more than he's vilified for his worst.  Which is a good job for people like Heinlein.


----------



## WordWeaver (Aug 4, 2007)

Edgewise said:


> Not to imply that I am a better writer than he is, but the idea of Stephen King telling people how to write is like a lemming telling the other lemmings where the cliff is.
> 
> Success does not make one a great writer, but a great writer can become successful.


 
He's not telling people how to write; he's telling people what works for him. You can either take it or leave it. He says this many times in this book.


----------



## Truth-Teller (Aug 4, 2007)

And it won't work for any of you.

King's advice is flawed. Who the fuck writes without a plot? This is why he has atrocious endings.

What ending? He _has_ no ending. Haha.


----------



## Truth-Teller (Aug 4, 2007)

All of his endings turns into supernatural hogwash; it all becomes fantasy. He goes out for the cop-out. This is why Jack Ketchum writes better than this fellow. 

If you want to emulate someone (especially a horror writer), emulate Roald Dahl. He is a master of plotting and ending. He makes you forget your reading. Emulate him--and study his works. 

Peruse it.


----------



## Lost in Some Story (Aug 4, 2007)

I agree that King is a brilliant and witty writer. I also agree that King's endings are lacking. I started with "The Shining," which I thought was amazing, but every other work I've read has failed me during the last few chapters.

I thought "On Writing" was good. It's not a true writer's guide by any stretch. The Elements of Style will probably be the only writer's guide that carries weight in my opinion. King does make me laugh though, as he is one of the wittiest writers around. I'd recommend it to anyone.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 4, 2007)

Truth-Teller said:


> And it won't work for any of you.
> 
> King's advice is flawed. Who the fuck writes without a plot? This is why he has atrocious endings.



He makes a decent case for it.

1) Life has no plot.
2) If he doesn't know what's going to happen next, he can't give the ending away by mistake.  This keeps the reader engaged.


----------



## Mike C (Aug 4, 2007)

ClancyBoy said:


> Why do you keep calling me that?  I have I done something to offend you personally?



I just like fucking with you. When you say something dumb, I call you nancy. Consider it shorthand. And to thump your tub about creating 'art', then to cite King as a paragon of that art... that's a Nancy moment.



ClancyBoy said:


> An open question.
> 
> If Yeats turned away from classical themes for whatever reason (he renounced fascism, turned to socialism, and became enamored with the writing of "the people") and turned to writing pulp would he cease to be great?



No - unless the writing became less great also. Consider this: When Orwell tried his hand at SF with 1984, did he become a lesser writer, or did he write one of the defining novels of the 20th century? Ditto Huxley. It has nothing to do with genre, pulp or otherwise; it's about the mind behind the words. 

Changing genres did no more to reduce their greatness than Lisey's Story - King's attempt at 'literary' and called by one British critic the worst book he'd ever read - made King a literary giant.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 9, 2007)

Oh woops.  I confused W.B. Yeats with Ezra Pound.  How did I manage to do that?

It's Pound I find insufferable.  I hate that guy.  Yeats is a-ok with me.


----------



## RonGreen (Aug 9, 2007)

Writing On is definitely worth reading. I liked his advice. I have used it in my writing. It has worked. A lot of the methods he presented I have actually already practiced beforehand. It was just like getting confirmation then.


----------



## jamesdemann (Aug 19, 2007)

Am currently reading On Writing... and discovered it to be very good indeed. He mentions at the start if you are looking for a how to book then it isn't for you. But as an autobiography it is fantasic, and the tips he does give are light hearted and very well written.


----------



## enron1982 (Aug 19, 2007)

ClancyBoy said:


> He makes a decent case for it.
> 
> 1) Life has no plot.
> 2) If he doesn't know what's going to happen next, he can't give the ending away by mistake.  This keeps the reader engaged.



Yeah, i actually beleive a good story isn't plotted from the beginning. It develops through characters and their conflicts. You def. have to have something in mind after a short period of time after you begin, but def. not right away. You let the story write itself; this is the most natural way you can possibly write. With this advice that King gave, he was just handing down information passed on directly from Ray Bradbury. I dare you to call Bradbury a shitty writer, or anything short of genius at that.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Aug 19, 2007)

enron1982 said:


> Yeah, i actually beleive a good story isn't plotted from the beginning. It develops through characters and their conflicts. You def. have to have something in mind after a short period of time after you begin, but def. not right away. You let the story write itself; this is the most natural way you can possibly write.



I've changed my opinion a bit since I posted that.  I agree with King (and Bradbury) that the concept and characters are best when they're "discovered," not plotted.

At some point however I think plot has to take over.  The "natural" way for things to conclude is not necessarily the best way.  That's why King's endings are often criticized as weak. 

Once you've "discovered" to a certain point, you can go back and see what the structure and dynamics of what you've written are.  There will be structure to it, even if you developed it subconsciously.  At that point I think it's a good idea to think about the _best_ way for the book to reach its climax and conclusion, which may not necessarily be the most natural way.


----------



## jamesdemann (Aug 20, 2007)

i never plot my characters...i find it much more realistic to let them go with the flow as you would life. Whent hey find themselves in a situation, I don't look down at my manuel of life and go, right that is how they are supposed to act. I don't ask them 1001 questions either. I plot out basic history...mother father siblings, and a fear or love, and that is far as I go. I don't plot what they do on a weekday, where they like to go shopping, what their fave meal is, for me I think it is a waste of time.
We don't have a manuel for life, we are not told what we should do in a certain situation, and I don't give that burden to my characters, that way I am also suprised by what they do and where they end up. Makes for a much better story in my opinon.

:tongue:


----------



## Kimberly Dawn (Aug 30, 2007)

> King taught writing before he became successful. You may not respect his writing in general, but consider two things: Virtually every pro writer I know owns this book, and many have found it inspirational. Plus, every writers forum on earth has an 'On Writing' thread, And I've yet to see anyone say that King's advice is flawed.



Then let me be the first. Nanowrimo had quite a few writers who thought the book was crap. This the "all" has fallen to some, and some isn't as sturdy as "all". I'll tell you solid reasons why I don't think highly of his advice--though like anything good or bad I say read it anyhow.

What Steven King has is the idea of what mass market publishing is like. But I don't think him a godsend in writing advice--if you want writing advice Holly Lisle (which I happened to read *after* a truckload of how-to and my writing life books is the best of the lot). This is the primary reason I read his book. And I didn't buy it. I read through it cover to cover.

His relating that Carrie was written in a day distressed me. Because it means he didn't actually talk about editing said book and doesn't consider editing part of the writing process. (And you can see where I'm going with this) He likes to boast that one--I read an interview in an old Rolling Stone Magazine, I believe that he pounded it out in a day and was proud of himself. I can't imagine much quality coming from that. Especially when he talks about how he sent it out to his agent, but not the editing and work that goes in between. And nope, no research talk, nothing like that...And from this even though I read the book before, you can probably guess what I thought of it after this--and of him.

The book read more like he wanted to write a memoir than share techniques of the craft, his internal process for writing, and *specific* parts of his techniques were not things I hadn't heard a thousand times before. In a way the way he wrote it could easily defeat the new writer. I wrote X number of books so do it my way...

I have to admit I read Orsen Scott Card and Terry Brooks in the same book store. Out of the three that I read through, Terry Brooks struck up with the most useful advice of the three. He actually told how signings work! This is something I couldn't get from my yearly subscription of Writer's Digest (That lasted three years).

Out of Orsen Scott Card I was horrified to find that he'd taken some of his student's ideas they had in a brainstorming session for a book of his and didn't give name credit to that student! He's free to explain that part to me, and I've asked a few of his students to ask him politely what that was about, since I dislike understandings. (Nanowrimo boards). I read that section over three times and showed it to someone else--and someone else also found that part disturbing... His anti-agent attitude is a tad disturbing because he tends to write that section as if the agents want a part of the cut and are greedy bastards out to take all of his money. That part I would think to ignore. Less and less publishers will take a no-name author without an agent first.

Terry Brooks I was surprised to find him the most pleasant of the three men. I don't particularly like his works either--they can be like cardboard, but he has sold well, so I need to know why. And since he told about signings, that actually pleased me. I have gotten it confirmed by reading other works.

Overall though if you want to know writing techniques, how publishing works, how agents work, signings work, and the struggles of your average writer that hasn't made it mainstream, but isn't going around talking about solely how they broke a leg and relating their memoir in the shape of a writing book, I would say Holly Lisle, Mugging the Muse, which is a free book online, tops my list. After cleaning out Writer's Digest, the majority of their books, reading most of the Writing books section, I find hers to be the best.

But don't let my reviews stop you-- I would say read the book. Take it out from the library if need be. Read as many as you get, and you'll find the writer that clicks the most with you. And don't stop with one--read them ALL. And I'm quite serious about this. If you want a running list I can give you a head start and tell you exactly what they teach.


----------



## Mike C (Aug 31, 2007)

Kimberly Dawn said:


> I'll tell you solid reasons why I don't think highly of his advice.



But Kimmy, you didn't. You criticised the memoir, but didn't give one single 'solid reason' about the advice. What, of his advice (of which there is actually very little) did you find inaccurate or flawed?


----------



## Truth-Teller (Aug 31, 2007)

Are you deaf? I told you. The no-plotting method.

Yet, here you are trying to defend King, when in another thread you were verbally castigating those who refused to plot, or called plotting asinine.


----------



## Mike C (Aug 31, 2007)

Truth-Teller said:


> Are you deaf?




Are you stupid? All your posts indicate that you are. Those that plot, plot. Those that don't, don't. I've never criticised anyone for taking one path or the other. You, however, like to massage your ego by criticising everyone for everything.


----------



## Dawnstorm (Sep 1, 2007)

Mike C said:


> What, of his advice (of which there is actually very little) did you find inaccurate or flawed?



I'm not Kimbery, but there's a "Dawn" in my name, so...



			
				Stephen King said:
			
		

> Verbs come in two types, active and passive.



No.

A verb can be in the passive voice, active voice, or in neither (in the case of linking verbs, and depending on your grammar theory, intransitive verbs).



> You should avoid the passive tense.


Easy, considering there is no such thing.



> I'm not the only one who says so; you can find the same advice in _The Elements of Style_.


True enough. It's silly advise there, too. But at least they get their grammar right.



> The timid fellow writes *The meeting will be held at seven o'clock* because that somehow says to him, 'Put it this way and people will believe _you really know_.' Purge this quisling thought! Don't be a muggle! Throw back your shoulders, stick out your chin, and put that meeting in charge! Write *The meeting's at seven.* There, by God! Don't you feel better?


So, in a nutshell: If you hide behind the passive voice, you're timid. If you hide behind the meeting you're not.

Two active voice versions of the original sentence:

*I will hold the meeting at seven o'clock.* (And you suckers will be there, because I'm The Man!)

Or:

*We will hold the meeting at seven o'clock.* (That's what we said, isn't it? You remember, don't you? Don't you?)

The entire timidity hypothesis isn't convincing me in the first place, but the example here is entirely off. (And "'s" is not an active verb, anyway, it's merely a linking verb.)

I suspect King doesn't like formal language and wouldn't like distant bosses. Notice how "seven o'clock" turned into "seven" in the more active version? All the opinionated authors of style manuals do that (and especially Strunk/White King's so fond of): replace a sentence they doesn't like (and made up to look bad, btw) with one they're fond of. They then make sure that the element they're talking about is in there. They make all sorts of other changes, too, but they claim the thing that made the difference is the one change they foreground.

Strunk & White are somewhat decent at the game of dazzling students, King not so much:



			
				King said:
			
		

> My first kiss will always be recalled by me as how my romance with Shayna was begun.



How many people would write that? I'm guessing that you have to put _effort_ into coming up with something _that_ bad. I certainly don't see it on boards. It's like arguing against nose piercings by driving a rusty nail through your nostrils.

He does master the game at other places, though:



			
				King said:
			
		

> He closed the door firmly.



A standard move against adverbs. Place the adverb where it is most conspicious - as a tag on phrase. Very few adverbs in fiction take that place (the exception being dialogue tags, which is a matter of debate). In fiction, I'd usually find:

He firmly closed the door.

Or, to seperate the manner from the verb:

Firmly he closed the door.

You may still dislike the adverb (I bet King would), and if you're dead set against adverbs you'll probably not notice that both these versions flow better than the original. (Although context might still favour the original.)

(Btw, later King thinks that "closing a door firmly" is the same thing as "slamming a door". This, I think, tells us more about King's sublety than about the phrase.)

Next: On "my angry lesbian breasts"



> These [competent writers] are folks who somehow understand that although a lesbian may be angry, her breasts will remain breasts.


So a competent writer is one who's ignorant of metonymy (synechdoche)?

There is a reason why lesbians talk about "angry lesbian breasts", and not "angry lesbian ear lobes", or "angry lesbian pinky fingers".

*********

I honestly think his advice, where he's trying to be specific, is bad. But that doesn't make the book bad. The specific advice is kept to a mininum, and it's quite enough to show me where he's coming from (I have a better idea now, why I never liked his prose much - with the exception of some of his short fiction and everyday scenes in novels.)

It's "A Memoir of the Craft", and even his advice tells us more about himself than about the craft. But that's what makes this book special (I found the sample pages with editorial comments in the appendix very interesting.)

What I took from "On Writing" is that King learned writing from journalism, where saving space is more important than style. I think that's the key to his style (and would explain a lot of the silly prejudices against grammatical structures, too, if it wasn't for Strunk, who said pretty much the same thing but was a teacher, not a journalist.)

The book's great, but the advice is weak in the specifics about the craft.


----------



## Non Serviam (Sep 1, 2007)

Dawnstorm said:


> The book's great, but the advice is weak in the specifics about the craft.



King's craft is writing mass market fiction that sells, and he's proved it works.

It may not be right for _your_ craft, but let's respect him for what he is:  one of the few wildly successful commercial genre fiction writers who've shared their thoughts on how to write.


----------



## Dawnstorm (Sep 2, 2007)

Non Serviam said:


> King's craft is writing mass market fiction that sells, and he's proved it works.
> 
> It may not be right for _your_ craft, but let's respect him for what he is:  one of the few wildly successful commercial genre fiction writers who've shared their thoughts on how to write.



Certainly. And he did the right thing personalising the book instead of making it a this-is-what-you-do. It's a case study, not a how-to book.

Or differently put: that your writing works, doesn't mean that your theory about writing works. (And vice versa.)


----------



## Truth-Teller (Sep 2, 2007)

Plotting is the same as outline. 

So, in essence, King is saying--write _without_ an outline--when he, himself, outlines. So I suggest you take his no plotting method with a grain of salt. You will circle around in your own feces.


----------



## DavidGil (Sep 2, 2007)

I believe the key words in that book was he tries to do as little outlining and plotting as possible.

Edit: Page 163. I won't try to convince you that I've never plotted anymore than try to convince you I've never told a lie, but I do both as infrequently as possible.


----------



## Non Serviam (Sep 2, 2007)

Truth-Teller said:


> Plotting is the same as outline.



No it isn't.


----------



## Michael (Sep 10, 2007)

I just throw in my .02 and say that I enjoyed "On Writing" very much and found it to be very inspirational and entertaining.


----------

