# Stephen King - On Writing



## FrankieDWK (Nov 26, 2006)

I posted this in writings tips/advice, so please forgive the double post.  I just wanted to know what people think.


Up until yesterday I'd managed to successfully avoid reading anything by Stephen King. I never once had any reason to dislike him, I'd only seen his movies. Something told me "Don't read his stuff" and I really don't know why. I thoroughly enjoy reading authors and their works, getting an idea of who they are. One thing that particularly interests me is how writers got their start. 


While in the library the other day I found myself browsing through Biographies/Autobiographies. I came across Kings book entitled "On Writing." Here was a proverbial Catch 22, a King book on a topic I enjoy.


I read the book in one sitting and found it to be more frustrating than anything I've ever read. I actually found myself putting the book down and taking a walk to clear my head, it annoyed me THAT much.


I don't know if it was just his way of saying "I write 10 pages a day, but YOU may want to consider starting with 1,000 words a day." Or maybe it was his views on adjectives and pronouns (both of which he hates by the way). 


Basically, I'm just asking for a little advice...or reassurance or SOMETHING to just kinda hit the reset button for me and help me forget I even read that book. 


The one thing that stands out the most, and the one thing I hope to have some advice in regards to, is his utter hatred of the "past" tense. He wants everything to be done in present tense, as if it is all happening as you read it. I sat down to write today and felt as if he were standing over my shoulder, shaking his head at something I'd written. "Frank was a survivor" or is it "Frank is a survivor"? 


"He'd managed to survive three near death experiences..."
"He's managed to survive three near death experiences..."


I want to TELL the story and I'm having so much trouble with this right now because that damn book has gotten in to my head.


Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks


----------



## Rob (Nov 26, 2006)

If you don't like his advice, don't take it. What's the big deal?


----------



## Stewart (Nov 26, 2006)

I didn't rate the book either. So I moved on.


----------



## Mike C (Nov 26, 2006)

I actually liked the book far more than I expected to, because - unlike most how-to's - he doesn't presume that you'll get anything out of it. He doesn't pretend that anyone can teach a crap writer to ever be anything other than a crap writer. He acknowledges a truth that's almost taboo in writing circles - If your writing is poor, chances are it always will be.


----------



## Kane (Nov 26, 2006)

I've read King's, "On Writing," twice in full, many more in parts... I don't remember that bit about him hating past tense.  Just about every book I've read that King has written was done in past tense.  I also don't like the overusage of pronouns and adjectives.


----------



## Dawnstorm (Nov 26, 2006)

I posted in the writing tips section. Basically, I agree with Mike's assessment of the book, although I'm undecided on:



> He acknowledges a truth that's almost taboo in writing circles - If your writing is poor, chances are it always will be.


Mostly because "poor" is so vague.


----------



## Kane (Nov 26, 2006)

Well, King paints it a different way than Mike did.  King says that a good writer will never be great.  King believes that great writers cannot be made via practice and effort.  A poor writer can become a decent writer, or maybe even a good writer, but only a great writer is a great writer.  He does not consider himself to be a great writer.


----------



## Dawnstorm (Nov 26, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> Well, King paints it a different way than Mike did.  King says that a good writer will never be great.  King believes that great writers cannot be made via practice and effort.  A poor writer can become a decent writer, or maybe even a good writer, but only a great writer is a great writer.  He does not consider himself to be a great writer.



Almost, but not quite. King says that bad writers will stay bad writers. Merely competent writers can be turned into good writers, and great writers are a class to themselves:



			
				Stephen King said:
			
		

> ...while it is impossible to make a competent writer out of a bad writer, and while it is equally impossible to make a great writer out of a good one, it _is_ possible, with lots of hard work, dedication, and timely help, to make a good writer out of a merely competent one.



So, yes, King does say that bad writers will never be good writers. Unfortunately, I don't agree with King on his examples of what constituates bad writing (for an example, see the writing tips forum thread - can a mod merge these threads?). That somewhat sheds doubt on the typology in the first place (unless I'm obviouly a bad writer - and reader - myself...).


----------



## Swift84 (Nov 26, 2006)

What thread in tips are you referring to?


----------



## FrankieDWK (Nov 26, 2006)

*Merging*

I wouldnt mind a mod merging the threads, again I just wanted to get an idea of how people felt.  Didnt really mean to double post it.  King does approach the whole nature vs. nurture concept, and if I recall he does mention that even such an approach is a bit overplayed.  

Although I do remember him saying he is not a "great" writer, I still felt as if he were just bragging at some points.  Again, I suppose that is how any memoir can be read, regardless of the topic at hand.  I just wanted to express my interest, or disinterest for that matter, with the book.


----------



## Dawnstorm (Nov 26, 2006)

Swift84 said:
			
		

> What thread in tips are you referring to?



This one.

It's in Writing Tips/Advice. [Edit: Duh! Swift: What thread *in tips* are you referring to? Dawnstorm: This one. It's in tips. I have days like this...]


----------



## Swift84 (Nov 26, 2006)

Well, I agree about passive voice. Even though I will use passive voice, active usually sounds stronger. However, in some instances you have to use passive voice in order to illuminate certain thoughts. Also, I know many people who dislike active voice because they find it harder to write (understandable).

King's hatred for adjectives is not as warranted. My main problem with adjectives is when people use lesser known adjectives when simple ones will work.


----------



## FrankieDWK (Nov 26, 2006)

Swift84 said:
			
		

> My main problem with adjectives is when people use lesser known adjectives when simple ones will work.



Couldnt agree with ya more


----------



## Kane (Nov 27, 2006)

Dawnstorm said:
			
		

> Almost, but not quite. King says that bad writers will stay bad writers. Merely competent writers can be turned into good writers, and great writers are a class to themselves:
> 
> 
> 
> So, yes, King does say that bad writers will never be good writers. Unfortunately, I don't agree with King on his examples of what constituates bad writing (for an example, see the writing tips forum thread - can a mod merge these threads?). That somewhat sheds doubt on the typology in the first place (unless I'm obviouly a bad writer - and reader - myself...).



Ahh okay... been a while, maybe I ought to read it again.  =)


----------



## J.V. Amaral (Nov 27, 2006)

FrankieDWK said:
			
		

> Up until yesterday I'd managed to successfully avoid reading anything by Stephen King. I never once had any reason to dislike him, I'd only seen his movies. Something told me "Don't read his stuff" and I really don't know why. I thoroughly enjoy reading authors and their works, getting an idea of who they are. One thing that particularly interests me is how writers got their start.


 
It seems that you already made up your mind prior to reading the book!



			
				FrankieDWK said:
			
		

> I want to TELL the story and I'm having so much trouble with this right now because that damn book has gotten in to my head.
> Any advice is appreciated.


 
Here is a different perspective: I am a huge Stephen King fan, and I am confident that he will tell you that first and foremost he shares your affinity for just wanting to TELL the story. In fact, in messages hither and thither (forewords, afterwords, intro's etc.) Mr. King alludes to forgetting the specifics and just writing the story (this is why he prefers no outline; just create a character, stick him in a situation and see what he/she does). Also, look in the book for his writing specifically on the "story." You will see how organically he views the story, and this view is right line with your problem.

All writers that have written as much as him will naturally have their pet peeves and do's and don'ts; for King it's adverbs, past tense, etc. So, take solace in the fact that at a fundamental level he wants and strives for the same organic story experience that you do; that should ease your trouble.

Hope that helps....

Joe

Oh, and as a side note: you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least picking up one of his stories, and reading it with an open mind. Try "The Mist"; it's short and it's a very good piece of fiction.


----------



## FrankieDWK (Nov 28, 2006)

J.V. Amaral said:
			
		

> Oh, and as a side note: you are doing yourself a disservice by not at least picking up one of his stories, and reading it with an open mind. Try "The Mist"; it's short and it's a very good piece of fiction.



I actually just borrowed Carrie and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon from the library.  Just finished Carrie today.  I guess it's just different than other stuff I've read (his style that is), seeing as how I'm more of a Koontz/Vonnegut fan.  (I know...they dont have much in common...but maybe now you can see my affliction?)

Either way I'm doing my best to expand horizons as I've always done.  I wouldnt say I so much made up my mind beforehand.  It's more based on the fact I honestly lacked interest in anything he'd written.


----------



## Foxee (Nov 28, 2006)

I haven't read On Writing yet although I intend to check it out. I've just heard so much about it and I'm curious. I've avoided reading Stephen King's fiction because he does get into my head and give me nightmares. (I didn't need anymore nightmares... had enough of my own, thanks) So if in his _writing_ book he got into your head the same way (no nightmares though, I hope) I have to give him kudos for being a truly good writer.


----------



## FrankieDWK (Nov 28, 2006)

He definitely got in to my head, but thankfully no nightmares.  The only time I ever got a nightmare from anything King related came from watching the movie IT.  While watching it I honestly didn't think it was scary at all.  But, I guess it just got in to my head and decided to spring up while I was sleeping.


----------



## Fantasy of You (Dec 23, 2006)

I thought On Writing was a great book. All the advice S.K. gives seems pretty good to me. Even he said was said frankly, and without being condescending. He gives examples from his own life, which I found incredibly helpful and enlightening. 

It's a great book, and if you don't like what it says, don't read it again. And why should you listen to him? Not like he's been published or made a few pound. 

- FoY


----------



## wmd (Dec 23, 2006)

This thread seems a bit old to put a new post in, but since it has been revived I will add my two cents.

I am a King fan. _On Writing_ is one of my favorite books in my collection and have read it multiple times (straight through and sporadically). The thing about this book is that I find it more inspiring than I do instructional, which is a good thing. 

There is nothing wrong with reading the book and disagreeing with what he is saying. The craft of writing is an art form and there are numerous ways to accomplish the same thing.

As far as King's writing goes... His work falls into two categories imo. It is either exciting and great to read, or boring and hard to read. I think it is one or the other and he usually does not tread into the middle ground.

I don't know why you would say "I will never read a King book". You really did not give a reason as to why. Did someone turn you off of them? Bad experience with the writer? I dunno, but he obviously left a mark on you if you checked out two other books.

If you are still reading him, try _Cell _it is a newer book and jumps right into the action and never lets up.

And dont judge King by the movies that are made. When you are watching a movie you are not watching a Stephen King movie you are watching a movie based on a Stephen King book/story. There is a difference. I do not like watching a movie that was based on a book because the movie usually comes up short... way short.


----------



## TinyMachines (Mar 10, 2007)

I loved this book. At least, I loved everything up until his whiny story about almost dying. He makes it sound like the person was out to murder him.

The things I took from this book were the hate of adverbs. Everytime I read one I shudder now. And I completely understand the passive voice taking away from the certainty. Taking out the passive voice in my pieces has probably been the single greatest editing move I have made.


----------



## Banzai (Mar 10, 2007)

wmd said:
			
		

> I do not like watching a movie that was based on a book because the movie usually comes up short... way short.


 
I agree. I have yet to find a movie which is better than the book it is based on- with the possible exception of Eragon (I slept through a large part of it, so I can't really judge). Athough, having said that, I did think that the film of The Green Mile was a very god effort. It wasn't as good as the book, but it went a long way.

And as for Stephen King, I am a fan of his books- though not having read that many of them. I have also read _On Writing, _and I liked it. The thing is not to look at it as a writing guide, but more of an autobiographical acount of his approach to writing. I did not take all of his advice, but it was interesting to see the thought process of a famous and very successful writer.


----------



## movieman (Mar 11, 2007)

> I have yet to find a movie which is better than the book it is based on



'Fight Club': I believe even the author said that the movie was better than his book... primarily, I presume, because they had a better ending, since the rest of the movie followed the book fairly well.

Probably 'American Psycho' too, because they removed the 500 pages of gratuitous violence that just got tiresome in the novel.

But on King, I generally agree: 'Shawshank Redemption' is the only good King movie I've seen. The 'Stand' mini-series wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either; in part, I suspect, it was just trying to do too much for its budget.



> this is why he prefers no outline; just create a character, stick him in a situation and see what he/she does



But that's really what you should be doing in an outline in any case: the benefit of doing it as an outline is that you don't have to write hundreds of pages and then go back and rewrite lots of it because you didn't think things through properly before you started .

Now I'm going to have to buy this book and see if it's any good . I haven't read any of his fiction in a decade or so, but given his ability to keep me up until 5am because I wanted to see how the story turned out, he must have a few useful things to say.


----------



## zebedee (Mar 12, 2007)

I really enjoyed this book, also finding it inspirational as well as educational.

The bit about adverbs was illuminating as they tend to grow like weeds in my own writing, I make sure to stamp out as many as I can now.

The only part that annoyed me was at the end when he went on about his accident, I think he should have waited a while before writing that part as he comes across as whiny.


----------



## movieman (Mar 17, 2007)

Yeah, I bought the book and I'm about half-way through it now, so I decided to go back to the novel I'm writing and look for adverbs: I thought I was doing well, but so far I'm finding about three per page to remove .


----------



## deviger (Mar 19, 2007)

If you think the adverbs work you don't need to remove them just because the High Holy Stephen King doesn't like them.  JK Rowling has become one of the richest people in the UK and she throws adverbs around all the time.


----------



## movieman (Mar 19, 2007)

> If you think the adverbs work you don't need to remove them just because the High Holy Stephen King doesn't like them.



Well, I agree with him. I think the parts where I removed adverbs and rewrote were an improvement over what I had before.


----------



## cyberspecter (Mar 19, 2007)

deviger said:
			
		

> If you think the adverbs work you don't need to remove them just because the High Holy Stephen King doesn't like them.  JK Rowling has become one of the richest people in the UK and she throws adverbs around all the time.



Stephen King isn't the only writer to advocate the elimation of most adverbs in writing. Many writers will give you the same advice as will Strunk & White's, "Elements of Style". 

“Adverbs are another indication of writing failure. Exactly the right verb can eliminate the need for the adverb.” William Sloane

“Omit needless words. Watch for adverbs that merely repeat the meaning of the verb.” Strunk and White

“Most adverbs are unnecessary. . . . Again and again in careless writing, strong verbs are weakened by redundant adverbs.” William Zinsser




The fact JK Rowling is wealthy doesn't prove adverbs are wonderful things. Her books are imaginative enough for her to get away with some pretty awful writing, but she is the exception to the rule. She was lucky enough to come along at just the right time with just the right story. Most of us won't be that lucky.


----------



## Rob (Mar 19, 2007)

cyberspecter said:
			
		

> The fact JK Rowling is wealthy doesn't prove adverbs are wonderful things. Her books are imaginative enough for her to get away with some pretty awful writing, but she is the exception to the rule.


It's not a rule, it's a preference. There are plenty of good authors who use adverbs frequently. It's true that often an adverb that's propping up a poorly chosen verb can be replaced by a better verb, though there's plenty of fiction out there where neither the author, the publisher or the readers care.

Cheers,
Omni


----------



## cyberspecter (Mar 19, 2007)

Omnius said:
			
		

> It's not a rule, it's a preference. There are plenty of good authors who use adverbs frequently. It's true that often an adverb that's propping up a poorly chosen verb can be replaced by a better verb, though there's plenty of fiction out there where neither the author, the publisher or the readers care.
> 
> Cheers,
> Omni



True enough. Well put.


----------



## Deleted member 64995 (Nov 14, 2020)

I wanted to buy the book, in the original language.
But I see there are 2 editions.
A normal edition, and a "20 Anniversary". :leggere:
What is the difference between the two editions?


----------



## nighthighway (Jan 31, 2021)

Don't have to follow his advice. They're guidelines as it is, not rules.  Just don't think about it as being anything, and do what you feel is right.


----------



## indianroads (Feb 21, 2021)

Years ago... decades ago actually... I read a lot of Stephen King. After a while though, it seemed as if he ran out of ideas. Also, in several of his novels it seemed as if he was pantsing and couldn't figure out how to end the story. 

IMO his best novel is 'IT' and 'The Stand' is his worst... 'Tommyknockers' is (IMO) pretty bad too.

No one can dispute his success, so he's got something going for him. He has a method that works for him - but probably not for many others. As it is with all advice, take it with a dose of salt.


----------



## JBF (Feb 21, 2021)

indianroads said:


> Years ago... decades ago actually... I read a lot of Stephen King. After a while though, it seemed as if he ran out of ideas. Also, in several of his novels it seemed as if he was pantsing and couldn't figure out how to end the story.
> 
> No one can dispute his success, so he's got something going for him. He has a method that works for him - but probably not for many others. As it is with all advice, take it with a dose of salt.



That's more or less my take on it.  I enjoyed some of his early stuff, allow that he still has some gems in the middle years, and stepped off the cliff late in the game.  Of course, he still had an admirable run and an above-average pile of gold at the bank to show, so listening to critics is probably low on the list at this point.  

Broadly speaking, I think the longer you go on writing original stuff the less use you have for advice from famous authors.  Getting to the stage where you do it right is more trial and error than research, and you realize that most artistic success is lightning in a bottle.  

Writing habits and processes are like tailored clothes.  No matter the quality, it's never going to fit as well secondhand.


----------

