Sign in with Facebook
Cecily's Reviews > On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft
On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft
by
Like the curate’s egg, this is good in parts. I can see why writers, and budding writers find this book inspirational, and fans of his oeuvre will enjoy learning how certain stories came to be. But it’s several very different books and booklets, within a single set of covers - curious that a book about writing doesn't seem to know what sort of a book it is.
In one of the three forewords, King says �Most books about writing are filled with bullshit�. I found a fair bit here, too. But I also found good things, including a passionate passage about books being a sort of telepathy, culminating with the delicious: �Books are a uniquely portable magic.�
This book isn’t about how to write in general, it’s about how to write like Stephen King, and for that, it may be excellent.
1. C.V. 4* (memoir, 118 pages, or 33% of the book)
This is a charming scattering of snapshots of King’s childhood, and snippets of adulthood and advice; the CV of how one writer was formed. I enjoyed a peek into ordinary 1950s small-town USA. He points out that he is one of "the final handful of American novelists who learned to read and write before they learned to eat a daily helping of video bullshit". (He was 11 when the family got their first TV.)
He missed most of first grade because of ear-related health problems, so retreated into comic books and writing stories in a similar vein. His mother always encouraged him, and the importance of encouragement is the strongest message of the book. Conversely, a teacher criticised him for wasting his talent writing junk, and King remained ashamed of what he wrote until his forties. (The “junk� was a novelisation of the film of The Pit and the Pendulum, which he’d been selling at school � unaware that it was originally a short story by Poe!)
His wife, Tabitha, also gets much credit: her belief in his ability and her consequent encouragement, even when they could barely pay the bills. They have much in common, but �What ties us most strongly are the words, the language, and the work of our lives.�
The other key message is that there is no repository of great story ideas. They come from nowhere. The writer has to spot, recognise, and polish them, and King gives examples of how he came upon the seeds of many of his stories.
King points out that even the author’s perception of his characters may be wrong (I don’t disagree, and it may be related to his not realising that he was writing about himself when he penned Jack, in The Shining). But in a foreword, he makes a more extreme generalisation, �The editor is always right�. An interesting case study is to compare Raymond Carver’s short story collection, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, in their originally published and heavily edited form with his originals, now published under the title Beginners. Sometimes I think the editor was right, but in several cases, I prefer Carver’s version. I’ve explored the differences a little in my reviews: HERE and HERE, respectively.
2. Toolbox 1* (grammar etc, 34 pages)
�Writing is seduction.� Not necessarily. Reading this short section, the only thing that prevented me from throwing the book across the room was that it was borrowed from a friend. It does what most prescriptive guides do: conflates stylistic preference with grammatical rules, and makes sweeping generalisations (such as �the best form of dialogue attribution is ‘said�.�), largely ignoring the paramount importance of context and audience. It’s easy to teach and test rules, but serious writers need to cultivate an intuitive feel for language in a variety of styles, rather than being bogged down analysing parts of speech.
King taught grammar, but gives examples of that aren't, and keeps talking about the "passive tense", though later correctly says "passive voice". He decries it, using ludicrous, unidiomatic examples (“My first kiss will always be recalled by me�). He decries adverbs by using a convoluted passive (they “seem to have been created with the timid writer in mind�) and an adverb (saying writers use them when not expressing themselves “clearly�), and says both passives and adverbs are the resort of "timid writers". He claims, �The road to hell is paved with adverbs.� One is OK, but they’re like dandelions: prone to multiply. In section 3, he berates pronouns too, using a pronoun �I hate and mistrust pronouns, every one of them as slippery as a fly-by-night personal-injury lawyer��. Why?
Strunk and White’s* (in)famous rule 17, “Omit needless words�, is lauded. It’s hard to disagree with, but it’s no help with discerning which words might be needless.
King says this section is short because readers probably know enough grammar already, but he then agrees with Strunk and White, that if readers don’t, “It’s too late�. So much for encouraging timid writers. And yet many find this book helpful. I’m pleased for them, but a little surprised.
There are some good points. He stresses the importance of an extensive vocabulary, and says it should be acquired through reading widely, rather than conscious effort. He describes paragraphs as “maps of intent� and “the basic unit of writing� (rather than sentences). And there is a nod to context, negating much of what precedes it, �Language does not always have to wear a tie and lace-up shoes.� Amen to that.
3. On Writing 3* (how he writes, 143 pages, or 40%)
And suddenly it’s back to memoir-ish, but with focus on the process of writing, and a smattering of prescriptive absolutes and empty homilies alongside fascinating insights and ideas. King promises �Everything I know about how to write good fiction.�, along with encouragement, but with the caveat that you can’t make a bad writer a competent one, or a good writer great, but you can make a competent writer good, as long as they master the basics in the previous section: vocabulary, grammar, and style.
King stresses the importance and joy of reading, in all and any situations, developing �an ease and intimacy with the process of writing.�
But for writing itself, he says you need good health (though poor health was what got him started, and he was successful when a heavy-drinking alcoholic), a stable relationship (don’t many great writers emerge from the opposite?), strict routine, and your own space (no distractions, and a door to close). �Put your desk in the corner� Life isn’t a support system for art. It’s the other way round.�
�Good fiction always begins with story and progresses to theme� Starting with the questions and thematic concerns is a recipe for bad fiction.�
The ideas about story and plot were fascinating and liberating - in stark contrast with the straitjacket of the previous section. You need a concrete goal, but �Don’t wait for the muse� and � Write what you know�.
He lists only three components of a story: narrative, description, and dialogue. Don’t worry about plot because our lives are plotless. �Stories are found things, like fossils� and the writer has to give them somewhere to grow (fossils� growing?), thus �My books tend to be based on situation rather than story� The situation comes first� The characters� come next�. Then there’s narration, and he lets the characters figure things out � not always as he expected.
Ultimately, �The story should always be the boss�. The story, not the plot. �Plot is� the good writer’s last resort and the dullard’s first choice.� And �There’s a huge difference between story and plot. Story is honorable and trustworthy; plot is shifty and best kept under house arrest.� Huh? Fortunately, Bryce came to the rescue in the second comment on her review here:
"Plot is a series of events. But story is about the motivations behind those events."
Her example is that plot is "The king died and then the queen died."
The story is "The king died and then the queen died of grief."
When you’ve finished the first draft (which you should never show anyone else for comment), you have to step back, to see the wood for the trees, and figure out what the book is about. Work on a second draft, then take a break and let someone else review that.
�Description is what makes the reader a sensory participant in the story�, but you must beware of over-describing: �Description begins in the writer’s imagination, but should finish in the reader’s.� That sounds wise and wonderful, but I’m unsure how to apply it. Still less, �The use of simile and other figurative language is one of the chief delights of fiction�, when you’re supposed to be hunting down adverbs, pronouns and other allegedly needless words.
�It’s not about the setting� it’s always about the story.� Absolutely always? I think not. So many of my favourite works of fiction are about the setting that I have shelves called Landscape Protagonist and Sea, Islands, Coast.
�One of the cardinal rules of good fiction is never to tell us a thing if you can show us.� Never? Again, it’s the absolutism I object to.
And then� relax: �Try any goddam thing you like� If it works, fine. If it doesn’t toss it. Toss it even if you love it.� Hooray.
4. On Living 3* (surviving a life-threatening accident, 22 pages)
This is a moving addition to recent editions (and briefer versions have been published separately). King writes of when he was out walking in 1999 and was hit by a driver who could have been from one of his books. It recounts his serious injuries, multiple operations, and slow recovery. �Writing didn’t save my live� [but] it makes my life a brighter more pleasant place.�
5. And Furthermore 3* (annotated example of first and second drafts)
This has a very short story that King invites readers to edit. It is followed by an annotated version, with explanations of the suggestions. Most of them are cuts (back to “Omit needless words�). King reckons editing should trim at least 10%. The other key thing is follow-through, �If there’s a gun on the mantel in Act I, it must go off in Act III�, otherwise it will be either pointless or a deus ex machina. See Checkov’s Gun.
6. Booklists 3* (books to read, mostly fiction)
There are two fiction booklists, mostly novels, but a few short story collections. It’s a varied mix of classics and modern, highbrow and less so: King’s first/main list
Notes
I tried to read this with an open mind. I was bored by the only other King I've read (The Shining, my review HERE), and I generally abhor the narrow prescriptivism of "How to write" guides. Most of it defied my fears � except for thegrammar stylistic advice. But what do I know? I’m not a published author, let alone one as successful as Stephen King.
*For a strident critique of Strunk and White’s Elements of Style (beloved of many US students and largely unknown in the UK), see .
Image source for classic Punch cartoon, “The Curate’s egg�:
by
Cecily's review
bookshelves: usa-and-canada, language-related, miscellaneous-non-fiction, biog-and-autobiog
Nov 22, 2016
bookshelves: usa-and-canada, language-related, miscellaneous-non-fiction, biog-and-autobiog
Like the curate’s egg, this is good in parts. I can see why writers, and budding writers find this book inspirational, and fans of his oeuvre will enjoy learning how certain stories came to be. But it’s several very different books and booklets, within a single set of covers - curious that a book about writing doesn't seem to know what sort of a book it is.
In one of the three forewords, King says �Most books about writing are filled with bullshit�. I found a fair bit here, too. But I also found good things, including a passionate passage about books being a sort of telepathy, culminating with the delicious: �Books are a uniquely portable magic.�
This book isn’t about how to write in general, it’s about how to write like Stephen King, and for that, it may be excellent.
1. C.V. 4* (memoir, 118 pages, or 33% of the book)
This is a charming scattering of snapshots of King’s childhood, and snippets of adulthood and advice; the CV of how one writer was formed. I enjoyed a peek into ordinary 1950s small-town USA. He points out that he is one of "the final handful of American novelists who learned to read and write before they learned to eat a daily helping of video bullshit". (He was 11 when the family got their first TV.)
He missed most of first grade because of ear-related health problems, so retreated into comic books and writing stories in a similar vein. His mother always encouraged him, and the importance of encouragement is the strongest message of the book. Conversely, a teacher criticised him for wasting his talent writing junk, and King remained ashamed of what he wrote until his forties. (The “junk� was a novelisation of the film of The Pit and the Pendulum, which he’d been selling at school � unaware that it was originally a short story by Poe!)
His wife, Tabitha, also gets much credit: her belief in his ability and her consequent encouragement, even when they could barely pay the bills. They have much in common, but �What ties us most strongly are the words, the language, and the work of our lives.�
The other key message is that there is no repository of great story ideas. They come from nowhere. The writer has to spot, recognise, and polish them, and King gives examples of how he came upon the seeds of many of his stories.
King points out that even the author’s perception of his characters may be wrong (I don’t disagree, and it may be related to his not realising that he was writing about himself when he penned Jack, in The Shining). But in a foreword, he makes a more extreme generalisation, �The editor is always right�. An interesting case study is to compare Raymond Carver’s short story collection, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, in their originally published and heavily edited form with his originals, now published under the title Beginners. Sometimes I think the editor was right, but in several cases, I prefer Carver’s version. I’ve explored the differences a little in my reviews: HERE and HERE, respectively.
2. Toolbox 1* (grammar etc, 34 pages)
�Writing is seduction.� Not necessarily. Reading this short section, the only thing that prevented me from throwing the book across the room was that it was borrowed from a friend. It does what most prescriptive guides do: conflates stylistic preference with grammatical rules, and makes sweeping generalisations (such as �the best form of dialogue attribution is ‘said�.�), largely ignoring the paramount importance of context and audience. It’s easy to teach and test rules, but serious writers need to cultivate an intuitive feel for language in a variety of styles, rather than being bogged down analysing parts of speech.
King taught grammar, but gives examples of that aren't, and keeps talking about the "passive tense", though later correctly says "passive voice". He decries it, using ludicrous, unidiomatic examples (“My first kiss will always be recalled by me�). He decries adverbs by using a convoluted passive (they “seem to have been created with the timid writer in mind�) and an adverb (saying writers use them when not expressing themselves “clearly�), and says both passives and adverbs are the resort of "timid writers". He claims, �The road to hell is paved with adverbs.� One is OK, but they’re like dandelions: prone to multiply. In section 3, he berates pronouns too, using a pronoun �I hate and mistrust pronouns, every one of them as slippery as a fly-by-night personal-injury lawyer��. Why?
Strunk and White’s* (in)famous rule 17, “Omit needless words�, is lauded. It’s hard to disagree with, but it’s no help with discerning which words might be needless.
King says this section is short because readers probably know enough grammar already, but he then agrees with Strunk and White, that if readers don’t, “It’s too late�. So much for encouraging timid writers. And yet many find this book helpful. I’m pleased for them, but a little surprised.
There are some good points. He stresses the importance of an extensive vocabulary, and says it should be acquired through reading widely, rather than conscious effort. He describes paragraphs as “maps of intent� and “the basic unit of writing� (rather than sentences). And there is a nod to context, negating much of what precedes it, �Language does not always have to wear a tie and lace-up shoes.� Amen to that.
3. On Writing 3* (how he writes, 143 pages, or 40%)
And suddenly it’s back to memoir-ish, but with focus on the process of writing, and a smattering of prescriptive absolutes and empty homilies alongside fascinating insights and ideas. King promises �Everything I know about how to write good fiction.�, along with encouragement, but with the caveat that you can’t make a bad writer a competent one, or a good writer great, but you can make a competent writer good, as long as they master the basics in the previous section: vocabulary, grammar, and style.
King stresses the importance and joy of reading, in all and any situations, developing �an ease and intimacy with the process of writing.�
But for writing itself, he says you need good health (though poor health was what got him started, and he was successful when a heavy-drinking alcoholic), a stable relationship (don’t many great writers emerge from the opposite?), strict routine, and your own space (no distractions, and a door to close). �Put your desk in the corner� Life isn’t a support system for art. It’s the other way round.�
�Good fiction always begins with story and progresses to theme� Starting with the questions and thematic concerns is a recipe for bad fiction.�
The ideas about story and plot were fascinating and liberating - in stark contrast with the straitjacket of the previous section. You need a concrete goal, but �Don’t wait for the muse� and � Write what you know�.
He lists only three components of a story: narrative, description, and dialogue. Don’t worry about plot because our lives are plotless. �Stories are found things, like fossils� and the writer has to give them somewhere to grow (fossils� growing?), thus �My books tend to be based on situation rather than story� The situation comes first� The characters� come next�. Then there’s narration, and he lets the characters figure things out � not always as he expected.
Ultimately, �The story should always be the boss�. The story, not the plot. �Plot is� the good writer’s last resort and the dullard’s first choice.� And �There’s a huge difference between story and plot. Story is honorable and trustworthy; plot is shifty and best kept under house arrest.� Huh? Fortunately, Bryce came to the rescue in the second comment on her review here:
"Plot is a series of events. But story is about the motivations behind those events."
Her example is that plot is "The king died and then the queen died."
The story is "The king died and then the queen died of grief."
When you’ve finished the first draft (which you should never show anyone else for comment), you have to step back, to see the wood for the trees, and figure out what the book is about. Work on a second draft, then take a break and let someone else review that.
�Description is what makes the reader a sensory participant in the story�, but you must beware of over-describing: �Description begins in the writer’s imagination, but should finish in the reader’s.� That sounds wise and wonderful, but I’m unsure how to apply it. Still less, �The use of simile and other figurative language is one of the chief delights of fiction�, when you’re supposed to be hunting down adverbs, pronouns and other allegedly needless words.
�It’s not about the setting� it’s always about the story.� Absolutely always? I think not. So many of my favourite works of fiction are about the setting that I have shelves called Landscape Protagonist and Sea, Islands, Coast.
�One of the cardinal rules of good fiction is never to tell us a thing if you can show us.� Never? Again, it’s the absolutism I object to.
And then� relax: �Try any goddam thing you like� If it works, fine. If it doesn’t toss it. Toss it even if you love it.� Hooray.
4. On Living 3* (surviving a life-threatening accident, 22 pages)
This is a moving addition to recent editions (and briefer versions have been published separately). King writes of when he was out walking in 1999 and was hit by a driver who could have been from one of his books. It recounts his serious injuries, multiple operations, and slow recovery. �Writing didn’t save my live� [but] it makes my life a brighter more pleasant place.�
5. And Furthermore 3* (annotated example of first and second drafts)
This has a very short story that King invites readers to edit. It is followed by an annotated version, with explanations of the suggestions. Most of them are cuts (back to “Omit needless words�). King reckons editing should trim at least 10%. The other key thing is follow-through, �If there’s a gun on the mantel in Act I, it must go off in Act III�, otherwise it will be either pointless or a deus ex machina. See Checkov’s Gun.
6. Booklists 3* (books to read, mostly fiction)
There are two fiction booklists, mostly novels, but a few short story collections. It’s a varied mix of classics and modern, highbrow and less so: King’s first/main list
Notes
I tried to read this with an open mind. I was bored by the only other King I've read (The Shining, my review HERE), and I generally abhor the narrow prescriptivism of "How to write" guides. Most of it defied my fears � except for the
*For a strident critique of Strunk and White’s Elements of Style (beloved of many US students and largely unknown in the UK), see .
Image source for classic Punch cartoon, “The Curate’s egg�:
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
On Writing.
Sign In »
Quotes Cecily Liked
Reading Progress
October 2, 2016
– Shelved
October 2, 2016
– Shelved as:
to-read
October 2, 2016
– Shelved as:
usa-and-canada
October 2, 2016
– Shelved as:
language-related
October 2, 2016
– Shelved as:
miscellaneous-non-fiction
October 11, 2016
–
Started Reading
October 11, 2016
–
0.0%
"Oh dear. I disliked the only King I've read, and I generally abhor the narrow prescriptivism of "How to write" guides. In the second foreword, he recommends The Elements of Style, especially the utterly useless exhortation to "Omit needless words". This doesn't not bode well, despite the high praise heaped on it..."
page
0
October 11, 2016
– Shelved as:
biog-and-autobiog
October 12, 2016
–
35.31%
"King is in "the final handful of American novelists who learned to read and write before they learned to eat a daily helping of video bullshit". He was 11 when they got a TV. (p25)
So far, the overriding and recurring message is the importance of encouragement."
page
113
So far, the overriding and recurring message is the importance of encouragement."
October 13, 2016
–
49.69%
"I was enjoying the memoirs. Then I read a section about grammar. He taught the subject, but gives examples of Tom Swifties that aren't, and keeps talking about the "passive tense", though later correctly says "passive voice". He decries it, using ludicrous examples, decries adverbs by using one, and says both are the resort of "timid writers". Bleurgh."
page
159
October 16, 2016
–
58.75%
"'Stories are found things, like fossils.' (p188)
Start with a situation and let the plot evolve as you describe it.
'Plot is... the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice.' (p189)"
page
188
Start with a situation and let the plot evolve as you describe it.
'Plot is... the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice.' (p189)"
October 16, 2016
–
72.19%
"In real life, we all think of ourselves as the main character, rather than a one-dimensional stereotype like 'the bad guy', 'the best friend', or 'the whore with a heart'. (p224)
My Facebook feed suggests otherwise."
page
231
My Facebook feed suggests otherwise."
October 17, 2016
–
100.0%
"Curious that a book about writing doesn't seem to know what sort of a book it is.
If that's too small:
"
page
320
If that's too small:
"
October 17, 2016
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 77 (77 new)
I read this book many years ago and there are things mentioned that still remained etched on my mind till today. What he has gone through to become what he is today is rather encouraging and inspiring, and I think he has articulated those portions very well. I can feel it that they come from his heart. But I do agree that there are parts that aren't so good. Hence, for me, 4 stars out of 5. I would love to hear what you have to say and if we have the same idea about the bits that made you want to throw it at the wall. :)
Levin wrote: "I read this book many years ago and there are things mentioned that still remained etched on my mind till today. What he has gone through to become what he is today is rather encouraging and inspiring...I would love to hear what you have to say..."Hi Levin. I am planning to expand my statuses into a proper review. Yes, I know I said so in my previous comment almost a month ago, but real life has got in the way, and when I did write a review, it was for the book I read after this (Captain Corelli). However, I have nearly written this review, so I hope to post it in the next few days. For now, I agree that this book is written very much from the heart, and some of it is inspiring (especially the section added to recent editions about his accident).
Great analysis, Cecily. I agree that this is a mixed bag, but nonetheless there is a lot of valuable insight here. I find books like this interesting not because they get everything right, but because they are often wrong, and that leads to thinking about where the advice may or may not be applicable, and where lines can be drawn. I think the reason that this book in particular is so highly regarded is less for its quality than for the authority of its authorship, and the fact that for many people it is the only book they will read on the subject, and so they have nothing else for comparison.
Edward wrote: "Great analysis, Cecily. I agree that this is a mixed bag... I find books like this interesting not because they get everything right, but because they are often wrong..."Thank you, Edward. This review is as mixed as the book, but I'd been sitting on it long enough. I think you're right that a book like this can be instructive, even when you disagree with it. I'd rather have a strong reaction, for good or ill, than finish with a "meh".
t does what most prescriptive guides do: conflates stylistic preference with grammatical rulesKing taught grammar, but gives examples of Tom Swifties that aren't, and keeps talking about the "passive tense"
OK, I would clearly hate this. (I will probably read it, just to make sure.)
Thanks for your reflections, Cecily :)I would probably feel the same if I read it now, but I remember it being a crucial jumping-off point, mostly for the encouragement and because I had no idea you were allowed to write from page one and just see what happens day to day. Compare with Robert McKee's Story, where he says such a method is fatal and will never give you a plot. But then, I reckon all of my favourite films have been written with King's method and not McKee's.
I don't know the difference between plot and story. Is plot the bare-bones sequence of events and story the fleshed-out messy outcome? I've also never understood "acts." I think it's because they sound like such a definite term, but if I watch a film I can feel when I'm in the second or third act, but I couldn't tell you the time stamp where the switch between them was!
King especially needs to cut more than 10%. 60+% in some of the books of his that I've read. There's great stuff inside but I find them too diluted to enjoy. But again, this book is a great starting point for writers, and later they can develop their own addenda :)
(I also took issue with the bemusing, cocky, assertive American style of it!)
"Adverbs pave the road to hell" - not Stephen King, using the active tense :D
Thank you for this excellent review, and for tussling with King's ideas and opinions on writing. (I'm sooooooo glad I don't want to be a writer!) I thought your criticisms were spot on.
Warwick wrote: "OK, I would clearly hate this. (I will probably read it, just to make sure.) "I'm not sure whether you're a contrarian, a masochist, or a bit of both, but I've sometimes been drawn to something precisely because I thought I'd hate it.
With this, you could just skip the 34 pages of the grammar section, though you might have to tread carefully in the longest, middle section.
Leo wrote: "Thanks for your reflections, Cecily :)I would probably feel the same if I read it now, but I remember it being a crucial jumping-off point, mostly for the encouragement..."
Thanks, and I don't want to put people off this book. Many clearly find it inspirational and practical, but I tell it as I find it - for me.
Leo wrote: "I don't know the difference between plot and story."
Well I've only just read this, and I still don't get it. I'm hoping someone will come along and clarify.
Leo wrote: ""Adverbs pave the road to hell" - not Stephen King, using the active tense :D"
Caroline wrote: "Thank you for this excellent review, and for tussling with King's ideas and opinions on writing. (I'm sooooooo glad I don't want to be a writer!) I thought your criticisms were spot on."Thanks, Caroline. Even though there were significant elements I criticised, there is plenty worth reading here - especially for Stephen King fans. The trouble was, that the tussling resulted in a rather messy review. I guess I need some writing advice.
;)
Having listened to Stephen King read his audio book a couple of times, I very much enjoyed your review, Cecily. Very nice point by point breakdown.Like yourself, I found some parts strong and even inspiring. What I found unexpected, was King's moving from grammar and word choice to paragraph, thus skipping the sentence. Curious, I found, since the biggest help in my own writing was a book focusing on sentences: Building Great Sentences by Brooks Landon.
I didn't think it was messy at all. Your reviews are always amazing (& I'm not even a King fan...)
Ha! So now you more about King than I do, I don't really know about his background, family and whatnot. I'm not much of a non-fic reader, I quite like his Danse Macabre, though it's about the horror genre, not about writing, and I didn't read all of it.
review!You forgot to mention all the Pythion and Whovian references I'm sure he made in abundance.
Glenn wrote: "Having listened to Stephen King read his audio book a couple of times, I very much enjoyed your review, Cecily...What I found unexpected, was King's moving from grammar and word choice to paragraph, thus skipping the sentence."
Thanks, Glenn.
He doesn't say much about paragraphs beyond what I've quoted above, so I'm not sure what he could usefully have said about sentences with a similar level of detail. But then I've not read Brooks Landon's book.
Caroline wrote: "I didn't think it was messy at all. Your reviews are always amazing (& I'm not even a King fan...)"Thanks. I think it's partly the formatting. I put all the quotes in italics, even in the middle of paragraphs, and I'm not sure if that was a good idea. I may change it.
Apatt wrote: "Ha! So now you more about King than I do...You forgot to mention all the Pythion and Whovian references I'm sure he made in abundance."
Thank you, my friend. It's as much as I expect I'll ever know about him.
Of course, there are no Pythonian or Whovian references. This book is all about King, which is fair enough, as it's plainly stated from the outset.
Cecily wrote: "Glenn wrote: "Having listened to Stephen King read his audio book a couple of times, I very much enjoyed your review, Cecily...What I found unexpected, was King's moving from grammar and word cho..."
After working through Landon's book, I can see the author's point on how the sentence is a major key to good writing. Landon spends much of his 250 page book addressing what he calls a "cumulative sentence," that is, in so many words, a sentence beginning with a base clause that builds layer by layer that adds detail and color to expand, enrich and make an author's writing much more effective. He provides many examples, from Thomas Berger to Joseph Conrad to Muriel Spark.
Anyway, that's my modest take on King's book - it is fine as far as it goes, but without this critical step of addressing sentence variety and expansion, it simply doesn't go that far.
Very interesting and insightful review, thanks for that! I really liked the quote you included of books being portable magic� what a nice thought! Makes me excited to read this myself at some point in the future.
Glenn wrote: "After working through Landon's book, I can see the author's point on how the sentence is a major key to good writing..."That sounds interesting, and maybe useful as an exercise, but I can't imagine writing a whole novel that way - which is probably one of many reasons why I will never write a decent novel (or probably any novel).
Michelle wrote: "Very interesting and insightful review, thanks for that! I really liked the quote you included of books being portable magic..."Thanks, Michelle. He also stresses the importance of ensuring the magic is portable: always have a book with you, and get in the habit of reading in small doses (e.g. in waiting rooms) as well as more luxurious long ones.
I dont think Stephen is sincere. I dont think he dislikes pronouns.
Mark wrote: "I dont think Stephen is sincere. I dont think he dislikes pronouns."
Ha ha. Well spotted. Not being a huge follower of his, that hadn't occurred to me (though now you mention it, I've heard of it).
You make some great points, Cecily. I suspect King was following some of his own ilk's advice, thinking that strong writing never equivocates. He almost certainly overstated his case by making rules of thumb seem like absolute laws, though. I'm interested in the issue of modifiers. How many adjectives and adverbs are advisable? King would no doubt say it's fewer than we'd think. And I have to say, I sometimes see smart people with killer vocabularies pump out prose that even I can tell is purple. King's advice to them would probably help. But then you see authors like Michel Faber (to mention a joint favorite) or John Banville -- writers who aren't afraid of using plenty of spice -- and you think the "less is more" rule really doesn't apply to them. So I guess I'm just concluding the obvious: the number of them isn't as important as the choice of them.
Steve wrote: "You make some great points, Cecily. I suspect King... overstated his case by making rules of thumb seem like absolute laws..."That's a good way of putting it. And being definite is easier to learn and remember. But I just wish he wasn't so absolute about it.
Steve wrote: "How many adjectives and adverbs are advisable?..."
Context is all.
Steve wrote: "the number of them isn't as important as the choice of them."
Very true, though I tend not to analyse books I'm enjoying that way (which is why I gave up formal study of English literature at 16).
Yet another 5* review from you, Cecily. Thank you. I didn't mind "On Writing" when I read it ages ago, but I suspect I'd be in violent agreement with you on most if not all points if I were to revisit it now.
Fat wrote: "I enjoyed reading your review in detail. Thank you for it. I can only imagine how much time it took.Let me get the easy stuff out of the way first. I think that King is great at what he does; but..."
Thanks, Fat. It took a while - almost a month! ;)
(Not full time, of course.)
As I said, I'm no expert, or even fan, of King's writing (though I've enjoyed some film adaptations), but I expect you're right that it's the stories themselves that people tend to love. Also perhaps, what the writing is NOT: it's not flowery or complex, but clear and readable.
Your point about goals is crucial, and it comes down to the important mantra (not just in writing) that "context is all".
I'm so sorry that writing has diluted your own enjoyment of reading (and all the gladder that made the choices I did at 16). I hope the tide turns and that you come to enjoy reading, while continuing to write.
Gisela wrote: "Yet another 5* review from you, Cecily. Thank you. I didn't mind "On Writing" when I read it ages ago, but I suspect I'd be in violent agreement with you on most if not all points if I were to revisit..."Thanks, Gisela. No violence, please, even if it's in agreement.
;)
Cecily wrote: "Gisela wrote: "Yet another 5* review from you, Cecily. Thank you. I didn't mind "On Writing" when I read it ages ago, but I suspect I'd be in violent agreement with you on most if not all points if...""Oh, alright, Cecily ...," she muttered begrudgingly, "just because you asked so nicely." ;)
In the meantime, your review (and the comments you've provoked) led me to blow the dust off my old copy of the book, refresh my memory of that first read and write a more substantial review. So thank you for that as well.
Gisela wrote: "...she muttered begrudgingly, just because you asked so nicely...."մdzܳé.
Gisela wrote: "your review (and the comments you've provoked) led me to blow the dust off my old copy..."
I hope you find it worthwhile, and I look forward to seeing an updated review.
Cecily wrote: "I look forward to seeing an updated review"I've posted my updated review now, Cecily.
I've been wondering about this book and so appreciate your thorough review. thanks!
I'd recommend his fantasy over his horror. The Eyes of the Dragon would probably be the easiest entrance to that.
Gisela wrote: "I've posted my updated review now, Cecily."Very fair, thorough, and helpful.
Magdelanye wrote: "I've been wondering about this book and so appreciate your thorough review. thanks!"If you're a fan of Stephen King and/or if you want motivation and ideas about how to write readable prose, I'd suggest it's worth reading.
If you want to write in a more creative, lyrical, or unconventional style (or not write at all), and are not familiar with his oeuvre, maybe give it a miss.
Jason wrote: "I'd recommend his fantasy over his horror. The Eyes of the Dragon would probably be the easiest entrance to that."Thanks, Jason. I doubt I'll return to King on the page, even his fantasy, but I'm sure your comment is helpful to others.
Interesting discussion, guys. I read "On Writing" ages ago, and at the time went through a phase of reading advisory books on writing, so I am familiar with some others, too. And I must admit I never looked for advice in these books, what I wanted to see is how commercially successful authors thought about their own writing.And this, I think, is the point - I don't believe that, for example, Stephen King intends his interdict on adverbs as advice, it sounds more like a provocative statement made for effect. The way I read it was "I hate adverbs with a passion", but I never accepted it as advice never to use adverbs.
What it did was to give me some insight into the mind of a successful writer, and that was interesting, but nothing more. I believe writing is a very personal thing, and so is reading. What I think is important is to know who you are as a person, and you will know who you are as a writer. I am guessing the most effective course on writing would be one that teaches how to know oneself, indeed, one's "self". As Steve said, it is not how many, or few, words there are on a page, it is which ones there are.
Yes only that wouldn't work, unless you are a King clone... :-) Still, you have a point of course. I think emulation may well be a productive early stage in an artist's formative process. It's how you may learn your tools, and then later discard them, or modify them, as you learn who you are. I am guessing - I am not an artist, and essentially I dont know what I am talking about... :-)
Mark, if I could, I'd double-like your comment. Mark wrote: "The way I read it was "I hate adverbs with a passion", but I never accepted it as advice never to use adverbs."
Good point, and entirely possible.
Mark wrote: "What it did was to give me some insight into the mind of a successful writer, and that was interesting, but nothing more. I believe writing is a very personal thing, and so is reading."
Yes, very. Hence the importance of audience and context as well.
Mark wrote: "As Steve said, it is not how many, or few, words there are on a page, it is which ones there are."
And what order they're in. ;)
Like Eric Morecambe telling André Previn he was "playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order."
Fat wrote: "I also think that the how-to books might initially be a useful tool for new writers who may be unsure. "It's okay. I'm doing it like King said.""Yes, probably, but as Mark says, to be really good, you need to be able to discard such crutches and find your own voice. My concern is that because King is so successful, people may cling to absolutes when really they need to loosen up.
I think this sort of prose-construction advice is best seen as "how not to be an appallingly bad writer". Cutting down on your adverbs and whatnot won't make you a great writer, but it would massively improve the writing of a lot of awful writers - which includes most people when they first try to write (and some succesful published authors, too).This advice won't go beyond that - it won't teach you dazzling prose style, or brilliant storytelling, or astonishing imagination. But I'm skeptical whether anything really could. But I think that teaching people to, as it were, clear away the linguistic deadwood from their writing can leave the landscape clear for their own construction - whether that's choosing to reintroduce ornamentation where appropriate, or whether it's just using a plain style to tell a good story. You can't really show off any of your virtues if the rest of the writing is all the Eye of Argon. So this sort of advice is useful for preventing people from re-writing the Eye of Argon. Clear away the bad, and then people can try to work out for themselves what sort of good they want to build in its place.
That said, I'm also skeptical of the whole "find your own path, discover what sort of artist you are, it's no good being someone else!" mystique, which to me seems a rather sentimentalised, mythologised view of Art. I don't think there is such a thing as What Sort of Artist You Really Are when you're not even an artist yet - I don't see art as a voyage to discover (let alone express!) your true self. Perhaps this is because my perception of art is shaped primarily by classical music, much of which was composed long before all this Art business was invented. Mozart didn't sit down to discover his true self and display it through a unique musical style; Mozart studied prior masters until he could imitate them by rote. Beethoven learnt to be Beethoven by trying his best to be Mozart and failing. The 19th century was a procession of people failing to be Beethoven.Failure, I think, is where personality lies. That is: I don't think there's such a think as What Sort of Writer You Really Are, but I do think there are many Sorts of Writer That Apparently You Aren't. There's nothing wrong with trying to write like Stephen King: if you pay attention to where you succeed and where you fail, that failure can be the basis of your own style and approach...
Wastrel wrote: "This advice... won't teach you dazzling prose style, or brilliant storytelling, or astonishing imagination. But I'm skeptical whether anything really could."I think King would agree, as do I. He says you can’t make a bad writer a competent one, or a good writer great, but you can make a competent writer good
Wastrel wrote: "I'm also skeptical of the whole "find your own path, discover what sort of artist you are, it's no good being someone else!"...Mozart didn't sit down to discover his true self"
Hmm. Good point, but I wonder if music is different from writing, perhaps because it's inherently more abstract?
Fat wrote: "...I think that to become a good writer one must break from being a "how-to" imitatio... maybe because i had a long technical writing career, I just started fiction in my retirement with no sense at all of the right ways to do it"I'm a technical writer, too. I sometimes toy with the idea of turning to "proper" writing when I retire, but I have no illusions about it being a very different sort of thing.
Fat wrote: "Since going on GR I've been learning the terms with which to characterize things, but so far that has not effected what I write. .............................. Obviously. Hehe"
It might be having more effect than you realise. I wish you success.
Cecily wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "This advice... won't teach you dazzling prose style, or brilliant storytelling, or astonishing imagination. But I'm skeptical whether anything really could."I think King would agr..."
To some degree, I suppose, music is different - although the biggest difference is probably just market size, combined with the fact that music is harder (so takes more dedication). [There have always been good dilettante writers, and writers who have written for small but viable niche markets; composers have pretty always been professional, and have needed at least a degree of mass-market success, at least until recent times].
Even so - I hear a lot more of the finding-your-way-and-expressing-yourself talk from people who want to be writers... whereas actual writers, even those with literary acclaim, much more often seem to talk about imitation, stealing, copying, and paying the bills by writing what will sell.
Of course, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of individuality, or of artistic integrity. But I'm not sure whether just pursuing those things directly gets you anywhere - more often art seems to arise out of the conflict between commercial (and other) pressures and personal ability. [Even Beethoven, arguably the most radical, innovative artist of the last few hundred years, worried about pleasing his publishers]
Wastrel wrote: "To some degree, I suppose, music is different..."I've not read any relevant research of biographies, but I'm surprised at the strength of distinction you draw between struggling writers and successful composers. There are plenty of struggling composers as well, and presumably in the past, but instead of churning out penny dreadfuls to pay the bills, they play in orchestras or bands.
Fat wrote: "I find this diatribe of mine more than a bit silly. These things seem obvious to anyone who has been there, and unexplainable to one who hasn't...."Not silly at all. Sometimes, it's by setting out one's thoughts that an answer that seems obvious, but wasn't, comes into view.
Fat wrote: "What kind of writing is guaranteed to sell?"
Anything with "J K Rowling" on the cover?
;)
I'll let Wastrel give a serious answer (unless I get inspiration during the day).
Cecily wrote: "Mark, if I could, I'd double-like your comment. Mark wrote: "The way I read it was "I hate adverbs with a passion", but I never accepted it as advice never to use adverbs."
Good point, and entire..."
ha ha fantastic. I wasn't aware of this quote but, yes, now that I think about it, order is vaguely important, too. One other quote that springs to mind (this one on number, not order), is Joseph II's response to Mozart's question whether he liked his music (in Shaffer's play Amadeus): Your work is ingenious. ... there are simply too many notes, that's all. Cut a few and it will be perfect." :-)
Mark wrote: "One other quote that springs to mind (this one on number, not order), is Joseph II's response to Mozart's question whether he liked his music (in Shaffer's play Amadeus)..."And yet, when I listen to Mozart, I sometimes think he has a point about too many notes!
I'm also reminded of the witticism attributed to half a dozen different sources, along the lines of:
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I'm afraid I didn't have the time."
Wastrel wrote: "That said, I'm also skeptical of the whole "find your own path, discover what sort of artist you are, it's no good being someone else!" mystique, which to me seems a rather sentimentalised, mytholo..."... if you pay attention to where you succeed and where you fail, that failure can be the basis of your own style and approach.... Entirely agree. But is that not discovering who you are, and by extension who you are as a writer?
By the way I checked out The Eye of Argon. I was not aware of that one but it sounds absolutely fantastic. Some claim this may be the "Spinal Tap" of fantasy novels.
Thanks. I finished it a while ago, but probably won't get round to posting a review until Sunday. Parts of it were excellent. Parts. Other bits made me want to throw it at the wall. The fact I'd borrowed a friend's copy was the main restraining factor!