Stephen King's book about writing

[deliciously_naughty]

I know a ton of you swear by the book Stephen King wrote about writing.

Here is my dilemma. I can't stand Stephen King. I find his work (with a few notable exceptions) trite, repetitive, and generally boring. But that's just me and my lack of interest in his genre.

Having stated that I really dislike Stephen King's writing, I find myself wondering if his book on writing would be in any way useful to me. It's not cheap (18$ at my local B&N). What do you think? Does his consistent use of his own work as examples detract from the book if you find his books trite? Is there another similar book written by someone who isn't SK that you can reccomend?

 

[KillerMuffin]

Yes.

I don't read his fiction, I don't like it. His book on writing is completely different. Rent it from the library first.

 

[TheEarl]

DN: I only like certain pieces of King's work, but On Writing is an absolute work of art. Buy it.

The Earl

 

[deliciously_naughty]

What specifically does he talk about...I flipped through it and caught lots of "when I was writing xxxx" and such. Does he discuss how to get published? What's the general idea?

 

[Madame Manga]

I'll second that, or third it...

I have read, I think, two of Stephen King's books. I am not a horror fan, though I don't condemn the genre. But "On Writing" is a good book--I own a copy. I bought a used one through Amazon, and even with shipping, it wasn't $18.

I think the best point he makes is that there IS such a thing as a bad writer. ;-) Why do I think that needs to be said? I hang out on too many fan fiction forums that seem devoted to mutual support and ego-boo rather than to the craft of writing. That way lies endless mediocrity, at best. I enjoy the straightforward discussions here much more!

MM

PS: Yes, he talks about agents and cover letters. He also admits that it's been a long time since he was a new writer trying to break in. ;-) But he gives a general idea of the publishing industry. He also talks about his working routine, his revising methods, his distaste for plot-driven stories, and so on. There is plenty of specific detail; there is nothing in his philosophy with which I could violently disagree.

 

[Sabledrake]

I have all of his books; he's been my favorite writer since I was ten years old. So, naturally, I loved "On Writing."

Guess that doesn't help much, but I wanted to let it be said

Sabledrake
(who doesn't, though, much care for the Dark Tower books ... shame on me!)

 

[wildsweetone]

Stephen King, On Writing

it's not my bible, but it's given me a level of comfort with the way i write - see my sig line.

the book is in several parts, the first part contains little snippets about his life, things that formed him as a person... he calls it C.V. be prepared, have a hanky handy.

he defines what writing actually is and some of the things he considers essential to have in an author's toolbox i.e. grammar, The Elements of Style etc...

the next part of his book is called 'On Writing'. this discusses what he knows about writing fiction.

the last part is called 'On Living: A Postscript' and contains a story (no i'm not going to tell you) of an event that will make you realise there is more to Stephen King than meets your eye.


overall opinion.
this is a very down to earth book written by a man who has my respect. i have not read any of his own works, horror scares me stupid and gives me nightmares. however in the back of this book, he gives a list of 'some' of the books he has read and i am thrilled to say i've just read my first multiple murder story - A Perfect Crime, by Peter Abrhams. that's given me the impetus to pick up Carrie on my next library visit.

if you are able to read 'fuck' now and again and can cope with some fairly basic snippets of 'life', then you'll read this easily, he writes as if he is talking to you one on one.

he doesn't come across as preaching, saying what's right and what's wrong... at least i didn't get that from him. perhaps that's why i've begun saving to purchase On Writing.

it's an interesting read even if you're not looking for instruction. it's well worth your time and effort. i recommend On Writing.



if you take it out of the local library, you'll most likely keep renewing it until you can afford to buy one for yourself

 

[TheEarl]

I took it out of the local library and read it two or three times (before I started writing). I found a copy at a train station for £1.50 and bought it for something to read just after I started writing. It was such an eye-opener it was unbelievable. The advice is centred around his own experiences, but you don't have to have read his books to understand it.

Out of 367 pages, 124 are autobiography and 17 are a short story at the back. The autobiography is absolutely fascinating (I usually hate biographies. Never read them); a tale of how a writer was formed. Any references to his books are clear enough so that you don't have to have read the book mentioned and a lot of it is slick analogies. I'm a technically good writer and in terms of teaching me style, this book couldn't completely revamp my writing (although there are several sections which have changed my writing for the better). What it did for me was give me the motivation and the confidence to go to that blank page and be able to write whatever I want to write.

Seriously, buy it. You won't regret it.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

PS: WSO, don't bother with Carrie. It's not his best book. Try Misery or The Stand.

 

[Guest]

MM

Sorry, got caught on something you noted he deplores, which is plot driven stories. Unless we have very different ideas of what constitutes a plot driven story, I must violently disagree. If a story isn't driven by plot, what does that leave? A lot of pointless overdrawn descriptions? Characters walking around without purpose? I personally hate all stories that DON'T have a strong plot....they end up being these ridiculous sets of coincidence, poor characterizations, and a lack of direction.

What did he mean by plot driven stories? And what makes them so bad?

Deliciously Naughty
(I know I'm not logged in but I'm working from a comp that isn't mine)

 

[TheEarl]

DN: King doesn't like stories that start from a plot and that are written rigidly to that plot. He sees them as stilted and unnatural. He prefers to "put characters in a situation and see how they get out of it." King's designation is plot is shifty and unnatural, whereas story develops naturally and is much more reputable. I don't agree with this, but that's merely because I can't do it. I have to know the plot before I start.

The Earl

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Basically, King means that he doesn't like stories where the characters are made to bend in order to fit what the plot asks, making the plot almost an outline instead of a basic idea, which it should be. Good writing, along with well-developed characters, can make a plot change. Basically, he supports story instead of plot, the difference being story develops as you write and plot pre-exists the actual work involved in creating.
Just my take.
Oh, and Naughty, do you mean you dislike his writing, or his stories? I've read several of them, including the almight Unabridged The Stand, and even when I disliked his storylines, the writing was always well-done, save for a few in...whatever it was called, the first short story collection, the one with "Last Rung on the Ladder" and "The Raft."

 

[TheEarl]

I note you have a Steven King quote in your signature though Quiet Cool. The shawshank Redemption was written by King and is in one of his collections of short stories.

The Earl

 

[Madame Manga]

Yes, King says that for him situation comes first, then the characters. The plot grows naturally from there. This sounded so much like my thinking that I nearly sat up and applauded...but that's difficult when you are holding a book. ;-)

Among my writing friends I am known as a heavily plot-oriented type. (My friends are given to drabbles and short poetic vignettes; I am mostly a novelist.) But I don't nail down the plot beforehand. If I do, I know what's going to happen, and it's damn boring to write that way. ;-)

Until I read King's book, I had this vague idea that I was doing it the "wrong" way. That I was *supposed* to pick a plot first (from that classic list of six or twenty or however many the hell there are) then make notes on my characters until I knew them well (the contents of their pockets, their childhood traumas, yadda yadda) and go on from there. Forget it!

MM

 

[JUDO]

In "On Writing," he talks about his process. There are a few good rewriting gems in there, distilled down from his experience in getting published.

I am not a Stephen King fan, but I reccomend his book. I find it to be a great book to help build your confidence towards getting published. And more than anything else, the long haul of writing is all about confidence.


- Judo

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Thanks for the thoughts guys...I guess if I can get it used or find it in my library I'll give it an honest try.

Q-C...here's the thing, I dislike both his stories and generally also the writing. To give him his due, misery was a decent book, but not one I would bother buying or reading a second time. I greatly disliked pet cemetary, carrie, and I ended up putting down Cujo about 5 chapters into it. I was also greatly dissapointed by the short story that the movie stand by me was based on.

I loved the movie rose red and the diary which was NOT written by King (although I did catch some inconsistencies relating to the end of the book with regards to the end of the movie) although I believe it was based on his idea.

 

[TheEarl]

Carrie's not a very good book and Pet Sematary's schlock horror. Read the Stand. That's very well written IMHO.

The Earl

 

[medjay]

MM

Sorry, got caught on something you noted he deplores, which is plot driven stories. Unless we have very different ideas of what constitutes a plot driven story, I must violently disagree. If a story isn't driven by plot, what does that leave? A lot of pointless overdrawn descriptions? Characters walking around without purpose? I personally hate all stories that DON'T have a strong plot....they end up being these ridiculous sets of coincidence, poor characterizations, and a lack of direction.

What did he mean by plot driven stories? And what makes them so bad?

Deliciously Naughty
(I know I'm not logged in but I'm working from a comp that isn't mine)

A good example of this is his latest, From a Buick 8. Though the next paragraph doesn't really contain spoilers, anyone planning to read the book may want to skip it.

After finishing it, I was rather unhappy that the story seemed to have no resolution or clear meaning. I enjoyed it but felt that something was missing. Then I realized that was the whole point of the story. None of the plot devices or narrative action were important at all. It was all an exercise in pure character development. The so-called "plot" of the novel was really inconsequential. Once the reader understands that he/she can recognize the brilliance of the work. It wasn't about this other-worldly Buick; it was about the lives, attitues and emotions of the people who came in contact with it. If anything, the book was an essay on the lives and everyday workings of the PA state police.

In this respect I perfectly understand King's motives for prefering non-plot driven stories. I know a lot of people might not be fans of the man's work but I still feel that no other popular author has come as close to conveying the feelings and logical actions of real, everyday people as King. This stems from the fact that he's basically a regular, everyday guy.

As far as On Writing, I find it a great book for the simple fact that it's written in such an easygoing, unpretentious way. I'm sure a lot of us have had mentors or creative writing teachers who thought they were really hot shit. It's refreshing to get an opposite and more self-deprecating view.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

I'm still going to have to say that I think the whole plot-free story concept is bs. But then I go for lots of character development AND a strong plot. However, I also don't advocate outlining the story from the start. I have a general idea, and let the story go where it needs to go. But there is still resolution at the end. But I'll still give the book a look.


But no one else has suggestions for other books that might be useful that have nothing to do with Stephen King?

 

[TheEarl]

I distrust plot for two reasons: first because our lives are largely plotless, even when you add in all our reasonable precautions and careful planning; and second, because I believe plotting and the spontaneity of real creation aren't compatible. It's best that I be as clear about this as i can - I want you to understand that my belief about the making of stories is that they pretty much make themselves. The job of the writer is to give them a place to grow...

Stories are relics, part of an undiscovered pre-existing world. The writer's job is to use the tools in his or her toolbox to get as much of each one out of the ground intact as possible...No matter how good you are, no matter how much experience you have, it's probably impossible to get the entire fossil out of the ground without a few breaks or losses. To get even most of it, the shovel must give way to more delicate tools: airhose, palm-pick, perhaps even a toothbrush. Plot is a far bigger tool, the writer's jackhammer. You can liberate a fossil from the ground with a jackhammer, no arguments there, but you know as well as I do that the jackhammer is going to break as much stuff as it liberates. It's clumsy, mechanical, uncreative.Plot is I think, the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice. The story which results from it is apt to feel artificial and laboured.

...the majority[of his stories] start out with...a group of characters (perhaps a pair; perhaps even one) in some sort of predicament and then watch them work themselves free. My job isn't to help them work their way free, or manipulate them to safety - those are jobs which require the noisy jackhammer of plot - but to watch what happens and then write it down.

The situation comes first, The characters...come next. once these things are fixed in my mind, I start to narrate. I often have an idea of what the outcome may be, but I have never demanded of a set of characters that they do things my way.

The Earl

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm still going to have to say that I think the whole plot-free story concept is bs.

I think you're confusing "not Plot-Driven" with "Plotless."

Plot-driven stories are stories where the plot is more important than characterization or setting. It does NOT mean that there is no plot at all.

I tend to agree that plot-driven stories are often less interesting than "character driven" stories, but they're almost always more interesting than "setting-driven stories."

It's a question of where the author places the emphasis in the story -- are the plot twists more important than the characters? If they are, then the story is driven by the plot.

It's possible to follow a detailed outline and plot and still write a character driven story, or a setting driven story. It all depends on where you place the emphasis.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

I think you're confusing "not Plot-Driven" with "Plotless."

Plot-driven stories are stories where the plot is more important than characterization or setting. It does NOT mean that there is no plot at all.

I tend to agree that plot-driven stories are often less interesting than "character driven" stories, but they're almost always more interesting than "setting-driven stories."

It's a question of where the author places the emphasis in the story -- are the plot twists more important than the characters? If they are, then the story is driven by the plot.

It's possible to follow a detailed outline and plot and still write a character driven story, or a setting driven story. It all depends on where you place the emphasis.

I like your way of putting it best And you're right, I was. I was taking it to mean that King was advocating NO plot versus having a plot but letting your characters get the lions share of your attention.

In the end I think I believe that plot is very important and is always present in my stories, but that the characters have more emphasis on them than the plot devices (to a significant degree).

 

[Whispersecret]

My two cents:

Loved On Writing. I can't read King's horror, but I just finished reading The Stand (the unedited version) and couldn't put it down. Those characters and the world they lived in are still haunting my thoughts.

I also recommend Characters and Viewpoint by Orson Scott Card and Self Editing for Fiction Writers by Browne and King.

 

[Dolma Kalem]

What an interesting discussion



I've found this discussion really interesting. I read somewhere else, lots of stuff advocating planning the plot. It made me feel very guilty, because I start with the characters and a situation. There is a vague plot fleshed out, but quite often it changes because the characters wouldn't behave like that. It wouldn't be believable.

Kings book sounds good, I'll give it a read. Thanks everyone.

For those who were worried about the cost. It was 5.59GBP, approx $8.00? from Amazon.




Whatever, have a great day. And may your god go with you.

Dolma's Tales

http://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=91086

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

I'm not generally a horror fan. However, the Stephen King penned "It" was a very good read. I found it hard to put down. I also like "The Bachman Books" and "The Stand."

I find a lot of his work to be very derivative of H.P. Lovecraft's novels ... which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I haven't even seen this King book on writing. However, now I'm curious enough to check it out at Borders.

The first book that I'd buy on the subject of writing is Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style." This little book seems to be the common denominator of anyone who seriously writes.