free counter with statistics On Writing by Stephen King | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

5e-stephen-king-li.jpg
On Writing by Stephen King


Cannonball Read / Sophia

Book Reviews | July 1, 2009 | Comments (28)


I’ve always thought of Stephen King as some kind of far-away, loosely-connected friend of the family. I was told at that naively young age how my mother had gone to college with Stephen King. Apparently he played the trumpet and asked her out. And then to add speculation to exaggeration, the main character’s name in Cujo was Donna—my mother’s name. And then he lived in Boulder, Colorado (my hometown) for awhile (?—I have no idea if this is actually true) and had his forces of good gather in Boulder in The Stand. And then he based The Shining on a nearby hotel up in Estes Park. It seemed to me that I was just one degree of separation from the famous writer. Of course, now that I’m (supposedly) a little more mature I take my mom’s stories with a grain of salt. I was also told that my mother’s family comes from royalty — but she’s suspiciously vague about the details. I do know that my mom had terrible eyesight and refused to wear glasses. Thus, college for her was a giant fog. True, Stephen King was there, but whether she even knew which blurry face was his is up for grabs.

Because of the “family connection” with Stephen King, I was pretty interested in his books when I was younger. I started with The Eyes of the Dragon when I was in grade school and then graduated to It, The Shining, and Misery at some point. But I’ve never been much of a horror fan and my interest was already waning before I started high school. Then On Writing (2000) by Stephen King showed up on a list of recommended books at the end of Doreen Orion’s travelogue Queen of the Road. I’m interested in writing and was curious about what King might say about his college experience, so I picked it up.

The book is basically split up into four sections: a biography of events in King’s life that influenced his writing; a short grammatical section; advice on writing; and the car accident that almost killed him in 1999. Although from the start On Writing was interesting and quick reading, I wasn’t sold on it at first. Although you got an idea of King’s roots and inspirations for writing, there isn’t much detail or continuity. The brevity makes sense for the purpose of the book, but I love biographies that really let me get to know someone. Also, having read only a few of King’s many novels and stories, I wasn’t entranced when he discussed, for example, his inspiration for Carrie. Although I could imagine how fascinating that information would be for a real Stephen King fan, it sometimes sounded self-serving and fictionalized to me. I also found his little section on grammar and usage not all that helpful. His only resource is Strunk and White and the section can be summed up with: don’t use adverbs; don’t use passive voice. Still interesting reading, but not the best resource.

I probably liked the third section of the book the best. Stephen King pontificating on writing. He discusses how he approaches his work — 2000 words every day; how he creates his stories; and how he goes about the revision process. Even if you have a different approach to writing, I liked seeing how all those giant novels came to be. But most of all, King was encouraging and inspiring. His main advice if you want to write is that you have to read and write a lot. It is obvious that Stephen King has a natural talent and that he likes what he does. He made me want to grab my computer and start writing—something, anything. “The scariest moment is always just before you start. After that, things can only get better.”

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. For more of Sophia’s reviews, check out her blog, My Life As Seen Through Books.


Common Mispronounced Words -- 2009 | Inglourious Basterds French Trailer



Comments

I've always felt that Stephen King is one of the great American novelists.

This is not necessarily a compliment, though it is a note of respect. The man can write, and does write, prolifically, diarrheatically. He is a master story*teller* and only occasionally a master story*writer*. His novels often have characters and dialogue that grab you and move you and drive you to the end of the novel where it seems, more often than not, there's a giant rubber spider with a "Boo!" sign around Its neck.

Ouch. Of course, there are his few gems -- most of which have already been made into movies, some good, some not so much.

I will never forgive the ending they spackled onto "The Mist". Talk about prison rape.

Posted by: Neodiogenes at July 1, 2009 9:14 AM

Stephen King is the only 'celebrity' I've ever seen in person. It was my 21st birthday, and my family and I were in the lobby of a fancy hotel waiting for our table, and he was standing in the corner with his nose stuck in a book, waiting for his car to take him to the red sox game (we think, none of us really wanted to bother him).

Nice review! I always like King's 'just fucking do it already' approach to writing. It makes it seem like a more accessible occupation.

Posted by: Marra at July 1, 2009 9:15 AM

I'm confused by how we seem to share a mother, but don't seem to be related.

Seriously, from the dates in college with eventually famous people (including, in my mother's case, Steve Jackson and Gary Gygax, and though it wasn't a date, a very amusing, if most likely fictional, tale about getting her hair caught in Harlan Ellison's fly while in an elevator at a convention) to vague connections to royalty (although she apparently got to attend a coronation as a child) to not wearing glasses, our mothers sound eerily similar.

Also, I'm annoyed to hear Stephen King is also on the anti-passive voice bandwagon. Seriously, the passive voice exists for a reason, and it should be used appropriately, dammit.

Posted by: Tyburn Blossom at July 1, 2009 9:18 AM

Seriously, the passive voice exists for a reason, and it should be used appropriately, dammit.

Posted by: Tyburn Blossom at July 1, 2009 9:18 AM
---------------------------------------------------

Correction: "... and you should use it appropriately, dammit" is the proper syntax.

/grammar snark

Posted by: Neodiogenes at July 1, 2009 9:37 AM

I had a Prof. in College who hated him. Well, not necessarily King himself, but what his writing represented to the literary community. Far too many students, in his opinion, when asked who their favorite literary writer was, would suggest Stephen King, and that just made his blood boil.

He said that King had a talent for dialogue but not a whole lot else, and that every book was a camp fire ghost story stretched over 700 pages of blood and disgusting descriptions that King considers sexual tension.

Posted by: annoyingmouse at July 1, 2009 9:41 AM

I've never been much into Stephen King as a writer of fiction, but I have enjoyed his essays and pop culture musings immensely. The third part of this book is not just great for writers (I imagine, not being a writer myself) but really works as an apt description of the creative process and the things that it takes to bring a work of art to fruition, which ultimately doesn't have as much to do with instant inspiration (a myth in any case) as with discipline and commitment. (I have a fellow composer friend who's assigned this book to his music composition students on several occassions.) For this alone, King will always have my respect.

Posted by: Armando at July 1, 2009 9:44 AM

I may have to pick this up if the sections on what inspired various stories is anything like the companion notes he includes in some of his short story collections. I remember I loved reading those as a kid and could barely contain myself from flipping to the back of the book and reading them all at once. I forced myself to wait and finish the story first but I still remember the strong pull those behind-the-scenes sections had on me. I always liked it when Stephen King addressed me (constant reader) directly.

Posted by: Yossarian at July 1, 2009 9:56 AM

Sophia -- I appreciate your review....but...
I have to disagree with you. This book is, without a doubt, the most insufferable and self-serving book on writing I've ever picked up. The title of the book should, appropriately, be, "Why I, Stephen King, Am Such an Awesome Writer." I actually respect the fact that he is an almost obsessive re-writer, and that he's written so much, and that he's actually written some very horrifying horror stories. But... man... The first time I read about his own process, and how he essentially locks himself in his office from 8 a.m. until about 5, taking a break only when his wife brought him a sandwich, I thought, "Fuck you, Stephen King." (That's right: I didn't have anyone bringing ME a fucking sandwich.)
But back to the point: This book will teach you nothing about writing, and everything about why Stephen King thinks he's wonderful.
The end.

Posted by: Tira at July 1, 2009 10:07 AM

Or, to be really pedantic, it should be "and one should use it appropriately, dammit."

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at July 1, 2009 10:28 AM

annoyingmouse: your Prof sounds like a bitter failed writer and a dickhead.

King is a lot of teenagers favorite writer (or at least he was when I was growing up) because he is accessible without being overly simplistic and his stories are inventive and exciting. Like J.K. Rowling he makes it FUN to read. He's kind of a gateway drug for readers to be honest. I wouldn't say he's my favorite writer, at least not in the last several years of sub-par output, but he has written some absolute classics that will live on long after dross like "Duma Key" is forgotten.

Posted by: TylerDFC at July 1, 2009 11:35 AM

Or, to be really pedantic, it should be "and one should use it appropriately, dammit."

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at July 1, 2009 10:28 AM
---------------------------------------------------

Agreed, though only when spoken in a really snotty Oxford Don / Upper Class New England accent. Otherwise, one sounds like a complete tit.

Posted by: Neodiogenes at July 1, 2009 11:37 AM

Sophia, For more in that vein (heh), sorta, read King's "Danse Macabre."

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 1, 2009 11:53 AM

SK is a fucking terrible writer. The Professor is right. Come on, people! Read, damn it, read!!!! Don't just gravitate towards the Dr. Phil of American novelists. Here's a place to start: Time's 100 Best Novels. It's full of great writers. Challenging? Yes. But, what great writer isn't, at times.

Not modern, you say? Read Philip Roth or Cormac McCarthy.

god...he's a fucking hack, i say!

Posted by: gunnertec at July 1, 2009 12:11 PM

Gunnertec, SK has never said that he's a particularly good writer. He's a successful writer who enjoys what he does. Three quotes on how he thinks of himself and his work:

"I have grown into a Bestsellasaurus Rex -- a big, stumbling book-beast that is loved when it shits money and hated when it tramples houses... I started out as a storyteller; along the way I became an economic force."

"I am the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries."

"I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I'll go for the gross-out. I'm not proud."

Stephen King is under no delusion that he is a great writer. But the man writes in an easily accessable style, which goes a long way towards getting others to read his work.

If an author is incapable of reaching a wide audience because their writing style is impenetrable (cough*JamesJoyce*cough), then they're no better than people who try to sell falcon sex, splooshing, and automotive tailpipe copulation on skeezy websites.

Posted by: longcoat000 at July 1, 2009 1:04 PM

I first read this book while on an airplane, nursing a *very* painfully sprained ankle. And I was captivated. I forgot about my ankle for hours and didn't notice the plan take off.

Stephen King is not a great writer, but he is a very popular one, and I think his advice in this book is valuable.

So there.

Posted by: Kate the Great at July 1, 2009 2:36 PM

gunnertec, I read a lot. A LOT. I'm a literary geek. And I still own just about every one of King's books. I know he's not a literary genius, but he's a master storyteller and his books are just fun to read. So, the fact that I enjoy his writing while being completely aware of its flaws doesn't make me (or anyone) an idiot. It's the same idea with people who claim that just because one enjoys "Independence Day" or the "The Rock" (while knowing that they are STUPID movies) it means that one has never seen or appreciated great movies like "Brokeback Mountain" or "Eternal Sunshine". Sometimes you just need something lighter.

Plus he's an infinitely better writer than Dan Brown or Stephenie Meyers or James Patterson. You can do a lot worse than Stephen King.

The book is a little preachy and self-congratulatory, but still really fun to read. Not many writers tell you their process, so I was glad I read this.

Posted by: figgy at July 1, 2009 2:42 PM

Even as popular as he is, King is still underrated as a writer. The man wrote convincingly from the point of view of a teenager, an old woman, a pyro, a mentally handicapped man, a young girl, even a dog! He has that rare ability to place the reader inside his characters.

Try "Pet Sematary" as your gateway drug. "Night Shift" for accessible, fun short stories. Graduate to "The Stand". If you can get over the hype, the man spins an excellent tale.

Posted by: bluesilver at July 1, 2009 4:12 PM

I love Stephen King. Always have, always will. And I can talk about his faults as easily as I can talk about his strengths. I also enjoy how he is rather self-deprecating, so I don't know how people read self-congratulation into it. YMMV.

However, my copy of On Writing? Tattered. I read it all the time. I'm an aspiring author myself, and whatever Stephen King does wrong, he damn well makes me want to take my head out of my ass, sit down, and just write. And that's the most important thing.

Posted by: Cuno at July 1, 2009 5:19 PM

This war against the passive voice can no longer be tolerated! The streets will be filled with a sea of writers who have been taught that the language should be used to the fullest! Passive voice bigots will be shunned.

And someday, one of Stephen King's books is finally going to get tossed into my 'to read' pile, because I keep being told positive things about his work.

Posted by: Tyburn Blossom at July 1, 2009 7:50 PM

Come on, people! Read, damn it, read!!!! gunnertec

By that you mean "read what I think is worth reading"? Stephen King writes stories well. He has a gift for language and dialog. He doesn't pretend to be Dickens, but really, Dickens wrote serials for magazines. There's a good argument for King being the Dickens of this generation.

There's a difference between urging people to read, and urging people to read only what the urger finds worthy. I read constantly, some of it "literature," and lots of it genre fiction that I adore, including Stephen King. I meet so few people who actually DO read, I'm thrilled when I meet anyone who does, and don't belittle their choices when they aren't the same as mine.

Posted by: ncnn at July 1, 2009 9:34 PM

Figgy and Ncnn- YAY! I LOVE Stephen King and I don't care who knows it. My favorite authors are of the dead, dusty, and British variety; however, King does it for me. I love how nasty he is and how he can scare the ever-loving shit out of me and make me afraid to sleep with my closet door un-braced. I'm askeered of clowns and it's Stephen King's fault.

I don't meet a lot of readers, either. When I do, I am tickled shitless- I don't care WHAT they read, as long as they read and want to talk about what they read.

Unless they read romance novels. I don't mean novels that are romantic, I mean those heaving breasts/turgid members/Fabio pieces of shit. Those aren't real books. I'm sorry, but they're not. They are travesties.

In conclusion, I love Stephen King so much that if he DID write a book called "Why I, Stephen King, Am Such an Awesome Writer", I would buy that shit. Also, romance novels make me want to puke.

Posted by: Cletus at July 2, 2009 12:10 AM

I would have to agree and disagree with a lot of things that people have already said. I took about six creative writing classes in college (enough to get the minor...and yes, my grammar is atrocious, I know this) and in every class we had to read some book about writing:
Writing Fiction-Janet Burroway
The Everyday Writer-Lunsford & Connors
The Courage To Write-Ralph Keyes
A Short Story Writer's Companion-Tom Bailey
I'm not including the Screenwriting and Playwriting because they don't really fit.
Anyway, I am a King fan, for those who like to call him a literary hack check out The Running Man or The Long Walk (one of my favorite books). While his style isn't what some like, I prefer the simple language, it is also easier to take than say Cormac McCarthy. It took me about a week to read Blood Meridian whereas it usually takes me a day to read a King book because I thought my mind would explode. King himself reads though, a lot, in an issue of Entertainment Weekly he even said that he can't wait for McCarthy to put out another book. Even in On Writing he encourages writers to read as much as possible.
For me On Writing was better than any of the others I had to read because I not only simply "chose" to read it but once again he used the simple language. It encouraged me to write and it even brought me a little hope. He contradicts himself though several times (I think there is a part where he suggests people not be very descriptive in their writing despite the fact that he is actively descriptive). I guess I've said what I came here to say.

For those interested though, out of the ones I listed, The Courage To Write was the best.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at July 2, 2009 1:13 AM

DeistBrawler - I agree with you! King has a simplicity to his writing, easily accessible, and functionally descriptive. Look at Steinbeck, who has a similar simplicity. I occasionally like weightier writing, but don't want to constantly be exhausted by what I read. As for King and "don't be very descriptive," I always thought he meant in terms of number of words used, such as saying "The sky was blue" instead of "The light of day showed clear to the horizon, a bird's egg, an ocean, nay, a fair blond maid's crystal gaze, deep with longing." Or something like that.

Posted by: ncnn at July 2, 2009 9:18 AM

I own at least one copy of every book Stephen King has ever written. I can't say I have thoroughly and completely enjoyed every one of them, but as they say, two outta three ain't bad.

Just because you don't like his words or his sentence structure, that doesn't make the story a piece of shit. It would be a damn shame if he had all those stories floating around in his head and didn't share them with the rest of us, even if his writing style is not your cup of tea.

As for King being the gateway drug, that must make Dr. Seuss the Marlboro Man.

Posted by: neurotica at July 2, 2009 9:27 AM

I can take or leave the novels - I liked them better as a teenager than I do now. But for my money, King is absolutely, positively, the best short story writer of this generation. His ability to create a distinct world within the first few paragraphs of a story is unparalleled.

Posted by: S.K. at July 2, 2009 9:40 AM

Clearly some good points were made here. He certainly has his fans and I appreciate his self deprication. I think what sets me off is giving him some kind of high lit, greatest-ever status even if it's unintentional.

Posted by: Gunnertec at July 2, 2009 11:18 PM

For all of you who say that Stephen King is a horrible writer...just don't read his books. It's really not that difficult. If he's so bad why are you on the internet talking about him? If I read a bad book I don't google it and look for places to say how bad it sucks. Why are you reading his book on how to write? You're just promoting the fame that you think he is undeserving of. He's a writer. Some people like your style some people don't. The thing is. More people like the way he does his job than yours. Or do you make hundreds of millions of dollars as well?

Posted by: Justin at July 9, 2009 10:28 PM

I enjoyed it more as an auto-biography. The actual advice on writing is pretty thin, and what little there is is pretty basic stuff you can find in a million other books I'm amazed whenever I hear anyone pushing it as a "must-read" for budding writers. It's way more entertaining than useful.

Posted by: steve at July 18, 2009 4:25 AM