This is not a critical review of Stephen King's
On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. There is a lot of sensible, pragmatic advice in this book that takes a would-be author through the whole process of writing from 1st Draft to Publication. Much of this I have learned over the years and won't bore you with a detailed account. No, this post is about what I've taken from this work that will help me move forward in my own writing.
The first 118 pages of
On Writing are a brief, self-effacing autobiography to 1997. It is his "CV". It even covers his descent into alcoholism, drug dependancy and rehabilitation. It's to the point, frequently profane and rather funny. It is also somewhat sad when he says he barely remembers writing
Cujo because of his addictions
[1]. It is an insight into the man and how he is going to deliver his wisdom. (There are another 22 pages starting after his wisdom, at p.305, that cover the period from being hit by a truck, sustaining a medical dictionary's worth of hideous injuries and his remarkably rapid to returning to work some months later whereafter he finished this book.)
The next section is the "Toolbox". In 36 pages, he uses the carpenter's tray toolbox metaphor to go through the fundamentals of English language - top tray: vocabulary and grammar; second tray: elements of writing style, etc. It rattles those universal schoolboy hates: not repeating a word on the page that's been used in a previous sentence or paragraph, and; remembering the technical names for parts of sentences that serve no purpose in adult life unless you intend to teach English. Reading that short section made me aware that I still consciously abide by those grammar school rules and edit repeatedly to remove duplications, adverbial abominations and clichés. I've done it here, several times.
Toolbox open, so to speak, Mr King then commences his approach to the mastery of the craft.
Inevitably, he starts with the obvious great commandment of many authors: read and read a lot
[2]. Epic fail there then. I am a poor reader. No, I'm an abysmal reader. Stephen King says
he's a poor reader and yet he gets through about 70 to 80 books a year, mostly fiction
[3]. I normally only get through one, maybe two. For someone who writes fiction, that is appalling. Of course, I read plenty of academic papers and non-fiction texts for research but I need to remember that I am writing fiction. My wife has been telling me for ages that I am not writing a research paper. Mr King makes the same comment later in his text
[4].
In actuality, it has been a bit of an extraordinary year on the fiction reading front in that I've read three novels already - two of Bernard Cornwell's
Last Kingdom series and Graham Greene's masterpiece,
The Power and the Glory. I also started a fourth in May (that shall remain nameless) but only got to page 14 before my intolerance of poor research had me ruing the £3.99 I had spent on it (3 for 2 deal at Tesco, the other two books being for my wife). There is also a fifth historical novel by an author I've never heard of that will be started today. We'll see how that goes.
If I'm truthful, I find reading historical fiction rather hard. This is in part because it's for pleasure, not learning. Yet, as long as I am enjoying the story, why should I crave facts? Well, because they add tangible anchors to my vision of the world being portrayed and if they're wrong, I am jarred, sometimes deeply irritated. The
Last Kingdom series, for instance, creates a believable vision of 9th Century England even though I know Cornwell bends historical facts to fit his storylines. Often, in the epilogues, he freely admits what he's contorted. That's fine because I didn't notice so it didn't mar my enjoyment. Many years ago, Ellis Peters achieved the same ensorcelling with
Cadfael when I knew far less than I do today and I loved them just as much. Ignorance was indeed bliss. But there are works that fail miserably and I could throw straight into the bin; the one I bought in Tesco being a prime example. Mr King, however, maintains that if I had despatched the accomplished author's drivel to a charity shop, I would have missed an opportunity to learn how
not to write. Style, capability to describe people and scenes, write dialogue, set pace and characterise will develop the more I read - even the rubbish. Further, the more I read, the more I will learn what aspects of my genre have not already been 'have-at-you'd' to death in a stampede of cliché (insert ROFL emoji of your choice and frequency).
Moving on, Mr King concurs with just about every other writing guide that you need a dedicated writing space. He recommends it should be free of distractions: phones, TVs, even views out the window and, vitally, be a room with a lockable door to get that spontaneous, energy-filled first draft down uninterrupted
[5] . He does allow music into his writing room which suits me. For him it's groups like Metallica. Mine tend to be more folky, ethereal, echoing a medieval or Arabian feel like Jethro Tull, Loreena McKennitt and some Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow. He also agrees with learned counsel that it is essential to have the commitment to set daily minimum word-count targets. He aims for 2,000 words per 3 hour morning stint which produces a 180,000 word novel in three months. That velocity seems daunting to me. I have done 2,000 words and more in a morning but not day in day out. The energy must be incredible. He even notes that he was on fire when he wrote
The Running Man and completed that in a week
[6]!
One of the frequent pieces of advice given to budding authors is: "write what you know". Whilst not absolutely against it, he recommends you write whatever you like as long as it is believable. He's adamant about believability. He says readers switch off if the characters or story cease to have any credibility. He returns to this absolute when discussing description, dialogue, characterisation, symbolism and theme. It doesn't mean don't only write what you know but if your writing a murder mystery, it seems highly unlikely you will have much real world experience unless you are a) the murderer; b) the detective or c) Kathy Reichs (who trained FBI agents in the recovery of human remains and was a consultant forensic anthropologist to North Carolina before
Déja Dead shot her to authorial fame in 1997). It's common sense really. In my case, fortunately for my readership, Quantity Surveying didn't exist in the 12th century so I'm going to have to rely upon what I know about medieval construction instead. Ah, you cry, but didn't Ken Follett do that in
Pillars of the Earth and
World Without End? Oh. Yes. Bugger. Just as well that building is incidental to all but one of my forthcoming trilogy. (Trilogy? Insert more ROFL and rolling eyes emojis of your choice.)
Moving swiftly on...
The further I got into
On Writing, the more I found myself liking Mr King's approach. The first major plus came when he wrote do not to get hung up on the plot. (Yes!) He says plot "is a good writer's last resort and a dullard's first choice"
[7]. He doesn't hate plotting. He does it where necessary but he calls it various derogatory names including tyrannical and the jackhammer of writing: clumsy, mechanical and anti-creative
[8]. After all, he says, our lives are plotless
[8]. It was quite a relief to see this put so succinctly. I never had a concrete plot for
Broken Bonds: my characters had situations through which they told the story. The first draft grew organically. In places it was perfect, evocative, emotional. In others, ludicrously lacking.
This leads him on to say that he doesn't always know exactly how his stories end either. (Yes again!) I have worried about weak endings and no endings for years. Finally, I have a world-renowned author saying why be a control freak; the ending will come out somewhere?
[10]
So, having spent years thinking I need a clear plot and definitive ending, I now know it is not an absolute. These are the two key points I will take from this book to move my own work forward.
To finish off then, Stephen King has created an easy, engaging take on the 'how to write' genre. Often, such books are too academic. This is sensible, enlightening, irreverent, profane and packed full of anecdotes. It is clearly the best creative writing book I have read, far more engaging than Natalie Goldberg's
Writing Down the Bones and less woo-woo than Julia Cameron's more broad-spectrum
Artist's Way. It is also clear to me that there is absolutely nothing wrong with my approach to writing other than I don't read anywhere near enough fiction and don't write every day.
1. King, Stephen, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, p.110, New English Library, Hodder & Stoughton. 2001
2. Ibid, p.164
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid, p.277
5. Ibid, p.178
5. Ibid, p.175
6. Ibid, p.189
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid, p.188
9. Ibid, p.190
To tidy up a few things, I finished the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. This was, in part, driven by the fact that my wife had bought me the next in the series: Girl who Played with Fire.
