[EN World Book Club] On Writing by Stephen King (Discussion time!)

[Berandor]

I was really intrigued by his views on writing practice and talent: If you are a crappy writer, there may be no help for you. If you are an okay writer, then practice can make you into a pretty good one. But it takes more than practice to be a great writer -- you just have to have "it." (Whatever "it" is).

That's a good discussion point. Do I agree? Sort of.

If you are a pretty good writer, with practice and work you can be better than many great writers who neglect their talent or don't practise enough. You can waste your talent. There have been occasions where I read something and was sad for what the writer could have done, and what he endep up doing. And I don't mean "what the book could have been", but what you read between the lines the author might have been capable of delivering.

I also think this advice is a lot better than the usual "you can become everything you want, if you work hard enough". But it's not 100% PC. I like it when people take a stand, so I respect King's opinion. Whether he is actually right or wrong? Well, convince me

 

[takyris]

I think it's pretty right on. PC or not, most people accept the notion that while training and practice make people better at something, there's going to be a certain level of inherent skill. Perhaps years from now, we'll figure out that the inherent factor isn't, really -- that it's due to factors we were missing at the time. But until they can label everything, it's easier to just assume that practice can make you better at something, but you are also going to be inherently good or bad or average at it to begin with.

(I personally am really good at dialogue and fight scenes, good at plot, average at character, and bad at setting -- I can toss off good dialogue without trying in a first draft, and in the second (and third, and fourth) draft, I tweak the plot, fix some character issues, and put in all the setting I didn't put in at all in the first draft. Eventually, I can usually reach the point where my setting doesn't detract from my story -- but it's rarely if ever a reason to like one of my stories.)

The stuff that has really stuck with me:

- The Ideal Reader. This one just works for me. My wife is my ideal reader, except when I'm writing a fight scene, which she'll just gloss over.
- Right Story = Almost Right Story minus 10%. This idea has gotten some of my short fiction published (ie, it didn't sell, and then I cut 10%, and then it did sell). I'm currently applying it to a novel.
- Tie Goes to the Writer. I like this idea as well. It's helped me a lot in my responses to critiques. Remembering that I don't have to "fix" everything that anyone had an issue with is important, for me, because I'm in a writing group, and my instinctive response is to fix everything anyone had any issue with, which results in most of the sharp edges of my story being filed down because someone didn't like them.

Those were the things that directly clicked with me. There was a lot of other stuff that I agreed with, but those were the things that I remember really being grateful for.

 

[Berandor]

I think it's pretty right on. PC or not, most people accept the notion that while training and practice make people better at something, there's going to be a certain level of inherent skill. Perhaps years from now, we'll figure out that the inherent factor isn't, really -- that it's due to factors we were missing at the time. But until they can label everything, it's easier to just assume that practice can make you better at something, but you are also going to be inherently good or bad or average at it to begin with.

(I personally am really good at dialogue and fight scenes, good at plot, average at character, and bad at setting -- I can toss off good dialogue without trying in a first draft, and in the second (and third, and fourth) draft, I tweak the plot, fix some character issues, and put in all the setting I didn't put in at all in the first draft. Eventually, I can usually reach the point where my setting doesn't detract from my story -- but it's rarely if ever a reason to like one of my stories.)

The stuff that has really stuck with me:

- The Ideal Reader. This one just works for me. My wife is my ideal reader, except when I'm writing a fight scene, which she'll just gloss over.
- Right Story = Almost Right Story minus 10%. This idea has gotten some of my short fiction published (ie, it didn't sell, and then I cut 10%, and then it did sell). I'm currently applying it to a novel.
- Tie Goes to the Writer. I like this idea as well. It's helped me a lot in my responses to critiques. Remembering that I don't have to "fix" everything that anyone had an issue with is important, for me, because I'm in a writing group, and my instinctive response is to fix everything anyone had any issue with, which results in most of the sharp edges of my story being filed down because someone didn't like them.

Those were the things that directly clicked with me. There was a lot of other stuff that I agreed with, but those were the things that I remember really being grateful for.

It's all coming back now.

We should have started discussion three weeks ago.

 

[nakia]

- Do you think his coverage of the accident was excessive?

Thanks for the questions, Berandor. I'll bite on this one, but I've got a lot going on today (see sig), so I'll come back and talk about the other questions later.

He did talk about his accident a lot, but I didn't think it was excessive. Not only did it happen to him in the midst of writing this book (right?), but it was clearly a watershed moment in his life. Almost getting killed tends to be important, and it clearly was VERY important for King. He writes the event into the plot of The Dark Tower, even. The accident was important not only for his life, but for his writing. It got him to finish the Dark Tower series and pushed him into semi-retirement after finishing.

I guess I think if a life event is so important, you tend to talk about it a lot. I mean, I have rambled on about my dissertation defense for two weeks to anyone who will listen, and that's not like getting hit by a van (at least I hope not).

 

[Mark]

I read the book and then also picked up the audio book. King read his own book for the audio version and he is clearly still carrying around a huge amount of resentment (understandably) for the fellow that nearly killed him. I wonder how much the editor cut from the sections of the book where he goes into his accident. When I read those sections, I read them in a much more matter-of-fact manner than did King on the audio book. The difference was rather stunning to me.

...more later...

 

[William Ronald]

I am still reading the book (I am at about page 101), but I have found it helpful. First, King addresses how he began with simple stories and developed more complex stories latter. Perhaps one good bit of advice in the book is that you should be ready to write about characters you may dislike. You might gain some understanding of them in the process of writing.

Similarly, I think King does writers a service by saying that one should have a spot where one is comfortable writing. He also shows how his experiences and observations helped him create his characters.

More when I have read a bit more of the book.

 

[Mark]

I'm a big fan of his allowing the characters to carry a story to its natural conclusion as opposed to meticulously plotting it out.

 

[JoeBlank]

I "read" the book on tape, and can certainly agree with what Mark had to say about the emotion in King's voice when he covers the accident. Certainly understandable, it was a life-changing event for him and happened during the writing of this book.

The book managed to make me feel guilty about not writing enough while at the same time justified. King sacrificed a lot and had to be patient before he hit it big and was able to make a living off his writing. I just don't have it in me to do that. So while part of me wishes I would write every day I know it is just not going to happen. I guess what I am saying is if it takes that sort of dedication to really make it as a writer then I don't feel so bad about not putting in one night a week or so. As I'm sure many of us in this community can say, I pour the majority of my creative energy into gaming. There, I get more instant gratification, although I don't get the financial pay off.

The autobiography portions were my favorite parts of the book. I like that someone as successful as King can basically say he doesn't really know what made him into a writer. He had the knack and the drive, but if he had not put in the time to learn the craft and use his ability we would never have heard his name. So his background is important more from an example standpoint.

I also enjoyed the specific examples from his own works, as I have read many of them. To hear him explain how the process worked with this story or that is fun. I am kind of a process junky. I like the behind-the-scenes stuff, like you can often get on a DVD but rarely in a book.

On just writing the characters and allowing them to play out the story, wilthout having a strict plot outline: I recall hearing somewhere before that King did not plan or intend the fate of one of the main characters in Cujo, that it just came out that way. He would probably enjoy RPGs, as he creates characters, throws them into a situation and then lets the elements dictate the conclusion by actually playing out the story. Wonder if he has ever gamed.

 

[devilish]

I recall hearing somewhere before that King did not plan or intend the fate of one of the main characters in Cujo, that it just came out that way.

I was stunned to hear that he couldn't remember writing Cujo (drunk all the time) and
that he wished he could...

Quick auto-bio question : Why in some cases does he name a person ("Raw Diehl" and
the business teacher , Ms. Margitan) and in others he says "Let's just call
her Amy...". Are there rules/laws about character defamation that allow you to name names from your past, or is it just taste. Is it factual ("Ms. Margitan did the following..") v. perceptual ("I think Amy must've been bothered by the Jesus statue...")? I'd argue
that the writing of Ms. Margitan was just as "defaming" as if he had named the
girl who inspired Carrie.

 

[nakia]

I don't want to sound overly cynical, but maybe who King gives pseudonyms for vs. who he really names has to do with money. For example, if he said "Jane Smith was my inspiration for Carrie" then, could Jane Smith sue King for likeness rights, or something?

Just a thought, one easily disproven if King actually says that "real person X was my inspriation for character Y" or by someone who actually knows tort law.