Stephen King’s On Writing…time for an update?
I just listened to Stephen King reading the audio version of his book “On Writing,” and I have to say, the world of things King has changed enough that he should really update the book. Two things stand out that I thought I’d mention in particular.
In one section of the book, King talks about his process. His process is situational. You take a situation, like a woman and child trapped in a car by a rabid dog, you start writing about that situation, and you let it develop into a book…many of his books began this way, and he claims little or no use of the “Jackhammer” of plot in getting from from beginning to end.
Two of his novels he cites as perfect examples of this process - the purest examples - are “Gerald’s Game,” and “The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon.” Personally, I wouldn’t have used those two examples to try and put forward my method. I think they are - for me - two of his least appealing books, and certainly they aren’t his most popular. If they are the purest examples of his chosen process, he should probably think about diluting it more often.
The other thing I noticed was that he called himself, in “On Writing,” an A-Z man. What he meant was that he thought flashbacks were almost always a problem - that he thought a story should go - basically - from beginning to end in chronological order.
Recently, in books like “Lisey’s story,” and “Duma Key,” not to mention a book he was working on at the end of the time he wrote “On Writing,” which was “From a Buick 8,” and then again in the Dark Tower Series, flashbacks were integral, deeply embedded facets of his work. This seems to be a shift from his earlier thoughts on the subject, and I have dearly loved the later books.
And while we’re at it, he has a lot of pet peeves. I agree with almost all of them - kill your darlings (cut 10 percent) - kill as many adverbs as you can. Avoid passive voice when possible. Here’s a pet peeve of mine. The word ‘could’, and I’ve noticed that Steve is one who I see breaching my rule often. I admit it as my own rule, and I doubt everyone will agree, but it irks me.
In the same vein as “passive voice” - why say… “I could see the farm from up there,” when what you really mean is “I saw the farm from up there.”? Isn’t this passive? If not, it’s a close cousin. “He could hear them.” He could, or he did? If the answer is the latter, THAT is what you should write. It drives me BONKERS. I could scream…but I won’t because it would irritate people…
Anyway…this is my official call to a writer I admire greatly, whose work has shared ups and downs of my life for decades, and who I consider the greatest living dark fantasist…Mr. King? We’ve never met, but we’ve shared pages in some anthologies, and I think you have some HWA award certificates with my signature, not to mention my autograph in some of the aforementioned anthologies. You probably don’t know me from Adam - but for what it’s worth - I’d dearly love an updated “On Writing,” or maybe “On Writing II - the Later Years”.
Barring that, I’d love to sit down one day and discuss it over a cold iced-tea.
DNW
07/7/08, 10:52 AM |
I agree.
And to add my pet peeve: “You see” and now “could” will drive me crazy as well.