On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King

I have a good friend who admires Stephen King, both as a writer and how he made his way from his blue-collar roots to skyrocketing success.  She's talked about On Writing since I met her, way back in the early 2000s.  I am, however, skeptical of Stephen King, mostly because my experience reading The Dark Tower series was mostly just a sense of inconsistency and longwindedness.  

And this book starts with more than 100 pages of what King calls his "C.V." - a "curriculum vitae - my attempt to show how one writer was formed" (page 18). And I start to despise King all over again. I don't understand how most of the anecdotes he shares have anything to do with his development as a writer and it becomes more and more apparent that I despise this man and it's not clear why, but I'm pretty sure if I met him in person, I'd be hard-pressed not to punch him.

And then the book abruptly transitions into King's advice on writing and I hate to admit it, but I agree with him on most things. He and I have similar views on much having to do with writing mechanics and production.

1) If something is important to you, you have to practice.  If you want to be a good writer, you need to read and write every day.  I'm not a writer, but I am a reader and it doesn't matter how busy or tired I am, I always find time for it in my day.  You don't just get to be a writer, habit makes you one.

2) Everyone can be a competent writer.  Bad writers can become competent with practice.  Not all good writers can become great, but everyone can become just fine.

3) King writes: The adverb is not your friend (page 124).  He also writes: Is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?" The reader has a perfect right to ask the question, and I have a duty to provide an honest answer. Yes. It is (page 127). 

I know, because I mentioned it in my review of The Gunslinger, that King does not shy away from adverbs. And he really should.

4) King is pretty adamant the Strunk and White's The Elements of Style is the only style guide you need on your shelf. I agree with this.

5) King admits that he tends to be the kind of author who adds to writing in revisions,  but Strunk and White's "omit needless words" rules, along with an editor's advice that the second draft should be 10% shorter than the first, has led him to try to be more concise in his revisions. I think this is valuable insight.

So as I was reading, I found myself in agreement with a lot of what he had to say.  But I just felt like this book was full of advice that worked for King because he had so much privilege.  Consider:

When I'm asked for "the secret of my success" (an absurd idea, that, but impossible to get away from), I sometimes say there are two: I stayed physically healthy...and I stayed married." (page 154)

I have some quibbles with this (he was an alcoholic cokehead addicted to nicotine for a great deal of his life - how is that "healthy"?), but I also side-eye this entire sentence because while King does talk a lot about how his wife, Tabby, is integral in his writing process as his first reader, he doesn't acknowledge all the other shit she undoubtedly does for him while he writing: the child rearing, the cooking, the appointment making and taking, the cleaning, the endless emotional labor that takes place when somebody in the household closes the door to his office to write for 4-6 hours a day.  He gives Tabby only one sentence to acknowledge how crucial this is to his ability to write.

So he gives everyone the advice to write for 4-6 hours a day.  Well, what if you can't?  What if  you have other responsibilities, be it family or financial or other?  It just seems so short-sighted and I can't get behind his lack of appreciation for his place of privilege.

King also has an entire section about how plot isn't his thing ("I won't try to convince you that I've never plotted any more than I'd try to convince you that I've never told a lie, but I do both as infrequently as possible" (page 163)) because "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." (page 163)

I rejoin: First, fiction is not supposed to be about our lives. It should be believable, but I don't want to read about where the characters parked the car and how much time they spent debating what flavors of Chex to buy at the grocery store any more than I want to read a meandering slice of life novel.  Furthermore, if you're going to write, let's say a hypothetical seven-book series in an apocalyptic western genre, it might behoove you to do some plotting so that in the last novel you don't have to include a scrimshaw MacGuffin in the last novel (ahem).  Second, if you don't think plotting and real creation are compatible, how do you explain the mystery story genre?  

But, as much as I want to bash on King (why do I dislike him? I mean, he's just a dude, right?), I found this book just so readable.  I think we can agree that King is unlikely to win a PEN/Faulkner award, but he is more than a competent writer. He's a good writer, maybe even a borderline great writer at moments. He writes with clarity and purpose.  I just wish he cared more about the same writing elements that I care about.