On Writing
Oct. 30th, 2005 03:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livingdebI heard two interesting quotes from waitresses this morning: "I am not your waitress" and "That is not for you."
That seemed like enough for a blog entry this morning, but now it doesn't.
I'm trying to finish Stephen King's On Writing this month. This book has come highly recommended to me from several sources.
So far I have read the section that could be called "On Stephen King's childhood." Interesting, but unhelpful.
I have also read the section that could be called "On Stephen King's Grandpa's toolbox." Or whoever's toolbox. Nice toolbox, nice imagery, not helping.
I am now in a section that feels like "On What Stephen King Likes." He makes some good points, sort of, but they're not easy for me to swallow.
For example, he explains that reading bad writing helps you recognize bad writing and makes it less likely you will make the same mistakes. He gives an example of someone who repeated a word too often. See, sounds like good advice, right? But then he lists several books as being obviously horrible, one of which I enjoyed, and a book as obviously well-written, which a friend and I couldn't help making fun of. And since everything's so obvious, he doesn't have to explain himself.
I've always known that writing that is lacking in one area can be considered great writing because some other area is so well-done. King even says it. But he also seems to think that certain kinds of problems are so terrible that they will ruin a book. (Though I don't know what they are, because they are too obvious for him to explain.)
And so I've decided that the real lesson is that if you read something you don't like, it can help you refrain from doing that in your own writing. But I think what you learn about is mostly a matter of taste. Sure, some things we dislike because they are poorly done. But other things we dislike are things that other people like. So, I think that reading bad fiction helps you to find your voice more than I think it helps you gain technical proficiency.
And then King starts making pronouncements about how to live your life. You should spend all your spare time reading, even if it means being a little rude to the people around you. The family dinner table has got to be scintillating around his place. You should never watch TV because how much of presumably icky TV people (some of whom I don't recognize! ha!) can one need in one's life? And if you don't do what he says, you don't deserve to a be a writer.
And then he pulled my favorite stunt, that whole idea that if you don't feel that you must write, and that you could not live without writing, then you shouldn't be writing at all. I don't think anyone is born feeling called to something. They get a taste of it and find they want more. I think writing can help you develop a calling to write.
He also seems too much like my least favorite ballroom dance teachers who teach a step merely by saying "Watch this. Now you do it." If I could learn by watching, I would learn dancing in dance halls instead of paying to take a class. Similarly, if I can learn to write only by writing, why am I reading a book? Of course I need to write to learn, but learning by doing (jumping into the deep end) can be extremely inefficient.
I fell asleep during the part where he was explaining that people sometimes get bored with books if they have too much description. Mmm, bored with book. Zzzz.
He also is a self-confessed liar and jerk. I really don't like him right now. I'll keep reading though. After all, I've read only 178 pages. There are 110 pages of wisdom left; it's quite possible I'll find some of it useful.
That seemed like enough for a blog entry this morning, but now it doesn't.
I'm trying to finish Stephen King's On Writing this month. This book has come highly recommended to me from several sources.
So far I have read the section that could be called "On Stephen King's childhood." Interesting, but unhelpful.
I have also read the section that could be called "On Stephen King's Grandpa's toolbox." Or whoever's toolbox. Nice toolbox, nice imagery, not helping.
I am now in a section that feels like "On What Stephen King Likes." He makes some good points, sort of, but they're not easy for me to swallow.
For example, he explains that reading bad writing helps you recognize bad writing and makes it less likely you will make the same mistakes. He gives an example of someone who repeated a word too often. See, sounds like good advice, right? But then he lists several books as being obviously horrible, one of which I enjoyed, and a book as obviously well-written, which a friend and I couldn't help making fun of. And since everything's so obvious, he doesn't have to explain himself.
I've always known that writing that is lacking in one area can be considered great writing because some other area is so well-done. King even says it. But he also seems to think that certain kinds of problems are so terrible that they will ruin a book. (Though I don't know what they are, because they are too obvious for him to explain.)
And so I've decided that the real lesson is that if you read something you don't like, it can help you refrain from doing that in your own writing. But I think what you learn about is mostly a matter of taste. Sure, some things we dislike because they are poorly done. But other things we dislike are things that other people like. So, I think that reading bad fiction helps you to find your voice more than I think it helps you gain technical proficiency.
And then King starts making pronouncements about how to live your life. You should spend all your spare time reading, even if it means being a little rude to the people around you. The family dinner table has got to be scintillating around his place. You should never watch TV because how much of presumably icky TV people (some of whom I don't recognize! ha!) can one need in one's life? And if you don't do what he says, you don't deserve to a be a writer.
And then he pulled my favorite stunt, that whole idea that if you don't feel that you must write, and that you could not live without writing, then you shouldn't be writing at all. I don't think anyone is born feeling called to something. They get a taste of it and find they want more. I think writing can help you develop a calling to write.
He also seems too much like my least favorite ballroom dance teachers who teach a step merely by saying "Watch this. Now you do it." If I could learn by watching, I would learn dancing in dance halls instead of paying to take a class. Similarly, if I can learn to write only by writing, why am I reading a book? Of course I need to write to learn, but learning by doing (jumping into the deep end) can be extremely inefficient.
I fell asleep during the part where he was explaining that people sometimes get bored with books if they have too much description. Mmm, bored with book. Zzzz.
He also is a self-confessed liar and jerk. I really don't like him right now. I'll keep reading though. After all, I've read only 178 pages. There are 110 pages of wisdom left; it's quite possible I'll find some of it useful.