Stephen King's "On Writing": Sections 1 - 7 (On Living: A Postscript)

Having grabbed your attention and hooked you with the closing line of the last section - "a man driving a blue van almost killed me" - King slows down the pace and starts to build suspense like only he can. He describes weekends at his summer house in Maine, taking long walks by the side of the road, feeling the wind in his - BAM. Almost killed by a man in a blue van.

King's description of Bryan Smith (the driver of the blue van) is hilarious. The moment where he realizes that he's almost been killed by a character out of his own novels is particularly amusing. The rest of the passage is harrowing in the way medical shows on television typically are - I felt my skin crawling and my spine hurting as I read it. Reading these couple chapters was enough to make any man of a strong constitution into a chronic hypochondriac.

King was smart to include this section at the back of the book. His portrayal of writing as having medicinal properties is touching and inspiring (without being overly Hallmarkian.) It's also a good decision because it brings the book full circle. He starts the whole thing with a biographical explanation of why he writes. He then describes how he writes. Finally, he closes the book with a tale of a near-death epiphany: that no matter what he does, and what the world does to him, he HAS to write.

Stephen King's "On Writing": Sections 14 to 16

The final chapters of King's incredibly informative book are suitably chronological. He discusses the validity of writing classes, the process of finding publication, and most importantly, the inherent joy in writing.

The chapter on writing classes was a little boring, but I found I related to his frustration with them. I once took an intensive writing course at a camp I went to, and I became increasingly irritated by the demands of the instructor that we read our pieces aloud immediately after we finished them - no revising, first drafts only. It makes one incredibly uncomfortable, as the work you're reading aloud simply isn't finished.

The passage on publication was more interesting to me, if only because it provides an insight into the secretive world of publishing. The advice all seems sound, but King's suggestions of buying Writer's Market books and scanning them meticulously seemed a little bit like overkill. I did, however, appreciate the form letter written by "Frank" to prospective agents. It was genuine and unassuming, and if I were a literary agent I don't think I could resist making an offer.

The final chapter of the book (excluding the epilogue) was probably, for me, the best one yet. King sums up in so few words why his readers should want to write. The idea of a buzz, a feeling of joy found for free in creative expression is inspiring.

Stephen King's "On Writing": Sections 9 to 12

I'm continually impressed by King's ability to walk the reader step by step through the creative process. I'm convinced this book would be interesting even to people who would never dream of becoming writers. It's such a fascinating study of the process, and I think reading it makes a better reader as well as a better writer. We take books for granted, when we read them, but King pulls back the curtain and exposes the toil and sweat behind writing a novel.

I really enjoyed the passage in which King describes the deathly crush of writer's block, and the epiphany with which he escapes it. That moment, sitting on a park bench and realizing suddenly how to finish his story, is something the reader can picture perfectly - the joy and relief is palpable.

The concept of the "Ideal Reader," too is brilliant. All King's done, really, is point out something all writers already know. In doing so, he provides license to use the impulse to write for one person, as opposed to writing for an audience.

Over all, I was impressed with King's proficiency for making writing seem fun. One tends to think of writing as work - work that you may enjoy, but work nonetheless. King encourages you to have fun with it, and in that he departs from the conventional wisdom found in other writing books. It's also what makes his book so much more interesting, and so much more educational.

Stephen King's "On Writing": Sections 4 to 7

I enjoyed this part of the book more than any other we've read so far. King's encouragement to find truth in what you like to write, as opposed to what others would like you to write is truly eye-opening. He twists the "write what you know" cliché on its head, citing John Grisham's "troubled lawyer" novels as perfect examples. Instead of telling the reader to start small, he tells them to start big, even to start with that dreaded literary device, a "concept."

I disagree with King about plot. Once again, he seems to believe that because HE'S a situation writer, and HE'S successful, it must be the only route to success. It is however evident that some of the best novels ever written are intricately woven tales of complexity that could only possibly be written with much planning ahead. Story is as valuable as situation, and I'd hope that King would have the open mind to acknowledge that.
I do appreciate his analogy of the fossil found in the ground, waiting to be excavated. The metaphor works on every level - his description of the tools, in particular, stays with me. The use of brushes and small picks to perfect a fossil is a perfect parallel to the editing process.

The most fascinating part of the passage is when he details how he came up with the idea for "Misery." It really does support his "fossil" theory to read the different stages of the story - from dream to reality, literally.

Stephen King's "On Writing": Sections 1 to 3

I was disappointed with King's narrow approach to the craft of writing in this section. I've enjoyed everything else I've read from the book, but this passage struck me as cynical and self-serving. Throughout it, he seems to assert that his own method of writing is the only road to success.

While I agree that reading is incredibly important in the development of a writer, I disagree that it's impossible for a writer to develop without reading four to six hours a day, as King encourages. There's no proof that Shakespeare - undoubtedly the greatest writer of all time - was as avid a reader as King. Until the 19th century, in fact, only the educated and elite could afford the luxury of books.

Shakespeare appears in the section as a "Great writer," along with Dickens and Faust and Chaucer. The passage in which King seperates all writers into four categories is, for lack of a better term, a load of old twaddle. To take something as subjective as literary quality and create a strictly structured categorization is shortsighted and beneath King's considerable talents.

My favourite thing about the article was when King described his experience with a story that used the word "zestful" in almost every sentence. He compares it to an antibiotic drug, pointing out that he has never used the word "zestful" since.

Minette Walters' "Character"

I found Minnette Walters’ article on character to be interesting overall, if a little too focused on crime writing, instead of fiction in general. The most interesting part was where she compared Agatha Christie’s famous creations, Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She exposes that even within a specific genre, there are authentic voices an inauthentic voices (though she was a little harsh on poor Poirot.) She also shows how even a very good writer can create wooden characters if they’re not fully invested in them.

I also enjoyed the descriptions of the typical characters in crime fiction – investigator, murderer, etc. Genre fiction is often criticized for using the same characters in all of its works, but Walters proves that working within the constructs of a genre can be rewarding for the writer and the reader. A certain amount of expectation can actually improve the reading experience: if we know there will be an investigator, a murderer, and so forth, the writer doesn’t have to explain as much. Because they don’t have to explain, they have more time to expand the characters and the story.

The other interesting thing she pointed out was the paragraph on dialogue. I often find it difficult writing dialogue, because one has to strike a balance between realistic brevity and advancement of the story. Walters provides a viable formula for proper use of dialogue that I think works very well.