On Writing by Stephen King

With the work I have now, I thought it was high time for me to finally read King's On Writing. Let me put forth a few home truths:

1. I am not a writer. The extent of my claim to being a writer goes as far as authoring around 7 teacher's modules, contributions to a few textbooks, an article in a magazine here and there (like 10 years ago), and one accepted essay in an anthology about to be published. And this blog. So, as one who must now help other writers publish their book, I figure I need to learn all I can about that craft.
2. However, I am a reader, as should be obvious from this blog. I read voraciously and widely. Sometimes, I may not read as much or as often as I'd like, but I still go around with a couple of reading implements on me (my Kindle and a print book, more often than not). 

Thus, putting these two truths together, my response to learning the craft of writing, especially of fiction, is to read about it.

Right. Lame. But, for one who is so in love with fiction and consumes it in great heaving chunks, I have never had the urge to come up with my own. I've tried (2 Nanowrimos) but it was really just for the heck of trying. So, reading about how others do it is the best I can do.

Which brings us to Stephen King's On Writing. It's a book I had always wanted, and I finally got the ebook version when I got my Kindle. Actually, I wanted On Writing because, apart from the great reviews, I mistakenly thought it had one of my favorite King essays, "Why We Crave Horror Movies". I don't know where I got that idea, but it was always an assumption.

Nevertheless, On Writing was everything the good reviews raved it would be, and more. For one, I loved King's memoir of his journey to becoming a successful writer.

Ok, not everyone is a fan of Stephen King. When I was in college, I remember a few professors disparaging him. But I do remember one professor who also said that we underestimate writers such as him. I tend to agree with this last professor.

I don't want to rehash what I think about the distinction between "literary" novels and "genre" novels or the marginalization of story (wrote about that in a review of Gaiman and Sarrantonio's Stories anthology). Suffice it to say that Stephen King, for all his faults, is still a damn good writer. I'm not a fan of all of his books, but I'm a fan of enough of them to say so. His Salem's Lot is the scariest vampire novel I've ever had the privilege of reading, and I still remember the stories of Carrie, Firestarter, Pet Sematary, and The Stand, which is much more than I can say for many of the other books I've read in my life. Also, it's pretty hard to argue with success, and I think we can all safely say that the man is successful.

And down-to-earth. At least, that was the impression I got after reading his memoir, the first part of On Writing. I'm a big sucker for "how-I-prevailed" stories. They give people like me hope and inspiration, trite as that may sound. So, Stephen King's wall of rejection slips, his distaste for journalistic writing, and writing tips from his editor give me as much satisfaction as a warm cup of cocoa. With marshmallows.

When I say that I got more than I expected from On Writing, however, I am referring to King's very concrete tips for writers, of his effort to focus on the language. Again, I stipulate that I am no writer. But I have been editing for the past four years. And I have been a teacher. King's tips made me wish that I had read this book back when I was still teaching high school students. For instance, his tip on simplifying the writing. Sure, this tip has been bandied about a lot. Yet I appreciate the concreteness of his examples, such as the sample chapter from Room 1408. Yep, the movie. I actually didn't know that Stephen King wrote that. I have fallen far behind on all things King.

And the idea that one doesn't have to begin with the plot. I felt that was liberating. Being the obsessive-compulsive individual that I am, I've always figured that one needs to outline one's plot first. Yet King has a different process. He starts with thinking of a situation, of a character's back story. Then he writes from there and lets the characters take him where they will. Puts me in mind of what Junot Diaz said in the recent Manila International Literary Festival, about the difference of writing short stories and novels. Diaz said that a short story is a fully conscious work, but a novel is not. One has to trust one's unconscious at some point in the act of writing a novel. I figured that that's not so far from what King does when he says he lets his characters take him where they want to go.

That's for the first draft, of course. King, like most other writers, espouses the discipline of writing and the work that needs to be done for the second draft. Plain and simple, it's work. Work that many of us might want to do, given the luxury of time and millions in royalties. But it's work all the same. And I have great respect for hard work.

So the question is, am I inclined now to try my hand at writing fiction after reading this book? To be honest, I'm still not sure. It did push me to finally write this blog post, though, after weeks of not writing anything. I figure, it doesn't have to be fiction, does it? I think I just miss writing for me.