Just finished it.

Eh. Was okay.

I liked the biographical stuff far more than the stuff on writing. He comes across as a funny, humble, down to Earth guy who'd probably be great to have at a BBQ. Very likeable. Made me want to read more of his work.

While I enjoyed some of his writing discussion and thought some of the advice, while obvious, was worth pounding in heads -- read and write, read and write, read and write, yes!, not to mention his discussion of cutting as you write the second draft -- some of his other writing discussion was either vague or, in the case of his thoughts on plotting, offered poor advice for starting writers. I get where he was coming from and why he took the stance he did, but bad Stephen. Bad, bad Stephen. Not good advice.

(Heck, maybe that's why you have a rep for starting strong but having so/so finishes.)

As an inspirational book on writing I found it very enjoyable. It reminded me of why I like doing it. As a book to assist starting writers, or even as a refresher for those who know this stuff but just like to keep it fresh in their head, I found it to be a little empty.

Love the book.

Love his viewpoints.

You can love them, but it's really not a very good book on writing. It's fine book, an enjoyable book, I enjoyed reading what he had to say, but it would be far from the first I recommend to someone aspiring to write. When it came down to the meat and potatoes of what the book was ostensibly about -- writing -- he didn't have much to offer.

I still enjoyed it. But not as a tome on writing. Rather, I liked it as a window in Stephen King's mind.

Agreed. The book is a very entertaining read.

Which in itself tells me that the guy understands the craft.

Agree or disagree with the guy's advice on the actual craft of writing, his ideas have served him well, and in fact, you can see him putting most of them to use in the sections of the book that you did enjoy.

Yes, I cannot quibble with that.

And let me be clear that I am not saying you don't know what you are talking about. I am fully aware of how you make your living.

I'm just saying that whatever "formula" the guy has been using for the last 35 years, it seems to be working.

I think Stephen King is most on when he's writing for Entertainment Weekly (the only none fiction of his I've read). I actually like that a lot more than his novels which I could never really get into.

Judith Krantz has been successful for 35 years. So has Elmore Leonard and Clive Cussler.

There are as many ways to write as there are books to be written. I have always enjoyed King's forwards and postscripts about his writing, because I find it fascinating to peer into the mind of a creative, artistic person.

A book by him about writing would be an enjoyable read, but likely of little help to an actual writer, I would think. You can read Goldmans book on screenwriting, or the On Screenwriting books, and it helps you to know the form and format and the conventions of Acts or plotting and etc.

But you still have ot have compelling ideas and plots, and (hardest for me) fully formed characters.

A friend of my wife's quit her job to start writing. She got advice from all over. My advice was, if you havent been writing for the last 5 years, then you really arent a writer, and you will never be one. (reasoning that writing is a compulsion, more that an avocation). Another person said, read a bunch of current fiction, and figure out the blueprint. Dan Brown, or what ever crap is currently the TOP SELLER. Then put your elements onto their blueprint, and voila.

See, this is silly. This is advice for someone who doesn't as much want to write as they want to be known as a writer; a (badly flawed) formula for selling books ... which is not advice for writing. They're two very different things.

Besides, such plug-and-play formulas do not work. Even if you do happen to get lucky and pick the right thematic formula at the right time, it won't do you any good if your writing is shit. Dan Brown's prose is absolutely vile, but the man can plot like a mother fucker. His brisk narrative overcomes his shortcomings as a writer. Both are aspects of the craft that need honing, and both are things no amount of "insert A into Y" can give you.

I didn't take it that way in the slightest.

What about my advice?

Yeah, but I felt the need to say that before some troublemaker like Steinbrenner popped in and accused me of it.

That's more of an opinion than advice Todd.

But thanks for playing anyway.

Now go spray cancer cells into the eyes of mice.

Good boy.

I enjoyed the book, and the single thing I took away from it (it's been about 10 years, I guess) is "Writer's write." It made me stop thinking about a change of life towards being a writer, and start desiring to write something good. I know I can "be a writer" anytime I want to.

I largely agree, except for the "never will be one" part.

http://bricktimes.micromediapubs.com/ne ... e/001.html

Guy was 97 when he published his first book. Pretty sure he's now working on his third. So you can turn that corner and realize a desire you've always had but never pursued.

But yeah, writers write. And writers write because they have to write. They need to. If you talk a lot about writing but don't actually do any of it, you're not a writer. I agree with that. Just not with the "never will be" part. That's far too discouraging and negative, in my opinion. For beginning writers especially it can take a while to build up the necessary head of steam to make writing a regular habit rather than an occasional compulsion.

I agree. In my brain, I love the idea of writing, and I constantly scribble down plot ideas, and thumbnails of stories. But I never actually follow thru on it, because it is hard, and time consuming, and all the other excuses, like work, kids, baseball games, poker, and etc.

It is one of the reasons that I really like Modding the WW games, cuz I can put togehter a plot, and characters, and the pithy little write ups at the end, and I find that extremely fun to do.

T

To elaborate further, I've wanted to write for as long as I can remember, but it took me many, many years to develop the discipline necessary to sit down and produce. I'd write in short bursts, little flashes of creative need, but that did me little good because 1) it took me forever to finish things, and 2) that's really not conducive to honing your craft. My first novel took me about 8 years to finish, and it stunk. I've written three other book-length works in half that time since, many other short works, and (I think) my work has gotten better with each project. The ability to sit down and write on a regular basis, an ability I had to work hard to develop, is probably the biggest factor in that.

This is a part where I agreed with King in many respects. You've got to set aside a space for yourself and just do it. That can be hard for a lot of people. It's really fucking hard. But you've got to do it, otherwise you're not a writer, you're someone who dreams of being a writer.

Which is fine, really. Nothing even remotely wrong with that. But for folks who really want to write, this is one of the first and biggest hurdles to overcome. In fact, I'd wager it's what ultimately stops most aspiring writers from ever getting past the daydreaming stage.

So, I can just pitch you my great story ideas, and you will write them, and we can share the obscene riches?

Yes.

Well, no.

You can have most of the Obscene Riches!!!

My milestone is writing my first short story that's really good, that I'm really proud of. I've read so much (and I am a critical reader -- I know good writing), that I can spot the crappiness in my own writing. I'm not a part of the "just get it down on paper" school of writing -- I have no desire to do that. I want to write something good, for pleasure.

I think some aspiring writers make the mistake of starting with the novel -- not a bad idea if you are making a full on effort to making a living as a writer. But the short story is more aluring to me now -- actually getting several published is more achievable, if they are good. Making a living off short stories? Not really achievable. But if you have your cost of living covered (as I do being a lawyer), the allure of publishing a few stories in some varied publications (including regional ones, etc.) is great.

Starting with short stories and the like is a solid option even for those who ultimately want to make a living as a novelist. A few published short stories will help in finding an agent (they see the short fiction market as something of a proving ground), might prompt editors to give your manuscript an extra five minutes (which can be make or break in the dog-eat-dog world of slush piles), and can help establish contacts in the industry that will help you as your career moves forward (because who you know is important, too).

A novel is a big, huge project. Diving right into one without testing yourself and honing your craft on short stories is doable, maybe, but I'd advise knocking out some shorts first.

(I also advise doing a lot of writing that isn't the kind you want to do. Write for the local paper and do record reviews and write press releases and whatever else you can get your hands on. It will ALL help in ways great and small, and will help you develop a broader, more flexible, more adaptable voice. Plus, discipline)