Book Review: Stephen King’s “On Writing”
by Miles Raymer
After a disappointing standoff with The Gunslinger, two of my closest friends encouraged me to give Stephen King another shot before writing him off entirely. One of them, a longtime fan, suggested that On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft would be a better fit for me. She was right. On Writing is a quick, witty, and endearing glimpse into the mind of a thoughtful, hardworking guy who also happens to be one of the most successful authors in history.
Half memoir and half writing manual, On Writing has much to offer readers interested in King’s life as well as his writing process. The memoir sections were my favorite, probably because King was born just one year before my mother and I love hearing about the generation that came of age in the 1960s and 70s. I especially enjoyed learning how young writers tried to break into publishing in that pre-Internet, social media-less era. King has an observant eye and assesses the world with a singular combination of compassion, indifference, and playful mockery. He is remarkably humble, and while he doesn’t downplay his own formidable work ethic, he definitely doesn’t give the impression that he thinks his success was inevitable, or even deserved on such a massive scale.
On Writing presents quite a few keen insights about the nature of language and storytelling, but I could take or leave much of King’s writing advice. He is a nuts and bolts author––a blue-collar wordsmith who puts a premium on literary expedience. All he can impart is lessons on how to write like Stephen King. And that’s fine, but it’s not very useful for writers seeking to create their own authentic relationship with this uniquely fraught and emancipatory activity. This is more a general of critique of writing manuals and “how-to” treatises than anything else, one that reminds me why I tend to avoid these genres entirely. Even from a guy as sincere and talented as King, it is something of an absurdity to sit a reader down and say, “Hey, you know that thing that everybody knows you have to figure out for yourself? Well, here’s how I did it!”
Writing is whatever a writer (or team of writers) can make of it, so to set out even minor rules or guidelines is already to create the possibility of leading aspirants astray from what should be as close to a purely solipsistic process as is humanly possible. I think King would agree, even as I’m also sure there are lots of writers out there who have benefited greatly from his thoughts on the subject.
While I may not have keened to King’s suggestions about how to write, I definitely appreciate his acknowledgement of writing’s vast importance for those who practice it:
You can approach the act of writing with nervousness, excitement, hopefulness, or even despair––the sense that you can never completely put on the page what’s in your mind and heart. You can come to the act with your fists clenched and your eyes narrowed, ready to kick ass and take down names. You can come to it because you want a girl to marry you or because you want to change the world. Come to it any way but lightly. Let me say it again: you must not come lightly to the blank page. (loc. 1203, emphasis his)
Writing isn’t about making money, getting famous, getting dates, getting laid, or making friends. In the end, it’s about enriching the lives of those who will read your work, and enriching your own life, as well. It’s about getting up, getting well, and getting over. Getting happy, okay? Getting happy. (loc. 3234)
Who could disagree?
Rating: 7/10
I would disagree with you that writing advice is not useful to aspiring writers who want to form their own relationship with writing. As with any craft, learning from other craftsmen is extremely useful, even if the advice is coming from a writer of different style, genre, etc. I read “On Writing” some ten years ago, and I still remember, and use, some of the lessons King taught me. I have seen many pieces of writing fail because writers shirk the basics in an attempt to differentiate their style from the pack. Rules and guidelines are crucial to language because the communication is not just for the author. The audience is an equal part of the exchange. My firm belief is that you cannot successfully break the rules if you do not first know them. To dismiss the rules is to justify sloppy craftsmanship, and that would truly lead aspiring writers astray. If I had sat down and just “figured it out myself,” my writing would be far worse.
Hi Colin! Thanks for reading my review and for this excellent comment. I agree with you that rules and guidelines are an essential part of learning to be a competent writer, and also that advice from other writers is probably the best way to learn them. When I stated that writers should “figure it out for themselves,” I did not mean to imply that fledgling writers should seek to reinvent basic syntax or try to radically modify common usage. I’ve long subscribed to the mantra you mentioned: learning the rules for any kind of artistic endeavor is a prerequisite for beginning to intelligently bend or break those same rules.
I think my central point was actually predicated on a premise I failed to state in the original review, which is that finding one’s authentic voice is only something that can occur after a writer has internalized the basic rules and guidelines for constructing competent prose. Beyond that point, I think really good writers tend to focus on cultivating a relationship with language and narrative that is completely unique to them, one that can only be marginally improved (if at all) by advice from readers or other writers. How a writer discovers the feeling and tone of his or her own prose is almost entirely a matter of self-inquiry, repetition, and discipline. I think the same goes for more technical matters (i.e. what time of day to write, how often to write, what pace to write at). So while I enjoyed and agreed with many of King’s thoughts on writing, I also thought a lot of them boiled down to “how to write like Stephen King.” Much of it was irrelevant to my own relationship with writing at this point in my development, and I found those sections a lot less interesting than King’s memories of growing up or thoughts on life in general. Perhaps if I’d read this book years ago (as you did), King’s writing advice would have seemed more novel or revelatory, but as it was he didn’t say much that I hadn’t already picked up from other sources and mentors over the years.
Okay, I see how we’re basically in agreement about the rules. But I will say that internalizing the rules, I think, is a lifelong process. There have been times I’ve drifted away from good habits and had to be reeled back in with a style guide or advice from an editor. In terms of style and tone and content, I really value the input of my readers and editors. Something that works for me in my head might not ring true for the reader, and more than anything, I want to effectively communicate my story, my message, my vision. I don’t think my writing process–bringing a piece from draft to its final form–will ever be a solitary experience. Guidance, while certainly more likely to come from a close editor than a Stephen King book, will always play a role that is more than marginal.
In terms of the writing process, as someone who wants to make a career of writing and is still searching for the right space and time to be efficient, I’m always fascinated by how other writers find their discipline. I’m actually thinking I’ll give On Writing a reread.
Thanks for responding brother. Come visit Montana and we can talk over beer!
I think we understand each other very well, my friend. Thanks again for reading and taking the time to comment.
Jessie and I should be heading to Montana sometime in late June or early July. Will be in touch with more precise dates in the New Year. Happy holidays!