Reading to Write Stephen KingRead to write Stephen King
Read about writing: For Stephen King's "About Writing"
Nowadays I can't say that I have been reading many volumes about the typing proces. Years ago I recalled reading Anne Lamott's Birdby Birdbird, in which she spoke of taking lives and gradually rewriting how her little sister had to carry out a scientific research programme "Bird for Bird" when he got up at the last moment to do it.
When I was in my early 20s, I was possessed by Mary Pipher's writings to the World. She is the writer of Reviving Ophelia: Save the Selves of Adolescent Ladies, and besides the famous formulation of the famous hypothesis that our societies take something away from their women during the passage from infancy to adulthood, she has also tried to give advices to humans on how to write - especially how to write to make things distinguish.
Both of these autobiographic drafts on the subject of composition were very good, and I see a lot of use in reading them. Indeed, I do not argue at all that it is not worth reading a book about writing: if we cannot turn to winning authors to teach us their skills, who can we turn to? However, until my later twenties and early thirties I gave up my studies, at least in a non-academic way.
For one thing, it's difficult to say that I really gave up my studies, because a doctorate in mathematics takes an endless amount of work. But, of course, there is a big distinction between typing a fictional text and a fictional text, although the latter is more my strength in an analytic contexts.
So I often withdraw this choice and I toss myself into scribbling memoirs or a play of fantasy for a weeks or two, then I realise that I have no or that I could spend my free moment with other things, and I stop. Well, I haven't felt the need to study a script for a long while.
I' ve been reading a great deal of literature and lots of scholarly analyses over the last two years, but I haven't been reading much - or nothing at all - about reading literature. Type Stephen King. A man sees in everything a history or part of a history and virtually manic production of manic diction after diction, so that his curriculum vitae is a panthéon of wealthy, ghoulish tales covering the realms of terror (mostly), imagination and sifting.
He' s indisputably dazzling at everything I' m not: he has an idea, and he can bring those idea to a consequential end, writing a thick, abundant storyline with figures, storyline, intensity, a beginning, a center and an end. They are transient considerations when I am miserable, because I cannot be content with the things as they are, where I am, in the world.
I always wish I could do what Stephen King does. Not that I wish I were a wholeheartedly honest belletrist, but I wish I were. Anyway, the fictional processes for King seem to be as naturally as the breath, which is why I envy him very much, even when I'm catching him.
I' m catching more after reading On Writing. It is enough to say that I did not take up the text in the hopes that it would deliver information that would transform me into a magical, productive figure. There was a part of me that was looking for experienced advices, but I was reading them more out of pure inquisitiveness.
Mamma locked it in a birthdays gift a year or two ago, and it's got on whatever counters I happened to put it on while erecting - first one place, then another - and I kept looking at the figure on the front lid, of a about 90s Stephen King who' s been surrounded by stationery and looked thoughtful as he sat down to write yet another novel.
Have I started to write a novel first and get inspiration to write a novel, or have I been reading King and then get inspiration to write a novel? Yet I tried to write a novel while reading his text, and his words kept me going as I thought about giving up until I eventually gave up or at least took a break.
I don't think Stephen King would agree with that approach, but he is. To put it briefly, his work was at least inspiring enough to keep me creative while reading his novel. Then there was a lot of fun and a lot of fun, and I quit. However, Stephen King's novel is wealthy because it is made up of both memoirs and unbelievably useful tips.
Most of his memorabilia contain what most of them contain - not a flowing, year after year story-telling account of the author's biography, but excerpts of things he recalls here and there. It is interesting that he begins with reminiscences that contain a great deal of bodily pains, an emergency that he will describe again later in the volume when he talks about being struck by a road.
In spite of my evaluation of King in previous heels, as someone who produces a great deal of excellent literature with ease, I think what he insists on is that he has worked extremely harshly - and met with a great deal of disapproval - to achieve such a point of unquestionable succes. That was one of many at least semi-inspirational aspects of the memoirs.
At the same time, it was an enlightening memory of what novels (and non-fiction writers) go through - all of them - and a note of caution that you don't release them - not literature, not non-fiction, probably not even scholarly writings - without refusal. Contrary to King - and most well-disposed grown-ups I know - my frangible egos hate refusal, and so I think I used his very sincere portrayal of his ascent to victory as another motive to stop my cynicism.
Most of all I recall King's work - and I confess I write this diary mail a few week after the completion of the work - is his categorisation of the authors. For King, typing is highly an inborn skill; you have it, or you don't have it. It does not say whether or not it thinks so for all kinds of writings, but it does classify authors as such: there are poor authors, there are skilled authors, there are good authors and there are wizards.
In fairness, he is modest when he denies himself the "genius" mark, claiming instead that he is a good author who has always had a penchant for the trade but has improved over the years and with a great deal of work. Poor authors cannot become good or skilled authors, and good authors cannot become great wizards, but skilled authors can become good authors, and that is the group to which he aims the work.
Reading his theories, a part of me was sitting there, I confess, persevering, thinking: If Stephen King saw my letter, would he think I was a skilled author, or would he think I was a doomed case, one of the irrevocable "bad" writers? Being an alumni of teaching for nine years, I believe that teaching is an ability like any other and essentially any ability can be learned.
In fact, in my field, I can't allow myself to believe otherwise that poor authors are wasted. However, I appreciate King's point of view and my disagreements with him about the destiny of poor authors could be my first move in my educational philosophies to try to get a professorship at the IUP next year.
Like I already indicated in this play, the man is excellent at turning an excerpt from everyday routine into a tale. He gives us an example of how he does it in On and it' s a gift I'm pretty jealous of. For Stephen King, the point of authoring is to find a setting, then lock himself in his own room (a pitch to Virginia Woolf, whether he realised it or not) and write 1000 words a word a tag.
In 2000 he wrote, but he encouraged (yes, demanded) that the beginning author write at least 1,000. I' ve tried to do that, and my diction turned out to be a little shaky, but maybe I just need practic. I could of course tell you more about King's likings and aversions, but instead of blogging about what his work is about, I would rather urge you to study and find out.
And, you know, although I really enjoyed all the hands-on advices King gave (and he gives a whole bunch of very hands-on advices about words, parts of the talk, the whole piece), what I liked the most was the sense that I got to know him as a character. Admitting to being very discouraged by memoirs, he says he went through the whole thing more painstakingly, but at the end of the working days the readers feel strangely near the author after reading this text - which is really nice, because Stephen King is such a name.
Anyway, I felt like I knew the signer, Stephen King, a little better when I heard his name, his own name now. It feels like I have a person and a biography that I can relate to a novelist whose name I have heard (and worshipped) but whose character has always been rather mysterious to me.
At the end, as I said, I was an avid belletrist for the few day I was reading the work. I would give up, then I'd be reading something that would make me move on. When I had discarded the novel, I felt overcome by my own lives and laid down my future novel.
And I think Stephen King would have his concerns. In fact, he could tell me that I'm not made to be a novelist, and that may be so. I may even take King's memoirs and reread them. And if you are an up-and-coming author, I strongly commend it. And if you are just a big aficionado, it may still be a good idea to just satisfy your inquisitiveness.