Stephen King‘s book On Writing is possibly the most lauded book of writing advice (Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style is also up there). Even so, I’ve been writing since I was eight, and I am only now–at age 26–getting around to reading it. (For recommendations on writing advice I have already pursued and liked very much, see Brandon Sanderson‘s Write About Dragon series, Donald Maass’s The Fire In Fiction [particularly the chapter on dialogue], and Jeff Gerke‘s book Plot vs Character.)
I have a lot of respect for Stephen King–he’s more successful an author than I’ll ever be. And this book does have a lot of good information in it, as well as plenty of fun narratives about his past (it is called a Memoir of the Craft, after all, as I failed to notice before reading the first several pages). I would definitely recommend the book to aspiring writers.
There are also things he says which I disagree with based on my loyalty to Brandon Sanderson’s thoughts on the same subject. For example, I don’t think plotting should be avoided at all costs–Sanderson does it tons, and his books are fantastic.
There are also things King says which, though I am a novice in the field myself, with only a single, measly self-published book under my belt, I have some objections to based on my own experience’s behalf.
You’re probably laughing at me right now. I’d have to be pretty pretentious to think I knew better than Stephen King, right?
And I’m not–not really; not quite. He’s obviously right in that his advice works from his perspective, from his worldview.
But what about for aspiring authors who don’t think the way he does?
But I’m sure you’re much more interested in what I have to say about specific suggestions of his rather than what I have to say about what I have to say about nothing specific. Right?
Stephen King says writers should avoid watching television. I call bull. Television was written before it was performed, and there’s a lot to learn from it–both from good and bad TV. Good TV can show you a well-laid character arc, engaging hooks, good timing, and snappy dialogue. Bad TV can show you bad storytelling devices you’d like to avoid in your own writing just as surely as reading a bad book shows you these things. Unbelievable dialogue which was obviously written with a moral agenda in mind is one I’ve noticed.
And TV is what drove home my pet peeve of cliffhangers. I realized they do not make satisfying endings, and satisfying endings are necessary for satisfying stories. I’ve come to view cliffhangers as the sledgehammer tool to force you to care about what happens next–in the next episode, in the next book. I appreciate a writer that doesn’t feel they need to club me over the head. Besides that, cliffhangers drive me batty when I’m only expected to wait a week for the next installment–most authors take 1-5 years between books. Do you want to leave your readers in suspense for that long? Wouldn’t it be better for them to want to read your next book because they care about your characters and what happens to them rather than because you haven’t yet given them a conclusion?
Sorry. As I said, it’s a pet peeve. I’ve thought about it a lot.
I am not, of course, saying that television has any business replacing reading as a means to learn the craft. After all, TV has a layer of separation between the consumer and the written word. If you want to deal in the written word, you need to get immersed in the words directly. Reading a lot is essential for writing well. All I’m saying is that television is not without its own merits.
Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts on the matter! See you next time.