Carrie Green

  • Meet Me
  • Roses Are Red
  • Violets Are Blue
  • Sugar Is Sweet
  • Blog
  • News
  • Contact
  • review request

Writing Lessons From Stephen King

1/20/2012

12 Comments

 
When I read Stephen King's 11/22/63, it was both as a reader and a writer.  I read for enjoyment, but I also looked for lessons on how to write.  I found a great one in a relatively minor scene in the beginning of the novel. 

The lead character, Jake Epping, a high school English teacher, takes on an adult GED class.  He assigns an essay--the standard 'Day That Changed My Life.'  If his students could string together a proper sentence, Jake would generally give them a B, without much thought.

He is shaken out of his complacency, however, when he receives one exceptional tale.  It comes from a lowly janitor, a Mr. Harry Dunning, known as Hoptoad Harry.  Jake shares the actual essay, word for word.  It is filled with spelling and grammar errors, but it earns an A+ because, in Jake's words, it "evoked an emotional response."

Hallelujah!  Praise the Lord!  Stephen King is commenting on something that I wish was addressed more often by other authors/teachers/workshops.  It is not enough to write a well constructed sentence and run spell check.  Writing should emotionally involve the reader.  A story is not only about formatting, grammar, or even spelling.  It really isn't and Stephen King agrees with me.

I'm not claiming that he's advocating that we shouldn't edit our writing, but he is saying to keep our priorities straight.  We need to aim to be great, not just average.   Too many authors (and reviewers, for that point) think that editing is the only metric by which to judge a book. 

There seems to be this misconception that editing is what makes a book successful.  There are tons of blog articles out there on the importance of editing.  Plus, we've all heard the often repeated lament that eBooks would be better, if only indie authors could afford editors, like traditional authors.

I firmly believe that people have focused upon editing only because it can be taught, where writing a great story that touches a reader's emotions is instinctual, involving a sort of elusive 'it' factor.  You can break every grammar rule and still have a great story, while you can follow every grammar rule and have a story that sucks eggs. 

As I have dived into this new digital world of indie authors, I have discovered authors that I love to read and they are often far from perfect.  Invariably they have typos, formatting errors, crappy book covers, poor product descriptions and, in one case, even lacked an author photo.  These are cardinal marketing sins that can earn them bad reviews, which is sincerely unfortunate. 

People are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, but they are using the wrong metric.  Ignore all this relatively unimportant editing stuff (it can all be fixed, easily), focus, instead, on how the writing made you feel.  That's the true foundation of great writing.  Did you love or hate the main characters?  Did you want more?  This is the measurement that everyone should cite. 

This is why we read Stephen King, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare, and other authors who have experienced immense popularity with the general public over the centuries.  Yes, there is a history lesson in 11/22/63, but I found the writing lesson much more relevant to my life!

12 Comments
Lori Oster link
1/20/2012 04:48:09 am

Hear, hear!

I particularly love this line: "People are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, but they are using the wrong metric."

You are so spot-on that we emphasize editing because it can be taught, whereas it is impossible to teach the it factor, as you say, that ability to make a reader care with words alone.

Thank you for this great post!

Reply
Gae-Lynn Woods link
1/20/2012 09:22:16 am

What a powerful lesson, Carrie, and how true.

I can't remember a book I've read, traditionally published or indie, that didn't have errors in it - my own included. But in those cases where the author captured my attention, my heart, my passion - I was willing to forgive many an editing problem.

Yes, we should all strive for perfection in our editing, but we should be fearless in striving to move our readers, to connect with them, first.

Brilliant post. Thanks!

Reply
William Knight link
1/20/2012 02:04:30 pm

I don't agree with you Carrie. I'm just about to finish Steven King's novel myself, and if ever a book needed a good editor it is that one. Over long, tedious in many places and needed a powerful editor to cut out 200 pages. Then I think, it would have been a good book.

And I don't think King is saying the Janitor can write, either. The teacher is encouraging a student with feedback. He knows that the student will never make a writer, but in a short passage, mistakes and errors can forgiven if the message is powerful. But even a powerful message can be edited and made more powerful still.

But I think we make a grave error if we think a novel can be full of error, flab and continuity problems, and still gain a good following. Like listening to a bad recording, we will switch off if it gets to hard to understand the speaker.

Reply
Carrie Green
1/20/2012 02:56:13 pm

Thanks, William, for your feedback, which is certainly valid. The point that I was trying to make is that a story that lacks proper editing is a relatively easy fix--a story that is beautifully edited, but does not engage readers, is not. People are giving too much weight to the powers of editing.

I did think that King was making a value statement about editing with the janitor's essay, but it is certainly open to other interpretations. King's books have always been criticized as needing to be edited for length (I've even said it and I'm huge fan), but it's hard to argue with success. Since I paid $25, for my copy of 11/22/63, at least I felt like I was getting my money's worth!

Thanks for your comment.

Reply
Joanna K Neilson link
2/20/2012 02:10:34 am

Excellent point about not losing sight of emotional responses, from the reader and the writer. I think the emphasis on editing is still helpful as a guide to quality, because if a writer cared enough to make it halfway presentable, chances are they cared about an interesting story, too. Often it doesn't take more than a scan read of a books's contents to realise that, which is why the samples of ebooks are so important.

But Stephen King could occasionally use an editor, and I do prefer his short stories, but he's so good at making me care despite the length (and breadth!) of his work, that I'll happily chug on through his books. This is a great post, and thank you for not spoiling the plot of his latest!

Reply
Carrie Green link
3/1/2012 03:57:36 am

I want to correct one misconception, I'm not against editing, far from it. My day job is in PR and marketing and I'm actually a professional editor. Over a ten year period, I edited and ghostwritten the content for numerous press releases, interviews, articles, books, newsletters, brochures, and websites. This blog actually comes from the other side of the desk, not as an author, but as an editor.

I've had material provided to me that I knew that no amount of editing could make it worth reading and I've handled other manuscripts that would shine with just a few tweaks. Editing is not writing. It can not replace writing. Again, I consider it the weakest metric to judge a book, since it is relatively easy to obtain.

I've since become aware that editing is often used to unfairly knock down indie authors as it is generally assumed that their work is not edited. This is actually far from the truth, in my experience, when it comes to the indie authors who top the bestseller charts and gain a steady readership.

I've had a couple reviewers claim that my own books are full of typos, since they are unaware that I'm a professional editor (I don't mention this in my Amazon bio). It seems to be a fall-back comment when you have nothing bad to say. Yet, all my traditionally published work is typo free. I edited both, hmmm.

Reply
Deborah Hughes link
3/5/2012 02:40:40 am

A nice, thought provoking post. I agree that I've read books that are well edited, free of grammar and punctuation errors and the like, and yet the story sucked. Editing does not a story make. BUT...it definitely is a requirement to meet before hitting the "publish" button! King saw the value of the story DESPITE the errors and this is what makes him a master of the craft! I do agree that he tends to go on at times but I'm willing to overlook the things that might annoy me about his books because, overall, I love his writing. His book "On Writing" is awesome...in my humble opinion. Great post. Thanks for sharing.

Reply
Joliet escorts link
9/18/2012 07:24:36 am

How do you signup for a blog from Weebly?

Reply
Carrie Green link
9/18/2012 03:39:33 pm

Go to http://www.weebly.com. You actually are signing up for a free website, but you could decide to only use the blog page... Good luck!

Reply
Elizabeth Mirra
12/22/2013 06:57:04 am

As long as the lack of editing doesn't interfere with the flow of meaning and the reader's ability to feel the emotion the writer is trying to convey. Sometimes the grammar and sentence structure can be so bad that it interrupts the rhythm and confuses the imagery.

Reply
Carrie Green
12/24/2013 04:12:37 pm

I agree. Just to restate, I'm not against editing, but editing alone does not make great writing. There should be more attention focused upon more complex literary tools such as dialogue, characterization, plot, etc.

Reply
Carrie Green
5/7/2014 08:09:12 am

Came across this blog citing Stephen King's 'Top 20 Rules for Writers' and he says, yes, he said it--don't worry about grammar! Exact quote, “The object of fiction isn’t grammatical correctness but to make the reader welcome and then tell a story.”

Great list, read the entire 20 rules, here: http://www.openculture.com/2014/03/stephen-kings-top-20-rules-for-writers.html.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.