Thank you Jennie for your mad template skills. A few books I have in mind:
Pride and Prejudice (Jennie hasn't read it. Um what? I'm gonna need those high school and college diplomas, thank YOU. Don't worry, it's very short and very funny. And free on ereaders I think.)
The Hobbit before the movie comes out (much smoother and quicker read than LOTR)
Other stuff I forget right now.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Kill the King...
So once upon a time I had all these thoughts about On Writing. After
finals and school and holidays and all that, now I can't remember them.
finals and school and holidays and all that, now I can't remember them.
Anyone else finish it?
Oh and Lisa, did you attempt Nanowrimo this year? I could post this
on the Cupcakes blog but nobody reads that one anymore.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Telepathy or Schmelepathy?
What do you think about King's idea that he is communicating telepathically to us through his writing? (Sorry, I would have a quote here but I don't have my book with me. Perhaps I'll add one when I get home.)
I am of the opinion that it is more a matter of teleportation (beam me up, Scotty!) because while reading we are often transported to another place (and sometimes even another time). Perhaps telepathy is more applicable with textbooks or other writing designed for learning purposes. Either way, I like his point.
I am of the opinion that it is more a matter of teleportation (beam me up, Scotty!) because while reading we are often transported to another place (and sometimes even another time). Perhaps telepathy is more applicable with textbooks or other writing designed for learning purposes. Either way, I like his point.
Monday, September 21, 2009
We interrupt this program...
...to point out that today is Stephen King's birthday.
Happy birthday, Stevie King!
Alright, I'm off for the night. I'm going to comment on your post in the morning, Lisa. I was totally going to post that TV quote. How funny.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
TV and Storytelling
"I am, when you stop to think of it, a member of a fairly select group: the final handful of American novelists who learned to read and write before they learned to eat a daily helping of video bullshit."
pg. 22
How do you think watching TV helps or hurts writing and storytelling? I took a screenwriting class in college and I think film and writing can have some overlap - plot, characterization, show don't tell, etc.
"Let's get one thing clear right now, shall we? There is no Idea Dump, no Story Central, no Island of the Buried Bestsellers; good story ideas seem to come quite literally from nowhere, sailing at you right out of the sky . . ." pg. 25
I'm sure we'll get more into this later, but as an occasional writer, I think this is soooo true. And it means that if you want to write, you have to show up. You have to make the time to sit down in front of the Glowing Screen of Doom, and see what decides to visit, and then write it down. And sometimes it doesn't show up in front of the screen, so having something to write on at all times is important. Very important.
I think a lot of things in life are like that - if you show up, and sit down, certain things will take care of themselves.
"I was ashamed. I have spent a good many years since-too many I think-being ashamed about what I write. I think I was forty before I realized that almost every writer of fiction and poetry who has ever published a line has been accused by someone of wasting his or her God-given talent. If you write (or paint or dance or sculpt or sing, I suppose) someone will try to make you feel lousy about it, that's all." pg. 39
So true. And most of us take it too much to heart. Of course, we can tell our friends what we need to hear - that the people who are out there doing it need to keep on doing it, and ignore the peanut gallery. How do you ignore the peanut gallery in life and get on with business?
pg. 22
How do you think watching TV helps or hurts writing and storytelling? I took a screenwriting class in college and I think film and writing can have some overlap - plot, characterization, show don't tell, etc.
"Let's get one thing clear right now, shall we? There is no Idea Dump, no Story Central, no Island of the Buried Bestsellers; good story ideas seem to come quite literally from nowhere, sailing at you right out of the sky . . ." pg. 25
I'm sure we'll get more into this later, but as an occasional writer, I think this is soooo true. And it means that if you want to write, you have to show up. You have to make the time to sit down in front of the Glowing Screen of Doom, and see what decides to visit, and then write it down. And sometimes it doesn't show up in front of the screen, so having something to write on at all times is important. Very important.
I think a lot of things in life are like that - if you show up, and sit down, certain things will take care of themselves.
"I was ashamed. I have spent a good many years since-too many I think-being ashamed about what I write. I think I was forty before I realized that almost every writer of fiction and poetry who has ever published a line has been accused by someone of wasting his or her God-given talent. If you write (or paint or dance or sculpt or sing, I suppose) someone will try to make you feel lousy about it, that's all." pg. 39
So true. And most of us take it too much to heart. Of course, we can tell our friends what we need to hear - that the people who are out there doing it need to keep on doing it, and ignore the peanut gallery. How do you ignore the peanut gallery in life and get on with business?
Friday, September 18, 2009
Writing on Writers who are Writing
I've been reading the chosen selection.
That doesn't sound like a good beginning, does it? It's funny how much sentiment may or may not be conveyed through lines on paper. Or a screen. Oh communication. But isn't that what writing is all about?
I am enjoying it.
But. Yes, there is a but. First I should clarify that I have never read one of Mr. King's books. Never. I know, that makes me a terrible person, or a lousy book-club member or humanitarian, or whatever. Even I, given my natural propensity to things dark and twisted, view it as an oddity. And perhaps I shall pick one up and read it (suggestions? What is the best, or most important fictional work of Little Stevie King?).
Until then, I have only this nonfiction piece to go on - which is, no doubt, different than a writer's fictional work - and thus I wonder about your comment, Jennie, that Lisa was correct about the author's nonfiction writing. Please explain, if you don't mind.
Back to the but. But, I find I like his accounts of the actual writing experience best. Perhaps that's what I'm most interested in, given it is a book by a writer about writing. Some of the early accounts of his childhood experiences seem a little... derived.
I mean yes, children certainly do stupid things. Everyone has tales of their ridiculous childhood (at least most boys do, I'm not sure about the female population). But some of the moments were predictable and contrived to me. The poison ivy, for example. Every boy scout has a tale of someone they knew doing some such, true or not. It's a childhood urban legend, and I saw it coming a mile off. Perhaps these moments are completely true, but I also have to guess at the nature of a writer, who is by definition, a liar. Writers might like to pretend that they're achieving truth through recombination of experience, of art, of ideas - and in a metaphysical sort of manner, yeah that may be accurate. But life doesn't make for great art, great story arcs, or encapsulated themes. That's why it requires recombination by someone with a sense of the desperation innate in humankind to search for meaning in the chaos. And so, writers lie. It works better on paper. And the best of them stab something close to truth, and others... don't.
My point here is, I really like his moments about his ideas, his writing, his creation because to me, those bits feel real. Some of the others that emerge from his foggy childhood read a bit like stories one tells at dinner parties to provoke a reaction, and nobody really cares whether the details are intact since everyone's had a bit too much to drink anyhow.
There. That said, I am enjoying the book. Comments?
That doesn't sound like a good beginning, does it? It's funny how much sentiment may or may not be conveyed through lines on paper. Or a screen. Oh communication. But isn't that what writing is all about?
I am enjoying it.
But. Yes, there is a but. First I should clarify that I have never read one of Mr. King's books. Never. I know, that makes me a terrible person, or a lousy book-club member or humanitarian, or whatever. Even I, given my natural propensity to things dark and twisted, view it as an oddity. And perhaps I shall pick one up and read it (suggestions? What is the best, or most important fictional work of Little Stevie King?).
Until then, I have only this nonfiction piece to go on - which is, no doubt, different than a writer's fictional work - and thus I wonder about your comment, Jennie, that Lisa was correct about the author's nonfiction writing. Please explain, if you don't mind.
Back to the but. But, I find I like his accounts of the actual writing experience best. Perhaps that's what I'm most interested in, given it is a book by a writer about writing. Some of the early accounts of his childhood experiences seem a little... derived.
I mean yes, children certainly do stupid things. Everyone has tales of their ridiculous childhood (at least most boys do, I'm not sure about the female population). But some of the moments were predictable and contrived to me. The poison ivy, for example. Every boy scout has a tale of someone they knew doing some such, true or not. It's a childhood urban legend, and I saw it coming a mile off. Perhaps these moments are completely true, but I also have to guess at the nature of a writer, who is by definition, a liar. Writers might like to pretend that they're achieving truth through recombination of experience, of art, of ideas - and in a metaphysical sort of manner, yeah that may be accurate. But life doesn't make for great art, great story arcs, or encapsulated themes. That's why it requires recombination by someone with a sense of the desperation innate in humankind to search for meaning in the chaos. And so, writers lie. It works better on paper. And the best of them stab something close to truth, and others... don't.
My point here is, I really like his moments about his ideas, his writing, his creation because to me, those bits feel real. Some of the others that emerge from his foggy childhood read a bit like stories one tells at dinner parties to provoke a reaction, and nobody really cares whether the details are intact since everyone's had a bit too much to drink anyhow.
There. That said, I am enjoying the book. Comments?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Born Writers
I picked up my copy of On Writing last night, and I've only just begun reading it, but I already found something that may be worth a bit of discussion. In the introduction of the first section (after the hilarious forwards), when King is explaining his purpose in writing this book, he says this:
"It is, rather, a kind of curriculum vitae--my attempt to show how one writer was formed. Not how one writer was made; I don't believe writers can be made, either by circumstances or by self-will (although I did believe those things once). The equipment comes with the original package." (pg. 4, Mass Market Paperback)I pretty much agree with this idea. However, it also somewhat confirms to me what I have long feared about myself. I am not a writer, and I will never be a writer. I wasn't born with the "equipment". King goes on to say that the equipment is not unusual or unique, and that many people have it to varying degrees. I have enough of the skills needed to write a coherent paragraph or even an essay (college proved that to me), but beyond that, I'm pretty sure it's just not there. As much as I wish it was. Ah well. One thing I do know--I am definitely a reader. I'm very much enjoying the book so far. You're right about Stephen King as a nonfiction writer, Lisa.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree with Stephen King on this subject? Or do you believe in the power of self-will? ;) There was an LDS prophet--I think it was David O. McKay...or maybe Spencer W. Kimball--who believed that you can learn to do anything if you work hard enough and practice it enough. He had terrible handwriting and worked and worked on it until he won a penmanship award at school. I don't know...if that were true, wouldn't there be more olympic athletes in the world? More Picassos and Beethovens? Clearly, natural ability plays a huge role in things. But I guess there really is part of me that believes (hopes?) that if I tried hard and long enough, I could excel at almost anything. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)