Writing Hobbyists

[Donald Miller]

There are innumerable online writing groups -- or what really should be called Getting Published Communities.

Stephen King wrote "On Writing" and in it he described his journey to become one of the most significant writers of all time. (That isn't the way he put it, but the movie "The Shawshank Redemption" is by itself enough to place him in that category.) He describes the rejections, the first few successes, becoming successful, and being a writing teacher.

People remember the "successfully published" part and seem to forget the rest.

There is one item that Mr. King stressed in his book, but perhaps not strongly enough: formal study. He mentioned the importance of having a writing schedule and the need to learn from reading novels. But I'm curious about his experience as a teacher. I have a question I think he might find interesting.

Earlier today, I spent three hours going over Norton Publishing's extensive online Creative Writing course description. About 25,000 words.

I think it is impossible for someone to do the difficult work of studying and assimilating that information without being able to write a decently good book in the course of a lifetime. Did Mr. King have a student who dutifully and doggedly completed his course who didn't eventually become a published author?

 

[GNTLGNT]

...I would imagine that he had more than one...just putting in the time to the height of your ability does not guarantee success in any field...you either have the skill or you don't...otherwise, you are just a plodder like the rest of us-trying our best and hoping for the same..

 

[Moderator]

I think you can always tell the difference between someone who has the mechanics of writing a book down pat but is still missing that certain something that separates them from the writers who truly suck us into their world for the time it takes us to read their work. IMO that's not something you can teach.

 

[Walter Oobleck]

Did King teach creative writing? That's what the opening question seems to contain. Thought he was a high school English teacher once upon a lonesome...and yeah, I suppose there is a creative aspect to the whole. But look at the Hemingway thread...you got people hating...the man? others liking that idea, thumbs up...and yet he was awarded the Nobel Prize. And showed up in a tux with mud on the tail flaps. To give the speech...or something. I don't recall, exactly.

 

[GNTLGNT]

I think you can always tell the difference between someone who has the mechanics of writing a book down pat but is still missing that certain something that separates them from the writers who truly suck us into their world for the time it takes us to read their work. IMO that's not something you can teach.

...well stated ma'am...well stated...

 

[Donald Miller]

Did King teach creative writing? That's what the opening question seems to contain. Thought he was a high school English teacher once upon a lonesome...and yeah, I suppose there is a creative aspect to the whole. But look at the Hemingway thread...you got people hating...the man? others liking that idea, thumbs up...and yet he was awarded the Nobel Prize. And showed up in a tux with mud on the tail flaps. To give the speech...or something. I don't recall, exactly.

Well, my opinion about an author is that I don't really care how popular they are if they have a vision for their work. After reading nearly all of Joseph Conrad's works -- actually read them and placed them on YouTube under the Creative Commons License -- I have enormous respect for the man. He never wavered from what he set out to do. "Heart of Darkness" is just a serendipitous event. He'll always be remembered for that.

 

[Donald Miller]

I think you can always tell the difference between someone who has the mechanics of writing a book down pat but is still missing that certain something that separates them from the writers who truly suck us into their world for the time it takes us to read their work. IMO that's not something you can teach.

Interesting coincidence. I just noticed that Stephen gave an interview about "Shawshank Redemption." His lack of interest in money was noteworthy. What irks me about the state of writing these days is that anyone who can type, thinks they are a writer -- and one worthy of being published. That's why I mentioned the studying.

I have a Creative Writing Study Group, and it doesn't appear that I'll, if I'm lucky, have more than three or four people actively involved in it. Walter Oobleck is a member, I'm happy to say.

I was referring to more than mechanics. We're so fortunate these days to have the accumulated wisdom of centuries of writers only a mouse click away. People like Joseph Conrad didn't have that. He did have talent. But he spent five years writing his first book, the outstanding "Almayer's Folly." Worked on it on and off while he was at sea. But then when he did begin to write seriously, he had a schedule where he wrote eight hours a day. In one of his letters, he mentioned that at the end of some days, he'd have five words written, and he'd erase them. That's mainly what I was getting at. Contrasting Conrad to these people who sit down without having done any significant study and think they can crank out something publishable is night and day.

Also think it's interesting that talent can go unrecognized. Faulkner had quite half a dozen rejections of his great masterpiece, "A Rose for Emily" before someone saw the brilliance in it. Then you have folks who recognize talent immediately. Fitzgerald discovered Hemingway, who had five hundred copies of his short stories printed. Fortunately for Hemingway, Fitzgerald read a copy and immediately wrote his publisher, "This guy's the real deal."

Anyway, that's the point I was sort of aiming at: that people know little about literary history, mechanics, Grammar, etc -- but have read a few Fantasy Novels, which must be a very formulaic genre, because all the amatuer writers of that stuff write EXACTLY the same way -- and think they are "good" writers. They're wrong, for I have read the first couple of paragraphs of their piffel, and they are not even competent writers.

I'm shooting for competence, but I can't find any fellow students -- they're all great natural-born geniuses and have no need to study.

.

 

[Flat Matt]

I think you can always tell the difference between someone who has the mechanics of writing a book down pat but is still missing that certain something that separates them from the writers who truly suck us into their world for the time it takes us to read their work. IMO that's not something you can teach.

I'm sure Stephen himself has said that you can't teach creative writing, and I fully agree with him (and you).

 

[Walter Oobleck]

You can't teach a man to drink, either...but if you take him to the bar every day after work eventually he will get drunk. There are numerous instances from the life and times of those who have published that indicates at times in their life they shared their work with each other, spent time in the same room, communicated with one another. Being around people who enjoy the same sort of things you enjoy is something good...if something noble comes from that activity, all the better. I think I could write a persuasive argument that Koontz improved with time, that his early stories have the fabric of cheesecloth--the fabric is there, but they won't keep you warm on a cold night...while many of his later stories are yarns with multiple layers. If the man had as much talent in his early days as is exhibited in his later work, if talent is all it takes...why didn't he use it then in his early days? Laziness? No, I'd say talent can go begging while hard work and determination rule the day.

 

[MadamMack]

I think you can always tell the difference between someone who has the mechanics of writing a book down pat but is still missing that certain something that separates them from the writers who truly suck us into their world for the time it takes us to read their work. IMO that's not something you can teach.

That's right . . .it can't be taught.

 

[skimom2]

...I would imagine that he had more than one...just putting in the time to the height of your ability does not guarantee success in any field...you either have the skill or you don't...otherwise, you are just a plodder like the rest of us-trying our best and hoping for the same..

 

[skimom2]

I think you can always tell the difference between someone who has the mechanics of writing a book down pat but is still missing that certain something that separates them from the writers who truly suck us into their world for the time it takes us to read their work. IMO that's not something you can teach.

 

[Donald Miller]

That's right . . .it can't be taught.

"It can't be taught" isn't quite the same thing as "It can be learned."

 

[MadamMack]

"It can't be taught" isn't quite the same thing as "It can be learned."

I think it's part of a gift as well.

 

[MadamMack]

I do see things differently than most . . .one of my short-comings.

 

[Donald Miller]

You can't teach a man to drink, either...but if you take him to the bar every day after work eventually he will get drunk. There are numerous instances from the life and times of those who have published that indicates at times in their life they shared their work with each other, spent time in the same room, communicated with one another. Being around people who enjoy the same sort of things you enjoy is something good...if something noble comes from that activity, all the better. I think I could write a persuasive argument that Koontz improved with time, that his early stories have the fabric of cheesecloth--the fabric is there, but they won't keep you warm on a cold night...while many of his later stories are yarns with multiple layers. If the man had as much talent in his early days as is exhibited in his later work, if talent is all it takes...why didn't he use it then in his early days? Laziness? No, I'd say talent can go begging while hard work and determination rule the day.

Outstanding observation, Walter. Well said. Well said because yours is the attitude of a winner.
When I listen to writers give a speech -- or any other creative person -- I'm always most impressed by those who have a humble attitude. King is like that and so is Ray Bradbury.
Many creative artists came from extremely humble backgrounds. Marilyn Monroe was an orphan. The Rolling Stones and The Beatles got to where they were because they worked at their craft. The Stones started out living in a hovel where the water froze within the plumbing, they had to sleep on the couch or floor, and resorted to stealing food. Keith Richards said they had no expectations of making it big. (Yet, if they hadn't, it wouldn't have been because they didn't try.)

 

[Donald Miller]

I think it's part of a gift as well.

If you mean being a genius, I agree with you. That's the point of the thread. My stated goal is to become a competent writer. I never said good or great. Indeed, my pet peeve is with the people who have no talent that they have developed and yet see themselves as worthy of merit. I refer you to my comments about Joseph Conrad, Marilyn Monroe, The Rolling Stones, Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, and the list could go on. . .

Bob Dylan and Neil Young are geniuses. There aren't many true geniuses around. And in Neil's case, he doesn't like being called one. He says, as you mention, that "It's a gift."

 

[Donald Miller]

I'm sure Stephen himself has said that you can't teach creative writing, and I fully agree with him (and you).

If he said that, he didn't say it in "On Writing." What he said was that he once believed that a bad writer could become a good writer. He changed his mind about that. He did, however, say that a competent writer can become a good writer. He also believes that someone who is one of the few "great writers" were probably born with it.

 

[Donald Miller]

I do see things differently than most . . .one of my short-comings.

"I do see things differently than most . . .one of my short-comings." Would it seem like I'm picking on you if I pointed out that that sentence is so vague that it has no discernable meaning? What I mean to say is that it proves my point about developing one's talent. I don't know you, but I know you can do better than that.

 

[Donald Miller]

Well, that paragraph certainly doesn't read the way I intended it. But if one reads it in the context of my previous statements they'll know that I am not insulting Joseph Conrad, Marilyn Monroe, The Rolling Stones, Stephen King, and Ray Bradbury. Palm-to-face moment when rereading that. Oh, boy.