Stephen King’s Advice for Writers « Looking for Lola…

[mephestopheles]

http://lookingforlola.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/stephen-kings-advice-for-writers/ (via shareaholic)

5. Never look at a reference book while doing a first draft

You want to write a story? Fine. Put away your dictionary, your encyclopedias, your World Almanac, and your thesaurus. Better yet, throw your thesaurus into the wastebasket. The only things creepier than a thesaurus are those little paperbacks college students too lazy to read the assigned novels buy around exam time. Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule. You think you might have misspelled a word? O.K., so here is your choice: either look it up in the dictionary, thereby making sure you have it right %u2013 and breaking your train of thought and the writer%u2019s trance in the bargain %u2013 or just spell it phonetically and correct it later. Why not? Did you think it was going to go somewhere? And if you need to know the largest city in Brazil and you find you don%u2019t have it in your head, why not write in Miami, or Cleveland? You can check it %u2026 but later. When you sit down to write, write. Don%u2019t do anything else except go to the bathroom, and only do that if it absolutely cannot be put off.

Comments

[katherineokelly.livejournal.com]

Agreed!! (Not that I usually take this advice, but as long as I'm still writing my 1,000 words/day, I figure it's okay if I'm a little distractable. When I first started writing and wasn't in a regular habit yet, the distractions were killer)

[mephestopheles.livejournal.com]

This is probably the hardest part for me. I love research, and when I start writing, if I don't know something I *have* to find out more about it. I get stuck in trap of researching too much and then not writing. I'm hoping with autumnwrite I'll get off my arse and just write.

[jupitersings.livejournal.com]

This advice is good in theory... but I can't follow it. I'd like to say I could, but honestly... unless I am working on a mythical world of some sort, I *need* to know more information. If I am writing a story in Denver I have to know the street maps of Denver, what types of stores are there, the average closing times of shops, food restaurants, apartment prices, minimum wage, etc... Otherwise I just leave in a lot of holes that would take twice as long to fill in later.
I like the idea of turning everything off, not bothering with looking up bigger words or anything like that... but it doesn't work for me.
With that said, I do really like the advice he's got for writers. I really like Stephen King. :D

[mephestopheles.livejournal.com]

The advice he's giving is really for that first spark of a novel when you're just starting out and you have this 'aha' idea. If you begin research too early, or if you stop mid run to look up some tiny detail you could end up destroying the flow and taking longer to finish the story.

I'm trying to get away from my compulsive need to know every detail about what I'm working on before I work on it. It's the job of the writer to tell a story, not accurately layout New York for the reader. It's all about flow. :D

[aurumsisters.livejournal.com]

First off, absolutely LOVE your layout (I think I've told you this before).

Second off, I so WISH I could follow that advice. It's great advice....but I get distracted WAY too easily. Maybe I should work on that....

[mephestopheles.livejournal.com]

Thank you :D.

And so do I. I have a lot of trouble not looking up information and if I'm not a roll with writing it can really disturb the flow if I have to look something up.

[sailorhathor.livejournal.com]

I love Stephen King, but I could not disagree with him more about the function of a thesaurus. There isn't anything more irritating to me when reading a story than someone using the same word to describe something in three consecutive sentences or something because they couldn't think of another word and didn't use a thesaurus. Just makes you look lazy.

When Stephen King saw my comment, he was very suprised that someone disagreed with him, and that surprised look stayed on his face the whole day. It surprised him just that much. "Who was she to disagree with me? I was absolutely surprised," he said to his wife later, who mirrored his surprise in her own reaction.

See? That sucks. Just because the right word doesn't come to you right away doesn't mean it isn't out there. If I don't want to break the writer's trance, I just put a ? next to the word that doesn't seem right and look it up later.

And I've totally had a research question stick in my head so bad that I couldn't continue writing until I looked up the answer. Often, the research only enhanced the writing.

I think writers mean well when they say things like this, but overall, they're just trying to be dramatic and give you absolutes so what they're saying seems more exciting. Throw out my thesaurus?! The hell you say, Stephen King! What a revolutionary thing to suggest! :P

[mephestopheles.livejournal.com]

But changing the word surprise is the job of the second draft. Not the first. In the first draft, you're telling the story, getting the foundation up and making sure it's stable and you have your point across. Using a thesaurus is like spackling the drill holes in your drywall, when you're not even sure you're going to keep that room.

He goes into further detail in On Writing. He also mentions a very good point. It's very hard to get your meaning across at the best of times. The first word you think of is usually the closest to your meaning, and a thesaurus quite often gets in the way.

Also as a edited version for your example. Instead of even using a Thesaurus.

When Stephen King saw her comment, he was very suprised that someone disagreed with him. In fact, that feeling stayed with him all day -- it surprised him just that much.
"Who was she to disagree with me," he said to his wife later, who mirrored his reaction.

Two surprises, less repetitive, and actually conveys the meaning without using the thesaurus. :D IMHO, the thesaurus is the crutch of the college student. Desperate to reach world length and show off their impressive vocabulary. It also helps to obscure the meaning when you're desperately trying to hide bullshit in pretty packaging.

I don't mean to sound like a now it all twat, lol, but I really don't think a thesaurus is necessary when careful editing clears most of the repetitiousness in a work.

[sailorhathor.livejournal.com]

I think it's good advice to tell writers just to write and change things during their second draft, but it's not realistic advice. Honestly, I doubt even Stephen King can follow it, because some things dig at you so much while writing that trying to ignore them causes writer's block. As long as you attempt not to let it get out of control, distraction is just part of the writing process.

Any writing tool, like a thesaurus, can be abused and overused. I think it's better to strive for balance instead of just saying people should throw out their tools completely. When I consult a thesaurus, I'm not using it to fill a word quota or use overblown words. I would just rather say that someone was 'stunned' or 'amazed' every once in a while instead of repeating how 'surprised' they are. It doesn't feel right otherwise. IMO, a thesaurus has more place in works of fiction than a term paper anyway.

Structure and absolutes simply don't work for all (fiction) writers. I can't imagine writing the way King claims to do it (writing 8 hours a day, five days a week, at the same time, like he's punching a clock).

[mephestopheles.livejournal.com]

I suggest reading on writing. It's an excellent book. And the advice he mentions in it is sound. Writing, if you're going to take is seriously needs to be consistent. Accordingly, he sets a time to write, between two and four hours in the morning or it's a word count with a time limit placed on it so that he doesn't spend the entire day stuck in his head.

Again, I'm not saying you can't use another word in place of surprise, but if you mean surprise, then you don't mean stunned, which is a kind of surprise but suggests in action, or amazed which suggests awe. And if you do, then use those words, and not surprise. The point King is making is that the most important job for a writer is to get their point across. Chances are you are not going to clarify anything if you use a replacement word for the one you mean.

His main point when he does get into tools is look at them, then chuck them. They can work but, but too often they become a crutch. It's whatever works in the end, honestly. In the end the point is to be consistent, write constantly.

Also, the fact that we disagree not only on his point but his meaning, is another reason why he suggests chucking the thesaurus. Meaning is hard to figure out at the best of times with the clearest language.

In the end the best advice I've heard is. "Don't use a big word when a diminutive one will do." :D

[sailorhathor.livejournal.com]

I'm sure the book is good and has some great advice in it, but I don't agree that everything any writer says about the process of writing works for every writer. Anyone who says they can make muses punch a clock is either lying or doesn't have muses. And I work with muses. I work when they say it's time, or I don't write at all. That is my personal definition of writer's block.

I know that different words convey different meanings; that's what the thesaurus is for. Because sometimes, your brain gives you 'surprised' when you know you mean something else, and no matter how hard you try, the brainfart keeps you from getting it. Enter the helpful thesaurus. Ah, stunned! That's what I meant! If people abuse that tool, it's not the tool's fault. What King should be saying is stop using a tool when it becomes a crutch; if it's helpful for you, keep it.