Last night I was reading Stephen King’s “On Writing”. Much of what he says sounds very familiar: “write the truth”, “write about what you want”, “do not write to make yourself seem great”, “write a thousand words a day”, “read a lot”, “avoid television”, and so on. Where have we heard this before?
If he saw my rules, there is one important thing he would add: Set apart a certain part of the day for writing, the same place and time every day. It should be a time when you can have peace and quiet and be alone. Keep writing till you have your thousand words. Do not stop. Do not do something else until you are done. On some days it will take longer than others. This is what King does only he writes two thousand words. But if you are just starting out, begin with one thousand words so you do not lose heart and give up.
If you have to be at work by nine, then you could do what Trollope did: Get up early and write for two and a half hours. When the time is up, stop, even if you are in the middle of a sentence. And if you just finished a book and you have like 15 minutes left, start the next book! Time is precious. Use all of it.
King says that if you are not willing to do this then you simply are not willing to become a good writer. Brick layers lay bricks, one after the other. Writers write words, one after the other. There is no real difference. It is just another line of work.
He notes that not everyone is cut out to be a writer. Some are bad writers and always will be no matter what. Becoming a good writer takes a lot of hard work, but it also requires something else: a gift from God. If God did not give you the gift, then nothing is going to make up for it. There is something else God wants you to do instead. You will be much happier and much better off finding out what that something else is.
How do you know if you have the gift for writing? If you love to read and love to write and would do it even if no one ever paid you or ever saw what you wrote, then that is a very good sign. I call this the Emily Dickinson Test. On the other hand, if you rarely read books, then writing is not for you. Period.
This makes sense to me. From my own experience I know that those who are really good at music or computers, are the same way: They love music or computers and would still be doing it even if they could not find work in it. In computers, I call this the Linus Test.
See also:
In real life, I call you the retard test.
Get a fucking job.
LikeLike
@Coin, you mean like trolling blogs and posting dumb comments?
LikeLike
According to the experts opining about what it takes to become great at your game, it takes about 10,000 hours of true practice. That five years of full-time effort, and in that time you will learn how well you compare.
LikeLike
^ Exhibit A. lol!
You must take pride in this achievement. And have no life. LMAO!
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this. This is an informative piece.
As mentioned above, the key to writing is to read and practice diligently. I’ve been writing short stories, poems, and essays since I was in grade school. The practice I had in grade school gave me the edge I needed to write well in college. Now, I’m still writing regularly as I post often on my blog.
Great advice in this post!
LikeLike
I hope not. I have always been a slow reader.
LikeLike
King’s finest work is Carrie and to a lesser extent It
Just wish they would unban the book so high school kids could read it.
LikeLike
Yes, for me, the work ethic King describes aplies to music also.And, the part about doing it for free.Because only a fool would subject themselves to the horrors , and being dragged through the mud, that you find in the music business…
You really do have to go sit down and practice an instrument every day to get anywhere with it
LikeLike
I love Stephen King, I remember reading the “Night Shift” in the early 70’s. I miss reading him, I started reading Dean Koonts, I need to catch up on the other Stephen King books, I have read a great many of his books. The current one i received for birthday presents and they are on my book shelf. He is a good writer, i noticed that a great many of his stories take place somewhere in Maine. I believe he lives in the state of Maine.
LikeLike
I was watch Michael Jackson’s short film “Ghosts” I forgot King wrote the story.
LikeLike
*watching*^^^^^^
LikeLike
the linux test? – linus torvaldt?
LikeLike
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity
LikeLike
I am about to start reading insomnia, so was wondering if anyone has a good or bad review of the book.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Search me dear, I haven’t a clue.
I’ve been getting into Dostoevsky lately. It’s a total trip! I’ve had to read literary criticism on his works because as a Westerner it is not a straightforward thing to read Dostoevsky. Part of the ethos of his fiction is the decency of a Christian spirited and traditional Russia having to confront corrupt life denying and life cheapening values coming in from the West, as well as Western values that were neither good nor bad but simply ill fitted to Russia; in Dostoevsky’s view, that is.
LikeLike
hmm, for the moment I’m not sure how to correct my old name popping up like that. anyhow, it’s me Legion.
LikeLike
@ Legion/SW6
I didn’t forget your original (as far as I know) name. Perhaps I will look to reading works by Dostoevsky when I finish Insomnia. Is there anything you recommend for a beginner like me? 🙂
I read Stephen King’s Rose Madder and was quite disappointed, so I was hoping for a decent review before I get half way through this book and realize that it is boring.
LikeLike
Recommendations on Dostoevsky?
You’ll get different kinds of answers from all sorts of people. The most common answer to that type of question is the common orthodox answer, personally it’s the one I dislike.
The common answer is something like this:
You “should” read:
• Crime & Punishment
• The Idiot
• The Brothers Karamazov
and
• Notes From (the) Underground
Now, who is to say really, whether one “should” read this or that? It can be a thorny issue to tell people such things. Speaking for myself, I always take it for granted that there is always an unspoken culture war happening. Meaning various “authorities” are trying to control what the masses should know, should, read, should expose themselves to, etc.
Case in point: I am very eager to read a Dostoevsky novel called Demons. It sometimes will be shown as an important Dostoevsky novel but many times won’t be. Why should this be the case? Because the novel is highly political. It probably shows a lot of the political ferment of 19th century Europe that many the victors of those struggles prefer to remain lost down the memory hole. The thing is Dostoevsky was quite political and so Demons is an important one of is works and knowing what I know of him now, he would have poured imself into the writing of that particular novel. But stop and think: You have propbably heard Crime and Punishment referenced ad nauseum. But Demons? Probably never. That is how propaganda works: “Look here! There is nothing to see over there!!”
But, I’m creating too long a comment. Let me try to answer your question.
As with most things, if you have a significant internal motivation to do something, you will get it done. I became attracted to Dostoevsky after reading his bio. He was sentenced to death by firing squad due to his involvement with a radical anti-Tsarist group in circa 1850. His sentence was actualy some profound theatrics on the part of the Tsar: At the last minute (the guns were about to rip into the flesh and sinew of Dostoevsky and his co-convicts) the Tsar commuted sentence of execution to a TEN YEAR sentence in Siberia, which most likely inspires a convict to pray for death. Dostoevsky was already a promising literary figure; he would not be permitted to write a word for most of those ten years. Devastating. (Though, to keep it real for a moment: where there are prisoners, there is contraband, and I know, from historical accounts, that Dostoevsky had some contraband. Mandela too had contraband. [I’m not comparing the careers or statures of the two gentleman but rather the commonalities of a prison life])
His first work after the ten year sentence was a memoir on the prison sentence: Notes from a Deadhouse (or Notes from the House of the Dead depends on the translator). I was drawn to the rawness and beautiful spirit of a man who could stay true to his calling still be the man he was meant to be despite his Siberian incarceration. Flowery academics with their bullsh!t about you “should” read so and so, forget that truly great artists were not themselves trying to be flowery. They were writing or painting or singing, etc, from a real place in their soul and a real inner philosophy that had in many cases been hard won. How many white liberals enjoying their Billie Holiday cd’s or Charlie Parker cd’s stop to think about racism as a conflict element that went into the creation of the art that those two musicians produced?
So for me, I was really drawn to Notes from the House of the Dead as a start. But there isn’t a single Western Professor of Russian Lit who would suggest it, because part of their job is to be sophisticated and flowery, which can conflict with being authentic and meaningful.
Knowing that you have a strong Christian faith, Brothers Karamazov might be right up your alley (don’t know too much about that novel but it has a famous metaphysical section that is much adored by a number of critics/”experts”) . Or maybe Crime and Punishment: a brazen killer comes to repent of his crime and find redemption in a lady love (his messiah, we might say).
If your in for some tough reading about a character who has a lot to teach but is not a likable fellow, kind of a degenerate actually (similar to Daniel Plainview in the There Will Be Blood movie) then read Notes From the Underground. I warn you though, that one really is tough, and you’ve got to read the introduction to whatever edition you get in order to get a feel for what it was Dostoevsky was doing. He was not trying to be ugly just for the sake of being ugly.
It’s up to you my dear! I hope I’ve been helpful!
———————————————————————
(cough! Compassionate Brain. cough, cough Brain that Changes Itself) 🙂
LikeLike
Sharina, one of Dostoevsky’s great novels is also a modified word! Needless to say, there is a comment in moderation for you.
LikeLike
…and by “metaphysical section”, I meant a Christian based metaphysics.
LikeLike
@Legion
It was very helpful, but even with me being a bit religious I am drawn to gritty and raw things. Most of the time I reach for the supernatural, but I have been know to diver I to things unacceptable to the world view. I think perhaps Demons will be something I will look into. 🙂
LikeLike
Sharinalr, there is a review of “Insomnia” here.
http://www.theurbanpolitico.com/2014/01/book-reviews-dying-is-my-business.html
LikeLike
@Shady_Grady
Thank you so very much.
LikeLike
I read “Crime and Punishment”. Probably one of the 20 or so best books I ever read.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
I think perhaps Demons will be something I will look into.
Cool. Keep in mind that the “nihilists” that will be made mention of seems to be a catch all phrase that includes far leftists and anarchists of Dostoevsky’s time period. The 1800’s was a very active time for Anarchists, in Europe and in America too. Recall that the Industrial Revolution has recently occurred and all sorts of reactions and visions (for society) are forming. Also, the whole notion of “worker rights” is sort of non existent which feeds much of the need for Anarchist action and thought.
Also keep in mind that although Dostoevsky was something of a radical before his Siberian exile, after his 10 year stint was over he was what has been called a “Russian conservative”. Basically, he was not about violent overthrow of the existing order.
Leaf through different translations at a book store before you buy any Dostoevsky novel––you want a translation that you will enjoy reading. Demons has also been published as The Possessed and as Devils (translator shenanigans).
Oh, I just remembered. The Christian metaphysics of Brothers Karamazov first appears in Demons. He perhaps developed the theme a bit more in Karamazov.
LikeLike
Legion
Thanks for the advice and tips. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on it once I read it.
LikeLike
@ Horny ToadAhhh…what I mean is: @ Sharina
Hey! Are you still curious about sex addiction: whether it is real and how it can come to be?
LikeLike
@Legion
LOL. Actually yes. I must admit I have not put much thought into it as I have previously ( plate a bit full these days), but I would be interested in knowing a bit more. I actually don’t remember the thread we discussed it on so I could not go back and find the book you mentioned. Do you mind mentioning it again?
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Ok, so the thread where we first talked about chronic horny toads 🙂 was the woman thread. The books I mentioned were The Compassionate Brain and The Brain that Changes Itself. The second book was the one that went explicitly into “Acquiring Tastes and Loves [Chap, 4]”. It was in that chapter where the personal history of an extreme S&M couple is recounted.
^ So that is what we had discussed before. But I read something recently that will give you a whole new outlook on so-called sex addiction.
Now, try not to be turned off by the author. I have always been curious about her. She has some deep flaws in her philosophy, the flaws stem from her being too myopic in what she thinks are man’s primary reasons for existing and existing well. However, she is incredibly brilliant too, and had remarkable insights and a remarkable and admirable vision. (I’m presenting a contradiction, but life isn’t simple, you know, and neither was this lady.)
Alright, check out the following:
pg 109 of a book (newest Signet edition, blue and white cover) called For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand.
It will give you a whole new perspective on the issue of “sex addiction”. Also it is interesting in a scope that is broader than just sex addiction.
(And yes, now you know I am pretentious enough to have bought a book called: For the New Intellectual. Well, I’m gonna go listen to Carly Simon’s Greatest Hits. She sings a song, that is totally about me. 🙂 )
(http://youtu.be/mQZmCJUSC6g)
LikeLike
Legion
Thanks for the reminder.
“Now, try not to be turned off by the author.”—As the saying goes “Don’t knock it to you try it.” So with that in mind I will do my best to stay open-minded. 🙂
LikeLike
omg i thought it was adv in porn was sex addict and backed up etc
and oh yeah you can write to a higher grade level than 8 ie as than steven king
LikeLike
v8, are you drunk right now? Because your paragraph makes no sense.
LikeLike
@ Legion
I did a little online search and review of Demons. The reviews are absolutely phenomenal. I can’t wait to get that new book smell from it. LOL
Also ran across For the New Intellectual and was surprised that it is a 1961 book. So with that in mind I really have to keep an open mind.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
The reviews [for Demons] are absolutely phenomenal.
Ah! Seeking out reviews for individual books of his is something I’ve tried to keep to a minimum. The public appreciation of Dostoevsky is something I’ve looked at at a general level. I’ve been wanting to keep my choice and discovery of what I read of his a mixture of influence from outside sources and as strong a personal motivation as possible. I became excited about Demons after I started to get a feel for Dostoevsky’s politics and a light feel for political currents in Russia around that time (later 1800’s). But that is exciting to hear though, that the reviews are so enthusiastic, that’s really cool.
I hate to sound like a pretentious git who is cultishly idolizing some past figure by engaging in vapid, fanciful praise, but I really am serious about the following: Dostoevsky’s works and the broader cultural context of his times (he was at odds with fellow Russian authors at times) seem more and more like a many layered “onion” with a lot of discovery still ahead for new comers to his work, like us. It sounds like you will get to Demons before I do. I’m still building up a feel for Dostoevsky the author. In my own case, there is bit of strange tension that I would wait to read Demons because it’s probably the most “natural” of his novels for me to read; politics is something I’ve always felt a natural connection to.
———————
For the New Intellectual and was surprised that it is a 1961 book.
I’m starting to see that Rand was very active during the 60’s. She had an intellectual journal, called The Objectivist (sp?), that her own institute published. At this point (1961) her two great fiction works Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged had been published. She had two careers: Ayn Rand the novelist and Ayn Rand the non-fiction writer. For both careers she had to develop a philosophical system. She felt compelled to develop a new philosophical system/outlook because, for her, she had a disdain for the contemporary philosophies of her time. And, as she says, when she cast her gaze back at history she only felt that Aristotle was worthwhile. She called her new philosophy Objectivism. I know more about her right now than I do about the philosophy itself.
It’s very interesting what the broad pop culture (media) and academics have done with the memory of Rand. When I was growing up, and picking up the narrative of “what were the 60’s all about” Rand and her ideas were missing from these narratives. I now see how selective these narratives were with regard to her. As I said above: “Look over here! Don’t look there!”
She is still very vital in the 60’s. I think later on (70’s) she suffered a decline. I once listened to some lectures she had given. The way she spoke in those lectures, I thought she was nuts! But her 60’s material is compelling, lively, vigorous, and intelligently assertive.
Why were you surprised about the book being from 1961?
LikeLike
@ Legion
“Why were you surprised about the book being from 1961?”—I suppose I have a cookie cutter view of the 60’s, so I would not expect a book on sexuality to be written by a woman no less.
Oddly enough it is as if you knew what my questions were going to be in the above. I was wondering was she not censored. With such controversial work it would be greatly.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
I wonder what Professor Waller thinks of Dostoevsky and Ayn Rand. (He’s probably not a fan of the latter; not putting words in the good professor’s mouth, just guessing.) 🙂
LikeLike
Legion
He may not be, but this wild child has an insatiable appetite for the controversial type knowledge. 🙂
Freeing ones mind breaks many chains of restraint to me, besides I think the systems design is to constraint so there is less uprise. Makes me wonder how much we are restricted from that we don’t know of.
LikeLike
My reading speed is slow. I just timed it.
I was really alarmed at first. It came in slower than the average. Then I timed myself again on another book, I came in at the average (average is 200wpm, i think). The first piece of reading was highly conceptual (Ayn Rand). The second was a selection out of Confessions of a Sociopath (far less conceptual, basically simple material, cognitively speaking).
People make blanket statements about being able to read at 200 wpm. Their statements lack a definite meaning. I just saw in my own case that the more conceptual the material the more I cognitively chew on it or process it, I’m putting a positive spin on the slower reading time but really i do need to speed it up. The simple material was easy to read at average speed, I noticed a feeling for potential to read the simpler selection much faster if I practiced. The same must be true for the more taxing conceptual material but the feeling was not as strong because the mental demands of the Rand material are not trivial.
I’m gonna try a little Epictetus next, It’ll probably put the same demands on me as the Rand material.
What are you guys like with you reading speed(s)?
LikeLike
Epictetus results:
faster than the Ayn Rand reading, slower than Confessions of a Sociopath. Not surprising: Epictetus is also conceptual and certainly more engaging and deep than Confessions of a Sociopath.
LikeLike
@Legion
Did you manage to beat me to reading Demons?
LikeLike
@ v8driver
Yes. He created Linux even though he had no hope of making money off it.
LikeLike