Right. Until a few weeks ago, I had never read a Stephen King anything.
Don’t get pissed. I’m just not interested. I do want to read The Green Mile, but that is all. I have seen a couple of the movies made from Stephen King novels/novellas: The Green Mile, The Stand. That might be it. I honestly do not know.
It’s not in my aesthetic.
But I had to read his writing manual/memoir On Writing for the Wilkes Residency.
This was my emotional experience during the reading: First, there was boredom. So I skipped the “I was the kid of a single mom, I want you to know that was hard” part, and started in on the section that was about writing.
Then there was utter annoyance. The annoyance came as much from King’s arrogance as from the fact that I feel ambivalent about the usefulness of reading books about other writers’ processes. I’m not saying that I have nothing to learn. To the contrary. I feel like I have tons to learn. But I’m not going to learn what I need to learn about my process from Stephen King. I’m going to learn that by reading and writing, and that is all I want to do, ever, basically.
Then there was indifference. Here was my thinking: all right, King. I know you hate adverbs. I get it. I hate them too. I’m with you that more writers should learn some stuff about craft. You’re right about the tool box, but you’re not knocking my socks off, here, buddy. You really ought to be. You are one of the few writers in history to actually get rich from writing.
Then there was anger. I found some of the examples he used to be just preposterous. The book was like barely confined King ego.
Then there was creeping fondness. I promise you I fought it. But he’s kind of funny. And he’s earned the right to speak with authority about writing. And he didn’t speak with any guilt at all about getting rich on writing. I find it to be obnoxious when people feel guilty about getting rich. I want to tell them that if they feel so guilty about being rich, they should do something useful with their money, live like paupers, and quit whining.
And by the last fifty pages of the book, I was lapping it up like a black dog in summer. And it wasn’t really what he said so much as how he said it. He’s frank and honest and underneath the bravado/braggadocio, there’s this twitchy, insecure artist. The same one that lives in all of us writers.
I am alone in this assessment of King’s book, that is 80% yuck, 20% I love you, Stephen King. Most of the other folks at the residency all louvvred the King book. Which was sad. A lot of them were vocally antagonistic toward the Brande book, Becoming a Writer. I enjoyed the quiet doggedness with which Brande wrote and recommended to a writerly life. There really isn’t a better example.
But it makes me nervous about this program I’m entering, because the book seems to be written for people who’ve never thought about themselves as writers much more than as a passing fancy. It’s great on teaching people how to train their minds for obsession, and I’ve been enlightened on a few points. More on this later.
But Writing Down the Bones, though also a really swell book, that can be inspirational at any point along the way, is designed for beginning writers, too.
First, I would hope that by the time a person is pursuing an MFA or other advanced degree in writing, she’s got a pretty good idea about herself as a writer, and she’s heading on in school to put the polish on previously discovered habits, skills, and self-awareness. I think that already knowing oneself as a writer is totally integral to success in a low-residency program, too.
I will also say that I hope a person who intends to procure an MFA is already writing every day, has already figured out her way over the humps of “block,” and inertia, and waning ambition in the face of critique, and rejection, dismissal, scheduling, and all the other things that writers must bear up under.
Now, I will say that I have found the book to be–more than anything–utterly affirmative that I’m on the right path. At times, I’ve had to put it down to go write. I love when books do that, when they get me so excited about writing that I can’t put it off. It’s also given me a vocabulary to discuss things that I knew about myself–Brande calls it the Dual Personality (the way writers have two distinct selves who must cooperate, but who must also know when to butt out: writer and life-liver, essentially)–that I hadn’t really named beyond calling it “Academically Sanctioned Schizophrenia.” Which, it turns out, E. L. Doctorow said first, or at the least many moons before I did.
I also encountered a new (to me) notion that was then echoed in Cathy Day’s blog, which was something kind of pedagogical (that’s fancy for college teaching theory) that wouldn’t have occurred to me: workshopping ain’t always great. Or at least, not in the traditional, round-table, everybody involved in the discussion method.
Brande says (in 1934),
Here I should like to add a footnote for other teachers, rather than for students of writing. I think that holding up the work of each pupil in class for the criticism of the others is a throughly pernicious practice, and it does not become harmless simply by allowing the manuscript to be read without assigning its authorship publicly. The ordeal is too trying to be taken with equanimity, and a sensitive writer can be thrown out of his stride deplorably by it, whether or not the criticism is favorable. It is seldom that the criticism is favorable, when a beginner is judged by the jury of his peers. They seem to need to demonstrate taht, although tthey are not yet writing quite perfectly themselves, they are able to see all the flaws in a story which is read to them, and they fall upon it tooth and fang.
I will say that there were some queer, interpersonal consequences to the workshops I’ve been in, but they have been, largely, very well-controlled and the instructors were totally tuned in & monitoring the conversation. In grad school effort I, the greatest antipathy was toward the professor. But I always found workshops to be helpful, once I figured out who my best readers were, and frankly, I learned some really great lessons about having thick skin and separating my sense of myself from my work–the Dual Personality of critique. It is simply no good for self and work to be inextricable. I am not the story. Still, Brande’s particularly strongly worded passage on the practice got me to thinking.
Then, I encountered the following in Cathy Day’s blog when I was linking her in the blog post I wrote yesterday. She says (in 2012),
Remember: on the first day of class, I tell my students 1.) to write the book they want to write—no genre or subject matter restrictions, and 2.) they won’t have to show this manuscript to the whole class, just to me and a small group of sympathetic readers.
This upticks + the removal of the “all-class workshop” indicates to me that my students took risks because they felt safe doing so.
Would I have taken more risks if I’d been workshopped by a smaller group?
I don’t know! For me, a lot of the fun was helping my peers with their drafts, engaging on the sensitive stuff, getting down and dirty with the text. But I’m a Scorpio, and would be intense regardless of my sign, I imagine; and I’m not sure that so many people find such unilateral thrill in every process and procedure at all connected to writing as I do. Also, I get a huge kick out of conquering my own less-savory impulses, like those of the desire to hurl pettiness at anybody who’s fool enough not to think I’m awesome. I also love finding out that I’m not as awesome as I think I am. I’d be insufferable if humility & self-doubt were not in the my writer’s psychological/self-awareness tool box.
I also hope that I’m not the only person entering the program who thinks of herself as a writer, has been a practicing writer for years, and is finding this preparatory reading to be–though delightful as all reading is–a touch worrisome.
I was hoping we’d read some delicious, but challenging (narratively) novel like Josh Russell’s Yellow Jack, which, if you haven’t read you should. And that we’d be asked to analyze it, and write about it, and then when we got to the residency, we’d talk about that book and other great ones, and about how we best use our writer selves.
I was not hoping that we’d talk about how to reach the writing self. I think we should already know.
I hope I’m getting it wrong. I hope that these books are meant specifically to resonate and encourage and to give us insight into our selves, not as stepping stones into the writing life.
Am I being ungenerous? I know some of you subscribers and readers are MFA/advanced writing degree teachers and students. Am I expecting too much? Do I want more commitment to this life from adults entering a low-residency MA/MFA than is reasonable?