Mr. Harold Bloom -- popular fiction naysayer and mortal enemy of Stephen King -- must have been less than pleased when he discovered that his own manifesto, How To Read and Why, was to be released a mere five months before Mr. King's own book, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft.
How To Read and Why and On Writing couldn't be more different if the two authors had written the books in the same room, deliberately trying to write in opposition of the other.
Mr. Bloom's tome is dense and ridiculously hoity-toity. His guiding principle of reading -- "to enrich mind or spirit or personality" -- is decent enough, that is if you can winnow through all the high-falutin' gobbeldy-gook to get there. Likewise, Mr. Bloom's list of recommended readings is good, but what reader with half a mind can't recognize the worth in a book like Jane Austen's Emma or Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, even if they were weaned on Harry Potter? (Which, incidentally, did not make Mr. Bloom's list; take a look at his complete list and Mr. Bloom's anti-Potter arguments here.)
Stephen King's On Writing, by contrast, is a joy to read. Equal parts autobiography, inspiration, and writing instruction handbook, Mr. King approaches reading from a completely non-Bloom perspective -- that of a writer wanting to not only improve his own writing, but to simply enjoy as much of the written word as possible, whether hoities like Mr. Bloom would approve or not.
Mr. King contends that, for writers,
Every book you pick up has its own lesson or lessons, and quite often the bad books have more to teach than the good ones....One learns most clearly what not to do by reading bad prose....Good writing, on the other hand, teaches the learning writer about style, graceful narration, plot development, the creation of believable characters, and truth-telling. A novel like The Grapes of Wrath may fill a new writer with feelings of despair and good old-fashioned jealousy -- "I'll never be able to write anything that good, not if I live to be a thousand" -- but such feelings can also serve as a spur, goading the writer to work harder and aim higher. Being swept away by a combination of great story and great writing -- of being flattened, in fact -- is part of every writer's necessary formation. You cannot hope to sweep someone else away by the force of your writing until it has been done to you.
So we read to experience the mediocre and the outright rotten; such experience helps us to recognize those things when they begin to creep into our own work, and to steer clear of them. We also read in order to measure ourselves against the good and the great, to get a sense of all that can be done. And we read in order to experience different styles.
...Can I be blunt on this subject? If you don't have time to read, you don't have the time (or the tools) to write. Simple as that.
I put this long excerpt in, not only because Mr. King says it much better than I can paraphrase it, but because this section alone refutes Mr. Bloom's contention that Mr. King "is an immensely inadequate writer."
The next obvious question is, what should I read? Mr. King's response is simple: everything. However, at the end of On Writing, he lists books that he admires. He cautions readers to "remember that I'm not Oprah and this isn't my book club. These are the ones that worked for me, that's all. But you could do worse, and a good many of these might show you some new ways of doing your work." Take a look.
WWSKR: What Would Stephen King Read?
Just a casual glance at Mr. King's list of recommended readings versus Mr. Bloom's list is enough to realize that we've got two completely different takes on the reading life here: one that elevates the writing styles and techniques of the past masters, and one that celebrates more modern, plot-driven stories. It's the classic lit-lover debate: Highbrow Reading versus Literary Slumming. What's a reader to do? In the next few days, we'll discuss the merits of both and take a look at what the modern reader should read. Until then, leave your thoughts in the comment section below, or email your ponderings to michellekerns@surewest.net.
Comments
I think the best writers are the ones who are not discouraged after reading Steinbeck or Faulkner, but those who go, damn! That's what I want to do! Interesting that King would advocate reading bad writing, even as a point of departure; that's kind of like asking jazz fans to spin Kenny G after they've heard Coltrane. There's so much good stuff, why not seek out the very best? Reading great writing is the way to learn; reading bad writing seems to risk having it creep into one's own prose.
I've heard plenty about King's book, though I hadn't been motivated to seek it out until now. I'll purchase that book shortly, and from the one excerpt, I'll be marking it up with things I want to remember.
In answer to Bob's comment, I don't think King is encouraging people to seek out bad writing. Rather, when you stumble upon a bad book, take note of what doesn't work! It seems much easier to be concrete about what doesn't work in an author's writing than to pinpoint what works in excellent writing.
The difference between good writing and great writing can be subtle, such as when comparing two dishes from two chefs. Most of us don't have the words to say *why* a dish is better, we just know it *is*. While the greatness of writing is fairly subjective, there's certainly a concensus on many great writers.
well bloom and king seem to agree on one thing: the strength of cormac mccarthy's writing
I knew what King was driving at when he recommended reading bad books--I've had not a few writer friends who dipped into erotica or other lowbrow areas for inspiration--the Romantics, think the Shelleys and Byron--loved the lowbrow fiction of their day--the Gothic novel. But I can't help but sympathize with Bloom that these aren't casual dips to break the monotony but extended swims on the part of most readers (which is probably true to an extant in any age.) The "classics" I've never felt to be entirely highbrow but are rather the books that last, few of us (scholars aside) go back to read 18th century pulp fiction.
Despite Bloom's rant on cant I have always found him a very engaging, passionate and powerful critic. He has turned me on to what have become many of my favorite books and poems, including one of my favorite novels-A Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsay.
As far as Bloom's canon of literature I heard him remark once in an interview that it is not a wall blocking out other works so much as a hedge. Its organic, it can grow and move and, if one desires, it can be leapt over too.
Conrad is on Stephen King's list.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll definitely read some of those, thanks !
herbertwest, webmaster of the Club Stephen King
http://club-stephenking.fr
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!