Until my recent reading of Stephen King's On Writing, I had never read any of his books. I bought one or two for a dime here or a quarter there at thrift shops, but they remain as the few unread books on my shelf. I found On Writing at a Salvation Army store. I wouldn't have taken a chance on the new $9 paperback, but here the hardback edition was 50 cents. I took the plunge. Still, On Writing waited for my completion on another thrift writing manual-How You Can Make $20,000 A Year Writing No Matter Where You Live by Nancy Edmonds Hanson. The dated book held nothing new, and I put it down one third of the way in-if that. Somehow I found myself in the middle of a Lord of the Rings frenzy, and then I got to On Writing.

Not only is King's pseudo memoir slash writing inspiration unique for his fray into nonfiction, but On Writing also encompasses the horror powerhouse before and after his near fatal roadside accident. The early chapters focus on King's childhood and youthful writing formations, and a postscript relives King's account of being struck by a van.

I was at least intrigued enough to finish the book. Some early chapters forced me to turn the book aside, but King's writing chapters were personal page turners. In the end, however, my opinion on On Writing is meh.

Several sequences of King's tale are highly amusing in a gross and inappropriate way. His account of a fat baby sitter farting on his face while saying "Pow!" and daring little Stevie to eat eggs until he pukes is funny and yet slightly sadistic. Equally twisted is King's as detailed as possible account of his van accident. Most of it was more information than I needed, but I did keep reading.

I became more interested in the book when King reached the publication of Carrie. Although some of his words are quite offensive and downright vulgar, I've heard worse. I've probably said or written nastier-I know I have. Nevertheless, I was not impressed with King's repeated F bombs and sex talk. I didn't think it was necessary here, and briefly I wondered if this is why he is so popular? Millions of boys and girls must have been so excited to see naughty words in a book thirty years ago. Is Stephen King just all shock value?

One of the highlights in On Writing is not King's sailor language, but rather his humble beginnings. Mill work, rejection letters, trailer parks, laundry duty. It's nice for little people like you and me to see a big wig like Stephen King started out in the pits as well. I thought I had it bad working in the kitchen at a nursing home-I don't know if I could take washing hospital sheets!

Necessity is indeed the mother of invention, and King's determination helped get his first book Carrie on the shelves. I was, however, disappointed again by King's detailed accounts of his subsequent alcohol and substance abuse. With his confessions in On Writing, King adds to the theory that to be a famous American author, you must have an addiction. King even quotes Hemingway in his text, and I hate Hemingway. My liking of Jack Nicholson in the film version of The Shining has also been diminished. King admits that the character of alcoholic writer Jack Torrance was majority himself and that he doesn't even remember writing most of his books from that time. Part of me wants to cry how typical and unfair this is, part of me is resentful as well, and part of me is angry at Stephen King. Instead of glorifying drug use and directly correlating it to his success, I might have preferred a "Don't be like me" speech.

I suppose maybe I can let the addictions galore slide. King even admits it might be his painkillers talking for most of the presentation. As I said earlier, the circumstances leading to On Writing alone are worth the book's price for any King enthusiast. Even fellow writers who need an inspirational uplift will enjoy King's open, honest, and personal feel and tone. The main reason I read On Writing for King's writing advice is somewhat touch and go. The best selling author provides his theories on what does and does not work, a toolbox that every writer needs, plus antidotes and experience among other things. Some of King's tips are standard practice, and he refers to The Elements of Style often. Other antidotes feel like Stephen tooting his own horn and blowing smoke at struggling writers. I don't think he means to, but not all of us have the clout to give up the rules like King. I did delight in his commentary on The Lord of the Rings however, and maybe that is why On Writing seems so iffy to me. Any other book after Tolkien's classic must feel like a let down.

Was On Writing a bad book? No. Is it the definitive writing resource? I don't think so. Writers looking for a more serious look at the craft with less "me" should stick with the classics -- The Elements of Style, and personally I prefer The Craft of Writing Science Fiction That Sells by Ben Bova. I love highlighting Writer's Market and I've marked up my copy of Mr. Bova's book over several readings I've even posted notes or utilized suggestions from these and other books. I can remember no such wow advice from On Writing, and I felt no need to asterisk any paragraphs.

I didn't really have an opinion on Stephen King's books before On Writing. I liked his movies, especially Rose Red. If he would write a book for that TV original I might read it. On Writing, however, has solidified my "What's the big deal about Stephen King?" feeling. After finishing On Writing, I saw a huge hardback of Needful Things at a library sale for 25 cents. It was a good price for such a large volume, but I knew it was a book I would never read and passed.

At church once I played a game with my youth group. Everyone brought in personal items hidden in plain brown bags. We mixed them up, then had to identify what belong to each person. Someone brought in a Stephen King paperback (of course I can't remember the title), and because I was the kooky and spooky one, all thought it was mine. Needless to say it wasn't and at the time I was only slightly offended at the stereotyping. Today, however, I think I would be more adamant about my dislike.

Is it wrong to judge an author based on one book? I'm sure it is, but that is how fickle audiences go. Despite several useful chapters of writing material, On Writing feels like Stephen King indulging himself because he is Stephen King and he can. Die hard King lovers are better off taking On Writing for its autobiographical content. Writers however, can only enjoy On Writing after the luxury of publishing twenty books. I wouldn't say it was a waste of time, I don't think any book is. For myself, I'd much rather read I, Asimov-if I could ever find that one cheap.

I suppose maybe I can let the addictions galore slide. King even admits it might be his painkillers talking for most of the presentation. As I said earlier, the circumstances leading to On Writing alone are worth the book's price for any King enthusiast. Even fellow writers who need an inspirational uplift will enjoy King's open, honest, and personal feel and tone. The main reason I read On Writing for King's writing advice is somewhat touch and go. The best selling author provides his theories on what does and does not work, a toolbox that every writer needs, plus antidotes and experience among other things. Some of King's tips are standard practice, and he refers to The Elements of Style often. Other antidotes feel like Stephen tooting his own horn and blowing smoke at struggling writers. I don't think he means to, but not all of us have the clout to give up the rules like King. I did delight in his commentary on The Lord of the Rings however, and maybe that is why On Writing seems so iffy to me. Any other book after Tolkien's classic must feel like a let down.

Was On Writing a bad book? No. Is it the definitive writing resource? I don't think so. Writers looking for a more serious look at the craft with less "me" should stick with the classics -- The Elements of Style, and personally I prefer The Craft of Writing Science Fiction That Sells by Ben Bova. I love highlighting Writer's Market and I've marked up my copy of Mr. Bova's book over several readings I've even posted notes or utilized suggestions from these and other books. I can remember no such wow advice from On Writing, and I felt no need to asterisk any paragraphs.

I didn't really have an opinion on Stephen King's books before On Writing. I liked his movies, especially Rose Red. If he would write a book for that TV original I might read it. On Writing, however, has solidified my "What's the big deal about Stephen King?" feeling. After finishing On Writing, I saw a huge hardback of Needful Things at a library sale for 25 cents. It was a good price for such a large volume, but I knew it was a book I would never read and passed.

At church once I played a game with my youth group. Everyone brought in personal items hidden in plain brown bags. We mixed them up, then had to identify what belong to each person. Someone brought in a Stephen King paperback (of course I can't remember the title), and because I was the kooky and spooky one, all thought it was mine. Needless to say it wasn't and at the time I was only slightly offended at the stereotyping. Today, however, I think I would be more adamant about my dislike.

Is it wrong to judge an author based on one book? I'm sure it is, but that is how fickle audiences go. Despite several useful chapters of writing material, On Writing feels like Stephen King indulging himself because he is Stephen King and he can. Die hard King lovers are better off taking On Writing for its autobiographical content. Writers however, can only enjoy On Writing after the luxury of publishing twenty books. I wouldn't say it was a waste of time, I don't think any book is. For myself, I'd much rather read I, Asimov-if I could ever find that one cheap.