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.