On Reading, Writing, and Literary Competence

You know, there are certain books on specific topics that, once you've read them, make you feel like there's no point in discussing that subject with people who haven't. Perhaps that's what truly defines a must-read. I usually consider must-reads to be books of universal human importance, like "Ubyr," "The Eternal Call," "Personal Happiness," or "Branches."

Take "The Amusing Bible" by Leo Taxil, for instance. It might not seem like a must-read at first glance. You could read it or not; it doesn't necessarily define you. But if you're discussing the Bible and faith without having read Taxil, well... please don't do it with me. For me, it represents a necessary level of competence required to discuss the Bible. If you've read Taxil's "The Amusing Bible" and "The Amusing Gospel," and you have the arguments to challenge a trained seminarian, then we can talk about Christianity. Until then, I can't consider your words logical or authoritative in any way.

It's as if some books inherently represent a level of erudition.

That was just a preamble.

I recently got around to reading Stephen King's "On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft." It's not a textbook, of course. It's subjective advice to writers from a writer, along with some memoir elements.

I have a positive view of King. I like how he writes. Not all of his plots resonate with me, but then again, I don't connect with every plot even from geniuses. In his book, he categorizes writers into successful commercialers (i.e., bad writers), competent writers, good writers, and great writers.

For me, King is a good writer. And in my opinion, being a good writer is the highest tier of writerhood. To be a great writer, you need the motivation to be one. Moreover, those recognized as great are usually the good writers of their time who simply stood the test of time.

For me, Shakespeare and Homer aren't great even today. But Steinbeck is great. So is Harper Lee. And Beecher Stowe. And there's a whole constellation of ordinary Soviet writers who are undiscovered greats: Pavel Amnuel, Ivan Yefremov, Stanislav Rodionov, Valentina Oseyeva, Adamov Jr., Anatoly Ivanov. Natasha Ilyina too, thanks to her "General Pause," although I personally prefer her other books. But that one's the great.

Anyway, after being inundated with mediocre books lately, reading King was like balm for my eyes. As always, for me.

Judging by this book, it's just a subjective coincidence. He writes at a pace and with emphases that I enjoy. Yes, I believe this is how one should write. This is good writing.

The book was written in the late '90s, and I've only gotten to it now. It was mentioned in another book — and you know I'm obsessive about reading every book mentioned in a book (and I hate writers who mention books in their books! I mainly mention my own books or fictional ones. Yes, because I care about my readers. And if I do mention a book, I genuinely believe it's worth reading, in case there's a maniac like me among my readers) — "The Perfect Crime" by the admin of the "Self-Publishing Pearls" group (a book by someone who lambasts successful commercialers was worth reading to me). So I finally decided to read it. I was sure King, at least, wouldn't be dreary. And I was right.

This isn't Nikolai Konstantinovich Gay's "Literary Artistry" or Arnaudov's "Psychology of Literary Creation," but I won't be able to seriously discuss with writers who haven't read it what makes a good book — unless they're among the greats, of course. The greats, yes, they can get away with not reading it. Because, as I said, they have different motivations.

Of course, where it concerns practice — remove adverbs, write "he said-she said" — that applies to English style and doesn't suit us. Because in Slavic languages, it sounds awful. Yes, folks, you've just gotten used to castrated, terrible translations of English fiction, and your brain has shriveled. Humans are such beasts; they get used to everything. But that doesn't negate the objective wretchedness. The thing is, your imagination also shrivels from poor narrative. But you don't notice it.

However, the approach, the principle, the reasoning — I'd like to see more followers of this approach. Because then there would be more good writers.

I also appreciated the book for its honesty and sincerity.

And it contains the main thing that wealthy writers often keep quiet about: how he became rich while remaining a writer. Because I know how commercialers get rich, and that has nothing to do with being writers.

So, it's a familiar editor at a major publishing house. Yes, yes, good book, blah blah, previous stories, portfolio, but the first half-million dollars came from a familiar editor at a publishing house that sold the rights for half a million bucks.

If in Russia it's publication in the "Znamya" magazine — yeah, somehow it turns out that when I start digging into the literary path of a writer who managed to become famous while remaining a writer, there's always "Znamya" magazine in the anamnesis — then in the West, it's always a familiar editor.

In general, "On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft" is a must-read for writers. Readers might find it a bit boring unless, of course, you love King and find his memoirs and thoughts interesting.