King's Way

That's unrealistic. I'm sure King had a day job once (hey, many think he should go back to it) and I bet he wasn't always able to put that much time into his craft. Sounds like he's just trying to scare the competition. Privilege makes people say stupid things. Work as hard as you can and do the best you can with the time you have. If your heart's in it, you'll reach your potential.

When I went to King's lecture in '06, he said when he wrote On Writing he wasn't in a very kind frame of mind, & it would be a different book if he wrote it again (heavily paraphrased). So, I'd take anything that sounds questionable to you & chalk it up to that. I doubt kindly Uncle Stevie would want to discourage every aspiring writer.

It hasn't worked for him. Ouch.

In all seriousness, though, I'm certain there are many great writers who never once spent anywhere near that much time, on any given day, doing either.

If I spent 8 hours a day struggling to hone my craft, I wouldn't have nearly enough time for the weird little things that ACTUALLY hone my craft.

Wandering through malls on Friday nights.
Reading the backs of cereal boxes.
Learning about thermal energy and realizes how metaphorical it all is.
Living the high school pecking order I write about so much.
I get inspiration in movie theaters.


I need the time.

Hmm. 4 hours at work writing. easily 4 hours in the evening left for reading (since I can't seem to concentrate on writing at home).

I think I could manage that

Seriously though, even if it isn't 8 hours a day, ANY regular period of time spent working to improve yourself would be fine. As long as you keep at it the timeframe doesn't matter.

The stories that need to be written are out there: wandering about, around us. Reading is a sound expenditure of time but -living- is a much better method to use if you want to learn how to make a story come to life.

I think King meant well, even if he wasn't in a kinder frame of mind. But what works for him doesn't necessarily work for all.

If your name is Stephen King, this will work for you. If it isn't - it probably won't. There's no magic bullet, just advice from those who have gone before us.

We all load our own guns.

If you're a howlingly successful writer and have time to hang out and read and write for eight hours a day, go right ahead.

I can write at work, since there's a computer, but I get funny looks if I bust out a book, even at lunch (then again, I doubt most of my coworkers read). I love reading, but there are very, very few books I will sit and read for four hours straight, if only because eventually my eyes need a break.

Day jobs can kinda suck sometimes.

Let's see...12 hours of real work. 8 hours of writing related work. 4 hours of sleep.

[SUP]s[/SUP] Yep, works for me. [SUP]s[/SUP]

Well, I find it pretty hard to write for more than 4 hours a day. Unless I'm very hot on the trail of something...which doesn't last all that long.

I don't know why there'd be a time set for reading, but I think most writers read that much.

i think king's best advice should be, 'don't use a pen name unless you need your ego's ass kicked.'

i wouldn't feed his comment to my neighbour's dog. and i hate my neighbour's dog. having never read the thing -- and proud to say i have no intention on ever reading it -- i have to wonder how many would take it to heart like they do were it written by 'anonymous.'

if your aspiration is to be as good as king, i think it'll take a lot more than eight hours a day. ...if you're fourteen.

joe, do you really think most of us with families and regular jobs read four hours a day? lol. i'll admit it, i haven't actually finished reading a novel in years. i can't find one worthy of my time off the shelf, so i certainly don't want to be influenced by *that* stuff.

i'll say this, too: once you know how to write, reading a thousand extra books isn't likely to improve your skillz significantly. you may find inspiration and ideas worth lifting, but there's a point, imo, where excessive reading (and, yeah, i'd call 28 hours a week on the excessive side) isn't justified as a method of improving.

storm, ever try to write at work? that's fun. not really. i love how people come up and interrupt while i'm trying to do something else as if they're doing me a favour by keeping me company. i mean, i must be writing because i'm bored, right? right?

Rllgthunder said:

The stories that need to be written are out there: wandering about, around us. Reading is a sound expenditure of time but -living- is a much better method to use if you want to learn how to make a story come to life.

Click to expand...

Am I gonna get in trouble for disagreeing with a mod?



I don't think four hours of reading per day is realistic for an adult with a life, but I do think that reading is at least as important as living if you're trying to learn how to tell a story well. Life may provide the story and its details, but through reading a writer absorbs the technical skills they need to tell the story in writing. You see how other people did it, and that's invaluable. I think beginning writers should probably be doing as much reading as writing, maybe more, unless they've already got a very solid reading background.

I never understand the threads that go "So And So said this...however, hem hem, chiz and wit, I believe this is faulty advice and shall not use it viz-a-viz, it's impracticality." Sort of like that thread from awhile ago that went "I heard someone say you have to write one million words before you start writing good material...I don't believe I have to write a million words, I bet some only do five hundred thousand," etc, etc.

Just don't get it.

I'd be curious to see where that particular Stephen King quote came from, by the way, because that's a new one on me. I've heard him say that you have to read a lot and write a lot, and there's no way around those two things if you want to be a writer...but I've never heard him claim that you have to put in XX hours on each. In fact, he talks -- in On Writing -- about writing when you can, in the spare moments, if you have to. And then he goes on to talk about Anthony Trollop, who wrote for two hours every morning before work, and he did not say "Hem, hem, Mister Trollop was Not A Writer Indeed."

PeeDee said:

I never understand the threads that go "So And So said this...however, hem hem, chiz and wit, I believe this is faulty advice and shall not use it viz-a-viz, it's impracticality." Sort of like that thread from awhile ago that went "I heard someone say you have to write one million words before you start writing good material...I don't believe I have to write a million words, I bet some only do five hundred thousand," etc, etc.

Just don't get it.

Click to expand...

I agree with you to an extent, PeeDee. I think everything you'd said above is exactly correct. However, I think that--while listening to important writers about such things word-for-word is rather dumb--that the essence of their statements tend to apply. Simply remove the numbers from their advice, and we have good ideas that all aspiring writers should follow.

E.g. "Every writer writes a million words of crap before you can begin to write good stuff"


A million? Maybe, maybe not. Five hundred thousand? Why are we bothering with numbers. The essence of this statement is simply that there'll always be a learning curve with writing, just like with most things. You have to let yourself suck for a while, and give yourself a chance to just write as practice before you begin to get good. Now obviously, for most writers, how much crap you write will differ, and for most it will not be exactly be a million words, but for a while you will suck. Then you'll see improvement. I don't think any of us started out as F. Scott Fitzgerald off-the-bat. And any writer who thinks he or she can needs a whack on the head.

E.g. "To succeed as a writer, you must commit at least four hours a day to reading, and four hours a day to writing.

I may not like or respect King as much as lots of other writers, and the numbers in his statement are nothing but bollocks, but the essence of what he's saying is completely right. Any beginning writing should consider reading at least as important as writing when trying to improve, and any beginning writer needs to actually find some time to do both. Improvement doesn't happen magically--you need to make the time for it; and the two most important elements are writing itself, and reading. That's the bare bones of what King said, and I don't
think any of us can disagree with that. Just ignore the bogus numbers.

Exactly right. And what I'm questioning is the quotation itself. I have heard him say "read a lot and write a lot," plenty of times. I dont' believe the numbers, by which I mean, I don't believe King himself said those numbers.

I googled Read four hours a day and write four hours a day and found some hits that attribute it to King, but I'd have to go back and read his book to be sure if it is an actual wording.

I'm thinking the 'toolbox' section of the book is the best place to start.

Pardon me while I rant.

otterman said:

That's unrealistic. I'm sure King had a day job once (hey, many think he should go back to it) and I bet he wasn't always able to put that much time into his craft. Sounds like he's just trying to scare the competition. Privilege makes people say stupid things. Work as hard as you can and do the best you can with the time you have. If your heart's in it, you'll reach your potential.

Click to expand...

Scare the competition? You do know that's bullshit, right? And just what "privilege" are you referring to? The fact that he worked his ass off and wrote his ass off and has been at or near the top of his profession for about thirty years? That privilege? Yeah, he had a day job. He was a teacher. With a young family. Living in a trailer. Too broke to buy groceries poor. Writing his ass off every chance he got.

Oh, yeah, sounds like privilege to me.

josephwise said:

It hasn't worked for him. Ouch.

In all seriousness, though, I'm certain there are many great writers who never once spent anywhere near that much time, on any given day, doing either.

Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how many aspiring writers regularly trash those who succeed in this industry. It's in those moments that I call myself a masochist for spending time and energy trying to help out those farther down the ladder or, hell, still trying to climb aboard.

Trying to help out my (theoretical) future competition. I'm a moron, obviously.

As to your second "point," I'll only say that every single successful writer I've ever known has been a voracious reader, and most of us deeply, sincerely grieve the fact that a full-time writing career (like any other full-time career) doesn't leave us nearly as much time as we'd like to read more.

But it's cool. You read just as much or as little as you like. And write as much or as little as you like.

MidnightMuse said:

If your name is Stephen King, this will work for you. If it isn't - it probably won't. There's no magic bullet, just advice from those who have gone before us.

We all load our own guns.

Click to expand...

Definitely. No matter how much advice one gets, the path of a writer is individual and solitary.

Storm Dream said:

If you're a howlingly successful writer and have time to hang out and read and write for eight hours a day, go right ahead.

I can write at work, since there's a computer, but I get funny looks if I bust out a book, even at lunch (then again, I doubt most of my coworkers read). I love reading, but there are very, very few books I will sit and read for four hours straight, if only because eventually my eyes need a break.

Day jobs can kinda suck sometimes.

Click to expand...

Again, there's that bitter resentment of "howlingly successful" writers -- despite the fact that we successful writers had to pay our dues and put in soul-deadening time in non-writing jobs to put food on the table while we struggled to learn our craft.

Yeah, day jobs suck. Back in the day, mine didn't even offer a computer -- just very loud, filthy, hot textile machines.

Pardon me while I weep for you.

Ravenlocks said:

I don't think four hours of reading per day is realistic for an adult with a life, but I do think that reading is at least as important as living if you're trying to learn how to tell a story well. Life may provide the story and its details, but through reading a writer absorbs the technical skills they need to tell the story in writing. You see how other people did it, and that's invaluable. I think beginning writers should probably be doing as much reading as writing, maybe more, unless they've already got a very solid reading background.

Click to expand...

And there's a very important point. A "solid reading background." Most of us have that, if we've reached any kind of success writing. I used to bribe my brother to drive me to the bookstore so I could spend my babysitting money on books. I also did his chores as well as my own -- for book money. And after school, in those soul-deadening jobs, I carried a paperback to work and read during my breaks and mealtimes. No matter how many odd looks I got.

I love long layovers in airports because I can read. And long flights, because I can read. And vacations in the mountains or at the beach. And I have books on both my nightstands.

I read every chance I can get -- and I do not believe I would be a successful writer today if I didn't.

PeeDee said:

I never understand the threads that go "So And So said this...however, hem hem, chiz and wit, I believe this is faulty advice and shall not use it viz-a-viz, it's impracticality." Sort of like that thread from awhile ago that went "I heard someone say you have to write one million words before you start writing good material...I don't believe I have to write a million words, I bet some only do five hundred thousand," etc, etc.

Just don't get it.

I'd be curious to see where that particular Stephen King quote came from, by the way, because that's a new one on me. I've heard him say that you have to read a lot and write a lot, and there's no way around those two things if you want to be a writer...but I've never heard him claim that you have to put in XX hours on each. In fact, he talks -- in On Writing -- about writing when you can, in the spare moments, if you have to. And then he goes on to talk about Anthony Trollop, who wrote for two hours every morning before work, and he did not say "Hem, hem, Mister Trollop was Not A Writer Indeed."

Click to expand...

Amazing, isn't it? Both the misquotes and the attitudes.

I mean, jeez, if you look for advice, take what feels right to you and ignore the rest. Because nobody is going to do the work for you, or figure out what methods best fit you, or give you a handful of magic beans or the secret password to writing success.

It's hard. It's a job. Put your ass in the chair and do the time.

And you might want to dial back the scorn a bit when discussing writers who have made it. Because you really don't know who most of us are, those few who hang around forums filled with aspiring writers and offer our (really quite valuable now) time and experience and maybe even a leg up the ladder.

Stupid us. Helping our competition.

Rant over. For now.

PeeDee is, of course, right.

That and there's an awful lot of ressentiment I'm detecting.

Let's just say that someone does cite chapter and verse for this "four hours writing four hours reading" thing. And let's just say that for some reason all of us have to take things absolutely literally.

Assuming weekends off, that's forty hours a week. That's a fulltime job. If one aims to be a professional writer and, thus, write as a fulltime job, that's not too much to ask.

The time spent "reading" is time spent "researching." It's more than just for fun-- you're spending that time analyzing the craft of your competition, you're exercising reader-thought to better understand your craft from your market's point of view, you're germinating new ideas. The time spent "writing" is time spent writing, rewriting, editing, etc-- time spent practicing your trade so you can sell it.

Now then, assuming that we're all capable of abstract and critical thought, then it's obvious that those numbers are not in the Ten Commandments. The same with the "you have to write a million words before you can be good" thing. What's an eight-letter word for "write a million words before you're good"? Practice. How many scales do you have to do before you can perform at Carnegie Hall? Anyone who squabbles about the quantity of words or scales or whatever is missing the point. If you write a million words of utter crap, all you've done is practiced writing crap. Please tell me this is fascinatingly clear to everyone here.

That quote,

Read four hours a day and write four hours a day. If you cannot find the time for that, you can't expect to become a good writer.

Click to expand...

It's not about the quantity of hours spent reading/writing. What it essentially means is

If you don't work at it, you can't expect to be good.

Click to expand...

CheshireCat said:

And there's a very important point. A "solid reading background." Most of us have that, if we've reached any kind of success writing. I used to bribe my brother to drive me to the bookstore so I could spend my babysitting money on books. I also did his chores as well as my own -- for book money. And after school, in those soul-deadening jobs, I carried a paperback to work and read during my breaks and mealtimes. No matter how many odd looks I got.

I love long layovers in airports because I can read. And long flights, because I can read. And vacations in the mountains or at the beach. And I have books on both my nightstands.

I read every chance I can get -- and I do not believe I would be a successful writer today if I didn't.

Click to expand...

I take a book with me to work to read at lunch. If I'm riding the Metro, I take a book with me to read while I'm waiting. If I go to the doctor's office, I've got a book. When I get home from work, I usually read for about half an hour to wind down. And I still write.

We had a writer in our critique group who had been working for thirteen years and multiple rewrites on a novel. But he didn't read. At all. When told he should be reading in his genre or reading in general, he snapped, "I don't have time." And he also had no clue what to do with comments he continiously got asking what his story was about. He was seventy-thousand words into the book and hadn't started the story yet.

PeeDee said:

In fact, he talks -- in On Writing -- about writing when you can, in the spare moments, if you have to. And then he goes on to talk about Anthony Trollope, who wrote for two hours every morning before work

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Trollope is an incredible example of someone who had an arduous day-job (he was a very senior administrator in the English postal service, and is credited with having invented the iconic red pillar box!), a family, an active civic life (he stood for Parliament and was active in politics throughout his life)...

...AND wrote 47 novels. 47 novels, of which the shortest is probably 250 pages and the longest is 600 pages. And some of these novels are still read and loved today.

So clearly those comments are being taken out of context.

I should point out, I wasn't angry, or aggrieved, or even annoyed. Just genuinely puzzled over these sort of threads. I should further point out, I wasn't accusing dearest Akuma of anything. I've seen it attributed to On Writing as well, which is where my "read a lot, write a lot," quote comes from (give me five minutes, and I could quote page number). But I've read that book enough times, for pleasure, and know that he never suggests four hours of anything in there.

Another wise quote from Stephen King, paraphrased by me: "And if you love reading, and love writing, then a regiment of both every day won't really seem like work, and that's the best part."

And of course, he's right.

I would like to point out, 8 hours is a pretty standard work day. I do pretty much read or write 8 hours a day. Not because anybody says I'm suppose to it's just what works for me. (I also watch TV a couple of hours a day while I doodle ideas. Nobody told me to do. In fact, an interviewer for a very famous writing magazine laughed when I told him that was one of my techniques for coming up with ideas. It just works for me.)