Is S. King in contradiction? Please, help me to understand it.

Printable View

03-06-2013, 07:34 AM
jayat

Is S. King in contradiction? Please, help me to understand it.

Hi everybody,

There is a passage in On writing by S. King in which he literally assures: “there was also a work-ethic in the poem that I liked, something that suggested writing poems (or stories, or essays) had as much in common with sweeping the floor as with mythy moments of revelation.”

Furthermore, there is another one, a bit more below, in which I think (if not, I hope you correct me) he says the opposite thing: “I’m not asking you to come reverently or unquestioningly [to the blank page](…) But it’s writing, damn it, not washing the car or putting on eyeliner”.

Comments/clarifications/…

Thank you
03-06-2013, 09:36 AM
cacian

Quote:

“there was also a work-ethic in the poem that I liked, something that suggested writing poems (or stories, or essays) had as much in common with sweeping the floor as with mythy moments of revelation.”

well this a different image from the other one. Sweeping the floor is not to be taken literally, as a in the broom and the sweeper, but I am guessing a similar expression and comes from sweeping generalisations meaning opinions said lightely without foundation.
So notice 'sweeping the floor' and 'sweeping generalisation'. Kind of the same
So here he is saying that writing poetry or stories generally stack up events to happen in the world.The floor here comes to represent the ground we walk on or earth the symbol of life. Writing is being described as the predictor of events or the world and humanity hence revelations.

the next quote:

Quote:

“I’m not asking you to come reverently or unquestioningly [to the blank page](…) But it’s writing, damn it, not washing the car or putting on eyeliner”.

Here there is not enough information about the first clause. Who is he talking to? The second clause he is saying is not to be taken lightly as if one randomly doing something.
03-06-2013, 11:52 AM
cafolini

After the first set of assertions, you always have counter, contra, dictions. Inevitably!!!
It's the nature of dis-cussion.
03-06-2013, 12:14 PM
jayat

I understand that in first place he says writing takes a bit of the humor you have when you sweep the floor (tedious, the kind we have when we do a routine) and then he says, hey, no! when you write, kid, you are not doing such things like sweeping the floor or washig your car o putting a eyeline, damn, you are doing something that needs you to apply with your five senses...! I am not sure at all but looks like some kind of contradiction.

Tell something if happens...Thanks
03-06-2013, 12:17 PM
jayat

Quote:

Originally Posted by cafolini

After the first set of assertions, you always have counter, contra, dictions. Inevitably!!!
It's the nature of dis-cussion.

No, with this statement you haven't made me smile C...Maybe next time. good try, though.
03-06-2013, 03:50 PM
cafolini

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayat

No, with this statement you haven't made me smile C...Maybe next time. good try, though.

What could make you think that was directed toward you. Wouldn't it be like trying to start an infection with a few drops of clorox, or trying to stop one with an injection of bacteria?
03-06-2013, 04:47 PM
cacian

Quote:

Originally Posted by cafolini

What could make you think that was directed toward you. Wouldn't it be like trying to start an infection with a few drops of clorox, or trying to stop one with an injection of bacteria?

infection I am afraid is only through chemicals bacteria or drops won't do it unless they tampered with chemicals hence chemical reaction.
03-07-2013, 03:08 PM
jayat

Quote:

Originally Posted by cafolini

What could make you think that was directed toward you. Wouldn't it be like trying to start an infection with a few drops of clorox, or trying to stop one with an injection of bacteria?

Maybe I do not know I am not a byologist nither a fan of microorganisms...
03-10-2013, 11:57 AM
ennison

I think he means he takes his work seriously. It's not sinuous language or striking argument but most of us would feel that King, third or fourth rate though he may be, does take the writing process seriously and deserves respect for that at least. I like his argument that telepathy exists!
03-10-2013, 05:49 PM
cacian

Quote:

Originally Posted by ennison

I think he means he takes his work seriously. It's not sinuous language or striking argument but most of us would feel that King, third or fourth rate though he may be, does take the writing process seriously and deserves respect for that at least. I like his argument that telepathy exists!

telepathy does not exist. One does not communicate inwards. One thinks forth and communicate outwards. That is the only way.
03-14-2013, 08:38 AM
jayat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ennison

I think he means he takes his work seriously. It's not sinuous language or striking argument but most of us would feel that King, third or fourth rate though he may be, does take the writing process seriously and deserves respect for that at least. I like his argument that telepathy exists!

It scared me a bit, the number 8 and the box. The ethos he describes and how he does it overwhelmed me, frankly.
03-14-2013, 12:16 PM
cacian

Isn't ever a writer and so why would S. King be any different?
03-14-2013, 12:20 PM
cacian

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayat

It scared me a bit, the number 8 and the box. The ethos he describes and how he does it overwhelmed me, frankly.

Well it makes you wonder where one gets their ethos from. Maybe there is a secular to which he has postulated and the one we know nothing of and the only way to express the postulation or to get it out of the system and into another system is to write about it in a book.
When one postulates one takes vows and when one takes vows one must act upon it by mean of saying doing or acting it or one is doomed the postulee that is. I call is a cast a spell. It comes back and bite you if you one does not keep up with it.
That is my interpretation of it.
Isn't there a bit of knight templars style condiment in S. King characters and the way he postulates?
Meaning there is lot of brotherhood innuendos and dark secrets?
I reckon if one digs real hard in his complicated books one will eventuall the tip of the cross or the iceberg. A bit like excalibur in the lake we need an arthur to get it out. Arthur Arthur where art thy you?
03-29-2013, 04:42 PM
jayat

Quote:

Originally Posted by cacian

Well it makes you wonder where one gets their ethos from. Maybe there is a secular to which he has postulated and the one we know nothing of and the only way to express the postulation or to get it out of the system and into another system is to write about it in a book.
When one postulates one takes vows and when one takes vows one must act upon it by mean of saying doing or acting it or one is doomed the postulee that is. I call is a cast a spell. It comes back and bite you if you one does not keep up with it.
That is my interpretation of it.
Isn't there a bit of knight templars style condiment in S. King characters and the way he postulates?
Meaning there is lot of brotherhood innuendos and dark secrets?
I reckon if one digs real hard in his complicated books one will eventuall the tip of the cross or the iceberg. A bit like excalibur in the lake we need an arthur to get it out. Arthur Arthur where art thy you?

Relax C, it was just an impression of mine, that is all...
03-30-2013, 04:14 AM
cacian

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayat

Relax C, it was just an impression of mine, that is all...

Sorry jayat that was just a commentary :p
04-01-2013, 05:46 AM
Eiseabhal

King does take his writing seriously, obsessively so. He has not been blessed with good editors and tends to play to a gallery of crackpots. But his essays do make interesting reading.