On Writing: Profanity

Matthew Erbst

6/27/11

English AP

Number 3

On Writing: Profanity

As something that always seems to cause a stir in our society, I found Stephen King's view on profanity very thought provoking. Here's what he said: “You'll know which to use [profanity or not] if you know your character....The point is to let each character speak freely, without regard to what the Legion of Decency or the Christian Ladies' Reading Circle. To do otherwise would be cowardly and dishonest,...they [censors] all want basically the same thing: for you to see the world they see...or at least shut up about what you do see that's different. They are agents of status quo. Not necessarily bad guys, but dangerous guys if you happen to believe in intellectual freedoms.”

“As it happens, I agree with my mother: profanity and vulgarity is the language of the ignorant and verbally challenged. Mostly.....”(187) I agree with Stephen King's sentiments entirely. Vulgarity has its place. There are times when vulgarity, profanity, cuss words are entirely appropriate (as much of an oxymoron that may sound) Like King says earlier on, it sounds ridiculous for “Oh sh*t!” to be replaced by “Oh sugar!” for someone like a grizzled old sailor. It removes the reader from the story and sours the work because of that. Only children's authors should have to limit themselves in that fashion. Nor should profanity be used overly so for “shock value” because it is “the language of the ignorant”. If profanity is unnecessary (or just does not fit) and is used, the work once again loses all power. There must be a balance to draw the reader in.

I think this may best be shown with On Writing itself. Stephen King curses in his book quite often, but not to the extent that it seems vulgar or even noticeable. It seems that I am sitting in a room talking to the man, not reading his book. Ultimately, that is what literature should do, bring you into it. Vulgarity, no matter what the “Legion of Decency” might think, is an integral part of society, and stories seem fake or cliché without it. As odd as it may sound, it is vulgar not to use vulgarity if the situation calls for it.

On Writing: Theme and Symbolism

Matthew Erbst

6/23/11

English AP

Number 2 done!

On Writing: Theme and Symbolism

One thing that King states that I find interesting is that almost all good fiction begins with a story. That the writer first writes the story or at least gets most of it on paper before symbolism or theme ever come into play. He calls symbols “grace-notes” or “ornamental touches” (197) and he declares that theme is something that appears as the book is being written, and is not thought of beforehand. Basically, he says that almost all theme and symbolism should be saved for the second draft.

While Stephen King's own experiences back up this claim, I don't see it as a general rule for all good fiction. There are many examples of prose where it is obvious that some thought of theme and symbolism were present before the story was written. He even cites one of these as an exception to his rule, George Orwell's Animal Farm. Yet I see this as more than an exception, I see it as simply part of a norm. There are many books where it is highly probable that the author had at least some inkling of theme before they wrote it. Heck, William Golding's entire plot in Lord of The Flies revolves around the darkness within humanity. Here are some other famous examples where some thought of theme probably went in before their writing: George Orwell's 1984, Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, Joseph Heller's Catch-22, Herman Melville's Moby-Dick, William Golding's Lord of The Flies, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey, Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird, L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz (it began as silverite propaganda), etc.

I agree with King on the point that theme and symbolism do not need to be thought of before the writing of a story (or at all) for the story to be good. Although, I disagree with his statement that almost all good books do not begin with it in mind.

On Writing:The Writers Pyramid

Matthew Erbst

6/19/11

English AP

First of all, since this is my first blog, let me quickly say that, in general, I enjoyed On Writing. I found it immensely interesting and humorous while still being informative. Now that that's out of the way, let's begin the actual blog.

The Writer's Pyramid

One of the very first things that Steven King says at the beginning of the On Writing section of the book is that how well someone is at writing is largely set in stone and that the majority of writers are not good at all. He says that these horrid writers are the one's who at “...open mike poetry slams....spout doggerel about....'The tilted alley where I cried my mother's name'.” He went on to describe the various levels of writing ability compared to the number of people in each level which looks something like this.

-The Immortals (Shakespeare and the such)-

------ Really Good/Great Writers (Steven King, Joseph Heller)------

----------------------Competent Writers (Newspaper Writers)------------------------

------------------------------------Bad Writers (The stuff you find in grocery store checkout lines)--------------------------------

I find this view terribly depressing. While I agree with the fact that there are not many great writers and even fewer of the “Immortals”, I disagree with the idea that most people are simply bad writers. I would say that they are more akin to lazy writers. They have some talent, just they never choose to use it. It sits in the back of their minds, a lost ability that has grown more and more recessed with each passing year. Although this is not to say there are not any bad writers (Believe me, there are.), just that most people have the ability to express themselves artistically in writing.

The other thing I disagree with is that we mortals are fixed in our respective writing ruts. King declares that with hard work, the most one can expect is to go from a competent writer to merely a good one, that there this no hope for bad writers. I return to my statement that there are nodes of writing ability within most people and expand upon that by saying that these nodes can be grown upon. A bad writer can never hope to be one of the greats, but they can become a good writer.

That's all I got to say about that. I am very interested in what others think and hope to read your blogs soon.

On Writing

When you start reading the book, I highly recommend you take the time to read the forwards.  There are three of them--each one progressively shorter.

Stephen King has a great sense of humor, and the book is highly enjoyable.  His writing is amazing--here is a quote:  "Eula-Beulah [his babysitter when he was four] prepared me for literary criticism.  After having a two-hundred-pound babysitter fart on your face and yell Pow!, The Village Voice [a New York paper that reviews novels, poetry, and short stories] holds few terrors."  He mixes honesty and humor like that all through the memoir as he takes the reader on a tour of becoming a writer.

I look forward to reading your blogs.  I will continue posting as well.  Happy reading.

welcome

I hope you all enjoy this book.  You can get it at the library, from Amazon.com, at Copperfields--they have both used and new books there.  They will be ordering extra copies because I told them this was my class book.

We will have a large class next year--as of right now, there are 26 students signed up--both juniors and seniors.  I fought for two classes, but I was ignored.  If this is important, have your parents call Dr. Rosenthal, or better yet, a board member.  The next board meeting is at TES at 7:00pm on Thursday June 16.  Come to that and say something about the size of English classes, the loss of one AP English class, the loss of three sections of English.  Your voices can be very effective.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your blogs this summer.  I know you will enjoy this book.
Ms W.