Is suspension of disbelief the binding agent between Coleridge and King? I read an interview with Stephen King many years ago in which he said one of the keys to the success of his writing is that everyone knows there are no monsters under the bed, but everyone also knows if you keep your feet under the sheets they are not out there for a monster to grab.
The Coleridge-King connection is interesting - Coleridge is also considered an early Gothic writer, and Christabel and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner are as dark in places as a King novel. I think the suspension of disbelief thing explains why most fiction/lit works - and not only the fantastical stuff, but also the idea that you can read one paragraph in which a character just wakes up and then in the next one he's already in the office - without having to go through all the steps between.
King also referred to his own writing as the 'literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries'!
I was all doped up on Coleridge (and a more or less decennial reread of De Quincey's Opium Eater) when i hit that prog-rock sampling. Ouch's all i'm saying, bro. & o, but there is something deeply, unforgivably wrong with 'Phil Collins-fronted Genesis.'
Ouch indeed! I do like to dabble in a bit of prog once in a while, but - yeah, it can be a bit excessive. To be fair, I always listen to my playlists a few times through before publication - but this one, well ... it works, but I won't be dipping into that one for some time.
That said, I think prog fits Coleridge because of all the poets of his time he's probably the most prog. Seriously - I've been teaching Rime for the last week and I've been struck by the imagery, the completely over the top use of archaic language, the sublime personification of Death and Death-in-Life, the gothic atmosphere that just drips from it ... If that's not prog, what is?!
And point well taken re Phil Collins. I was thinking of Genesis circa Abacab and Duke - not the later albums when it became the Phil Collins show.
I've only heard of Coleridge, but never knew much about him. As with most in that time period, he had a very interesting background.
I've read "On Writing" a couple of times and try to make it a yearly event. To me, it's King's greatest work and I've always found his advice (even though I don't agree with all of it) to be invaluable when it comes to writing. I can't recommend it highly enough.
Very glad you liked it, Mark! It was actually a comment you made a few (perhaps more) posts back about your yearly read of On Writing that made me search for my copy. Which must have been lost when we moved six years ago because it was nowhere to be found. Along with a few other books I know I wouldn't have discarded ... Nevertheless, one Waterstones gift card later and a new copy is on my shelf - with the same photo on the front of King and his dog from 1995. Which really doesn't seem as long ago as it looks ... though, seriously - just check out his word processor. And phone. And fax machine ...
Another great journey on The Bus, Bryan - thank you!
I'm around halfway through 'On Writing', which I'm enjoying immensely - I'm learning loads! I came across something in it over the weekend that really touched a nerve - I'm not sure whether it's something I disagree with King on, or whether it's something he's challenging me to weigh up in order that I start to see it another way. Anyway, a great read! I love that it's an instruction manual in reading-book format - it's very accessible.
Thank you very much - glad you liked today's Stop! On Writing is a really good book - I like his closed door/open door metaphor regarding how you think about your potential audience when writing. If that door is open at the beginning, you'll never get anywhere - but you've got to open it at some point!
Well, on reflection I didn't disagree as such - well, maybe - let's say I was more, well, discouraged and affronted by something on page 147 of my edition:
“Informal essays are, by and large, silly and insubstantial things; unless you get a job as a columnist at your local newspaper, writing such fluffery is a skill you’ll never use in the actual mall-and-filling-station world. Teachers assign them when they can’t think of any other way to waste your time.”
Oh dear. Around this time last year I had put to one side my intention to write a book in favour of publishing some of its potential scenes here on Substack, feeling that exploring my writing on this small scale would help me to learn how to do it. How to write, I mean. And right now I’m feeling a little crushed by King's words.... because I guess I view what I write as 'informal essays'! 🙄
Having said that, he redeemed himself SLIGHTLY by using the word 'fluffery'. Nice word.
Oh how interesting! I didn’t note that comment, but the term “informal essays” would surely apply to my work as well, and to so much of what’s on Substack. What would he think of “The Bus,” I wonder? Do you think King would recant that statement now? I just think that at the time he wrote it, the whole infrastructure of publishing was so different.
I like to think he'd like The Bus and want to ride around for awhile. Free of charge, of course - hell, I'd even let him drive!
Publishing has evolved into something almost unrecognisable since King published On Writing - much less since he supplemented his teacher's pay check by publishing in men's magazines! Platforms like Substack have changed the landscape for both producer and consumer - and I think King might recognised that what he might have deemed 'fluffery' in a previous incarnation is perfectly respectable today. I mean, don't get me wrong - there's definitely badly written silly crap out there - but the sheer volume of writing available means it's not taking up space where something better might have been. It's not like, say, the National Enquirer taking up room on the shelf where Harper's should be. There's room for both ... whether there should be or not.
I'd venture to say that I would call a lot of what I read on Substack 'informal essays' - but I like to read exactly that kind of writing, and to write it, too, so to me they're not a negative thing - quite the opposite! And there's nothing wrong being a newspaper columnist.
I'm not being anti-King, really I'm not - I hold him in high regard! And I'm learning absolutely loads from him right now, which is exactly what I need. 😊
Is suspension of disbelief the binding agent between Coleridge and King? I read an interview with Stephen King many years ago in which he said one of the keys to the success of his writing is that everyone knows there are no monsters under the bed, but everyone also knows if you keep your feet under the sheets they are not out there for a monster to grab.
The Coleridge-King connection is interesting - Coleridge is also considered an early Gothic writer, and Christabel and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner are as dark in places as a King novel. I think the suspension of disbelief thing explains why most fiction/lit works - and not only the fantastical stuff, but also the idea that you can read one paragraph in which a character just wakes up and then in the next one he's already in the office - without having to go through all the steps between.
King also referred to his own writing as the 'literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries'!
I was all doped up on Coleridge (and a more or less decennial reread of De Quincey's Opium Eater) when i hit that prog-rock sampling. Ouch's all i'm saying, bro. & o, but there is something deeply, unforgivably wrong with 'Phil Collins-fronted Genesis.'
'
Ouch indeed! I do like to dabble in a bit of prog once in a while, but - yeah, it can be a bit excessive. To be fair, I always listen to my playlists a few times through before publication - but this one, well ... it works, but I won't be dipping into that one for some time.
That said, I think prog fits Coleridge because of all the poets of his time he's probably the most prog. Seriously - I've been teaching Rime for the last week and I've been struck by the imagery, the completely over the top use of archaic language, the sublime personification of Death and Death-in-Life, the gothic atmosphere that just drips from it ... If that's not prog, what is?!
And point well taken re Phil Collins. I was thinking of Genesis circa Abacab and Duke - not the later albums when it became the Phil Collins show.
I've only heard of Coleridge, but never knew much about him. As with most in that time period, he had a very interesting background.
I've read "On Writing" a couple of times and try to make it a yearly event. To me, it's King's greatest work and I've always found his advice (even though I don't agree with all of it) to be invaluable when it comes to writing. I can't recommend it highly enough.
Great post!
Very glad you liked it, Mark! It was actually a comment you made a few (perhaps more) posts back about your yearly read of On Writing that made me search for my copy. Which must have been lost when we moved six years ago because it was nowhere to be found. Along with a few other books I know I wouldn't have discarded ... Nevertheless, one Waterstones gift card later and a new copy is on my shelf - with the same photo on the front of King and his dog from 1995. Which really doesn't seem as long ago as it looks ... though, seriously - just check out his word processor. And phone. And fax machine ...
I would say it's very well worth it. I only have it on Kindle right now, but I plan on buying a physical copy. Just in case :)
Another great journey on The Bus, Bryan - thank you!
I'm around halfway through 'On Writing', which I'm enjoying immensely - I'm learning loads! I came across something in it over the weekend that really touched a nerve - I'm not sure whether it's something I disagree with King on, or whether it's something he's challenging me to weigh up in order that I start to see it another way. Anyway, a great read! I love that it's an instruction manual in reading-book format - it's very accessible.
Thank you very much - glad you liked today's Stop! On Writing is a really good book - I like his closed door/open door metaphor regarding how you think about your potential audience when writing. If that door is open at the beginning, you'll never get anywhere - but you've got to open it at some point!
Now I’m dying to know what you disagreed with! I enjoyed “On Writing” as well.
Well, on reflection I didn't disagree as such - well, maybe - let's say I was more, well, discouraged and affronted by something on page 147 of my edition:
“Informal essays are, by and large, silly and insubstantial things; unless you get a job as a columnist at your local newspaper, writing such fluffery is a skill you’ll never use in the actual mall-and-filling-station world. Teachers assign them when they can’t think of any other way to waste your time.”
Oh dear. Around this time last year I had put to one side my intention to write a book in favour of publishing some of its potential scenes here on Substack, feeling that exploring my writing on this small scale would help me to learn how to do it. How to write, I mean. And right now I’m feeling a little crushed by King's words.... because I guess I view what I write as 'informal essays'! 🙄
Having said that, he redeemed himself SLIGHTLY by using the word 'fluffery'. Nice word.
Oh how interesting! I didn’t note that comment, but the term “informal essays” would surely apply to my work as well, and to so much of what’s on Substack. What would he think of “The Bus,” I wonder? Do you think King would recant that statement now? I just think that at the time he wrote it, the whole infrastructure of publishing was so different.
I like to think he'd like The Bus and want to ride around for awhile. Free of charge, of course - hell, I'd even let him drive!
Publishing has evolved into something almost unrecognisable since King published On Writing - much less since he supplemented his teacher's pay check by publishing in men's magazines! Platforms like Substack have changed the landscape for both producer and consumer - and I think King might recognised that what he might have deemed 'fluffery' in a previous incarnation is perfectly respectable today. I mean, don't get me wrong - there's definitely badly written silly crap out there - but the sheer volume of writing available means it's not taking up space where something better might have been. It's not like, say, the National Enquirer taking up room on the shelf where Harper's should be. There's room for both ... whether there should be or not.
I think you're absolutely right with all of these points, Bryan - and you've made me feel a lot better! 🤣
I'd venture to say that I would call a lot of what I read on Substack 'informal essays' - but I like to read exactly that kind of writing, and to write it, too, so to me they're not a negative thing - quite the opposite! And there's nothing wrong being a newspaper columnist.
I'm not being anti-King, really I'm not - I hold him in high regard! And I'm learning absolutely loads from him right now, which is exactly what I need. 😊