Topic: Stephen King's On Writing
Started by: Jack Spencer Jr
Started on: 9/10/2001
Board: RPG Theory
On 9/10/2001 at 5:25am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Stephen King's On Writing
I recently pick up this book and I've found it to be pretty decent. Now, naturally King is talking about writing instead of RPG or Narrativist play or whatever you want to call it so things like second and third drafts figure big into his techniques. (He is talking about how he writes, not how everyone else should write or even could write)
It'll probably take a couple of readthroughs before I get enough of a handle on what King is saying to be able to comment, but if anyone else here has a comment I'd like to hear it.
Or read it. Stupid internet...
On 9/11/2001 at 4:01pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Stephen King's On Writing
OK I'll start.
One of Kings main points about writing seems to be that it's mostly instinct. It can't be taught. It can't be learned. But can be developed and polished with practice.
This point is driven home with his comments on plotting. He doesn't like it and states of the books he himself had "plotted" (Insomnia and Rose Madder) "...the results... have not been particularly inspiring."
The way King writes (or prefers to write) is to set up the situation and then sees what happens. Very much like an RPG if you think about it. By "plot" he means contriving where the story goes. He gives an example using Misery and the original ending idea he had. But since he didn't plot Misery the story went in a different direction that he had originally planned (and arguably a better direction).
Concern over plot in the RPG setting is usually non-existant unless you're dealing with a railroading lead-by-the-nose adventure. The fact that RPGs are cooperative storytelling ventures (even the non-narrativist types) keep true plotting from being likely.
King is also against any form of contrivance. He inserted a funny little aside about the Edgar Wallace Plot Wheel, a device marketed in the 20's which was a cardboard wheel with plot development items written on it. You'd spin it and then use the plot development ("Another body is found" "A gunshot rings out" etc.) in your story. This is a fair approximation of RPG mechanics although most games don't work quite like this at all. It is a fortune mechanic after all.
funny little aside of my own:
It turns out that one of the reasons I'm calling my WIP RPG The Wheel is because of the Edgar Wallace Plot Wheel, although my game doesn't use a cardboard spinner. The other reason is because the name is cool and allows for lame jokes like "the Fifth Wheel" "Reinventing the Wheel" "The Wheel World"
If anyone knows anything more about the Edgar Wallace Plot Wheel I'd be interested.
King's complaint on plotted works, in relation to his own work listed above, is that they feel stiff, that they're trying too hard.
It bears noting at this time that this is one of the major differences between fiction and RPGs in play, whatever similarities they may have elsewhere. Let me explain.
King tells the reader there are essentially there are four types of writers, bad, competent, good and elite. He believes it's impossible for the bad to become competent and the good to cross over into elite (although he thinks a competent writer can eventually become good with hard work). This is part of the idea of a creative spark you're born with and all that stuff, etc, etc. What it basically boils don to is different levels of ability to create and tell stories.
This effects RPGs differently that writing fiction. Fiction has the advantage of the Second Draft (or even twenty nineth draft) to fix or improve the work whereas RPGs are conceived, created and "published" on the spot. This goes along with Kings description of the giddy joy of writing that first draft. The first draft is usually the most fun.
But, not everyone is a good writer. Not everyone is a competent writer (or story creator, if you're following me) therefore, the contrivances that are the RPG mechanics are helpful for the less talented to participate in that joy of story creation. The result may be stiff and trying too hard, but it can still be satisfying on some level that nothing at all.
Or so my theory goes. But then, not every game is for everybody. I get the feeling that The Wheel will only work with a group composed entirely of GMs (jeez I'm plugging that thing a lot. Sorry) I also keep seeing posts about how games such as Hero Wars are "broken" or "need fixing." I haven't read Hero Wars but I suspect there's nothing wrong with the game aside from the fact that it just wasn't for that guy.