So if you were going to recommend the book on writing fiction that has helped or influenced you most--what would it be?

On that note, the books I've really enjoyed include On Becoming a Writer by Dorothea Brande; The Modern Library Writer's Workshop by Stephen Koch; and The Writing Life by Anne Dillard. Another good book is Bruce Holland Rogers's Word Work: Surviving and Thriving as a Writer.

On a more technical level, I've referred to the following:
OSC's Characters and Viewpoint and How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy; Noah Lukeman's The First Five Pages and The Plot Thickens; Beginnings, Middles, and Endings and Characters, Emotions, and Viewpoint by Nancy Kress; Steering the Craft by Ursula Le Guin; Plot and Structure by James Scott Bell; On Writing Well by William Zinsser; Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Browne & King; How to Write a Damn Good Novel by James N. Frey (not to be confused with the _other_ Frey); Plot by Ansen Dibell; and Blockbuster Plots by Martha Alderson.

Er... I think that about does it.

Description & Setting by Ron Rozelle
Characters, Emotion, & Viewpoint by Nancy Kress
Plot & Structure by James Scott Bell
Dialogue by Gloria Kempton

These are my only books on writing (except for a bunch of Writer's Digests I have), so I don't have anything to compare them to.

Description & Setting helped me out since that was my weakest point. I had bought it to help me write room descriptions for an interactive fiction game, but once I started writing stories, I got the rest of them.

For a beginner writer, I think they cover a lot of good material, but I'm not sure how good they'd be for someone who's been writing for a while.

For grammar, I learned what I know from college English classes and having to write quite a bit for my job. I still have my Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers and reference it when I run across something that's unfamiliar. There is no better teacher for grammar than to have someone who's an "expert" rip your work up and make you redo it.

Edited to add: I also have The First Five Pages. My wife got it for me for Christmas. I've read only about the first five pages of it so far.

Since I don't know your experience nor your publishing history, you'll have to make the call on what is appropriate.

Stephen King's book I found interesting for the details of his accident, though some of his writing advice runs contrary to much of what I've read and heard elsewhere.

Of the two writing books OSC wrote, his "Characters and Viewpoints" is by far the better of the two.

Other writing books: The entire Writers Digest Elements of Fiction WRiting series (of which Characters and Viewpoints is a part) is good. You need to decide where your weaknesses lie and pick the appropriate book.

David Gerrold's "Worlds of Wonder" is a good book for a more advanced writer specifically for the chapters on poetic verse and on e-prime. I have it on good authority that these two chapters are the reason he bothered to write a writing book at all.

If you can scare up a copy of Damon Knight's writing book (the title of which escapes me at the moment, as does my copy) is excellent.

Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott - similar in style/feel to King, much more about "the writer's life" than any specific how-tos, but gives you a great feel for writing, and her anecdotes (specifically the bird by bird story) are wonderfully sticky - they stay with you when you're writing and help conjure up examples, unlike what I have found with many other writing books where it all makes perfect sense in the text, and then you sit down to write your own work and it exits your brain...

Scene and Structure by Bickham - broken record alert - I've talked about this writing book before. It lays out a very specific and quite rigid structure for writing that some will find off-putting. Some have referred to his book/suggestions as being too clinical, looking at writing as less an art and more a science. I say your mileage may vary, but there's a ton of useful information to get from this book if you can get past the dry stuff. Hands down this is the book that has improved my writing the most (Not that that's saying anything, but I've read much of what's been listed so far.)

Story by McKee - This is a screenwriting book, but it's about storytelling. It's excellent, and along with Bird by Bird is the book most often recommended to me by published authors. I'm still only midway through it (took a long reading break there for nano and holiday craziness) but so far it's been really insightful. He also does a lot of analyzing of stories, dividing them into categories and types, but I find that kind of thing useful.

Exist or not exist,
That I must decide...

Yep, gotta love e-prime.

Edit: As for King's book, the accident is only discussed briefly in the postscript. 90% of his book is devoted to how he developed as a writer and on writing. Many people disagree with what he says which seems to bothers him not at all.

Some do consider it too dry (there are several scathing reviews of it on Amazon), but oddly enough, most of them complain about the fact that he doesn't focus on characterization. Hmmm. Not sure that's the point of the book.

Anyway, I thought it helped my writing quite a bit, because it made me look at and remember to use the structure of the story to create the necessary catalysts of characterization. Characters react to changes around them, so the scene and sequel concept helps a writer understand the importance of creating a plot and outline/structure that's robust enough to fully tap the depths of a character.

I'm not saying that it's a formula to write to, (which is how the nasty reviewers seem to take it), but rather a way to remind yourself that you have to provide the opportunity for a character to be involved in both action (scene), and retrospective assessment of that action (sequel) in order to best demonstrate the depth of the character.

At least, that's how I took it. Who knows if that's what Bickham intended!!

I also like Turco's The Book of Dialogue: How to Write Effective Conversation in Fiction, Screenplays, Drama, and Poetry.

I agree with most of what King said and I am NO King fan. In fact, I don't like most of his work. But his book on writing is rapidly become a classic in the field.

I was mostly interested in his comments about his growth as an author. Of course, he also deals with his problems with addiction. Personally, I found Card's On Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy so overly basic I haven't read the other one.

quote:

---

Just for the record on this topic, OSC told us at bootcamp (I'm paraphrasing here) that it is obvious, based on King's On Writing, that King has no idea what makes his writing good.

---

On Writing, which I enjoyed immensly--and is the only writing book that I've read in a day--is not a "How to" book. It, also like it's title promises, is a memoir of writing by an Icon. I think an yone that simply dismisses it, hasn't truly read it. While I respect OSC for his dedication to the craft--and helping others advance in it--I also think he stopped after the Second Foreward of On writing and formulated his opinion.

It says:

quote:

---

This is a short book because most books about writing are filled with bullsh**. Fiction writers, present company included, don't understand very much about what they do--nopt why it works when it's good, not why it doesn't when it's bad. I figured the shorter the book, the less the bullsh**.

One notable exception to the bullsh** rule is The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White. There is little or no detectable bullsh** in that book. (Of course it's short; at eighty-five pages it's much shorter than this one.) I'll tell you right now that every aspiring writer should read The Elements of Style. Rule 17 in the chapter titled Principles of Composition is "Omit needless words." I will try to do that here.

---

I think the first two sentences were the basis for OSC's comments. If not, then I can't image what prompted them.

King does cover some how-to's in the second half of the book with some interesting advise. He touches on dialogue tags, the "no adverb rule", the use and abuse of figurative language which he illustrates with some of his own passages. But what seemed more important to me was his discussion, which the entire book was, of the experience of being a writer and how to survive it.

Not only did I read it in a day, as you did, it is the only book on writing that I have read more than once.

I recall a lengthy story from On Writing, on an actual fellow high school student and model for Carrie, who was meanly and cruelly treated by her high school peers, despite serious attempts by her to change her image. I don't have the story before me, but I can't recall any mention of how King himself related to this person. (Been awhile since I reread it...I may have forgotten some details.) I've gotta wonder---was he good to her or mean to her? And just thinking about it makes me wonder what kind of person King actually is...

[edited 'cause I left a couple things out.]

quote:

---

I've gotta wonder---was he good to her or mean to her? And just thinking about it makes me wonder what kind of person King actually is...

---

My reaction was quite the opposite to that story, Robert. He made it quite clear that he knew that what had happened in high school was wrong. The character of Carrie was based on two girls he knew in high school who had been outcasts. King didn't try to whitewash himself. Like King, I did a thing or two in high school and college I wouldn't care to be judged on now.

He's made his share of mistakes in his life including his serious fight with alcoholism and drug addiction. He made no excuses for his mistakes but also admits them and discusses his struggles against them. I respect that.

No, he doesn't pretty up the picture of himself.

quote:

---

In the spring and summer of 1986, I wrote The Tommyknockers, often working until midnight with my heart running at a hundred and thirty beats a minute and cotton swabs stuck up my nose to stem the coke-induced bleeding.

---

quote:

---

Reading at meals is considered rude in polite society, but if you expect to succeed as a writer, rudeness should be the second to last of your concerns. The least of all should be polite society and what it expects. If you intend to write as truthfully as you can, your days as a member of polite society are numbered, anyway.

---

Yes, the man is an Icon. More important, I felt that he told it like he saw it in the most honest way he could. I may even be forced to read some more of his fiction. I like honesty in a writer even (or maybe especially) when it makes other people mad. King may not be a nice guy--for me that's ok, too. I don't demand nice in writers.

This passage might make people mad. Personally, I agreed with it.

quote:

---

You can approach the act of writing with nervousness, excitement, hopefulness, or even despair--the sense that you can never completely put on the page what's in your mind and heart. You can come to the act with your fists clenched and your eyes narrowed, ready to kick ass and take down names. You can come to it because you want a girl to marry you or because you want to change the world. Come to it any way but lightly. Let me say it again: you must not come lightly to the blank page.

---

This passage made me do some serious thinking about my own writing. Kicking ass and taking down names...

I won't quote any more. If you don't know these passages I suggest reading the book.

I didn't find it a tremendous beginner's tutorial, but there were some nice takeaways. I did like that he included the first few pages of a draft manuscript with edits, which if I recall correctly, might have been an early version of "Room 1408".

*****

Perhaps you missed this:

quote:

---

Substance abusing writers are just substance abusers--common garden-variety drunks and druggies, in other words. Any claims that the drugs and alcohol are necessary to dull a finer sensibility are just the usual self-serving bullsh**. I've heard alcoholic snowplow drivers make the same claim.... We all look pretty much the same when we're puking in the gutter.

---

Now some might prefer to learn from people who will say they've never done anything wrong in their lives. Since I've made a mistake or two (or a few hundred maybe), I have no such preference. I prefer people who own up to their mistakes.

As for whether King has the right to speak about other genre than horror, I suspect he has as much right as Card does to speak about genre other than science fiction. If that's arrogance, I personally am fine with it.

Nor have I ever seen King say he knows it all. Quite the contrary he is the first to say:

quote:

---

Fiction writers, present company included, don't know much about what they do--not why it works when it's good--not why it doesn't work when it's bad.

---

I suspect the reason that annoyed Card was the implication that he is included in that as well. Dee is right that King is blunt (and that the book is not a tutorial). I happen to enjoy and appreciate his bluntness, but some might interpret it as arrogance. I interpret it as bluntness.

Successful writers who take the trouble to help writers who are still struggling get my respect. I know a couple of them.

Edit: Those sound interesting, KayTi. I'll take a look at them.

On Writing is also a memoir. He spends a lot of time just talking about his life. Really, very little of it is actually "on writing", but in another sense it all is if you think of it as the writer's life, rather than the writing process. That was my take, anyway.

But don't let controversy keep you from reading King's book. It isn't a primer but rather a discussion of "how one writer was formed." That's a good description, lehollis.

quote:

---

But don't let controversy keep you from reading King's book.

---

What do you think about Plot & Structure? I consider that one of my weaker areas, but so many books are really aimed at the beginning writer that I've come to the point of hesitating to bother picking one up.

quote:

---

Well, what is inspiring to one isn't necessarily to another.

---

Definitely true. And one could even argue that the "job" of a book on writing is more to advise than inspire.

King's is the only book on writing that I would say I ever learned anything from so obviously I'm going to defend it. But what I learned wasn't what you were looking for.

James Scott Bell's Plot and Structure pretty much lays out the foundations step by step. He takes you through exercises that help you formulate a good working plot. It feels a bit like "measure, stir, bake, done!" in its practical, somewhat formulaic approach. To someone who already has a few books under her belt, this might be too little too late. I do think it offers valuable strategies and perspectives within for analyzing and crafting plots, however.

I find Alan Dibell's Plot to be more nuanced, perhaps more sophisticated and sensitive to the peculiarities of different stories. In that sense, his book is harder to apply, as it is more abstract and theoretical.

Nancy Kress's Beginnings, Middles, and Ends is also good, also more abstract than Bell's, and not so much about plot as structure, pacing, and flow.

Sometimes if I'm unsure about a book I'll check it out at the library. If I like it, then I'll buy it for my shelf. The value of a writing book is just so subjective, and one book that's perfect for one person is unenlightening for the next.

*****

This bit from Bird by Bird caught my fancy -

quote:

---

The good news is that some days it feels like you just have to keep getting out of you own way so that whatever it is that wants to be written can use you to do it.

---

and

quote:

---

It's not likey you don't have a choice, because you do - you can either type or kill yourself.

---

and

quote:

---

Write straight into the emotional center of things. Write toward vulnerability.

---

From the book Plot, I have a sketch of a chart that he uses -

Central Story Question:?
Goal Conflict

Protagonist ? ?

Antagonist ? ?

There's an arrow from the protag's goal to the antag's conflict. You should fill in the ?s with info from your story, or scene/chapter in cases of longer works. This may seem really basic to some, but visual cues like this help me organize my thinking and refine what's actually happening in my stories.

He also famously says that "Plot is a verb." Which I think is helpful to remember sometimes.

He mentioned that years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote a series of books that discuss the basics of planetology as applied to science fiction and fantasy. He said that the books are written at a YA level and are really quite an easy read, are insightful, and can be read in a couple of hours.

quote:

---

I was complaining to someone that it isn't reasonable to expect a non-scientist to know about planetology, etc in world building.

---

I don't mean to be critical, but I read this as it isn't reasonable for a non-scientist who is unwilling to do the research to know about planetology.

Edited to add below comments.

Clearly you are willing to do the research or you wouldn't be looking for Asimov's book. That wasn't intended to be a knock.

I'm not familiar with the Asimov book, but Writer's Digest produced a book called World-Building by Stephen L. Gillett which is accessible and surprisingly insightful.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-05/1052265017.As.q.html
http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=41887

even simple bits like the fact that there would be two tides.

Even if you didn't want to trust net information, it would give you someplace to formulate your more academic questions.

Research is invaluable and I think shortcuts show in a work of fiction. I like to tell myself this because I am a shortcutter by nature and don't want my fiction to suffer for it.

****

It isn't nearly that easy.

We get two tides each day here on planet Earth, with just one moon. The number of tides depends also upon the shape of the coastline and the depth of the sea. http://www.pol.ac.uk/home/insight/tidefaq.html#7

If the two moons orbitted with one on a larger orbit, always behind the other, there'd still be just two tides because the two moons would pull together. Tides will depend upon the relative orbits and masses of the moons.

The second reference requires an understanding of Lagrangian points and says, "Note that the particulars of the above explanation were verified on Wikipedia" - as if that makes it correct!

I tried Googling it myself, as I'm sure JeanneT did, and got nowhere. JeanneT's right. Understanding speculative planetary stuff is difficult--can nobody help her with the Asimov references? I'd be interested in them myself.

"How a planet the size of earth would be affected by having two moons" ... It'd be a darn good place for moonshine, don't ya think?

Hopefully helpfully,
Pat

Probably both are dated and obsolete...neither is specifically for SF worldbuilding, either, I gather...

No, internet searches won't turn up the kind of information you need for this subject. You need a good reference book. I use internet searches all the time but there are times when they are simply inadequate which is why reference books still exist. (The question on moons was just an example of the kind of thing you need to know NOT only for SF but also for well drawn fantasy worlds.)

Thanks for the Asimov reference, Robert. I had done some searches for those Asimov titles and as you say with the number of books he wrote and the way he recycled non-fiction, locating it just wasn't happening. Now, since they're out of print locating the books themselves might not be possible so I may just try the other one.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited January 11, 2008).]

Edit: One book that hasn't been mentioned is the wonderful Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss. I highly recommend it both for polishing up your grammar and for simply being funny. I must admit before reading this book I had never considered the difference in extra-marital sex and extra marital sex.

JeanneT: At a certain level it was intended to irritate you. Information is out there, and if you don't know where to look or don't know how to interpret it, just ask someone. That's called research. I spent a good 6 to 8 hours of my 24-hour story for bootcamp reading about submarines in the UVSC library because I needed the information to write the story. In critique, one person commented that I took her to that submarine. That's why it's worth doing the research.

You complained that it isn't reasonable for a non-scientist to understand planetology. Maybe so, but it is absolutely reasonable to expect a science fiction writer to understand some planetology. If you intend to write a science fiction story, you owe it to your readers to do the necessary homework in order to make the story believable.

Science fiction fans (and editors, for that matter) are not stupid and they will call you on your mistakes. If you make too many, you will lose readers because you lose credibility.

Aside: Since you specified planetology and not world-building in general, I didn't mention any reference on generic world-building.

As it turns out, Cory Doctorow and Karl Schroeder discuss a planet with two moons in the Complete Idiot's Guide to Publishing Science Fiction. They use two overtly purple passages to demonstrate the difference between writing about a planet with two close moons from a position of ignorance and writing about the same place from an informed position. (I don't recommend the book, however, because I don't think it says anything new.)