Stephen
King’s Toolbox
I
recently read novelist Stephen King’s memoir On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft.
I found it a thoroughly enjoyable read.
If there was one point I got out of the book it is that King is a hard worker; he
writes daily and sets himself a goal of something like 2,000 words a day. And he rewrites and edits meticulously. This has all paid off for King in one of the
most, perhaps the most, successful writing career in history.
King
is a novelist and not everything King says about the craft of writing is
applicable to poetry. But a surprising
amount is. In particular, I enjoyed the
section where King describes what he metaphorically calls his ‘writer’s
toolbox’; which is a list of tools that King brings to every writing task. The Chapter, called Toolbox begins on page 111 and continues through page 137. I particularly found pages 114 through 122
helpful. Let’s look at King’s toolbox
and see how it applies to writing poetry:
The
first tool, what King calls the commonest
tool of all (page 114) is vocabulary. Vocabulary is the single most important tool
for a poet as well. Vocabulary is what
poets draw upon to make their poems.
Vocabulary is like flour for a baker, or bricks for a bricklayer, or
pitches for a tunesmith. As King notes,
different people use different vocabularies; some have a very learned and
complex vocabulary while some have a more ordinary vocabulary and, perhaps, one
that is less complex. King suggests that
the best way to increase one’s vocabulary is simply to read; and that makes
great sense to me. For the poet, reading
a lot of poetry is the single best way to cultivate one’s own vocabulary.
There
is another way for poets to expand their vocabulary which King doesn’t mention;
perhaps because it is more suited to poets than novelists. And that is to simply listen to people as you
go through your day. When you go to the
grocery store, the bank, wherever you go, just listen to the people as you walk
by, as you are standing in line, passing them on the street. I don’t mean that you should snoop. I mean that instead of daydreaming or
thinking about something-or-other, just listen to people as they are talking in
a natural and unobtrusive way. My
favorite location for doing this is at coffee shops. It is amazing what you can learn about how
people use words in these kinds of ordinary situations. If you work retail you are in an ideal
situation because you cannot pick and choose who you are going to interact with
which means that you will be exposed to people whose word choices and usages
are different from your own. While
waiting on customers and engaging in the banter of buy and sell, listen to
their speech, phrasing, the way they accent a syllable, or drop a syllable, the
way they frame a thought, etc. I am
suggesting that the poet be attentive to the waves of words they are swimming
in. Listening in this way will naturally
expand your vocabulary; it will also expand usage beyond what you engage in as
the result of your upbringing and education.
I have found that in ordinary speech people are often hovering at the
edge of poetry and, sometimes, for short bursts, spontaneously speaking
poetically. This can be hugely
enriching.
But the important thing for a poet is to feel
free to use the full range of vocabulary that one already has no matter what
the source. It is important that a poet
not think of some words as inherently ‘unpoetic’. The full range of our vocabulary, whatever it
includes, is there for the picking.
The
second tool is grammar; and I
couldn’t be more delighted to read that King included this much neglected
subject as an essential writing tool. It
is my personal feeling, based on reading a lot of contemporary poetry, that
this is a tool which needs to be consciously honed by many poets today. My impression is that there are a lot of
modern poets who just don’t have a good grip on English grammar. I say this because of such simple things as
observing an inability to distinguish between ‘its’ and ‘it’s’, or confusion
over when a word is a plural and when a word is a possessive (let alone plural
possessive).
I
also sense a lack of grammatical chops when I read poems, mostly free verse,
where there is zero coordination between lineation and grammatical
structure. Yes, I know, no doubt the
poet was using their ‘feelings’ to determine lineation. Sure, sure.
But I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the primary reasons for the
slovenly lineation which is so common among free verse poets today is simply a
lack of understanding regarding basic sentence structure, parts of speech,
phrasing. At least from my perspective,
and from King’s as well, that is the conclusion one is forced to draw.
King
has some interesting things to say about grammar which, I think, apply to the
poet as well. On page 121 King writes, “One
who does grasp the rudiments of grammar finds a comforting simplicity at its
heart, where there need be only nouns, the words that name, and verbs, the
words that act.
“Take
any noun, put it with any verb, and you have a sentence. It never fails. Rocks explode. Jane
transmits. Mountains float. These are all perfect sentences. Many such thoughts make little rational
sense, but even the stranger ones (Plums
deify!) have a kind of poetic weight that’s nice.” Right on, Stephen. I can’t help but think that some of the
weirder projects for cultivating a grammar in English Language Haiku that
limits, or eliminates, verb usage is derived from a lack of basic grammatical
understanding.
King
goes so far as to recommend that you purchase Warriner’s English Grammar.
I was not familiar with this grammar.
When I looked it up online I found that it is a basic English Grammar
that was widely used in grade schools for many years. Obviously King used it, remembers it, and
likely still uses it. I agree with King;
every poet should have on their shelf a basic grammar to reference and to
refresh their understanding.
That’s
the end of King’s first level of his toolbox; though he has more tools at lower
levels of the toolbox. As a poet I would
add one more to the top drawer of a poet’s toolbox: lineation. Lineation is not of crucial concern for the
novelist; but for the poet it is absolutely essential. And for the syllabic poet it is doubly
essential. I have written about this
before, so I won’t repeat myself except to say that without a sure grasp of how
to define a line, a syllabic poet’s work will, in all likelihood, end up
reading like, and sounding like, free verse.
It is lineation which distinguishes a syllabic approach to poetry from
that of free verse and metrical verse.
King’s
book On Writing is an easy read. The mixture of memoir and tips on how to
write is well balanced and keeps the reader engaged. I learned a lot from this enjoyable book; perhaps
you will as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment