Top Favorite Quotes from Stephen King’s “On Writing”


Several months back I read Stephen King’s “On Writing”, a memoir the literary giant wrote in the late 90’s and published in 2000, a year after a motor vehicle accident that landed him in the hospital. It was that near-fatal incident that pushed him to open his drawer, finish “On Writing”, and deliver it to the masses.

While labeled as a memoir, it is at least half as much a guide to writing. Undeniably one of the most successful fiction writers of the 20th century, Mr. King has a wealth of knowledge to share with us scrubs trying to figure the craft out. In “On Writing”, he took a rare break from fiction to detail some the trials, tribulations, and successes of his writing career. Written in a tone of sincerity and transparency, he lays his thoughts bare so we can learn from the deep pool of his experience. He never crams it down our throats, nor does he say ‘it’s my way or the highway’ – instead, he remains humble yet straight forward in his delivery. This style, combined with writing tips and personalized anecdotes about King’s life, make the book not only a worthy read, but also a distinctly educational and entertaining one.

As I was reading, I highlighted some of the parts that really hit home. May they inspire you as they did me.

On Rejection: “By the time I was fourteen the nail in my wall would no longer support the weight of the rejection slips impaled upon it. I replaced the nail with a spike and went on writing.”

On Word Choice: “The adverb is not your friend… I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and I will shout it from the rooftops.”

On Structure: ““I would argue that the paragraph, not the sentence, is the basic unit of writing—the place where coherence begins and words stand a chance of becoming more than mere words.”

On Dedication: “Can I be blunt on this subject? If you don’t have time to read, you don’t have the time (or the tools) to write. Simple as that.”

On Sincerity: “Let me say it again: You must not come lightly to the blank page.”

On Support: “Writing is a lonely job. Having someone who believes in you makes a lot of difference.

On Purpose: “Writing isn’t about making money, getting famous, getting dates, getting laid, or making friends. In the end, it’s about enriching the lives of those who will read your work, and enriching your own life, as well. It’s about getting up, getting well, and getting over. Getting happy, okay? Getting happy.

On Adversity: “I have spent a good many years since―too many, I think―being ashamed about what I write. I think I was forty before I realized that almost every writer of fiction or poetry who has ever published a line has been accused by someone of wasting his or her God-given talent. If you write (or paint or dance or sculpt or sing, I suppose), someone will try to make you feel lousy about it, that’s all.”

On Integrity of Self: “If you intend to write as truthfully as you can, your days as a member of polite society are numbered.”

On Perspective: “Sometimes you have to go on when you don’t feel like it, and sometimes you’re doing good work when it feels like all you’re managing is to shovel shit from a sitting position.

Have you read “On Writing”? Do you have a favorite passage or quote that inspired or pushed you as a writer? Share here or on social media, and thanks for reading!

The Hobbit and the Fox – A Lord of the Rings Essay

I’m a Tolkien nerd. For over twenty years, since first reading The Hobbit, I haven’t been able to get enough of Middle Earth. I’m proud of this. Tolkien’s work has molded and shaped who I am today, in all the best ways.

I could fill twenty blogs with posts about Middle Earth every day for a year and still have


stuff to talk about, but for my first foray into Tolkien blogging I’m going to write about one my favorite parts from The Lord of the Rings – the fox passage.

Now, for anyone unfamiliar with holy trilogy, or for those who have only seen the movies, there are a couple things to cover before diving into the exact piece I want to talk about – this will help to understand why the fox passage is unique and interesting.

It’s important to recognize that J.R.R. Tolkien was very heavily influenced by folklore and mythology. He, in fact, began his approach to creating Middle Earth with the intent to create a sort of ‘Mythology for England’.

I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own … Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story… which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country.” – Letter #131, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien

It is with this perspective in mind, that it should be understood: Middle Earth is written to be our earth.

I am historically minded. Middle-earth is not an imaginary world. The name is the modern form (appearing in the 13th century and still in use) of midden-erd > middel-erd, an ancient name for the oikoumenē, the abiding place of Men, the objectively real world, in use specifically opposed to imaginary worlds (as Fairyland) or unseen worlds (as Heaven or Hell). The theatre of my tale is this earth, the one in which we now live, but the historical period is imaginary. The essentials of that abiding place are all there (at any rate for inhabitants of N.W. Europe), so naturally it feels familiar, even if a little glorified by the enchantment of distance in time.” – Letter #183, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien

So when you read The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, or The Lord of the Rings, they could be read as being works of ancient myth that Tolkien found and translated to English for us – think: Tolkien the Historian and Anthropologist vs. Tolkien the Fiction Writer.

When we discuss The Lord of the Rings, the ‘ancient text’ that Tolkien the Historian worked from is The Red Book of Westmarch. This is the book that Bilbo and Frodo (then later: Sam, Merry, and Pippin, and…others) wrote themselves. It is to be understood that Frodo is the principal author of The Lord of the Rings.


That said, everything that was written in The Lord of the Rings follows a certain scheme: what was written was either the first-hand or second-hand account of someone that was actually present to experience the events of the story. It is written in a third person omniscient POV, but the perspective almost always follows one of the central protagonists.

Almost always.

This is where the fox passage comes in. Here it is in all it’s lustrous glory:

They set no watch; even Frodo feared no danger yet, for they were still in the heart of the Shire. A few creatures came and looked at them when the fire had died away. A fox passing through the wood on business of his own stopped several minutes and sniffed.

‘Hobbits!’ he thought. ‘Well, what next? I have heard of strange doings in this land, but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There’s something mighty queer behind this.’ He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it. – The Fellowship of the Ring, Chapter 3: Three Is Company

The first thing that sticks out when I read this passage is that we are suddenly experiencing the thoughts of a wild animal. It’s weird, it’s different. While The Hobbit has some more fantastical elements like this, the Lord of the Rings generally does not.

Then, thinking about it a little deeper, the oddity continues. This is the single point, in the entire trilogy, where we are suddenly seeing things from the perspective of a being that is an outsider to the parties directly involved in the story. Think about that and remember, we are reading something that supposedly was taken as first- or second-hand accounts, penned down by Frodo. Nobody interviewed the fox, the thing just disappears after this scene and is never brought up again. It fits with the third-person omniscient POV kinda, but definitely not with the concept of Tolkien the Historian. If The Lord of the Rings is an historical account of events, then the fox passage is the single piece of ‘fiction’ within that history.

So at what point was it added, and by who? There are a couple of possibilities for its existence, each having their own potential impacts and intentions for its inclusion. Everything I’ve written to this point I’ve tried to approach as factually as possible, but from here I get to speculate a little bit.

If Frodo is the perpetrator, what could his reasons be for adding this passage? In this case, the passage echos Frodo’s own thoughts as he was about to step into the unknown. I like to think that if Frodo wrote this passage, it’s as an homage to his uncle Bilbo, who definitely took such liberties when writing There and Back Again (The Hobbit). It would serve, in this case, as a passing of the torch. As Frodo and company leave the shire, he’s saying “we’re leaving the familiar and straying into something new”. The finality of that last sentence really nails this for me: “He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it.” Indeed he didn’t, the rest of the book is not a place for him or any of his animal friends.

It’s also possible that someone added it later down the line, but before Tolkien the Historian got it. After Frodo finished his work on The Red Book, the idea is that it was passed down and transcribed many times. The first actual copy of the book was brought to Aragorn by Pippin later in his life – this is the copy that Tolkien the Historian found and translated for us. Once that copy was brought to Minis Tirith, quite a few hands touched it, likely adding and changing things along the way. One of these unknown scribes could have added the fox passage. I can’t imagine any reason they would have done this, unless for flight of fancy or to add their personal feelings about the oddness of Hobbits leaving the shire. An interesting side note about this possibility is that this ‘addition’ would have taken place many years after Frodo finished his work on the Red Book. This would imply that even then, so many years later, Hobbits sleeping under trees and traveling from home was still out of the ordinary. This is a comforting thought, as it also implies a continued peaceful seclusion for Hobbit-folk.

Lastly, if the fox passage wasn’t added by Frodo, another hobbit, or a man of Gondor, then it must have been added by Tolkien the Historian. Why would he do this? I have no idea, to be honest. He would have had no contemporaneous opinion of Hobbit behavior, so there wouldn’t be a whole lot of meaning to the addition. When everything else is translated so faithfully as scholarly material, it simply doesn’t add up that Tolkien the Historian would have added this piece.

Personally, I like to think that Frodo added it himself. The passage being his own work has a certain emotional value to it that isn’t present otherwise.


No matter what, the fox passage is a very unique and interesting part of The Lord of the Rings. What do you think? Are there perspectives or implications that I have missed? Within the scope of The Red Book of Westmarch, who do you think is responsible for this bizarre, fun little passage? Let me know in the comments, thanks for reading!

Why Black Panther is less about Black Panther than you’d think (and why that’s a good thing)


Black Panther was a pleasant surprise.

I’ve stayed current on the Marvel releases, and have enjoyed them, each to lesser or greater degree. While the ones that I consider to be ‘duds’ (I’m looking at your, Dark World) pale in comparison to the best Marvel films, even they were fun. That is to say two things:

  1. I’m biased towards liking these movies anyways.
  2. I went into the movie thinking I’d enjoy it on some level.

Point two is so important, because it highlights my only real expectation for the movie: it’d be a fun romp in a somewhat established universe. I knew very little about the character, except that he’s from Wakanda and a supposed badass. I also knew about the connection between Wakanda and vibranium. I watched Civil War, so I picked up the tidbits in there. Thats. About. It.

What I wasn’t expecting was a movie with the heart, nuance, and smarts of Black Panther. There’s a ton that could be lauded about in this movie – the music, cinematography, plot,  and setting are great examples – but the standout to me were the characters (and the outstanding performances by the actors portraying them). Now, days later, my wife and I can’t stop talking about who we liked more, and can’t wait to see it again.

Of all the things I could talk about, I’m going to focus this piece on one particularly powerful aspect of this film that really resonated with me: the villain.

{{WARNING:: Spoilers ahead!!}}

The central struggle of Black Panther revolves entirely around the consequences of a choice that T’Chaka, title character T’Challa’s father, makes. These consequences take years to come to light, and when they do, they affect the surviving family of the one who made the choice in the first place. This highlights a truth about the world: the choices real people make have a long-lasting impact on the world around them – even after they leave it. A well-written character needs to be able to have this effect, too, as it helps cement them in a living, breathing world. Black Panther pulled this off spectacularly.


It was nice to see the physical manifestation of T’Chaka’s mistake, the antagonist, Killmonger, presented as a sympathetic character by the end of the movie. Part of mecould understand why he did what he did, part of me felt the longing in his heart, and part of me wanted to punch him in the face. He was lost in a world that wasn’t his own, forsaken and left to struggle. He wanted to make his way home, so he did it the only way he knew how: by using all the skills he learned in an unloving and unforgiving world. My takeaway was that Killmonger truly did want what was best for Wakanda, it’s just that he had gross misconceptions of what that was. Instead of molding himself to his homeland, he took his distorted worldview and, using his unique set of skills, tried to force Wakanda to match. Beyond anything else – even the anger and resentment – I got the feeling that Killmonger was just a lonely guy.

The beauty of this great, nuanced portrayal of villainy, is that it led to the resolution of one of my only character gripes in the movie: I thought T’Challa was just a bit too passive through most of the movie. Only a couple of times does he actually make a choice and take actions that drive the plot forward: once when he decides to lead the attack against Klaw in Korea, and once in the mid-credits scene. Its this mid-credits scene that fixed it for me though, because not only did it demonstrate T’Challa taking action, but it demonstrated him owning his decisions and embracing his role as the leader of a powerful nation. That’s when it hit me – unlike other Marvel movies that struggle with portraying active characters (like Doctor Strange), Black Panther did this intentionally. T’Challa wasn’t being passive because of poor writing, he was being passive because of the character’s general inability to take control of the world around him as he struggled to become leader. The burden of responsibility placed on him early in the film weighs him down until his climactic confrontation with Killmonger, who’s own goals inspire T’Challa to own his title and all that comes with it. It is a testament to Killmonger’s strength as a villain that despite him being the main antogonist of the story, he’s the one that ultimately inspires T’Challa to take Wakanda in a new direction – a direction much aligned with Killmonger’s own plans, albeit through different, more peaceful means.


Few movies I’ve seen have done what this movie did – it tricked the audience in all the right ways. We thought we were going to see a movie about Black Panther, but what we got was a movie about Killmonger that happened to have Black Panther in it. While the POV more heavily followed T’Challa’s exploits, the movie opened on the beginning of Killmonger’s character arc and followed it through to the end. It was Killmonger’s actions that, in most cases, drove the plot of the movie forward as T’Challa was forced to adjust and react to those actions. Only because T’Challa’s arc fits with him playing the passive role is this able to work. Then, when T’Challa is finally triumphant in the film’s final few minutes, its like the torch is passed from antagonist to hero – from then on, it’s up to T’Challa to be a King and lead his people.

We need to see antagonists that are fleshed-out, living people and not just punching bags. We need to see ‘bad guys’ that give more to the story than they take away from it. Black Panther is a movie that shows consequence of action, meaningful conflict, and the inspiration and learning that should come from those experiences. Although Killmonger’s actions drove the story, its these actions that, by the time the movie is over, retroactively gave meaning to T’Challa’s character my making all of the antagonist’s actions have very real impacts on the protagonist. Killmonger wasn’t just an obstacle that T’Challa overcame, he was an opportunity for T’Challa to grow as a character, and this is evident when the mid-credits scene rolls.

Black panther was great. It subverted my expectations and, I think, created a benchmark on how to write and use an antagonist in a movie – something that Marvel movies have sometimes struggled with. I hope that the folks at Marvel Studios are taking note, because this is how its done. Kudos to all the actors who were outstanding in their roles, and particularly Chadwick Boseman and Michael B. Jordan – I look forward to seeing more of their work going forward.

Let me know in the comments what you thought – did you like Black Panther? Tell me what your favorite parts of the movie were!


  • Superb acting
  • Stunning visuals of Wakanda
  • Music was unique and inspired
  • Costuming very well done
  • Pace, plot, and characters


  • Some obvious CG, especially during fights – could have been better (although only a minor issue when compared to all the great CG that is also in the movie)
  • Final fight between T’Challa and Killmonger was in a dark tunnel area – difficult to see and follow.

Overall, I give this movie:


9/10 rods of smuggled Vibranium