>>7496814
You must read and write to get a good prose. Books of this kind are rarely useful and often reflect the author's own aesthetic rather a true, sincere style. In this case, since Stephen King is a terrible writer, I wouldn't even give it a try.

New readers often read an author for the first time with a unique style, then they go on to try and emulate it.

Before you ever think about developing a style, consider your own voice.

What are you trying to say?

Any average writer can copy some famous literary style and engage a reader.
.

Style is vastly overrated and always develops naturally. What is most important is finding your voice.

Example: When you start talking to someone, do you have a clear goal in mind?

>You're taking a shit and there's no toilet paper
>You get up, pinch your cheeks, hop to the door, crack it open, and shout to your gf "Get me some toilet paper!"

Whatever you say in that moment is your voice. It has a finality to it, a certainty and sureness and clarity. It rings true because it has to.

It won't matter if you shout the most lyrical or compelling words to her, if they don't convey your voice and meaning you're never getting that toilet paper.


Or if you have a sadistic bitch for a girlfriend, she will come and stick her finger deep inside your crack then wipe it on your face. In which case you should've structured and planned your shit ahead of time instead of relying on only your voice and the kindness of others.

>>7496814
>reading a classic of their language

this and then writing until you get all the shitty writing out of your system. it might take a while.

>>7497256
>reflect the author's own aesthetic rather a true, sincere style.

Are you implying that a writer's style isn't based off their own aesthetic?

>>7497410
>writing until you get all the shitty writing out of your system.

I hate this myth. It implies that all you have to do is write religiously for a couple of years and then you'll be shittin' Shakespeare.

It's much more than that. You actually have to understand what does and does not work in your writing, else you'll simply keep rehashing your mistakes over and over again.

>>7498060
Perhaps write a lot while obtaining a lot of feedback?

>>7498060
>It implies that all you have to do is write religiously for a couple of years and then you'll be shittin' Shakespeare.

maybe if you're a sperg who takes every word literally? it means you need to practice. practice as in continuously improve your form, not just mindlessly repeating the same thing.

>>7498198
>maybe if you're a sperg who takes every word literally?

Yes, please, blame your ambiguity on the reader who had no choice in the words you used to explain your point.

>>7498237
are you seriously this dense or just pretending to be autistic?

>>7498244

Ambiguity is the bane of good prose, anon.

>>7496814
Why not both? I say.
First read, read, read then read and read.
By the time you are reading try to write, don't care about it much and just write for yourself.

Tho, my friend, it is not a formula. Try and think then try again. Have fun.

>>7498320
>Why not both?

Because your time to read books is finite. Should you focus on one or the other?

>>7497389
pls stop regurgitating shitty stock writing advice

>>7499055

Quite a deal better than bad advice, I'd say.

>>7496814

You'd be better off actually writing.

No writer ever got published by only reading.

Very little of that book is actually about how to write. In fact, I think the only advice was "don't plan anything just turn on some rock and roll and WRITE, man! also leave your draft alone a few weeks before revising and put your desk in the corner of your room not the center."