On, "On Writing"

I am really enjoying King's On Writing book. One thing about King's writing that I have always appreciated is his conversational style. He pulls you into his writing by using language from the street that is Earthy and colloquial but then once he pulls you in, you realize he has something intelligent to say and his use of foul language doesn't take anything away from the substance.

Writing is an art form, much like photography. When I first graduated from highschool, I attended CCS with the intention of getting a degree in photography. In my first year we learned all about the mechanics of making technically perfect photographs. If we submitted prints that suffered from poor contrast or exposure or were spotted poorly (spotting was the term used for "inking in" the white dust spots you invariably get in analog, old-fashioned negative-to-print photography), your grade would reflect it, and you would likely also be subjected to a lecture.
I recall on one of our many trips to the DIA to look at the work of some famous New York photographer who was famous (or infamous) for producing poor quality prints complete with chemical stains, poor exposures, no dust spotting, etc, I commented to my professor that if I had turned in a photograph like any of these he would throw me out on my ear. He said "yeah, you're probably right." But since this is "so and so", I said (whoever this famous and now forgotten New York photographer was), her work is put on display at the Detroit Institute of Arts! My prof replied: "Yup."
I realize now what I failed to realize at 18. Miss famous New York photographer certainly knew better and was assuredly capable of creating correctly exposed photographs, with good contrast and no discernible dust spots; she chose not to. She was allowed her technical faux pas because her work said something and was effective in its own way. Writing is the same thing. Before you break the rules, you have to know the rules.