King has never been what you'd call a Rhodes Scholar, though he may have something in the way of a philosophy. It's no real surprise, given his chosen profession, that a lot of it centers on what he calls "The Art of the Craft". The real question is whether there is enough experience to bear his main idea out? The good news, so far as I can see, is that I have heard other artists, not just book writers, but also playwrights, screenplayers, painters, and poets express the same conviction. The best testimony of this same process at work has to come from the pen of J.R.R.Tolkien. In the midst of his Collected Letters, Tolkien makes several repeated statements that he often had no idea that his most famous work was going to take the narrative twists and turns that wound up in the finished product. "I have long ceased to invent", he says at one point, "(though even patronizing or sneering critics on the side praise my 'invention'): I wait till I seem to know what really happened. Or till it writes itself. Thus, though I knew for years that Frodo would run into a tree-adventure somewhere far down the Great River, I have no recollection of inventing Ents. I came at last to the point, and wrote the 'Treebeard' chapter without any recollection of any previous thought; just as it now is. And then I saw that, of course, it had not happened to Frodo at all (italics mine, sic) (212)".
Likewise, Neil Gaiman once described his writing method in the opening preface to a screenplay of his called Mirrormask. "...I'll talk about it to the point where I'm ready to start writing, and then I start writing and find out the rest of it as I go along (12)". Rudyard Kipling, meanwhile, maintained a lot earlier than either of the three authors mentioned above that all of his best work was done not by him, but rather under the influence of what he referred to as his daemon. In other words, all he meant is that he couldn't fulfill his proper function as a writer unless the muse in his mind spoke up. He claimed that all his best work was done under the influence of this same muse. In fact, it is possible that Kipling's short narrative, "The Greatest Story in the World" is about how the creative work is lacking without the necessary inspiration in place. It's main lead is a very shallow, modern young lad who wants to be a writer. Most of what he writes is pure drivel. Then there will come moments when something his mind speaks up, and an epic tale about the exploits of a Grecian galley slave start to form on the page. When this influence withdraws, however, nothing comes out right. The whole thing is an allegory that anticipates King's argument by at least a whole century.The preponderance of written evidence all attests to the same conclusion. In order to do their job, all the best writers have to get out of the way and let the imagination start talking of its own accord. They seem to rely on it as something that has to be done even when the final results may be less than flattering to their own selves. The point is that the story is always the boss. To try an make it anything less is to tell a lie with no thematic truth anywhere in it, and hence, a complete and total failure. What King and the rest of the cavalcade seem to have described is a method of composition that, in essence, is the closest any of them will ever get to something like a standard operating procedure. It is what it is. Like Mt. Everest, the human mind is something that is just there, and so is the peculiar function known as the imagination, which appears to be a part of it. Some of us have found ways to tap into that function. The results can be known by many names like The Odyssey, 221 B Baker Street, or Middle Earth. These things have all happened, once upon a by. And after all these years, the question of where do the stories come from is still hanging around.
I'm inclined to believe King, for what it's worth. I've run across too much evidence (some of it cited above) of the kind of phenomenon he talks about to believe he's just making up some kind of excuse. The interesting part is how it's an explanation that still leaves a sense of mystery behind, not because the author is trying to obfuscate, but really because its all he knows for the most part. "In most cases", King observes, "three or four out of every five, let's say - I know where I was when I got the idea for a certain story, what combination of events (usually mundane) set that story off. The genesis of It, for example, was my crossing a wooden bridge, listening to the hollow thump of my boot-heels, and thinking of "The Three Billy Goats Gruff." In the case of Cujo it was an actual encounter with an ill-tempered Saint Bernard. Pet Sematary arose from my daughter's grief when her beloved pet cat, Smucky, was run over on the highway near our house.
"Sometimes, however, I just can't remember how I I arrived at a particular novel or story. In these cases the seed of the story seems to be an image rather than an idea, a mental snapshot so powerful it eventually calls characters and incidents the way some ultrasonic whistles supposedly call every dog in the neighborhood. These are, to me, at least, the true creative mysteries: stories that have no real antecedents, that come on their own. The Green Mile began with an image of a huge black man standing in his jail cell and watching the approach of a trusty selling candy and cigarettes from an old metal cart with a squeaky wheel (vii)". In the case of a story like The Mist the inspiration seems to have been of this same sort, for the most part.
The way King tells it, he was doing nothing more than browsing through the aisles of a supermarket when the moment of inspiration just walked it right to him. "In the market, my muse suddenly shat on my head - this happened as it always does, suddenly, with no warning. I was halfway down the middles aisle, looking for hot-dog buns, when I imagined a big prehistoric bird flapping its way toward the meat counter at the back, knocking over cans of pineapple chunks and bottles of tomato sauce. By the time my son Joe and I were in the checkout lane, I was amusing myself with a story about all these people trapped in a supermarket surrounded by prehistoric animals. I thought it was wildly funny - what The Alamo would have been like if directed by Bert I. Gordon. I wrote half the story that night and the rest the following week (750)".
That's the point of origin account given, based on the author notes in his 1980s short shorty collection, Skeleton Crew. There's no real reason to doubt his account. I'm pretty sure King is just telling all he's ever really known about this story. He's also one of those writers who isn't stingy about sharing the contents of his own personal library with fans and readers in general. King often likes to drop the names of writers whose work has left him with a sense of inspiration or enjoyment. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some of those books are short story collections. I just wonder sometimes if any of those collections contain an entry by some guy known as H.F. Arnold. Nobody knows him, that's a pretty sure guarantee. The name is a drawn blank for most people, and I don't even know what he looks like. He's just a name on a page, attached to a certain short story. It's the contents of that story, however brief it is, that gives me pause. It makes me wonder where writings like The Mist really come from. Are there types of stories that get retold more often than audiences or artists think or know about? Wouldn't it be funny if The Mist had an unknown inspiration?