Fanfic Killed Lovecraft, or, Is GRRM Insane
Sean O'Hara
Let me bring up a couple other writers, then. Contemporaries
of an earlier age, each of whom was known by a set of
initials: ERB and HPL. ERB created Tarzan and John Carter
of Mars. HPL created Cthulhu and his Mythos. ERB, and
later his estate, was extremely protective of his
creations. Try to use Tarzan, or even an ape man who was
suspiciously similar to Tarzan, without his/ their
permission, and their lawyers would famously descend
on you like a ton of bricks. HPL was the complete
opposite. The Cthulhu Mythos soon turned into one of
our genres first shared worlds. HPL encouraged writer
friends like Robert Bloch and Clark Ashton Smith to
borrow elements from his Cuthulhu Mythos, and to add
elements as well, which HPL himself would borrow in
turn. And in time, other writers who were NOT friends
of HPL also began to write Cthulhu Mythos stories,
which continues to this day.
Fair enough. Two writers, two different decisions.
Thing is, ERB died a millionaire many times over, living
on a gigantic ranch in a town that was named Tarzana after
his creation. HPL lived and died in genteel poverty, and
some biographers have suggested that poor diet brought on
by poverty may have hastened his death. HPL was a far more
beloved figure amongst other writers, but love will only
get you so far. Sometimes it's nice to be able to have a
steak too. The Burroughs estate was paid handsomely for
every Tarzan movie ever made, and collected plenty on the
PRINCESS OF MARS movie I worked on during my Hollywood
years, and no doubt is still collecting on the one
currently in development... though the book is in the
public domain by now. Did the Lovecraft estate make a
penny off THE DUNWICH HORROR movie, the HERBERT WEST,
REANIMATOR movie, the recent DAGON movie, the internet
version of CALL OF CTHULHU? I don't know. I rather doubt
it. If they did, I'll betcha it was just chump change.
Meanwhile, new writers go right on mining the Cthulhu
mythos, writing new stories and novels.
<http://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html>
Wait, what?
If only Lovecraft hadn't allowed other authors to make reference to
Nyarlathotep and the Necronomicon, he would've become rich and
famous? That's the only thing that separated him from Burroughs? Not
that Burroughs was primarily a novelist whose works could be
serialized then published as books, whereas Lovecraft's works were
short stories and a couple novellas that didn't appear outside of
magazines until after his deaths. Or that Burroughs wrote adventure
fiction that fit into high-end pulps and could easily be turned into
movies, whereas Lovecraft's stories were brooding, uncinematic mood
pieces published in low-end pulps. Or that Lovecraft didn't think
that a gentleman like himself should write for pecuniary motives,
while Burroughs quickly realized that his writings were a business.
Or that Burroughs wrote in a simple, straight-forward style that
could be easily enjoyed by anyone who's literate, while Lovecraft was
disappointed that there were no polysyllabic synonyms for "a" and
"the".
No, all that's irrelevant. It has to be the fanfiction element.
That's the key difference.
(And too, I'm pretty sure that letting people write fanfic of your
work has nothing to do with whether a Hollywood studio has to pay for
the film rights. Note of the stories he mentions, Dagon and
Reanimator were in the public domain when the films were made, but
I'd be surprised if AIP didn't pay for the rights to The Dunwich
Horror and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.)
I'd think that Martin has the brain-eater, but surely that would mean
he'd actually finish the next ASoIaF book, in which Haviland Tuf
visits Westeros and fixes their eccentric orbit.
Mike Schilling
>
> Wait, what?
>
> If only Lovecraft hadn't allowed other authors to make reference to
> Nyarlathotep and the Necronomicon, he would've become rich and
> famous? That's the only thing that separated him from Burroughs? Not
> that Burroughs was primarily a novelist whose works could be
> serialized then published as books, whereas Lovecraft's works were
> short stories and a couple novellas that didn't appear outside of
> magazines until after his deaths. Or that Burroughs wrote adventure
> fiction that fit into high-end pulps and could easily be turned into
> movies, whereas Lovecraft's stories were brooding, uncinematic mood
> pieces published in low-end pulps. Or that Lovecraft didn't think
> that a gentleman like himself should write for pecuniary motives,
> while Burroughs quickly realized that his writings were a business.
> Or that Burroughs wrote in a simple, straight-forward style that
> could be easily enjoyed by anyone who's literate, while Lovecraft was
> disappointed that there were no polysyllabic synonyms for "a" and
> "the".
>
> No, all that's irrelevant. It has to be the fanfiction element.
> That's the key difference.
Joyce would have been a millionaire too, if only he hadn't blessed
Bloom/Dedalus slahsfic.
23vl
wow, GRRM is going off the long end indeed.I should have guessed,
considering how much the quality of the last ASoIF book fell in
comparison with the newer ones.
Michael Grosberg
> The Burroughs estate was paid handsomely for
> every Tarzan movie ever made, and collected plenty on the
> PRINCESS OF MARS movie I worked on during my Hollywood
> years, and no doubt is still collecting on the one
> currently in development... though the book is in the
> public domain by now.
Umm, this is odd; if the book is in the public domain, why pay the
Burroughs estate?
> Did the Lovecraft estate make a
> penny off THE DUNWICH HORROR movie, the HERBERT WEST,
> REANIMATOR movie, the recent DAGON movie, the internet
> version of CALL OF CTHULHU? I don't know. I rather doubt it.
There must be a name for this type of fallacy... Argumentum ad
ignoramum? (googling) ah yeah, appeal to ignorance. GRRM doesn't know
but he said he doubts it and that's enough for me! There's no need to
find any actual facts.
> If they did, I'll betcha it was just chump change.
> Meanwhile, new writers go right on mining the Cthulhu
> mythos, writing new stories and novels.
> Wait, what?
>
> If only Lovecraft hadn't allowed other authors to make reference to
> Nyarlathotep and the Necronomicon, he would've become rich and
> famous?
Of course! The only reason Lovecraft was poor was because he failed to
defend his copyright from fanfic written decades after his death.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 9, 8:31�pm, Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From a recent posting about fanfic on George R. R. Martin's blog:
>
>> � � The Burroughs estate was paid handsomely for
>> � �every Tarzan movie ever made, and collected plenty on the
>> � �PRINCESS OF MARS movie I worked on during my Hollywood
>> � �years, and no doubt is still collecting on the one
>> � �currently in development... though the book is in the
>> � �public domain by now.
>
>Umm, this is odd; if the book is in the public domain, why pay the
>Burroughs estate?
Because they own related trademarks. Copyrights expire; trademarks
don't unless they're abandoned.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
DouhetSukd
> From a recent posting about fanfic on George R. R. Martin's blog:
>
> Let me bring up a couple other writers, then. Contemporaries
"""
If a writer would prefer not to allow that... well, I think their
wishes should be respected.
"""
Clear, to the point. I agree with him, BTW.
Now, I dunno if GRRM has the brain-eater, but he finds plenty of time
writing stuff here.
I know I am not a writer, but even a paragraph or two takes me at
least 30 minutes to write, assuming I care enough to get a point
across and take steps to argue my case clearly. So, I can only assume
that writing this up, and to quote again
"""
(and yes, I read all thousand-plus comments, though admittedly I
skimmed some that just seemed to be more of the same)
."""
It has been long time since I have thought of recommending Song of
Fire and Ice to anyone, because it doesn't look likely to be finished
by GRRM himself.
Brain-eater... not sure.
Insane, I don't think so.
Annoying as all hell procrastinator who won't get a dime from me till
he's published book 6, yes, by all means, yes.
Haviland Tuf fixing Westeros - cool idea. And perhaps less of a Deux
Ex Machina than we are being set up for, by the time somebody gets fed
up and just writes an ending, any ending.
Quadibloc
> If only Lovecraft hadn't allowed other authors to make reference to
> Nyarlathotep and the Necronomicon, he would've become rich and
> famous? That's the only thing that separated him from Burroughs? Not
> that Burroughs was primarily a novelist whose works could be
> serialized then published as books, whereas Lovecraft's works were
> short stories and a couple novellas that didn't appear outside of
> magazines until after his deaths. Or that Burroughs wrote adventure
> fiction that fit into high-end pulps and could easily be turned into
> movies, whereas Lovecraft's stories were brooding, uncinematic mood
> pieces published in low-end pulps. Or that Lovecraft didn't think
> that a gentleman like himself should write for pecuniary motives,
> while Burroughs quickly realized that his writings were a business.
> Or that Burroughs wrote in a simple, straight-forward style that
> could be easily enjoyed by anyone who's literate, while Lovecraft was
> disappointed that there were no polysyllabic synonyms for "a" and
> "the".
Indeed. Tarzan was wildly popular with the general reading public; a
phenomenon comparable to Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter.
Not even Brian Lumley, with his series of Mythos books based on a
conventionally adventurous protagonist (and featuring one of fiction's
most extreme dysfunctional families) has managed to achieve that kind
of popular success.
Now, if H. P. Lovecraft had been Stephen King...
John Savard
J
>
> Burroughs wrote in a simple, straight-forward style that
> could be easily enjoyed by anyone who's literate, while Lovecraft was
> disappointed that there were no polysyllabic synonyms for "a" and
> "the".
That's a hoot (and so true)!
Michael Grosberg
> From a recent posting about fanfic on George R. R. Martin's blog:
> (And too, I'm pretty sure that letting people write fanfic of your
> work has nothing to do with whether a Hollywood studio has to pay for
> the film rights.
On a related note, it should be mentioned that J. K. Rowling allows
people to write fanfics using her characters and setting, and she
still manages to eke out a living somehow. I hear she is comfortably
well-off, as Daffy duck used to say.
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
[snip]
>Or that Burroughs wrote in a simple, straight-forward style that
>could be easily enjoyed by anyone who's literate, while Lovecraft was
>disappointed that there were no polysyllabic synonyms for "a" and
>"the".
"single", "unitary"?
"specific"?
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Robert A. Woodward
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From a recent posting about fanfic on George R. R. Martin's blog:
<snip, re: ERB vs HPL
>
> Fair enough. Two writers, two different decisions.
>
> Thing is, ERB died a millionaire many times over, living
> on a gigantic ranch in a town that was named Tarzana after
> his creation.
IIRC, Burroughs had SOLD the ranch before WWII and he wasn't that
wealthy on his death (two divorces after all).
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Michael Grosberg
> On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:31:15 -0400, Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Or that Burroughs wrote in a simple, straight-forward style that
> >could be easily enjoyed by anyone who's literate, while Lovecraft was
> >disappointed that there were no polysyllabic synonyms for "a" and
> >"the".
>
> "single", "unitary"?
>
> "specific"?
>
> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
No, unless you want to sound like single Russian author trying to
write in specific language he's not proficient in.
Nate Edel
> Thing is, ERB died a millionaire many times over, living
> on a gigantic ranch in a town that was named Tarzana after
> his creation. HPL lived and died in genteel poverty, and
> steak too. The Burroughs estate was paid handsomely for
> public domain by now. Did the Lovecraft estate make a
> penny off THE DUNWICH HORROR m
Of course, they're both just as dead and unable to take it with them. Of
course, ERB had children while Lovecraft did not, but as far as I can tell
ERB's children would all have been adults at the time of his death.
> I'd think that Martin has the brain-eater, but surely that would mean
> he'd actually finish the next ASoIaF book, in which Haviland Tuf
> visits Westeros and fixes their eccentric orbit.
*lol*
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."
Anthony Frost
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 May 2010 14:56:41 -0700 (PDT), Michael Grosberg
> <grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 9, 8:31�pm, Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> From a recent posting about fanfic on George R. R. Martin's blog:
> >
> >> � � The Burroughs estate was paid handsomely for
> >> � �every Tarzan movie ever made, and collected plenty on the
> >> � �PRINCESS OF MARS movie I worked on during my Hollywood
> >> � �years, and no doubt is still collecting on the one
> >> � �currently in development... though the book is in the
> >> � �public domain by now.
> >
> >Umm, this is odd; if the book is in the public domain, why pay the
> >Burroughs estate?
>
> Because they own related trademarks. Copyrights expire; trademarks
> don't unless they're abandoned.
And studios generally want to be able to show the film in the rest of
the world. Just because something is out of copyright in one territory
doesn't mean it is everywhere.
Anthony
Quadibloc
> Of course, they're both just as dead and unable to take it with them.
More to the point, George R. R. Martin would hardly be the first
person to use a historical example in a very flawed argument in order
to make a point in line with his self-interest. (We starving authors
need better copyright laws!) Hence, it is unnecessary to postulate
advanced senility.
John Savard
Dimensional Traveler
--
Murphy was an optimist.
Mike Van Pelt
> that didn't appear outside of magazines until after his deaths.
"Deaths"? Plural?
Ooooh, now that's a typo with some Lovecraftian implications!
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Default User
"Sean O'Hara" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2650bb72d...@news.individual.net...
> . . . whereas Lovecraft's works were
> short stories and a couple novellas that didn't appear outside of
> magazines until after his deaths.
How many deaths did he have?
Brian
Bill Snyder
Including the rugose, the squamose, and the batrachian?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Gene Wirchenko
<grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 10, 8:13�am, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:31:15 -0400, Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Or that Burroughs wrote in a simple, straight-forward style that
>> >could be easily enjoyed by anyone who's literate, while Lovecraft was
>> >disappointed that there were no polysyllabic synonyms for "a" and
>> >"the".
>>
>> � � �"single", "unitary"?
>>
>> � � �"specific"?
>No, unless you want to sound like single Russian author trying to
>write in specific language he's not proficient in.
Oh, sure! Now, you move specific goalpost. That is not single
fair thing to do.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
>In article <MPG.2650bb72d...@news.individual.net>,
>Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... Lovecraft's works were short stories and a couple novellas
>> that didn't appear outside of magazines until after his deaths.
>
>"Deaths"? Plural?
>
>Ooooh, now that's a typo with some Lovecraftian implications!
You might have that inverted. After all:
"That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die."
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Bill Snyder
<ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 9 May 2010 23:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Michael Grosberg
><grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 10, 8:13 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:31:15 -0400, Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> >Or that Burroughs wrote in a simple, straight-forward style that
>>> >could be easily enjoyed by anyone who's literate, while Lovecraft was
>>> >disappointed that there were no polysyllabic synonyms for "a" and
>>> >"the".
>>>
>>> "single", "unitary"?
>>>
>>> "specific"?
>
>>No, unless you want to sound like single Russian author trying to
>>write in specific language he's not proficient in.
>
> Oh, sure! Now, you move specific goalpost. That is not single
>fair thing to do.
Comrade, you are unitary traitor to particular revolution.
Quadibloc
Ah, but he also wrote "Herbert West, Reanimator".
John Savard
Mike Schilling
Hoo-boy, is always moose and squirrel. Raskalnikov!
Dan Goodman
>
> "Sean O'Hara" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > . . . whereas Lovecraft's works were
> > short stories and a couple novellas that didn't appear outside of
> > magazines until after his deaths.
>
> How many deaths did he have?
Like any other were-feline, he had nine lives.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal dsgood.dreamwidth.org (livejournal.com, insanejournal.com)
Gene Wirchenko
But one trifle.
On reflection, it does give an interesting meaning to swinging
both ways.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko