Writing Mythos Fiction
wilum pugmire
today. Why do we persist in this genre when there is next to no
market for it, and what are our goals as Mythos writers in this
neoteric age. If you have written books of Mythos fiction,
collections or novels, or if you have edited anthologies of Mythos
fiction, I'd like to discuss how you approach it, is it important to
be faithful to Lovecraft, or are you Derlethian, &c. I'd like you to
discuss your books, and where they may be obtain'd so that we can seek
them, buy therm and devour them. I am in this new phase of excitement
about the subject, and about contributing to the genre, because of S.
T.'s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CTHULHU MYTHOS. Indeed, I am so
enthrall'd with writing new Lovecraftian fiction that I have given up
trying to write a new book of non-Mythos fiction and am now working on
a Mythos collection. For those of you who have thought about writing
Mythos fiction but have not yet found your way into actual writing,
ask question. We are a group of fans and friends and we are here for
each other.
Writing Mythos fiction, for me, is a core response to my love for
Lovecraft's fiction. I write because I am Lovecraftian to the core.
I have no interest in commercial success, but I do want my work to be
read by as many devoted Lovecraft fans as possible. But I need to
write BOOKS -- writing online simply doesn't "do it" for me, even
though I realise that that's where the largest audience is. I usually
use Lovecraft's fiction only as inspiration for my Mythos fiction,
unless I am writing a tale that is a tribute to some other author in
the Mythos tradition or who was a member of the original Lovecraft
Circle. For me Lovecraft is the sacred fount of inspiration, & I can
cull that inspiration from his fiction and poetry, his letters and
essays. I have my strange little rules. I never use Lovecraft as a
character or mention his works or books in my tales. I am writing of
his invented realm or lore and legend. Of late I have been
experimenting in writing tales set in Lovecraft's lifetime. I think
you mention'd that you were doing this, Al, or that you thought it a
good idea. It's a great idea and lots of fun, although one is bound
to make historical mistakes. The tale I'm writing now, inspir'd by
Lovecraft's "The Dreams in the Witch House" and Henry James's "The
Aspern Papers," is set in 1933.
I need to be serious when I write Mythos fiction. I have a dislike
for tales that are jokey, that make fun of Cthulhu or Lovecraft. I
prefer homage to parody. I'd be interested in hearing from editors
concerning this. Henrik, when you were editing ELDRITCH HORRORS, did
you have any personal feelings about accepting humorous stories as
opposed to serious tales? In the small press it seems there are a lot
of "cute" Cthulhu tales. Why is this? Is it a sign that people
cannot take the Mythos seriously? If you cannot be serious about this
genre, why write in it?
I sometimes think that, perhaps, I borrow too much from Lovecraft; but
I like taking things from his fiction and poetry and building my own
"take" on it. One of the finest examples of this is Stanley C.
Sargent's "The Black Brat of Dunwich," a fascinating and beautifully
written tale that borrows much from Lovecraft and yet is an entity in
and of itself. How do you feel about the idea of using Lovecraft's
Mythos as background only, on which to build fiction that is
audaciously your own? Or do you WANT to write tales about the Old
Ones, about Lovecraft's monsters, &c? I think this is what we call
"the Derleth Mythos," tales that are ABOUT the Mythos rather than
tales that attempt to subtly use the Mythos as background.
What does it mean to be "Lovecraftian"? For me, Lovecraftian horror
is fiction and poetry that is ispir'd directly and deliberately by the
works of H. P. Lovecraft. How do you define Lovecraftian horror?
Al Smith
To my mind, to try to imitate Lovecraft, or to deliberately set out
to produce a "mythos" story, is the kiss of death. It's fine to
write stories that have echoes of the mythos, or even make an odd
reference to the mythos, but to try to write mythos stories almost
insures that the stories will not have originality or value.
You take C. A. Smith, Howard and Long. They made sly little
references to some of Lovecraft's details now and then, but they
weren't trying to write in his mythos or his style -- they were
their own men, and they did their own thing.
I'd say to writers, write something original, and something that is
completely your own, and keep the mythos in mind as you do so, but
very much in the background of your mind. Never make a deliberate
"homage" to the mythos, never parody it, and never try to extend it.
Do your own thing, and you may, just possibly, produce something
worth reading.
-Al-
wilum pugmire
If I were to take your advice I would completely stop writing -- which
I have no intention of doing. The three books that I have written
since last October are all attempts at writing Mythos fiction. It's a
lot of material, and I feel absolutely that it is mine own. I have no
desire to be "original" -- I want to be "Lovecraftian," that's why I
write. That is when I am moft myself, when I am writing Mythos
fiction. These past two months, convinc'd that I wanted to write a
non-Lovecraftian book, have been completely wasted -- completely.
I've not gotten beyond 1,000 words of anything I've started. I shall
do exactly the opposite of what you advise (and you're not the only
one to think this -- it's very common in the professional world). I
shall strive more than ever to write Mythos fiction, fiction that is
homage to Lovecraft and yet authentically, audaciously my own. I am
moft myself as a writer when I am writing Lovecraftian Mythos
fiction. I am my moft original and decadent. I believe that it is
possible to write in this genre, to write well, to write with passion
and ingenuity. I shall spend the rest of my life as au author
striving to write Mythos fiction that is entertaining and enchanting
and intelligent and poetic and depraved. It is my life. Selah.
Al Smith
As you say, it is your life. Go for it. But I find it strange that
you proclaim "I have no desire to be "original" -- I want to be
'Lovecraftian,' that's why I write." Most writers wish to be
original -- most serious writers, at any rate. I would think that
with your attitude the best you could ever hope for is good fan
fiction. At the end of the day, that's not much.
-Al-
Harksen
You mention a lot of things that I have an opinion on. Alas, I do not
have much time right now, so I will stick to the question you ask me
specifically. I'll get back to the rest another day;-)
On 19 Maj, 22:35, wilum pugmire <hopf...@sesqua.net> wrote:
> I need to be serious when I write Mythos fiction. I have a dislike
> for tales that are jokey, that make fun of Cthulhu or Lovecraft. I
> prefer homage to parody. I'd be interested in hearing from editors
> concerning this. Henrik, when you were editing ELDRITCH HORRORS, did
> you have any personal feelings about accepting humorous stories as
> opposed to serious tales?
First and foremost: I too prefer serious tales. And that was my
primary focus when I selected the tales I chose. Another aspect that
was important to me, though, was the matter of diversity, since I
wanted the collection to be a fairly wide-spectrum'd anthology; to
show the many ways HPL (and the Cthulhu Mythos) can inspire.
Now, some of the tales in my collection are without a doubt humorous.
That is part of the broadness I am talking about; so I included it.
But in my opinion stories like "Out of the Frying Pan" by Ron Shiflet
or "The Jest of Yig" by Don Webb have an edge to them that sets them
apart from most of what you call "cute" Mythos tales. There is humor,
yes, but it is a dark humor that isn't just "cute." My own tale, "The
Bibliophile" can be considered somewhat humorous, I suppose, since it
contains obvious references to HPL and some of his stories (and there
is even a nod to Thomas Ligotti), not to mention that it was a
deliberate attempt at writing a story in the Lovecraftian vein. This
kind of humor to me is a homage to the insider-jokes HPL, Bloch, Smith
etc. mastered back then:-)
Without a doubt, though, I was much more inclined to accept stories
that were serious (in various ways) than stories that went for
"cuteness" alone. I remember quite a few of those--quite fast
rejected.
Why is that? Well, personally I prefer seriousness; it's as simple as
that. And in this context I am talking about a seriousness where--
generally--a Lovecraftian worldview somehow permeats the story, even
when not making references to HPL or the Mythos. Simon Bleaken's
"Ashanna's Whispers" is a fine example of that, in my opinion. As an
individual I am very fond of philosophy and thoughts about the
metaphysical aspects of things (e.g. a worldview). That's why I
started studying philosophy at the University in the first place,
years ago;-) I'll be the first to admit that is something I take with
me when I look at a story. Not the only thing, but it is there, all
right.
It is also, of course, a matter of what I have in mind for an
anthology. The next anthology I will at some point later this year
begin collecting stories for (hplmythos.com Vol. 2) will be with a
somewhat different approach--but you can be sure that an underlying
seriousness is what I will primarily (albeit not necessarily only)
search for. This is a fundamental trait I share with HPL and which, to
me, is part of what makes it interesting to read, write and edit/
collect tales in this bizarre sub-genre:-)
Sorry the rant. Hope it made some sort of sense:-P
-Henrik
Aaron Vanek
take anything he says seriously. He's an internet troll, desperate for
attention.
He has frequently stated that he doesn't buy books or movies (can't
afford them), so there's no reason to market anything to him.
Keep writing what you and only you can write, Wilum.
Aaron
Evans
> I'd like to begin a thread about those of us who write Mythos fiction
> today. Why do we persist in this genre when there is next to no
> market for it, and what are our goals as Mythos writers in this
> neoteric age. If you have written books of Mythos fiction,
> collections or novels, or if you have edited anthologies of Mythos
> fiction, I'd like to discuss how you approach it, is it important to
I like the idea of using fiction as a method of exploring a fantastic
universe and all the interesting possibilities Lovecraft and a score
of other authors who have contributed to the genre (unfortunately I
have a bad habit of wishing to explore the ideas of mythos authors who
are not Lovecraft precisely because they are less explored – this can
lead to trouble!). Such fantastic, interesting possibilities have been
raised so many secrets to explore.
I am a great believer in the notion that; if done right, further work
derived from another author's idea can strengthen the original and
widen the scope. For me Lovecraft's own ideas seem infinitely more
powerful when there is pleasing synchronicity with later stories. They
don't all work but most stories have something to offer be it a scrap
of arcane lore, an interesting place or a cool entity.
Its allso quite fun to try to write something and see how it turns
out. (though I would not have been saying several hours ago)
As to the Derleth/Lovecraft conundrum I think it's really a matter of
personal taste. I prefer to think in terms of stories that stick to an
innately neutral cosmic frame work because it seems far more logical.
I am far more towards the Lovecraft cosmic order than the Derleth, all
though my own thoughts on the mythos universe probably aren't quite in
line with HPL's (For instance I suspect my own mental remoulding of
the mythos vears far more to the occult side of things than Lovecraft
envisaged.)
The only thing I don't care for much is when authors start going of at
a wild tangent from Lovecraft's original ideas and then trying to hold
their ideas up as alone and groundbreaking.
On May 20, 12:20 am, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
> As you say, it is your life. Go for it. But I find it strange that
> you proclaim "I have no desire to be "original" -- I want to be
> 'Lovecraftian,' that's why I write." Most writers wish to be
> original -- most serious writers, at any rate. I would think that
> with your attitude the best you could ever hope for is good fan
> fiction. At the end of the day, that's not much.
>
> -Al-
In that case I would far rather have one good piece of fan fiction
than a hundred serious, original works that I simply did not find
interesting. I am deeply sceptical of originality for originality's
own sake.
wilum pugmire
My dear Al, I understand where you're coming from. The entire theme
of my writing life is that I can do my own unique "thing" in the
Mythos genre. The pages that S. T. devoted to discussing my fiction
in THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CTHULHU MYTHOS, plus the books I have sold
to Mythos Book, Hippocampus and Centipede Press all convince me that
I'm producing work that is more than mere fan fiction. I am one of
the most serious writers in the Mythos genre -- dead serious about
writing fiction that is Literary Art, as far as my talent can achieve
that goal. It has been my wager with Ye Old Ones, to see how "far" I
can go as a Mythos writer, as one who longs to linger in Lovecraft's
shadow. I now have so many publishers asking me for books that I've
had to decline two this year. Too many people see the Mythos as an
adolescent phase through which the young writer passes on her way to
his own voice and vision. My entire reason for writing, now, is to
pay homage to Lovecraft. But my influences are myriad, and my work
goes far beyond Lovecraft. It is uniquely mine own. And that is what
I have started this thread to inspire -- Mythos fiction that reveals
the unique soul of its authors. It demands serious work and unending
effort. The great disappointment in most Mythos fiction is not that
the work is Mythos but that it is badly written fiction, mediocre
tripe. The Mythos is as good or as bad as we who work within it. I
am here to encourage excellence in writing. I believe such excellence
is possible.
Jo...@qusoor.com
>
> To my mind, to try to imitate Lovecraft, or to deliberately set out
> to produce a "mythos" story, is the kiss of death. It's fine to
> write stories that have echoes of the mythos, or even make an odd
> reference to the mythos, but to try to write mythos stories almost
> insures that the stories will not have originality or value.
>
Yeah, such hacks as Charlie Stross, or the Hugo-award-winning
Elizabeth Bear (whose "Shoggoths in Bloom" is up for the Hugo this
year) will never get anywhere, let alone such individuals as Liard
Barron. And now that Michael Chabon, whose AMAZING ADVENTURES OF
KAVALIER & CLAY (nominated for such trivial awards as the 2000
National Book Critics Circle Award and PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction)
has contributed a story to a volume of Mythos short stories, I think
we can be assured that Lovecraft tributes will remain the
unimaginative gutter they always have been.
John Goodrich
Al Smith
> On May 19, 9:35 pm, wilum pugmire <hopf...@sesqua.net> wrote:
>> I'd like to begin a thread about those of us who write Mythos fiction
>> today. Why do we persist in this genre when there is next to no
>> market for it, and what are our goals as Mythos writers in this
>> neoteric age. If you have written books of Mythos fiction,
>> collections or novels, or if you have edited anthologies of Mythos
>> fiction, I'd like to discuss how you approach it, is it important to
>> be faithful to Lovecraft, or are you Derlethian?
>
> I like the idea of using fiction as a method of exploring a fantastic
> universe and all the interesting possibilities Lovecraft and a score
> of other authors who have contributed to the genre (unfortunately I
> have a bad habit of wishing to explore the ideas of mythos authors who
You mistake originality for novelty. Originality isn't being
different for the sake of being different -- it is finding your own
true voice. No writer should ever try to write like any other
writer. The writers who produce great stories and novels are those
who write from something within themselves that nobody else has. If
you start out trying to imitate somebody else, the best you're ever
going to get is a good imitation ... and nobody cares diddly about a
good imitation. You don't see Ramsey Campbell trying to imitate
anybody else. He's too busy trying to express himself in his own
voice. Maybe when he was young and foolish he tried to imitate
Lovecraft, but I doubt he did so even back then (he can tell us, if
he chooses).
-Al-
wilum pugmire
This autumn will see the publications of S. T. Joshi's BLACK WINGS (in
which I have a story) and Ellen Datlow's LOVECRAFT UNBOUND. Two
professional anthologists who love Lovecraft's fiction and have edited
books to showcase his influence on professional horror writers today.
I don't think any of these writers have tried to write "like
Lovecraft," and I certainly never have. Michael Shea is one
completely professional writer of superior talent who has constantly
written tales that are in the Mythos and meant to be so, and they are
excellent and original works of Mythos fiction. So, no -- to
deliberately try and write a Mythos story is not "the kiss of death,"
but rather a kiss of creativity. It can lead to artistic success and
professional sales. The stories in anthologies as discrepant as TALES
OF THE CTHULHU MYTHOS (1969), SHADOWS OVER INNSMOUTH (1994) and THE
CHILDREN OF CTHULHU (2002) shew what can be accomplish'd with Mythos
fiction. Writing weird tales that were explicitly Mythos fiction
certainly was not the kiss of death for Derleth -- his Mythos fiction
has stayed in print since its first publication in WEIRD TALES and
other pulp zines. Lumley's explicit Mythos fiction has been publish'd
in two very handsome hardcover editions by Subterranean Press and in
trade pb by Solaris. S. T. Joshi and Derrick Hussey are seeking
Mythos authors to publish with Hippocampus Press (short story
collections, novels and poetry), and S. T. Joshi has just been hired
by Perilous Press to edit a line of original (new, never before
publish'd, and yet to be written) Cthulhu Mythos fiction (the first
two books of which will be a superlative collection of Michael Shea's
Mythos stories [many of them unpublished] and an original Mythos novel
by Brian Stableford). The Mythos is alive and well. I myself will
have Mythos collections forthcoming from Terradan Works (this summer),
Centipede Press (next Spring), Mythos Books (some strange aeon), the
chapbook line of Bloodletting Press and Hippocampus Press, plus I'll
have Lovecraftian tales published this year in S. T.'s BLACK WINGS
anthology and the Autumn Lovecraftianissue of DARK DISCOVERIES. I've
just had a new Sesqua Valley Mythos story published in Henrik's
wonderful anthology, ELDRITCH HORRORS: DARK TALES, and my Mythos
collections THE FUNGAL STAIN AND OTHER DREAMS and SEQUA VALLEY & OTHER
HAUNTS continue to sell out at Amazon and are constantly re-ordered.
It's a very GOOD time to be a Mythos writer. The kiss of death? Ha!
Al Smith
As long as people read your books, and say to themselves, "That was
a really great novel -- it reminded me a bit of Lovecraft," you're
fine. On the other hand, if they say to themselves, "That was a
tired excuse for hack writing -- some pathetic wretch trying to
imitate Lovecraft," then you're screwed.
Anyway, I'm certainly not trying to discourage you. It's good that
you're writing. I'm just passing on something I learned years ago.
Write to please yourself, write from the heart, and don't try to
imitate anyone. It pays off in the long run.
-Al-
Al Smith
"Shoggoths in Bloom?" I started shuddering when I read that, and now
I can't stop. One can only imagine the soul-freezing horror of this
book.
-Al-
wilum pugmire
Oh, you've not discouraged me. Nothing can do that, I'm having too
much fun. People at Amazon who review my books have praised and
mocked my fiction, and that is exactly as it should be. But I've
noticed that the ones who condemn my fiction seem to have no sense of
what I'm trying to accomplish, or they are put off my my High Literary
style and seem to want something a bit simpler. You cannot write for
others, Al -- you can write only for yourself. To worry, "Will people
like my fiction?" is, in my mind, a waste of time. People have said
reading my books is a waste of time, but that has no effect on the
quality of my fiction. That's just their opinion. I write exactly
what I want and need to write, and then I hope that my books bring joy
and entertainment to my fans, and I hope that my fiction pays
authentic tribute to my Master and my Muse, Lovecraft. Everyone who
writes, I should think, are influenced by other writers. As I wrote
in SESQUA VALLEY & OTHER HAUNTS, "I wear my influences openly.
Indeed, the foremost reason I write is to be IDENTIFIED with my
literary heroes, Shakespeare and Wilde and Lovecraft." It has worked
beautifully for me, and I've sold collection after collection. I
admire writers such as Ramsey, who can write for a commercial market
and have such impressive success, that can make a CAREER from writing
weird fiction. The idea of market mystifies me. It is something I
have never explored in conversation with successful writers. I have
difficulty imagining that Ramsey or Peter Straub or Laird Barron stop
and try to analyze the commercial market and then attempt to write a
book aimed at that audience. But I know that Brian Lumley does,
because I when I complained to him about turning Titus Crow into a
super-hero, Brian wrote back that he did it because his publisher
(DAW) expected it of him. Brian listened to his publish and went on
to have phenomenal success. I couldn't do that. I have to have
complete freedom. Since you're a successful writer, Al, maybe you can
give me some actual feedback on this. How aware of you of your
commercial market, and does that influence the kind of book you
write? I write for myself, and for Lovecraftians. I'm aware of my
audience and I really want to please them by writing collections of
Lovecraftian weird fiction that is worth reading. I love Lovecraftian
fiction, and I love writing it -- so that's what I do, entirely my
choice. I don't care about commercial success, but I do care about
critical success. I want to be acknowledged if what I'm writing is
good weird fiction. But all of this is secondary to the need to
write. It's an impulse with me, a deep-rooted need, a compulsion. I
cannot stop myself. I need to write as I need to breathe. It is my
path to joy and sanity. I'll never stop, unless I go blind or become
gaga with age. Writing makes life worthwhile as nothing else can. It
is in my gut, the need to write. I cannot exist without this form of
aesthetic expression. And the form it takes, the genre that delights
me and in which I can fully express myself as an artist, is
Lovecraftian weird fiction.
Mark W
"wilum pugmire" <hop...@sesqua.net> wrote in message
news:e0846cce-8da4-4a85...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> I'd like to begin a thread about those of us who write Mythos fiction
> today. Why do we persist in this genre when there is next to no
> market for it,
maybe those who are lazy, uninspired or lacking creativity prefer to have a
'framework' to work within.
If I write a piece of juvenile nonsense and 'publish' it, who would read it?
If I call it The Juvenilia of Cthulhu or The Nonsense from Beyond Yuggoth,
maybe I have an audience that already exists.
I hope, Wilum, that you don't pepper y'r writings with archaisms, affect'd
or not. Or are you posting on th'internet by means of 'Pickman's Modem'?
Thom
Some things that I try to keep in mind while writing my own Mythos
stories are:
1. The idea that the Mythos is fluid, by cracky. HPL changed the
backgrounds and histories and actions of the Old Ones as he needed for
the context of the stories, and I'm sure he encouraged his
contemporaries to do the same.
2. Another thing to remember is that, as most of the original stories
that constitute the Old Testament for the Mythos (if you will) were
written in the first person POV, anything and everything the
characters saw and experienced is suspect and cannot be taken as
canon.
3. Whether you subscribe to the notions of cosmic indifference or the
battle of Good Vs Evil (the classic Lovecraft/Derleth dichotomy) it's
your goddamn story to do with as you please. Don't worry about
misinterpreting what came before, because all that is history. This is
your own trail you're blazing here, even if you're using the tools of
past masters to do it.
4. Don't make the story about the book or the Old One or the cult or
whateve. Make it about the people and how it affects them. I don't
give a shit about the Shining Trapezohedron, but I might care about
the son of an Anthropology professor that is trying to use it and how
it changes his life and relationships. Dig?
5. Continuing in that theme, and I think this is the most important:
the form does not limit you. If you want to write a Mythos story, it
doesn't have to be set in Arkham or Innsmouth or wherever. It doesn't
have to center around some musty old tome or a cult or what have you.
If you want to write a western in the Mythos, go right ahead. A
detective story? Beautiful. Go ahead and write it. The only thing that
should limit you is your talent.
6. Ignore people's opinions if they have not read your story yet.
Ignorant statements like this: "...but to try to write mythos stories
almost insures that the stories will not have originality or value..."
or this "...maybe those who are lazy, uninspired or lacking creativity
prefer to have a 'framework' to work within..." annoy the shit out of
me. Want to know why?
I had the golden opportunity to co-helm (with John Sunseri) Permuted
Press' CTHULHU UNBOUND, and the thirty stories that made the final cut
for both volumes—chosen literally from hundreds of submissions—are
astounding. There's a review here on AHC for the book, check it out.
No one whose story did not make it into the books could complain.
I believe that there is plenty of originality and value to be found in
Mythos fiction. Because, like I said, the form doesn't limit you if
you don't let it.
Al Smith
I have to admit, those times I've attempted to write for a given
market, or to the requirements of a particular publisher, have not
turned out well for me.
For example, when I was just starting out, I tried to break into
science fiction through the magazines of the day -- Omni, Fantasy
and Science Fiction, Asimov's, Analog. I failed. I submitted story
after story, and got rejection after rejection. Once I came close,
but no cigar.
Another market I tried that I thought might work for me was
children's fiction. I wrote half a dozen children's novels, and had
one accepted by Scholastic -- but then the publisher who accepted it
was overruled by a higher authority, and the novel was rejected,
after acceptance but before a contract was signed. That was a hell
of a blow.
I finally found my own genre, the weird and the horrifying. It's
funny, because as a teen I read mostly science fiction, but also
horror at a much smaller rate -- yet it was horror writing that I
was better at.
Even after becoming established (in so far as a freelancer is ever
established -- we are only as good as our last book) I still fail. I
spent two years writing a book that has thusfar been rejected by my
publisher -- two full years. Recently, my publisher asked me to
write a novel on spec, gave me a vague concept, I ran with it and
wrote the book ... and it was rejected.
My best success comes when I write what I spontaneously feel the
need or desire to write, without having a market or a publisher in
mind for it. When I try to write to order, I feel constrained. The
result is seldom completely satisfactory, even when it is published.
-Al-
wilum pugmire
> "wilum pugmire" <hopf...@sesqua.net> wrote in message
Ha, ha! I do! Or, rather, I did. In moft of my books, I have been
my own editor. I pick'd up a lot of Lovecraftian affectations from
reading HPL's fiction and letters, and I was amateurish enough to use
some of those affectations in my books. SESQUA VALLEY & OTHER HAUNTS
is, in large part, a book that now embarrasses me because of it, it's
a book fill'd with Lovecraftian affectation & grammatical anarchy
(i.e. bloody bad writing). When Joshi was my editor on THE FUNGAL
STAIN he wouldn't let me get away with any of that nonsense, & thus it
is my first book wherein the writing is as professional as I am
capable of. I am thus indebted to S. T. for helping me to grow up as
a writer. I think, in my new book to be publish'd this summer, I did
sneak in one "shew" and perhaps one "antient"....
wilum pugmire
EXCELLENT!! This is EXACTLY the kind of response & discussion I was
hoping to inspire. I can tell that you are the voice of experience.
And you've made me want to buy this book, CTHULHU UNBOUND, and read
the tales therein. Yes are absolutely correct, there is plenty of
originality and value to be found in writing Mythos fiction. It's all
about approach and talent. Talent can be cultivated. I want to
emphasis WORK. If you want to create fiction that is worth reading,
you need to work your ass off and learn how to write. Ramsey Campbell
is a prime example. I loved his first book, used to have the Arkham
edition but stupidly sold it and all my AH library when I came out as
queer and lost my job and didn't work for a few years. I was
astonish'd and acutely embarrassed a few months ago when I was reading
one of my reviews in an early issue of NYCTALOPS and I read in one of
my reviews that DEMONS BY DAYLIGHT was "disappointing"!!! What a
moron Cthulhu kid I was in yem days! Why did I find Ramsey's book
"disappointing"? Because it wasn't Mythos, and at that time I was a
kid in love with the Mythos, that's what I wanted to read. The great
difference between those two Arkham House books by Ramsey is that,
with the second one, he found his authentic voice and had LEARNED his
craft. He became a professional writer. Then, when he return'd to ye
Lovecraftian tale, he did so with complete originality. When I read
THE DARKEST PART OF THE WOODS I kept sighing with admiration and
wonder and gratitude. It is one of the GREAT Lovecraftian novels. It
is completely original and absolutely terrifying; the work not only of
a total professional, but of a master.
I am now getting more and more stories sent to me by young writers,
and the poorest thing about them is a lack of understanding of the
basics of writing, grammar, punctuation, &c. I have been extremely
sow in learning these things myself, and I still make some howling
errors. I am basically self-taught as a writer, which is why my
progress has been so retarded. Some of us are slow learners. The way
I've learned to write is by reading and writing. One of the worst
"crimes" of arrogant youth is to think that what we are writing is
perfect and to close one's ears to criticism. I love criticism that
is sincere. Some of the criticism my books have received at Amazon
pisses me off because it seems ignorant and gives what I feel is a
false impression of my book, and so I now write my own reviews of my
books to give potential buyers a clear idea of what I'm about. I got
annoy'd at Ellen Datlow for criticizing my use of modern slang in THE
FUNGAL STAIN when she mention'd that book in YBF&H -- but then I
cooled down and realised that she was right, and when I revised some
of those tales for the Centipede omnibus, I took her excellent and
professional advice and improved my stories. We are never too old or
too accomplished not to learn.
Evans
> If you want to create fiction that is worth reading,
> you need to work your ass off and learn how to write. Ramsey Campbell
> is a prime example. I loved his first book, used to have the Arkham
> edition but stupidly sold it and all my AH library when I came out as
> queer and lost my job and didn't work for a few years. I was
> astonish'd and acutely embarrassed a few months ago when I was reading
> one of my reviews in an early issue of NYCTALOPS and I read in one of
> my reviews that DEMONS BY DAYLIGHT was "disappointing"!!! What a
> moron Cthulhu kid I was in yem days! Why did I find Ramsey's book
> "disappointing"? Because it wasn't Mythos, and at that time I was a
> kid in love with the Mythos, that's what I wanted to read. The great
> difference between those two Arkham House books by Ramsey is that,
> with the second one, he found his authentic voice and had LEARNED his
> craft. He became a professional writer. Then, when he return'd to ye
> Lovecraftian tale, he did so with complete originality. When I read
> THE DARKEST PART OF THE WOODS I kept sighing with admiration and
> wonder and gratitude. It is one of the GREAT Lovecraftian novels. It
> is completely original and absolutely terrifying; the work not only of
> a total professional, but of a master.
I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive. I love many of his
novels like The Doll that Ate his Mother, The Nameless, Midnight Sun,
The Parasite and Thieving Fear. And Darkest Part of the Woods itelf.
Yet I stand by the fact that I dislike many of the stories in Demons
by Daylight because I found them a little too abstract (and the
characters were fundamentally not on my wave length). I liked many of
his later mythos stories.
Have you read The Other Names Wilum? In my opinion that is one of
Ramsey's best recent mythos stories. Unfortunately it proves
monstrously hard to get.
On May 20, 8:07 am, Thom <grende...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 4. Don't make the story about the book or the Old One or the cult or
> whateve. Make it about the people and how it affects them. I don't
> give a shit about the Shining Trapezohedron, but I might care about
> the son of an Anthropology professor that is trying to use it and how
> it changes his life and relationships. Dig?
I belive that goes some what against Lovecraft's own dictom of placing
the events the centre piece of the story above characters. I have
nothing against either as long as they are interesting.
On May 20, 4:42 am, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
You don't see Ramsey Campbell trying to imitate
> anybody else. He's too busy trying to express himself in his own
> voice. Maybe when he was young and foolish he tried to imitate
> Lovecraft, but I doubt he did so even back then (he can tell us, if
> he chooses).
>
> -Al-
Click on my profile and see quote for my views on that (and Brian
Lumley). Allso you mistake using an authors ideas with trying to sound
like an author (I have nothing against the latter but its often far
easy just to write things down as you feel them rather than copy
another's style.). If I was to write a novel set during the Vietnam
War would it instantly sound like some one else's novel set at that
time? The only difference is that I would be witting about factual
events I have no experience with instead of fictional events.
Evans
> I am now getting more and more stories sent to me by young writers,
> and the poorest thing about them is a lack of understanding of the
> basics of writing, grammar, punctuation, &c.
Yog damn it, It's going to take more than S.T Joshi, my former English
master, The BFS, nuclear war or Yog-Sothoth to convince me the english
language is not in error about the words "untill" and "allso" only
having one l. Though I hope I remembered to rectify that issuse before
sending anyone anything.
Jo...@qusoor.com
other genre. There are rules and tropes which the reader expects.
Fortunately, Lovecraft worked with a wide variety of horrors and
entities, so there's a lot to chose from. From strange dreamscapes to
hard reality with humanity's total insignificance, Lovecraft's stories
cover a lot of ground.
I'm not sure I agree totally with Joshi's six cardinal points of a
Lovecraft story, but they're a decent guideline.
The trick to writing a good Mythos story is to combine Lovecraft's
ideas with the writer's own voice. Derleth made the mistake of trying
to use Lovecraft's voice while using his own ideas (War in Heaven,
etc). His most successful story is probably "Dweller in Darkness" in
which works partially because Derleth is describing a landscape he
knows, rather than a New England that he was less familiar with.
Wilum and Ramsey have both made themselves comfortable with
Lovecraft's ideas while creating their own stories in their inimitable
ways.
Many writers start out being imitative. However, the problem comes
from remaining slavish after finding one's own voice.
John Goodrich
Evans
>
> Many writers start out being imitative. However, the problem comes
> from remaining slavish after finding one's own voice.
>
> John Goodrich
Plus there plenty of other mythos authors who's creations can be
freely explored - Long's Hounds of Tindolas seem a favourite among
some people.
I'm not sure I fully agree with the idea of finding your own voice if
it turns out to be the only way you will ever sound in the future.
That sounds slightly depressing – I think its fun to play with varying
degrees of other authors styles and approaches.*
* Recently I had a shot at playing about with a slightly more personal
style (like Campbell though I hope not too like). Turned out the story
itself was rubbish but I had fun doing it and hopefully learnt
something. (even if that something was "Don't do that again!")
I find it rather amusing who so many people set out to imitate
Lovecraft's style as if it was easier than just writing out something
how they would like to read it. I freely admit I have very little
experience with writing fiction but in my few attempts its been far
easier just to let flow with a style of narrative that seems to fit
the piece.
Jo...@qusoor.com
>
> "Shoggoths in Bloom?" I started shuddering when I read that, and now
> I can't stop. One can only imagine the soul-freezing horror of this
> book.
>
> -Al-
You needn't.
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
That's fairly close to my own view actually. A few exceptions though.
Firstly, I think that for a lot of people Lovecraft is an early love,
not usually discovered late in life or even in middle life. I was
enraptured by him when I was an early teen and found that by my middle
years he and his writing were pheonomena which I had largely grown out
of. Not that I didn't still admire his writings but they just didn't
excite the imagination anymore. Something to be studied rather than
lived.
Then I read years ago Fat Face by Michael Shea and I thought
immediately that this snappy artful prose was the evolution of HPL's
style. I am sure HPL would have approved. HPL was ponderous and
dated (after all there are no mysteries in the Antarctic - maybe under
it- anymore) and for this and late last century Shea's rendition was
superbly suited. HPL for the 21st Century.
So Al I agree, merely copying HPL's style is suicide and suited for a
diminishing audience. It needs to be translated into modernia and for
that, also, there needs to be a paying audience. Otherwise, its like
the Aboriginal languages, destined to die out.
Just my $0.20 worth...
thang
rancartwright
otherwise. My own entertainment in seeing how a story will evolve, and
perhaps another's entertainment that may read it somewhere sometime
down the line. Perhaps the "entertainment value" is why I do like
Derleth's material in light of recent posts here.
As for writing Lovecraftian Horror, I stopped earlier this year and
don't plan on starting up again. The remainder of my LH material (a
non-Columbiana County collection) is currently being reviewed and
hopefully will see the light of day in the coming year or so. Contains
30 stories, 4 of them flash, and several in various story arcs. The
only other Lovecraftian Horror item is a screenplay co-written by
myself and Mike Minnis based on one of Mike's short stories. That
probably won't see the light of day.
Currently concentrating on a few items of fantasy satire (a collection
which I'm currently working on) and industrial horror (for lack of a
better term).
So why write Lovecraftian? IMHO - for the same reason I read it; it
was entertaining.
Evans
wrote:
> So Al I agree, merely copying HPL's style is suicide and suited for a
> diminishing audience. It needs to be translated into modernia and for
> that, also, there needs to be a paying audience. Otherwise, its like
> the Aboriginal languages, destined to die out.
>
> Just my $0.20 worth...
>
> thang
Just got to add that writing in one's own voice (rather than
Lovecraft's) does not necessarily mean the writing style will be more
modern.
Evans
> So why write Lovecraftian? IMHO - for the same reason I read it; it
> was entertaining.
That is a really, really good answer.
Al Smith
You know what's the best way for a writer to find his own unique
voice? Simply the effort he makes to express his ideas and
intentions clearly. When a writer forgets about how his prose
sounds, and just concentrates on what he wants to say, and on saying
it so that the reader understands all of it, the writer's voice
happens automatically. On the other hand, if he becomes preoccupied
with the sound of his prose, or tries to make it sound a certain
way, he will find himself floundering.
-Al-
wilum pugmire
Absolutely. My writing style has been called old-fashioned, quaint,
archaic, because it reads more like Henry James than Stephen King. I
have also been praised and damned as one who tries to "write like
Lovecraft." When a reviewer in FANGORIA #225 review'd one of my books
he wrote, "W. G. [sic] Pugmire does one of the most accurate Lovecraft
pastiches in subject matter, tone and language that I have ever read.
Each of these stories...could easily be mistaken for the work of the
Master of Cosmic Horror. If the stories had been printed sans any
reference to the author, I would be fooled, if it weren't for the odd
reference to punk rock and homoerotic themes." Now I know the guy
probably meant this as some kind of praise, but my reaction was, "What
the hell is he talking about?! I DON'T WRITE LIKE LOVECRAFT!" I
don't consider my style archaic -- I consider it High Literary,
echoing Henry James and Oscar Wilde more than anyone else.
What do y'all mean when you say "write like Lovecraft"? Who has done
this, other than Derleth? I cannot think of one modern author who has
try'd to write "like" Lovecraft. You say that to try to do so is the
kiss of death, but where are the examples that shew this to be so? I
need more than talk. Give me examples.
Al Smith
Thanks for the link. I find the concept of a black American freeing
all the enslaved shoggoths trite, but maybe that's just because my
concept of a shoggoth disagrees with that of this author.
-Al-
Al Smith
For me it's not so much that there is anything wrong with
Lovecraft's style, that it's errors should not be imitated. I don't
know that it has errors -- Lovecraft used a lot of adjectives, but
so what? He didn't use much dialogue, but again, so what? Why are we
to all just assume that Hemmingway had a better style than
Lovecraft? Because we are told to? Because we have been trained to
do so over decades?
It's more a matter of not imitating anybody else's style, either
good or bad, but rather, establishing one's own style based on the
unique need to express certain things in certain ways. Of course
that unique style will arise from the period and place in which it
finds expression. That's neither good nor bad, but inevitable,
unless the writer deliberately chooses to go against his social and
cultural setting -- and even then the setting of the writer
influences the style, if only by reaction.
-Al-
Jo...@qusoor.com
with all the novels of HP Lovecraft.
>
> What do y'all mean when you say "write like Lovecraft"? Who has done
> this, other than Derleth? I cannot think of one modern author who has
> try'd to write "like" Lovecraft. You say that to try to do so is the
> kiss of death, but where are the examples that shew this to be so? I
> need more than talk. Give me examples.
Simply pull out your copy of ACOLYTES OF CTHULHU and turn to page
296. Read the first sentence.
John Goodrich
Magister
>
> Simply pull out your copy of ACOLYTES OF CTHULHU and turn to page
> 296. Read the first sentence.
>
I laughed out loud after following your instructions. That's a really
good one! :-D
Yrs
Martin
Jo...@qusoor.com
*Tips his hat*
John Goodrich
wilum pugmire
Ah -- you are a sly devil. For a piece of juvenile work, I find the
tale rather well-written. But I understand, that the mimicking of
Lovecraft's style (or what a young writer thinks is Lovecraft's style)
is an adolescent phase. Obviously, the clumsy imitation of another's
style will be but one of many reasons why a neophyte's fiction would
be consider'd failure. The more a writer matures, the more one
writes, the more one finds their own voice, if they have any talent at
all. When I was editing TALES OF LOVECRAFTIAN HORROR, I got a story
from a lad who, in his cover letter, stated, "I want to be the next
Lovecraft." The story he sent me was extremely boring an unoriginal,
and it seemed much closer to Derleth than HPL. Later I read one of
his stories in CTHULHU'S HEIRS, and it was mere pastiche with
absolutely nothing original, a mere re-telling of one of Lovecraft's
early tales. He has since vanish'd from ye field, far as I know. I
think I told him, in my letter of rejection, that if one wants to be
the "new" Lovecraft, one had to be as unlike Lovecraft as possible.
One has to be as brilliantly original as Lovecraft was in his time.
One has to be Ligotti. Al found it strange that I stated that I
wanted to be Lovecraftian rather than original. That is my intention
as an author -- to write LOVECRAFTIAN weird fiction. Hopefully, my
approach is strange enough, personal enough, that my work will stand
out. If not, then it will be forgotten. But my aim is to write
Lovecraftian horror, and to that goal I put all of my effort.
Evans
> Simply pull out your copy of ACOLYTES OF CTHULHU and turn to page
> 296. Read the first sentence.
>
> John Goodrich
Sadly I don't have that collection (and I do mean sadly because I'm
massively eager to read Mr Joshi's foray into fiction).
On May 20, 9:52 pm, wilum pugmire <hopf...@sesqua.net> wrote:
> Ah -- you are a sly devil. For a piece of juvenile work, I find the
> tale rather well-written. But I understand, that the mimicking of
> Lovecraft's style (or what a young writer thinks is Lovecraft's style)
> is an adolescent phase. Obviously, the clumsy imitation of another's
> style will be but one of many reasons why a neophyte's fiction would
> be consider'd failure. The more a writer matures, the more one
> writes, the more one finds their own voice, if they have any talent at
> all.
I'm not meaning appear deliberately contrary Wilum (its going to come
across sounding that way) but I allways thought it rather odd how
anyone could find consciously copying some else's style easier than
just writing something out in a way that pleases them*
*Of cause it doesn't mean that the writing in question is going to be
any better for it. The preferred style is likely to be a jumble of
other authors styles that have influenced the writer.
wilum pugmire
To truly write in Lovecraft's style would, I think, demand great
talent. Derleth thought himself a talented pastiche artist. He
really believed that his posthumous collaborations were written in the
style, manner, voice of Lovecraft -- and he was dead wrong. He wrote
a tale called "The House in the Oaks," a posthumous "collaboration"
with Robert E. Howard. I loved the story when I first read it in DARK
THINGS, but reading it lately in IN LOVECRAFT'S SHADOW I found it
merely okay; it certainly doesn't read like anything penned by REH, &
I'm curious as to what it was based on, notes, story outline? Derleth
wrote a story that he passed off as a newly discovered story by J.
Sheridan LeFanu, "The Churchyard Yew." He reprinted it in NIGHT'S
YAWNING PEAL (an excellent anthology), writing of it in the
introduction, "...never published in any previous collection of the
author's works, is at least a century old..." After Derleth's death,
Arkham House reprinted the tale in the LeFanu collection, THE PURCELL
PAPERS, wherein it was reveal'd that Derleth was its author. And then
we have Augie's delightful Solar Pons pastiches, and as you can see
from the book I just sent you, they don't read anything like the real
Holmes, although they certainly try to mimic the originals.
I wonder if we can say that young would-be weird writers actually "try
to write like Lovecraft." Is it an actually conscious effort, or is
it more that they are enthrall'd by Lovecraft's style and write in his
"voice" in an attempt to write something in the Lovecraftian genre? I
have never try'd to ape Lovecraft's style, but when I began to write,
I wanted to write in the Lovecraft "tradition." My skewed idea of
that tradition was culled from reading TALES OF THE CTHULHU MYTHOS and
LOVECRAFT: A LOOK BEHIND THE CTHULHU MYTHOS. These books "taught" me
what it was to write in the Lovecraft tradition. You invent your Old
One, your own version of the Necronomicon, your own nameless locality
in which to set your tales, and there you go. I think too many
careless critiques confuse trying to write Mythos fiction as trying to
"write like Lovecraft," when it is nothing of the sort.
And now I must leave thee for a day or two as I write my new
Lovecraftian story.
Evans
> To truly write in Lovecraft's style would, I think, demand great
> talent. Derleth thought himself a talented pastiche artist. He
> really believed that his posthumous collaborations were written in the
> style, manner, voice of Lovecraft -- and he was dead wrong. He wrote
> a tale called "The House in the Oaks," a posthumous "collaboration"
> with Robert E. Howard. I loved the story when I first read it in DARK
> THINGS, but reading it lately in IN LOVECRAFT'S SHADOW I found it
> merely okay; it certainly doesn't read like anything penned by REH, &
> I'm curious as to what it was based on, notes, story outline?
In the foreword to that story in Chaosium's Nameless Cults collection
Robert M Price has this to say:
Derleth's prose begins, quite late in the story, with the words “We
passed through the circling...” The bits of poetry in Derleth's
portion, however, are by Howard.
On May 21, 12:22 am, wilum pugmire <hopf...@sesqua.net> wrote:
> And now I must leave thee for a day or two as I write my new
> Lovecraftian story.
Bon Voyage
Thom
>
> > 4. Don't make the story about the book or the Old One or the cult or
> > whateve. Make it about the people and how it affects them. I don't
> > give a shit about the Shining Trapezohedron, but I might care about
> > the son of an Anthropology professor that is trying to use it and how
> > it changes his life and relationships. Dig?
>
> I belive that goes some what against Lovecraft's own dictom of placing
> the events the centre piece of the story above characters. I have
> nothing against either as long as they are interesting.
Maybe it does.
On one hand, I have immense respect for Lovecraft for the kind of
revolving, changing landscape he created as a backdrop for his
stories. That world-making is the entire reason that I got into the
Mythos to begin with. On the other hand, when I compare Lovecraft to,
say, Tolkien, I can't help but have more fun and get more interested
in what happens to Sam and Frodo, because of the humanity associated
with these things.
Events just happen. But unless there's a human face on them, I find it
hard (as a reader) to really care. I think Lovecraft is at his best
when the story is equally about the Things That Happen _and_ the
people involved.
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
You have missed my point. Everything is evolution, painfully reaching
from the primordial to a higher form, because to not do so is to
stagnate and to become, eventually, extinct. Nature tells us so,
entropy tells us so, history tells us so. Why would this law not
circumscribe writing and in fact any form of expression of the
imagination? If the writings of HPL are to be only copied (the style
I mean), then in a generation or less his creations will be no more.
Writers like Shea are the future for HPL, not pale mimicry (and I'm
not pointing the bone at any correspondent here).
thang
Evans
> On one hand, I have immense respect for Lovecraft for the kind of
> revolving, changing landscape he created as a backdrop for his
> stories. That world-making is the entire reason that I got into the
> Mythos to begin with. On the other hand, when I compare Lovecraft to,
> say, Tolkien, I can't help but have more fun and get more interested
> in what happens to Sam and Frodo, because of the humanity associated
> with these things.
> Events just happen. But unless there's a human face on them, I find it
> hard (as a reader) to really care. I think Lovecraft is at his best
> when the story is equally about the Things That Happen _and_ the
> people involved.
I admit I'm of the belief that little characterisation is easily
tolerated while a lot of irritating characterisation can be really
annoying. I have found the latter seems overwhelmingly prevalent in
modern fiction. Merely being human is not enough. Good
characterisation can be enjoyable but I can't help attaching a great
risk
to it.
On May 21, 10:33 am, thang ornithorhynchus
<th...@spitzola.com.org.net> wrote:
> You have missed my point. Everything is evolution, painfully reaching
> from the primordial to a higher form, because to not do so is to
> stagnate and to become, eventually, extinct. Nature tells us so,
> entropy tells us so, history tells us so. Why would this law not
> circumscribe writing and in fact any form of expression of the
> imagination? If the writings of HPL are to be only copied (the style
> I mean), then in a generation or less his creations will be no more.
> Writers like Shea are the future for HPL, not pale mimicry (and I'm
> not pointing the bone at any correspondent here).
> thang
Are they the future because they are different from HPL or because
they attempt to gratuitously modernize?
Al Smith
I agree we shouldn't try to copy Lovecraft's style. It's a bad thing
to do in with any famous writer, and particularly bad when the
writer's style is as distinctive as Lovecraft's. To copy a distinct
style is to invite accusations of parody.
Regarding your main point, that writing evolves -- yes, it clearly
changes over time, from one period to another, but I'm not at all
sure that it improves. Was Shakespeare's writing any weaker than
Hemingway's writing? I don't think so.
A writer, to be taken seriously, it almost forced to pay attention
to the fashions of his day. Lovecraft went against this rule, and in
the long term it worked out well for him, but in his own lifetime,
as I gather, he faced a lot of criticism from readers for his
old-fashioned style.
I suppose we could take either of two points of view: that Lovecraft
was correct to write as he wanted to write, and damn the currently
popular writing style; or, Lovecraft was only shooting himself in
the foot by willfully going against the stylistic conventions of his
day. In either case, it would be a poor thing for a writer today to
deliberately try to imitate Lovecraft.
-Al-
marika
> maybe those who are lazy, uninspired or lacking creativity prefer to have a
> 'framework' to work within.
yeah OK i'll be home
I don't think I could ever move away from my home after living
somewhere
for 50
years. No matter how "nice" it was somewhere else. Maybe a summer or
winter
get-away home, possibly. Maybe it's easier if you're married, also.
But I can't
imagine leaving a garden that I worked on for 25 years, when I retire.
> If I write a piece of juvenile nonsense and 'publish' it, who would read it?
> If I call it The Juvenilia of Cthulhu or The Nonsense from Beyond Yuggoth,
> maybe I have an audience that already exists.
No, really? I didn't know that.
>
> I hope, Wilum, thatyoudon't pepper y'r writings with archaisms, affect'd
> or not.
Perhaps, I hadn't thought of that.
mk5000
"well you suns gets to lose to the best soon..."--bob wald
Harksen
> Why do we persist in this genre when there is next to no
> market for it, and what are our goals as Mythos writers in this
> neoteric age.
Truth be told I think there are many reasons why people write Mythos
tales--and Lovecraftian tales (yes, I distinguish between them, at
least on a theoretical level).
Now, I am not some widely published writer (to say the least), but I
do write stories and many of them are with a Lovecraftian feel in some
way. Along the way I hope that they will be published in paper version
(yeah, I am old-fashioned), but first and foremost I write because I
can't help myself. I write first and foremost for myself. It is much
like you said, Mr. Pugmire, a craving; a need to write. And when I am
in that mood my wife knows better than to interrupt me;-)
The reason I like to write stories in the Lovecraftian vein is because
of a fundamental fascination with the worldview that HPL presents; a
fascination with the underlying philosophy--and the way this is
conjured before the reader's entralled imagination and mind. I have
now read a lot about and a lot by HPL for years, and so it is, I
guess, inevitable that this also seeps into my ideas and writing.
While I can see that my writing not always stays within "Lovecraftian
boundaries" I nonetheless will always be a Lovecraftian.
Hm, all that came out somewhat unfocused... Well, I'll let it stay in
this posting. It's not wrong, it just doesn't cover very much nor does
it convey well what I mean very well.
> If you cannot be serious about this
> genre, why write in it?
I have always wondered that, myself. I have a suspicion that in many
cases a "flimsy/cute/humorous" Mythos tale actually IS a kind of
serious work, by which I mean that the intention is based on serious
respect and love for the genre, but that such a writer simply has a
preference for fun-ness in the actual tale. And let's not forget that
to some people an ironic distance to things is their prefered
position. Not that I really consider that a fine trait when writing
tales, but perhaps that too is a reason, since for some people the joy
of a given genre is somewhat embarassing--and so you can hide behind
that stance and not "lose face" (strange as it is).
> How do you feel about the idea of using Lovecraft's
> Mythos as background only, on which to build fiction that is
> audaciously your own? Or do you WANT to write tales about the Old
> Ones, about Lovecraft's monsters, &c?
When I write this kind of tales I tend to write with the Mythos as
background and have the story unfold on its own terms, where I--the
writer--hopefully shine through. Admittedly, though, I also have
outlines to stories where some of the Mythos monsters, books etc. come
to the fore--and even a few where I continue some HPL story. All of
these, though, are unfinished, since, to me, they have primarily been
try-out sketchings and not so much full-fledged storylines.
But perhaps one day you will see a story penned by yours truly where,
in our times, a certain place in Australia is rediscovered;-)
More later.
-Henrik
Thom
to doubt the sincerity of any other author's work, no matter the tone
of the text.
If you were to read my stuff (one story of which, sometime or another
when the stars are right, will be in Peter Worthy's NYARLATHOTEP
anthology, I hope) you would find a sardonic, sarcastic, irreverent
narrator . . . but his story is no less Mythos than some other "I
cannot hold my sanity in the face of such horror" narrators.
Like I said before, I have incredible respect for the craft behind
Lovecraft. But I don't want to write like him. If I had some early
twentieth-century guy that I'd rather write like, it would be E.A. Poe
or Raymond Chandler. Or of more contemporary authors, Michael Marshall
Smith or William Browning Spencer. I've been told that my influences
are clear in my work, but my voice is my own, and that's all I can
strive for.
By all means, write for yourself. Make you happy. If you try and
please everyone, you will fail. What I would like to do is write a
kind of story that gets read widely and by a varied audience, and if I
can do that and bring some Mythos into their lives, so much the
better.
james ambuehl
As for myself, I guess I write my mythos sort of backwards. ;-)
Inspired especially by the Severn Valley works of Ramsey Campbell and
the wonderful Mlandothian works of Walt DeBill, I started out writing
more or less original Mythos tales, utilizing gods (such as Volgna-Gath
the Sculpture God; Ei'lor the Plant-God; N'ggirrth'lu the Werewolvian
god), mileus (my own Braving, MN and surrounding towns, plus the ancient
Island-Continent of Altuas), tomes (LITANIAE AD DEUM FRACEUM; THE EI'LOR
FRONDS; BLOOD-RITUALS OF RHYLKOS) and such similar trappings in stories
such as:
The Stalker in the Snows
The Advent of Uvhash
The Star-Seed
Then, working with Bob Price to help fill the various Chaosium CYCLE
books, I began to concentrate on the Lovecraftian deities in order to
place some of my own stories therein. It was a gambol which worked as I
had "Wrath of the Wind-Walker" in ITHAQUA CYCLE; "Shadow of the Sleeping
God" in TSATHOGGUA CYCLE and "The Snake Farm" in the upcoming YIG CYCLE.
And I've written further tales concerning Cthulhu, Dagon and the Deep
Ones, but I think I still prefer to write of my own gods, beings, etc.
I really need to get my new edition of CORRELATED CONTENTS published, as
these 18 stories comprise my Braving, MN series and deal especially with
my gods, tomes, etc., but I'm afraid the last serious Mythosian thing
I've done was the editing and producing of HARDBOILED CTHULHU. Still,
not a bad note to go out on if it comes to that . . . but hopefully
there will still be more coming from my own fertile mind in future. ;-)
Anyway, on now to read some more in this fascinating thread!
-- Jim
"When the Big Sleep ends, the Nightmares begin!" -- HARDBOILED CTHULHU:
TWO-FISTED TALES OF TENTACLED TERROR, edited by James Ambuehl and out
now from Elder Signs Press! Available from Clarkesworld Books,
Shocklines, Amazon, and Elder Signs Press itself!
Harksen
> Actually, I think it shows incredible hubris on the part of any author
> to doubt the sincerity of any other author's work, no matter the tone
> of the text.
I don't know if this was aimed at what I said in the post right before
yours, Thom. But just to be clear: I actually meant it as a positive
thing when I talked about some writers prefering to write fun Mythos
stories instead of the bleak-dredged Mythos stories. It is something
that does not, as a rule, hold much interest to me, but by all means
any writer should write whatever they feel like.
That said, I have heard some people say they are a little embarrased
about enjoying a "non-literate" genre; and in these cases a certain
ironic distance can appear. This is odd to me (I am more like "owe up
to your likings, regardless of intelligentsia or popularity!"), but
hey--it's their choice:-)
-Henrik
wilum pugmire
There seems to be an underlying premise here that to write Mythos
fiction is trying to write like Lovecraft, when this should obviously
not be true. The two are not twain. How do y'all define
"Lovecraftian horror"? What does it mean to write in the Lovecraftian
tradition? Are "The Hound" and "The Colour out of Space" and "At the
Mountains of Madness" tales written in one singular tradition? Do
they each convey a single world view? However non-intellectual it
makes me, I love Lovecraft because I love weird fiction, and he is my
favourite author who has worked in that tradition. Almost every time
I read him I find new delights. I really enjoy'd the first half of my
new re-reading of "The Dreams in the Witch House," but I disliked the
last portion of it, found it clunky and confused, found the use of the
Black Man -- the part that fascinated me most in my youth -- extremely
disappointing, going nowhere. But the tale pleases me in a way that
only Lovecraft can please me, and even those portions of his work that
I find disappointing can be a source of inspiration for my own
fiction. He is, for me, like Wilde and Henry James and Shakespeare --
a writer to whom I can return again and again and never grow weary
of. But he is, for me, much more -- he is my special Muse and Master
in the art of Supernatural Horror in Literature.
thang ornithorhynchus
<dark.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 5:30�am, Thom <grende...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I admit I'm of the belief that little characterisation is easily
>tolerated while a lot of irritating characterisation can be really
>annoying. I have found the latter seems overwhelmingly prevalent in
>modern fiction. Merely being human is not enough. Good
>characterisation can be enjoyable but I can't attaching a great risk
>to it.
>
>On May 21, 10:33 am, thang ornithorhynchus
><th...@spitzola.com.org.net> wrote:
>
>> You have missed my point. Everything is evolution, painfully reaching
>> from the primordial to a higher form, because to not do so is to
>> stagnate and to become, eventually, extinct. Nature tells us so,
>> entropy tells us so, history tells us so. Why would this law not
>> circumscribe writing and in fact any form of expression of the
>> imagination? If the writings of HPL are to be only copied (the style
>> I mean), then in a generation or less his creations will be no more.
>> Writers like Shea are the future for HPL, not pale mimicry (and I'm
>> not pointing the bone at any correspondent here
>>
>> thang
>
>Are they the future because they are different from HPL or because
>they attempt to gratuitously modernize?
Have you read "Fat Face"? If you haven't, I wouldn't use the word
"gratuitous" if I were you. I don't think anyone here, and most if
not all would have read it or be well aware of it, would do so.
Moreover, I don't think Mr Shea tried to *do* anything, he just wrote
and out it came. That's the way with the gifted. Another that comes
to mind is "A Colder War" but its nowhere near as good as Michael
Shea's story, still, its an evolution of sorts. Its not gratuitous
either.
The dissolution of the protagonist's feet in the corpus of the
Shoggoth stays with me to this day...
thang
Harksen
> There seems to be an underlying premise here that to write Mythos
> fiction is trying to write like Lovecraft, when this should obviously
> not be true.
No, that is not what I meant. But if that's how it came across I
apologize for my fuzziness (I was quite sleepy when I wrote last
night).
My basic position is summed up in my Introduction to ELDRITCH HORRORS:
DARK TALES (hplmythos.com Vol. 1):
"A Lovecraftian tale of horror can be characterized as focusing on
themes and deeper, philosophical layers of contents, while a Cthulhu
Mythos tale has a more obvious focus on writing style and particular
plot germs."
This is a broad understanding of the differences, and, as I also say,
"Of course, while the two elements can easily be theoretically
defined, in a well-composed story the lines are often blurred."
Exactly where we draw the line will vary, but I think this is a fairly
OK understanding. It's where I come from, anyway; and in this I think
I am, to some degree, siding with both S. T. Joshi and Robert M. Price
(I am very inspired by his understanding as presented in his
Introduction to THE NEW LOVECRAFT CIRCLE).
-Henrik
Evans
Yes I do know of Fat Face – I believe there was quite a helpful (in my
eyes) criticism of it in of the letters pages in Crypt of Cthulhu.
I am not using the term gratuitous in any attempt to particularly
deride that story, I'm just raising the question whether you consider
the evolution of the mythos story requires the contemporary writer to
use modern themes and prose styles. Should the author make a
conscious effort seek to sound modern and current? Hence the
“gratuitously modern” comment.
wilum pugmire
I wasn't referring to you specifically, but to the tone of comments
that seem to suggest people confuse writing Lovecraftian horror with
trying to write like Lovecraft. But I think most of us realise this
is not so. Michael Shea is an excellent example. He calls some of
his fiction Cthulhu Mythos, but his voice is distinct. I bought his
Centipede Press collection last year and it surprised me to read THE
COLOR OUT OF TIME as it was so different in tone from his later
fiction -- there is a Lovecraft "feel" to the prose and it worked for
me but not for others. He will have a complete book of Cthulhu Mythos
fiction out from some new press (Perilous Press?), for which Joshi is
editing a line of Mythos titles.
Evans
> There seems to be an underlying premise here that to write Mythos
> fiction is trying to write like Lovecraft, when this should obviously
> not be true. The two are not twain. How do y'all define
> "Lovecraftian horror"? What does it mean to write in the Lovecraftian
> tradition? Are "The Hound" and "The Colour out of Space" and "At the
> Mountains of Madness" tales written in one singular tradition? Do
> they each convey a single world view? However non-intellectual it
> makes me, I love Lovecraft because I love weird fiction, and he is my
> favourite author who has worked in that tradition. Almost every time
> I read him I find new delights. I really enjoy'd the first half of my
> new re-reading of "The Dreams in the Witch House," but I disliked the
> last portion of it, found it clunky and confused, found the use of the
> Black Man -- the part that fascinated me most in my youth -- extremely
> disappointing, going nowhere. But the tale pleases me in a way that
> only Lovecraft can please me, and even those portions of his work that
> I find disappointing can be a source of inspiration for my own
> fiction. He is, for me, like Wilde and Henry James and Shakespeare --
> a writer to whom I can return again and again and never grow weary
> of. But he is, for me, much more -- he is my special Muse and Master
> in the art of Supernatural Horror in Literature.
I may be very wrong here but from what I've seen people seem to regard
Lovecraftian horror as any cosmic style horror involving ancient,
inimicable entities or forces. However this observation has been
garnered from Amazon reviews so it's worth taking with a pinch of
salt. Ironically if we were to take this line then The Hound would
certainly not be a Lovecraftian tale despite the small fact of the
author being one Howard Philips Lovecraft!
Personally I feel the idea of Lovecraftion horror is very difficult to
define. I would quite hard pressed to do so. It can not simply be a
mythos tale without the names. (I realise that the above response has
acutely been completely unhelpful in answering the question)
On May 21, 11:21 pm, Harksen <henrikhark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Truth be told I think there are many reasons why people write Mythos
> tales--and Lovecraftian tales (yes, I distinguish between them, at
> least on a theoretical level).
>
> Now, I am not some widely published writer (to say the least), but I
> do write stories and many of them are with a Lovecraftian feel in some
> way. Along the way I hope that they will be published in paper version
> (yeah, I am old-fashioned), but first and foremost I write because I
> can't help myself. I write first and foremost for myself. It is much
> like you said, Mr. Pugmire, a craving; a need to write. And when I am
> in that mood my wife knows better than to interrupt me;-)
>
> The reason I like to write stories in the Lovecraftian vein is because
> of a fundamental fascination with the worldview that HPL presents; a
> fascination with the underlying philosophy--and the way this is
> conjured before the reader's entralled imagination and mind. I have
> now read a lot about and a lot by HPL for years, and so it is, I
> guess, inevitable that this also seeps into my ideas and writing.
> While I can see that my writing not always stays within "Lovecraftian
> boundaries" I nonetheless will always be a Lovecraftian.
> -Henrik
Do you any stories online Harksen? If so then I would love to see
them.
On May 22, 12:42 am, jamesambu...@webtv.net (james ambuehl) wrote:
> Wow! What a excellent thread!
>
> As for myself, I guess I write my mythos sort of backwards. ;-)
> Inspired especially by the Severn Valley works of Ramsey Campbell and
> the wonderful Mlandothian works of Walt DeBill,
I've never heard of the Mlandothian stuff before. The only DeBill I
really know of is Where Yidhra Walks and that only by reputation.
Where were they collected out of interest?
Good luck with CORRELATED CONTENTS, I enjoyed the Ei'lor story you
posted here a little while ago. (The Farm-House?)
james ambuehl
DeBill's Mlandothian stuff, and indeed all of his wonderful Mythos
stuff, was published a few years back by Mythos Books in a book called
THE BLACK SUTRA. Well recommended!
And thanks for the kind words on my Ei'lor story! ;-)
Harksen
> Do you any stories online Harksen? If so then I would love to see
> them.
>
Sorry, Evans, but no, I don't. Years ago I had the first three
chapters of a Forgotten Realms fan fiction story online, but that site
has long been dead, and not much Lovecraftian stuff was in it to be of
interest to you anyway;-)
There is an excerpt of my "The Bibliophile", though, here:
http://hplmythos.com/udd_bibliophile.htm (with a scene that includes a
passage from HPL's "From Beyond", btw). On hplmythos.com you can find
excerpts of all the stories in ELDRITCH HORRORS: DARK TALES. I have
include my own tale in the anthology since I think it is of a fair
enough quality, but, having said that, I must also say that it is not
my best story. Certainly not my most original:-P But hopefully others
will come in the not too distant future--from other publishers. (I am
currently eagerly awaiting the final verdict from an editor, for
another story; one that is very different from "Bibliophile", even
though there are still Lovecraftian elements).
Thanks for your interest, Evans:-)
-Henrik
Jo...@qusoor.com
delicate balance concerning the assumption of what the reader already
knows. The author, it can be assumed, knows the stories. However,
the writer has to separate what they know from what they assume the
reader knows. Simply dropping names contributes to atmosphere, but in
a minuscule way. They serve as a signal, not as the creation of
atmosphere or effect.
It's very important that the author not retread. Not only Lovecraft,
but also the well-known stories. This is because of the good multiple-
idea nature of the better Mythos Tales. "Shadow over Innsmouth" is a
good example, because there's that big lead up to "OMG, these people
fuck fish!" followed by the revelation that "I, the narrator, am one
of them!" Lovecraft was very good at this because he didn't seem to
have a shortage of good ideas. Repeating this is very obvious.
However, you can take one of the ideas and change it, and come up with
a good, new story. "OMG, these people fuck fish!" followed by "And I
find the hybrids delicious" could be an interesting story.
John Goodrich
Harksen
> Lovecraftian horror as any cosmic style horror involving ancient,
> inimicable entities or forces. However this observation has been
> garnered from Amazon reviews so it's worth taking with a pinch of
> certainly not be a Lovecraftian tale despite the small fact of the
> author being one Howard Philips Lovecraft!
Personally I don't see a problem with a story written by HPL not being
"Lovecraftian." HPL wrote a lot of material that I don't consider
Lovecraftian. Have you read "Sweet Ermengarde; Or, the Heart of a
Country Girl"? Written by HPL (as a joke), but not Lovecraftian.
Unless, of course, one considers the idea of "writing something to
make fun of a genre one doesn't like" to be Lovecraftian, which I
think is stretching it too much.
Of course there is a risk in this. The risk of being too restrictive
in what is considered "Lovecraftian." One I must confess I at times
tend to fall into myself. That's why I opted for a somewhat broad
definition in ELDRITCH HORRORS: DARK TALES, cf. my earlier post.
-Henrik
Evans
> He will have a complete book of Cthulhu Mythos
> fiction out from some new press (Perilous Press?), for which Joshi is
> editing a line of Mythos titles.
Interesting, I've never heard of them before.
On May 20, 9:52 pm, wilum pugmire <hopf...@sesqua.net> wrote:
> The more a writer matures, the more one
> writes, the more one finds their own voice, if they have any talent at
> all. When I was editing TALES OF LOVECRAFTIAN HORROR, I got a story
> from a lad who, in his cover letter, stated, "I want to be the next
> Lovecraft." The story he sent me was extremely boring an unoriginal,
> and it seemed much closer to Derleth than HPL. Later I read one of
> his stories in CTHULHU'S HEIRS, and it was mere pastiche with
> absolutely nothing original, a mere re-telling of one of Lovecraft's
> early tales. He has since vanish'd from ye field, far as I know. I
> think I told him, in my letter of rejection, that if one wants to be
> the "new" Lovecraft, one had to be as unlike Lovecraft as possible.
> One has to be as brilliantly original as Lovecraft was in his time.
> One has to be Ligotti.
(After which I shall be looking through reviews of Cthulhu's Heirs
trying to guess the letter writer)
At the risk of sounding incredibly sentimental and sacurine that
letter sounded sweet. If you can say how old was the writer? In a way
it is a shame that person stopped writing mythos fiction if they
enjoyed it so much.
I don't think I could ever presume to wish my self the new Lovecraft..
Wouldn't mind having a shot at being the next Rob Price though.
Hmm, thanks I may check that out once I get through the next crate
load of hardbacks.
On May 25, 10:36 pm, Harksen <henrikhark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, Evans, but no, I don't. Years ago I had the first three
> chapters of a Forgotten Realms fan fiction story online, but that site
> has long been dead, and not much Lovecraftian stuff was in it to be of
> interest to you anyway;-)
>
> There is an excerpt of my "The Bibliophile", though, here:http://hplmythos.com/udd_bibliophile.htm(with a scene that includes a
> passage from HPL's "From Beyond", btw). On hplmythos.com you can find
> excerpts of all the stories in ELDRITCH HORRORS: DARK TALES. I have
> include my own tale in the anthology since I think it is of a fair
> enough quality, but, having said that, I must also say that it is not
> my best story. Certainly not my most original:-P But hopefully others
> will come in the not too distant future--from other publishers. (I am
> currently eagerly awaiting the final verdict from an editor, for
> another story; one that is very different from "Bibliophile", even
> though there are still Lovecraftian elements).
>
> Thanks for your interest, Evans:-)
>
> -Henrik
Thanks for posting the link Harksen I shall read through them in
moment. Be sure to post and tell us if when the other story is
finalized. (and more importantly where)
icarp...@aol.com
> On May 19, 5:21�pm, J...@qusoor.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 6:44�pm, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
>
> > > To my mind, to try to imitate Lovecraft, or to deliberately set out
> > > to produce a "mythos" story, is the kiss of death. It's fine to
> > > write stories that have echoes of the mythos, or even make an odd
> > > reference to the mythos, but to try to write mythos stories almost
> > > insures that the stories will not have originality or value.
>
> > Elizabeth Bear (whose "Shoggoths in Bloom" is up for the Hugo this
> > year) will never get anywhere, let alone such individuals as Liard
> > Barron. �And now that Michael Chabon, whose AMAZING ADVENTURES OF
> > KAVALIER & CLAY (nominated for such trivial awards as the 2000
> > National Book Critics Circle Award and PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction)
> > has contributed a story to a volume of Mythos short stories, I think
> > we can be assured that Lovecraft tributes will remain the
> > unimaginative gutter they always have been.
>
> > John Goodrich
>
> This autumn will see the publications of S. T. Joshi's BLACK WINGS (in
> which I have a story) and Ellen Datlow's LOVECRAFT UNBOUND. �Two
> professional anthologists who love Lovecraft's fiction and have edited
> books to showcase his influence on professional horror writers today.
> I don't think any of these writers have tried to write "like
> Lovecraft," and I certainly never have. �Michael Shea is one
> completely professional writer of superior talent who has constantly
> written tales that are in the Mythos and meant to be so, and they are
> excellent and original works of Mythos fiction. �So, no -- to
> deliberately try and write a Mythos story is not "the kiss of death,"
> but rather a kiss of creativity. �It can lead to artistic success and
> professional sales. �The stories in anthologies as discrepant as TALES
> OF THE CTHULHU MYTHOS (1969), SHADOWS OVER INNSMOUTH (1994) and THE
> CHILDREN OF CTHULHU (2002) shew what can be accomplish'd with Mythos
> fiction. �Writing weird tales that were explicitly Mythos fiction
> certainly was not the kiss of death for Derleth -- his Mythos fiction
> has stayed in print since its first publication in WEIRD TALES and
> other pulp zines. �Lumley's explicit Mythos fiction has been publish'd
> in two very handsome hardcover editions by Subterranean Press and in
> trade pb by Solaris. �S. T. Joshi and Derrick Hussey are seeking
> Mythos authors to publish with Hippocampus Press (short story
> collections, novels and poetry), and S. T. Joshi has just been hired
> by Perilous Press to edit a line of original (new, never before
> publish'd, and yet to be written) Cthulhu Mythos fiction (the first
> two books of which will be a superlative collection of Michael Shea's
> Mythos stories [many of them unpublished] and an original Mythos novel
> by Brian Stableford). �The Mythos is alive and well. �I myself will
> have Mythos collections forthcoming from Terradan Works (this summer),
> Centipede Press (next Spring), Mythos Books (some strange aeon), the
> chapbook line of Bloodletting Press and Hippocampus Press, plus I'll
> have Lovecraftian tales published this year in S. T.'s BLACK WINGS
> anthology and the Autumn Lovecraftianissue of DARK DISCOVERIES. �I've
> just had a new Sesqua Valley Mythos story published in Henrik's
> wonderful anthology, ELDRITCH HORRORS: DARK TALES, and my Mythos
> collections THE FUNGAL STAIN AND OTHER DREAMS and SEQUA VALLEY & OTHER
> HAUNTS continue to sell out at Amazon and are constantly re-ordered.
> It's a very GOOD time to be a Mythos writer. �The kiss of death? �Ha!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is why I love alt.horror.cthulhu. This is a heads up that there
are some great new titles coming down the pike. I will have to start
searching for them. I don't write mythos fiction for a variety of
excuses. I write for my profession and publish a little bit, and I'm
writing notes all day. Then in the evening I am involved heavily with
my sons' homework and after school activities. When I get time to
myself it is often after 9 PM and I am too wore out to write; I'd
rather lose myself in reading. When I get insomnia, I'd much rather
read than write. If I can snatch a few minutes it's easier to read.
Some day maybe I'l be better able to indulge myself in a few stories
that I have plotted out in my head but I know full well it will just
be for fun, fan fiction I suppose.
I view the division between Lovecraftian influences and Cthulhu mythos
fiction very similarly to Henrik. I think the talent of the authors
writing mythos fiction today is just remarkable. Sometimes an author
takes an old trope like the Hounds of Tindalos and gives a wonderful
new spin, like One Way Conversation by Brian Sammons. Sometimes an
author gives us a wild original spin on mythos themes like Radiant
Dawn by Cody Goodfellow. Sometimes a prose stylist will give us a
meditation on Lovecraftian themes with no mythos like Threshold by
Caitlyn Kiernan. Wilum gives us astonishingly crafted prose with
mesmerizing results. And sometimes we get a straight up pastiche like
Acute Spiritual Fear by Price. I love it all. I'll read even the
lame stuff. I would much rather read a well written Cthulhu mythos
piece than a highly original failure. The more authors essay
something in the genre the more likely we are to get a new gem. Bring
it on! Fiction from Denmark, fiction from Japan, fiction from
Brazil. More, I want more. Back to your word processors everyone.
Matt
thang ornithorhynchus
I'm sorry (really!), but I can't resist pointing out that you _won't_
be the next Lovecraft if you don't run spell check on your prose (its
saccharine, darling...:).
thang
Evans
<th...@spitzola.com.org.net> wrote:
> I'm sorry (really!), but I can't resist pointing out that you _won't_
> be the next Lovecraft if you don't run spell check on your prose (its
> saccharine, darling...:).
>
> thang
Yes I am aware of that I spelt that word wrong (though I had no idea
how it ought to have been spelt. Would have hazarded a guess it began
with Su- because of Sucrose)
I think you missed one of the messages in the above post. I would have
no desire to be “the next Lovecraft” or even a famous author.
Al Smith
Don't turn your nose up at being famous. Fame itself is of no value,
but famous authors usually sell a lot of books and make wheelbarrows
full of money.
-Al-
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
>On 5/28/2009 8:05 AM, Evans wrote:
>> On May 28, 10:55 am, thang ornithorhynchus
>> <th...@spitzola.com.org.net> wrote:
>>> I'm sorry (really!), but I can't resist pointing out that you _won't_
>>> be the next Lovecraft if you don't run spell check on your prose (its
>>> saccharine, darling...:).
>>>
>>> thang
>>
>> Yes I am aware of that I spelt that word wrong (though I had no idea
>> how it ought to have been spelt. Would have hazarded a guess it began
>> with Su- because of Sucrose)
>>
>> I think you missed one of the messages in the above post. I would have
>> no desire to be �the next Lovecraft� or even a famous author.
>
>
>Don't turn your nose up at being famous. Fame itself is of no value,
>but famous authors usually sell a lot of books and make wheelbarrows
>full of money.
>
>-Al-
Such as you, Al? Damn, here we go again...
(why don't you repost one of your little snippets for Evans, I vaguely
recall a pretty good one about the ball/skein of nerves?)
thang
Evans
> On 5/28/2009 8:05 AM, Evans wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 10:55 am, thang ornithorhynchus
> > <th...@spitzola.com.org.net> wrote:
> >> I'm sorry (really!), but I can't resist pointing out that you _won't_
> >> be the next Lovecraft if you don't run spell check on your prose (its
> >> saccharine, darling...:).
>
> >> thang
>
> > Yes I am aware of that I spelt that word wrong (though I had no idea
> > how it ought to have been spelt. Would have hazarded a guess it began
> > with Su- because of Sucrose)
>
> > I think you missed one of the messages in the above post. I would have
>
> Don't turn your nose up at being famous. Fame itself is of no value,
> but famous authors usually sell a lot of books and make wheelbarrows
> full of money.
>
> -Al-
While I don't think many of us are going to turn our noses up at
wheelbarrows full of money (hay it might pay for about four Tartarus
Press books), commercial writing would not be the way I'd expect to go
about it.
On May 29, 2:13 am, thang ornithorhynchus <th...@spitzola.com.org.net>
wrote:
> Such as you, Al? Damn, here we go again...
>
> (why don't you repost one of your little snippets for Evans, I vaguely
> recall a pretty good one about the ball/skein of nerves?)
>
> thang
Fancy starting up the who-is-Al-Smith game again?
thang ornithorhynchus
Why not?
thang
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
> Don't turn your nose up at being famous. Fame itself is of no value,
> but famous authors usually sell a lot of books and make wheelbarrows
> full of money.
I suppose it depends what we mean by famous. Very few writers in this
field - Lovecraftian or the wider field of supernatural horror - earn
much.
Al Smith
My own definition of success has gone up over the years. Right now
I'd say it was getting a book on the New York Times bestseller list.
A lot of writers just starting out would say I am crass for
estimating success in such a commercial way, but as I've pointed out
to any number of them over the years, it's about the only certain
indicator of success -- how many books you sell. Other indicators,
such as the praise of your peers and the winning of various prizes,
are largely subjective, but people don't buy books unless they want
the books.
I can't imagine why a writer would wish to limit himself to the
mythos or even to the supernatural genre. His goal should be to
write something so good, and so original, that it transcends its
genre. Take a book such as Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting." It was
pure supernatural fiction, but it achieved wider appeal and has been
made into a couple of commercially successful movies. Thomas Tryon's
"The Other" had a similar sort of genre-leaping success, as did
"Rosemary's Baby." These are all brilliant books, in their way.
I don't see why a writer could not write a mythos novel, yet do it
in such a fashion that it became a huge commercial success and made
him a truckload of money. I would think that it should be one of the
goals of anyone setting out to write a mythos novel.
-Al-
Evans
> I can't imagine why a writer would wish to limit himself to the
> mythos or even to the supernatural genre. His goal should be to
> write something so good, and so original, that it transcends its
> genre. Take a book such as Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting." It was
> pure supernatural fiction, but it achieved wider appeal and has been
> made into a couple of commercially successful movies. Thomas Tryon's
> "The Other" had a similar sort of genre-leaping success, as did
> "Rosemary's Baby." These are all brilliant books, in their way.
I would assume a writer should probably go and write about what
interests them. I couldn't imagine writing a serious piece of fiction
that did not contain a metaphysical if not overtly supernatural
element. But that's merely my own field of interest. I assume others
would peruse there's. Then again I'm not a professional writer so
ideas relating to what sells and such don't really apply.
On Jun 2, 5:03 pm, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
> I would think that it should be one of the
> goals of anyone setting out to write a mythos novel.
They may have their work cut out for them.
On Jun 2, 11:29 am, ram...@ramsey-campbell.com wrote:
> I suppose it depends what we mean by famous. Very few writers in this
> field - Lovecraftian or the wider field of supernatural horror - earn
> much.
I know Lovecraftian style horror/fantasy has a limited market but I'm
surprised that supernatural horror should be any harder to sell as to
the non supernatural variety. Did you think your non supernatural
novels sell to a wider audience than your supernatural ones?
(Apologies for the slightly prying nature of that question)
Al Smith
The reality, which Ramsey is well familiar with, is that very few
writers in any field earn a lot of money. That's why we all hate
Stephen King with such a passion. We struggle to make a living, and
King earns enough to support a thousand writers in opulence. Of
course we never admit to hating Stephen King, because that would be
petty of us.
-Al-
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
Sorry - I wasn't meaning to make that distinction. Actually, no, I
don't think so.
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I most certainly don't hate Steve, and he knows it.
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
>
> I can't imagine why a writer would wish to limit himself to the
> mythos or even to the supernatural genre.
If the supernatural is what engages your imagination, that's what you
should write. If your writing doesn't engage your imagination, that's
hackwork. Remember Steve King: "What makes you think I have a choice?"
His goal should be to
> write something so good, and so original, that it transcends its
> genre.
Not to boast but to make a point - I've sometimes been said to
"transcend the genre". It's a notion to which I'm hostile. If I'm
worthy of the best of the genre (which is considerable, and I'm not
claiming to have achieved it), that's entirely enough for me.
Take a book such as Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting." It was
> pure supernatural fiction, but it achieved wider appeal and has been
> made into a couple of commercially successful movies. Thomas Tryon's
> � "The Other" had a similar sort of genre-leaping success, as did
> "Rosemary's Baby." These are all brilliant books, in their way.
Actually, Shirley Jackson never wrote a book with that title.
>
> I don't see why a writer could not write a mythos novel, yet do it
> in such a fashion that it became a huge commercial success and made
> him a truckload of money. I would think that it should be one of the
> goals of anyone setting out to write a mythos novel.
Can you imagine Lovecraft approaching the task with that attitude? I
confess it has never been how I write. The goal should be to do the
best work you can. No harm in hoping for commercial success,
certainly, but don't let that compromise the quality of the work.
Evans
>
> > I can't imagine why a writer would wish to limit himself to the
> > mythos or even to the supernatural genre. His goal should be to
> > write something so good, and so original, that it transcends its
> > genre. Take a book such as Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting." It was
> > pure supernatural fiction, but it achieved wider appeal and has been
> > made into a couple of commercially successful movies. Thomas Tryon's
> > "The Other" had a similar sort of genre-leaping success, as did
> > "Rosemary's Baby." These are all brilliant books, in their way.
Ironically the none of the premises of the books you mentioned
particularly grabs me. They may be very good stories in there way but
they don't sound very interesting in my eyes.
On Jun 2, 9:11 pm, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
> The reality, which Ramsey is well familiar with, is that very few
> writers in any field earn a lot of money. That's why we all hate
> Stephen King with such a passion. We struggle to make a living, and
> King earns enough to support a thousand writers in opulence. Of
> course we never admit to hating Stephen King, because that would be
> petty of us.
>
> -Al-
While I can sympathise aren't there plenty of other authors (horror
and otherwise) who've became a huge success overnight
On Jun 3, 10:11 am, ram...@ramsey-campbell.com wrote:
> Sorry - I wasn't meaning to make that distinction. Actually, no, I
> don't think so.
Ah my mistake, sorry for misinterpreting that remark.
On Jun 3, 10:19 am, ram...@ramsey-campbell.com wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:03 pm, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
> Take a book such as Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting." It was
>
> > pure supernatural fiction, but it achieved wider appeal and has been
> > made into a couple of commercially successful movies. Thomas Tryon's
> > "The Other" had a similar sort of genre-leaping success, as did
> > "Rosemary's Baby." These are all brilliant books, in their way.
>
> Actually, Shirley Jackson never wrote a book with that title.
Haunting of the Hill House or something like that wasn't it?
icarp...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Any Lovecradftian fiction fan will be eternally grateful to Stephen
King for the story Crouch End, which is brilliant.
Matt
Jo...@qusoor.com
of Clarkeworld Magazine, which has a lovely Lovecraftian (and not in
the way you'd expect) story ""Walking With a Ghost," written by Nick
Mamatas:
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/mamatas_06_09/
On Jun 2, 4:11 pm, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
>
> The reality, which Ramsey is well familiar with, is that very few
> writers in any field earn a lot of money. That's why we all hate
> Stephen King with such a passion. We struggle to make a living, and
> King earns enough to support a thousand writers in opulence. Of
> course we never admit to hating Stephen King, because that would be
> petty of us.
>
We have had rather different experiences. I've spoken with many
professional writers who speak of Mr. King in glowing terms because of
their love of his work and his personal generosity. "Born
storyteller" is the phrase that is most often comes up. Many (F. Paul
Wilson, Tom Monteleone, Dallas Mayr, Gahan Wilson specifically) have
amusing and fond anecdotes (amusing in ways that are very different
from stories about Harlan Ellison) about the man and his work.
Myself, I am not enamored of the man's prose. I find him prolix, and
the few essays I've read by him have had egregious factual errors and
some rather strange assumptions. But I do not hate him, nor do I
resent his success. And I don't know any serious writer who would say
such a thing.
The market has its caprices, of course. But the it seems to me that
those who understand that you have to work to put the best product
possible out there so that it has a chance to catch the public
imagination don't resent King, but wish him well. There is such a
thing as a halo effect, when people go back to bookstores and ask
"what is like this book?" King's halo is rather large; the 90s horror
boom was largely built on his success. And the more people who don't
think horror books are Jason Voorhees hacking people up with an axe,
the better.
Why write a Lovecraftian novel? Ask Ramsey, or Nick Mamatas, or Fred
Chappel, or Bob Bloch. Because that was the inspiration that hit at
the time. And the number of people touched and inspired by Lovecraft
is growing, thanks in no small part to Joshi's work. In fact, this
Monday, Craig Ferguson and G. Del Toro geeked out about Lovecraft on
international television.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkgNAUoCwq0
John Goodrich
Evans
> Why write a Lovecraftian novel? Ask Ramsey, or Nick Mamatas, or Fred
> Chappel, or Bob Bloch. Because that was the inspiration that hit at
> the time. And the number of people touched and inspired by Lovecraft
> is growing, thanks in no small part to Joshi's work. In fact, this
> Monday, Craig Ferguson and G. Del Toro geeked out about Lovecraft on
> international television.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkgNAUoCwq0
>
> John Goodrich
Joshi has done a lot to bring Lovecraft's work to the public eye and
win it greater literary acclaim.
On the note of authors you mentionedI seem to remember Bloch having
written a really touching little piece about his mythos stories in The
Mysteries of the Worm collection. (I have a question regarding
something Ramsey said about a certain literally Lovecraftian theme The
Darkest Parts of the Woods that I'm hoping to spring on him some time
when it proves tactfully appropriate)
I've never heard of Mamatas or Chappel before John, what Lovecraftian
novels have they written?
Jo...@qusoor.com
>
> I've never heard of Mamatas or Chappel before John, what Lovecraftian
> novels have they written?
Nick Mamatas wrote a book called MOVE UNDERGROUND which combines Jack
Kerouac, William S. Burroughs and HP Lovecraft. It didn't work for
me, but I respect the man and his short stories.
Fred Chappel wrote a novel called DAGON in the late 60s, I believe.
John Goodrich
icarp...@aol.com
...Dagon was a terrible read. Move Underground languishes in the
middle of my to-be-read stack.
Currently here are the Lovecraftian books I still haven't gotten to,
or haven't finished. Any suggestions about ordering it would be
welcome:
Return to Lovecraft Country ed by Aniolowski
Shadows Over Baker Street ed by Pelan
The Last Continent ed by Pelan
The Nightmare Frontier by Rainey
Blue Devil Island by Rainey
Resume with Monsters by Spencer
Move Under Ground by Mamatas
The Lovecraft Chronicles by Cannon
The 37th Mandala by Laidlaw
The Ceremonies by Klein
That Darn Squid God by Clay and Pollotta
Low Red Moon and Daughter of Hounds by Kiernan
Gemini Rising by McNaughton (I read Satan's Lovechild instead..)
Hastur Pussycat, Kill, Kill
Mr X by Straub
The Serpent Slayers by Niswander
Necronomicon and Al Hazrad by Tyson
Drums of Chaos by Tierney
I also have a huge stack of xeroxed stories Jim has sent me over the
years. Plus who knows what new will be released in the next few
months! Right now I am reading a romance novel complete with Ithaqua,
Windwalker's Mate, with review to follow. Oh, and I have maybe 3
books from lulu.com that may end up being Lovecraftian, but I'll
reserve judgment until I've dutifully finished them.
I am glum (in a good way!) about my prospects for catching up!
Matt
Al Smith
I imagine Stephen King knows how other writers view his enormous
wealth ... like a circle of slavering wolves surrounding a fat
sheep. Who wouldn't love to have one-hundredth of his success, or
even one-thousandth of it? There was a time when King's books took
up entire racks in the book stores. He's had enough success for a
thousand lifetimes.
Yet his writing really isn't any better than many other far less
successful writers. If it had not been for "Carrie" it is likely
King would never have achieved his enormous fame and wealth. He
tried writing under the name "Backman" and the Backman books did
very limp business -- they sold, but nothing like the way his books
under his own name sold.
Mind you, nobody has more of a work ethic than King. I salute him
for that.
-Al-
Al Smith
To respond to your last point first, Lovecraft was a bit of a loon,
let's face it. He was willfully self-destructive when it came to
handling his writing career. We can admire him for his literary
genius, without ever seeking to emulate his disastrous failure at
marketing his work. What sane person today would perversely refer to
himself as an "amateur" and do work for nothing, or give away work
that had taken him months to write? Lovecraft was not an amateur --
he was professional who was comically unskilled at promoting and
placing his own work.
I've got nothing against genre fiction. I prefer it to so-called
mainstream or literary fiction, which is often unreadable. But as a
writer I have the goal of transcending genres -- writing within
genre traditions, but exceeding their boundaries so that my work
becomes difficult to classify. This can actually inhibit sales -- if
the work cannot be classified, where is it to be placed in the book
stores, and how it is to be advertised? -- but it can also lift a
work from genre sales to mainstream sales levels. I can't say that
I've achieved my goal yet, but I'm aiming for it.
Take Heinlein, who always wanted to make the New York Times
bestseller list, and who achieved his goal. "Stranger In A Strange
Land" was science fiction, but it wasn't quite like the average run
of science fiction of the time. Or look at the works of Michael
Crichton. They are essentially science fiction, but they are seldom
regarded as science fiction. They are read by those who never read
genre science fiction.
-Al-
Evans
> Nick Mamatas wrote a book called MOVE UNDERGROUND which combines Jack
> Kerouac, William S. Burroughs and HP Lovecraft. It didn't work for
> me, but I respect the man and his short stories.
>
> Fred Chappel wrote a novel called DAGON in the late 60s, I believe.
>
> John Goodrich
Thanks John
Combining Burroughs and Lovecraft sounds any interesting plan. You
didn't care to much for it?
Loads of people I've met liked Drums of Chaos and Klein's Ceremonies.
I read Shadows Over Baker Street a time ago and didn't think much of
it
I'm really interested in hearing more about any of Caitlín Kiernan's
stories since a lot of people seem to speak very highly of her.
Thanks for the email.
Al Smith
While I recognize that King is very skillful, I wouldn't call
anything of his brilliant, with the exception of "Salem's Lot" which
achieved something transcendental. I've read that King regards it as
his best work, and I'm not surprised. I've read the story "Crouch
End," but to be honest, it didn't make enough of an impression on me
to stay in my memory.
-Al-
Al Smith
You're right, not many writers would say such a thing, but they
would think it -- hoo, boy, would they think it. I have a tendency
to say things that others wouldn't say -- whether it is a strength
or a weakness, I haven't yet decided.
> The market has its caprices, of course. But the it seems to me that
> those who understand that you have to work to put the best product
> possible out there so that it has a chance to catch the public
> imagination don't resent King, but wish him well. There is such a
> thing as a halo effect, when people go back to bookstores and ask
> "what is like this book?" King's halo is rather large; the 90s horror
> boom was largely built on his success. And the more people who don't
> think horror books are Jason Voorhees hacking people up with an axe,
> the better.
>
> Why write a Lovecraftian novel? Ask Ramsey, or Nick Mamatas, or Fred
> Chappel, or Bob Bloch. Because that was the inspiration that hit at
> the time. And the number of people touched and inspired by Lovecraft
> is growing, thanks in no small part to Joshi's work. In fact, this
> Monday, Craig Ferguson and G. Del Toro geeked out about Lovecraft on
> international television.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkgNAUoCwq0
>
> John Goodrich
You're preaching to the converted when it comes to
Lovecraft-associated writings. I happen to love the man and his
work. My main point was only that writers should not limit
themselves by deliberately and consciously setting out to write
something that may be characterized, or dismissed, as "Cthulhu
mythos" or "Lovecraftian." Once you get such labels on your work, it
is inevitably going to be regarded as derivative and lacking in
originality -- even if this is untrue. All I'm saying to young
writers is, don't tie this albatross around your necks if you don't
have to.
-Al-
Evans
> You're preaching to the converted when it comes to
> Lovecraft-associated writings. I happen to love the man and his
> work. My main point was only that writers should not limit
> themselves by deliberately and consciously setting out to write
> something that may be characterized, or dismissed, as "Cthulhu
> mythos" or "Lovecraftian." Once you get such labels on your work, it
> is inevitably going to be regarded as derivative and lacking in
> originality -- even if this is untrue. All I'm saying to young
> writers is, don't tie this albatross around your necks if you don't
> have to.
>
> -Al-
While that may be true by being catergorised they may be able to sell
the work to fans of a particular genre. There is a small degree of
safety in that there seems to be a small but strong market for
Lovecraftian stuff. If you say your story is Lovecratian it may very
well be labeled derivative but it will instantly attract a number of
dedicated readers.
Personaly I don't see how you could label any story about say Cthulhu
or Daoloth as instantly unoriginal anymore than you could label any
story about (random examples here) The Cold War or a any other real
world event or place.
goldenc...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> (why don't you repost one of your little snippets for Evans, I vaguely
> recall a pretty good one about the ball/skein of nerves?)
>
> thang
That was a very affective "snippet". Eerie!
Al Smith
None the less, many will so label such works. I do not do so myself,
since I believe originality is possible within even very restricted
genres or literary forms. But what young writer would wish to have a
publisher say about him, "Nice kid. Too bad he only writes that
Lovecraft stuff."
-Al-
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
I guess you are right and in the perfect situation to know. One only
needs to calculate the proportion of shelf space dedicated to horror
in any public library in contrast with that of crime, SF and fantasy,
romance, drama, action and all of the other plebian categories. And.
of that small horror brand, a lot of it is spatter crap, very little
really comprises art or utter novelty as was HPL's scribble so many
years ago. I would imagine that you, the Mathesons and Kings of the
world, who are prolific, make good buckeroonies, others in the small
artistic and well written stable are perhaps too focused on the
relatively small target buying audience. I mean, look at SF which has
its anchors in the real world, for outrageously well "paid" writers of
the ilk of Arthur C Clarke, Asimov, Silverberg, Ellison (I know, some
are dead), even Ron L Hubbard.
I can only conclude with the exception of the few who have penetrated
the public consciousness that writing horror is a love affair with the
genre and its ineffable history and progenitors, because I don't think
the pay and/or recognition is all that good.
thang
Harksen
> Any Lovecradftian fiction fan will be eternally grateful to Stephen
> King for the story Crouch End, which is brilliant.
I read "Crouch End" a number of years ago, and, truth be told, I
remember being a little disappointed. I am an avid reader of
everything King reads--and am among the few who actually think he has,
overall, improved as the years passed on. So it's not that I don't
like King's stories or writing, not at all. But that tale didn't "do
it" for me.
But, hehe, having heard praise of this story several times now, I just
might give it a chance again. Maybe I will appreciate it more
nowadays. Who knows?
-Henrik
Harksen
> Currently here are the Lovecraftian books I still haven't gotten to,
> or haven't finished. Any suggestions about ordering it would be
> welcome:
While not exactly Cthulhu Mythos I would recommend you read Klein's
THE CEREMONIES. It is in my opinion an amazing horror story set in
modern times (albeit half of it takes place among people living non-
modern life) and with brilliant, dark atmosphere. In fact, I'd say
it's a successful Lovecraftian tale, in a very personal, top-notch
way.
Just my one cent's suggestion,
-Henrik
Evans
> None the less, many will so label such works. I do not do so myself,
> since I believe originality is possible within even very restricted
> genres or literary forms. But what young writer would wish to have a
> publisher say about him, "Nice kid. Too bad he only writes that
> Lovecraft stuff."
>
> -Al-
Fair enough but I would expect a writer with in a small sub genre to
"sell" their work to potential publishers on what it is. For instance
trying to sell a ghost story to publishing house that specialises in
them or a Cthulhu mythos story to another relevant publisher. As to
Lovecraft's attitude to his stories I allways got the impression he
was obserdly self critical.
On Jun 3, 10:19 am, ram...@ramsey-campbell.com wrote:
>
> Not to boast but to make a point - I've sometimes been said to
> "transcend the genre". It's a notion to which I'm hostile. If I'm
> worthy of the best of the genre (which is considerable, and I'm not
> claiming to have achieved it), that's entirely enough for me.
Personally I'm thinking along the opposite lines. Such a large genre
as horror holds chances for so many more intricate specifications. You
can be (and on a non rhetorical level are ) the writer of one of the
best ghost stories, one of the best “cosmic” stories and etcetera.
The idea of genres like horror or fantasy are so over arcing as to
encompass a massive array of possibilities.
On Jun 4, 12:19 am, Harksen <henrikhark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While not exactly Cthulhu Mythos I would recommend you read Klein's
> THE CEREMONIES. It is in my opinion an amazing horror story set in
> modern times (albeit half of it takes place among people living non-
> modern life) and with brilliant, dark atmosphere. In fact, I'd say
> it's a successful Lovecraftian tale, in a very personal, top-notch
> way.
>
> Just my one cent's suggestion,
> -Henrik
Out of interest how differant is it from The Events at Poroth's Farm?
I've got most of Klein's stories in his sadly hard to find Reassuring
Tales collection and the Dark Gods volume.
On Jun 4, 12:13 am, Harksen <henrikhark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read "Crouch End" a number of years ago, and, truth be told, I
> remember being a little disappointed. I am an avid reader of
> everything King reads--and am among the few who actually think he has,
> overall, improved as the years passed on. So it's not that I don't
> like King's stories or writing, not at all. But that tale didn't "do
> it" for me.
>
> But, hehe, having heard praise of this story several times now, I just
> might give it a chance again. Maybe I will appreciate it more
> nowadays. Who knows?
>
> -Henrik
Didn't King write another mythos story called Jerusalem's Lot? I think
I have it some where in one of my anthologies. (Sadly my copy of New
Tales of The Cthulhu Mythos is to yellow'd and faded for me to give an
opinion on Crouch End)
Al Smith
There are surprising successes -- not necessarily with Lovecraftian
fiction but with horror or supernatural fiction in general. Critical
successes, monetary successes, and both combined.
Anne Rice did well for a while, until her subject matter began to
frighten her. I don't like her writing, personally.
That woman who writes the vapid teenage vampire-romance books, whose
name escapes my memory (one was made into the movie "Twilight"
recently. Gawk! That was so saccharine).
Laurell Hamilton has enjoyed a certain success, in spite of her
bizarre erotic obsessions -- she's still waiting for her first big
movie version, however. She's a very skilled, calculating writer --
she knows how to manipulate her readers.
Jim Butcher, whose wizard character was turned into a television
series -- "The Dresden Files." That made money and achieved for him
a certain degree of fame. The books are entertaining, and better
than the TV series.
Also Clive Barker, who I think of more as a film maker than as a writer.
Then there's that really dreadful writer who seems to churn out a
novel a week, what's his name? ... Dean Koontz (I had to look it
up). He's raking in the chips, quite undeservedly, but still, he's
making a ton of money, and nobody is going to turn their nose up at
that. I wonder if he uses ghostwriters?
People really love a good, solid, readable supernatural novel that
scares them. There's a lot to like about a writer who delivers an
engrossing story and believable characters that the reader can
empathize with. Such books will always have wide popular appeal.
There's no reason why a mythos novel couldn't achieve that sort of
wide success, but there's no reason why its writer should
deliberately categorize himself as a mythos writer, either.
-Al-
Dan Clore
> On Jun 3, 4:26 pm, J...@qusoor.com wrote:
>> Nick Mamatas wrote a book called MOVE UNDERGROUND which combines
>> Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs and HP Lovecraft. It didn't
>> work for me, but I respect the man and his short stories.
>>
>> Fred Chappel wrote a novel called DAGON in the late 60s, I believe.
> Combining Burroughs and Lovecraft sounds any interesting plan. You
> didn't care to much for it?
I have a piece called "The Cthulhu Caper" that's basically "The Call of
Cthulhu" as if it were written by William Burroughs.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Harksen
> Out of interest how differant is it from The Events at Poroth's Farm?
Argh, that's right. There was a comment in the copy of THE CEREMONIES
about that. The novel includes that short story--IIRC it is slightly
revised for the novel. On the whole, though, I got the impression that
Klein decided he wanted to expand the idea found in that shorter tale,
resulting in THE CEREMONIES. I don't have the copy before me right
now, but I can check later to see how much is "Events" and how much is
new, if you're interested, Evans?
I hadn't read "Events" when I read the novel, so never thought about
it. Still haven't, btw.
On 4 Jun., 03:37, Evans <dark.jira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Didn't King write another mythos story called Jerusalem's Lot?
Yes. It's in his NIGHT SHIFT collection. Many horror readers rave
about it. Personally I didn't like it that much. I mean--it was okay,
but nothing much. A homage to genre elements, that's all.
Oh well, people differ in taste;-)
-Henrik