Richard Laymon

Jackx said:

Fair enough…

It has been interesting to watch the resurgence of pulp writing since Amazon brought self publishing back into the spotlight, and so many people started speed writing books to sell for $.99. A lot of people seem to hate that side of self publishing, but I think those books can be a lot of fun, and it's nice to see a new market for pulp writing.

Best of luck with what you do, and sorry if I ruffled feathers. I didn't realize the rules were so strict about what you could talk about here. It wasn't my intention to be insulting.

Click to expand...

I know that Will has already adressed this, but assuming pulp means SP is pretty preseumptuous of you. I've not read his work, but I do know he isn't Self Pub'd and works with some reputable publishers. Check your assumptions about others, lest it ends up going against the golden rule of the forum.

I'm not a self publisher though. What gave you that idea?

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about you, rather the "new" market for pulp writing that self publishing has created. It's the closest thing we've seen to the penny-a-word pulp magazines days since they closed up shop.

I assumed, since you took issue with my definition of pulp writing, that you are one of the contemporary writers who appreciates the art of pulp writing and you incorporate that into your own work, but not necessarily at the breakneck writing pace the title implies.

Jackx said:

Well, don't get me wrong. I adore Lovecraft's work. He had the most brilliant ideas of any Horror writer in history, and he provided Stephen King and others with a lifetime of material to steal from, but the guy was a truly horrible prose writer. I get that he was a pulp writer, but even by those low standards his work is clunky and repetitive and extremely overwritten. IMO.

Click to expand...

Here, I've bolded the offending bit that got you your first warning.

Lillith1991 said:

I know that Will has already adressed this, but assuming pulp means SP is pretty preseumptuous of you. I've not read his work, but I do know he isn't Self Pub'd and works with some reputable publishers. Check your assumptions about others, lest it ends up going against the golden rule of the forum.

Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about pulp meaning self publishing? I said self publishing has created a market for pulp fiction, the same way it's created a market for Lit fiction and non-fiction and memoirs, and cook books. Pulp fiction (inexpensive, hastily written stories with lurid subjects and over the top plots) fits in perfectly to the model since it lets authors knock out story after story at a quick pace and then sell them to readers for pennies.

This seems like a very defensive forum. I'm honestly not trying to upset you guys, and I do not see what I'm saying that's so terrible. I'm guessing this reaction comes from the stigma attached to self publishing, and the disrespect new writers face when making decisions about publishing, but I'm not one of those. I think this is the most exciting time in history to be a writer, and I'm not out to pick a fight. I just like talking books and authors and arguing their merits.

Jackx said:

Thanks, glad to be here… I read the post you mentioned, but I don't see anything in my posts that's remotely close to disrespectful. Can you point out the line that gave you pause?

Also, is good-natured debate frowned upon here? What's the point of a writers group if you can't be politely opinionated and passionate about your opinions when it comes to books?

Click to expand...

My personal opinion, but the following seemed pretty darned disrespectful:

-Equating pulp writers with speed-writing authors who only care about money, even though these are very different things
-Saying pulp writers innately have low standards
-Saying Stephen King "stole" material from Lovecraft (you then said that he "borrowed heavily" which is not the same thing as outright plagiarism)

Debate isn't frowned upon here, but making assumptions about an entire group of people sure is.

Lillith1991 said:

Here, I've bolded the offending bit that got you your first warning.

Click to expand...

I got a warning?

~Sigh~

Contemporary definitions for pulp fiction:

noun
sensationalized, poor-quality writing

Word Origin
from its being printed on rough pulpy paper


You don't have to like the definition, but it is what it is. If you're really offended that pulp fiction is synonymous with bad writing, maybe you're using the term incorrectly.

Jackx said:

I got a warning?

~Sigh~

Contemporary definitions for pulp fiction:

noun
sensationalized, poor-quality writing

Word Origin
from its being printed on rough pulpy paper


You don't have to like the definition, but it is what it is. If you're really offended that pulp fiction is synonymous with bad writing, maybe you're using the term incorrectly.

Click to expand...

Yes, you did. Calla, one of the room mods gave you a gentle warning and a nudge about the RYFW rule followed by this forum's members.

As for the origins of pulp and meaning of the word, I am not using the term incorrectly.

-Equating pulp writers with speed-writing authors who only care about money, even though these are very different things.

Click to expand...

Actually, they're not. Historically, Pulp fiction is writing that's been written at a breakneck pace for money, and the quality of the writing and the books themselves are poor.

-Saying pulp writers innately have low standards.

Click to expand...

Again, historically, pulp writers wrote as fast as they could to pay the bills. It's my opinion that this led to lower standards than you'd find elsewhere, but that's in no way saying the work they did was bad. My favorite writers of all time could be considered Pulp writers.

-Saying Stephen King "stole" material from Lovecraft (you then said that he "borrowed heavily" which is not the same thing as outright plagiarism)

Click to expand...

No Lovecraft, no Stephen King. Read The Shadow Over Innsmouth and then try to tell me with a straight face that King didn't basically write that same story over and over and over and over…

But to your point, fine, I get what you're saying. I suppose it's not polite to mention King borrowing from writers who came before him, but I'd argue that there's not a single writer anywhere in any time, all the way back to Shakespear, who didn't take what came before and repurpose it in one way or another.

Debate isn't frowned upon here, but making assumptions about an entire group of people sure is.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't think I'm making assumptions. If anything, I think an apparent widespread misunderstanding of the definition of pulp fiction is the issue.

Calla Lily said:

Okay, in order, and all bolding and text coloring mine, to be clearer:



1. Painting pulp with the broad brush of "low standards" is making a huge assumption and disrespecting fellow writers. Some writers write fast. That's their style and it has nothing to do with standards of quality prose.

There's politely opinionated: "I love X writer's new book; I think s/he nails the atmosphere in the scene on the moor" OR "I couldn't finish X writer's new book. The scene on the moor didn't ring true to me at all." And then everyone who's read it gets into a passionate discussion of the moors and characterization and atmosphere and much wine is drunk and a good time is had by all.

And there's "X writer is a pulp hack who banged out their novel in 4 days to make a buck." That's not politely or passionately opinionated; it's rude.



2. That bolding = not RYFW. If Stephen King wants to give an interview acknowledging his debts to HPL, that's his call. Anyone else saying it? It's like asking HPL's executors to to call the law firm of Cthulhu, Shub-Niggurath, and Great Old Ones Ltd. and start them salivating.



3. What willie said. I've seen many many Net arguments that come down to "literary = Great Writing; genre = hack/pulp/sellout." We all write fic or NF and sometimes both. We are all writers. Period. Of equal worth.







6. And here's a fellow Horror Hound who writes pulp. Which is darned good writing, as I've read it and know it.

Who among us is the final arbiter on the quality of the craft? No one, as far as I know. We're all writers, period.



8. It's not the breadth of subject matter; it's the way the discussion is conducted.



9. That's couched as an opinion. However, it slams "mass market" readers as sub-intelligent.

That's RYFW in 9 points.

Click to expand...

Wow.

Jamesaritchie said:

I think you're going by your own personal taste, rather than using an objective viewpoint. His writing most certainly was NOT on par with any self-published junk. That's silly. He was a very good writer in every possible way. Some readers hate everything about any wrietr you can name, and say the same things you do about Layman, and it really is silly, whatever writer they're talking about.

If you can write anything better than Layman did, don't talk about it, do it. I'm willing to bet you can't. If you can, we won't have to wonder about it, because you'll be selling everything you write.

Click to expand...

We have (or should have) spent years studying the various forms of linguistic composition—have learned (or are in the process of learning) how to use our personal tastes in composing works that other people will want to spend their time reading. And so, our opinions rise to the level of a professional opinion, rather than that of a layman. (no pun intended).

Yes, ego may push some to put any/everything down because they are feeling inadequate in their own writing ability…but, those people usually end-up revealing themselves fairly rapidly so, I wouldn't sweat it.

I too can't seem to get more than a few chapters into the novels of Laymon's that I have tried to read. This is not personal, just I can't get into his writing.

Bolding/highlighting mine.

Jackx said:

Actually, they're not. Historically, Pulp fiction is writing that's been written at a breakneck pace for money, and the quality of the writing and the books themselves are poor.

Again, historically, pulp writers wrote as fast as they could to pay the bills. It's my opinion that this led to lower standards than you'd find elsewhere, but that's in no way saying the work they did was bad. My favorite writers of all time could be considered Pulp writers.

You keep using "historically" as the basis of your argument. I'd like to know what you mean by this. Where are you getting your historical examples? Or could you provide some historical examples? I don't think any have actually been mentioned. You just lump them all together as historical pulp writers.

No Lovecraft, no Stephen King. Read The Shadow Over Innsmouth and then try to tell me with a straight face that King didn't basically write that same story over and over and over and over…

But to your point, fine, I get what you're saying. I suppose it's not polite to mention King borrowing from writers who came before him, but I'd argue that there's not a single writer anywhere in any time, all the way back to Shakespear, who didn't take what came before and repurpose it in one way or another.

Saying that authors take inspiration from those who came before is fine, but at one point you stated Stephen King stole material from Lovecraft, which is an outright accusation of plagiarism. Definitely not RYFW.

Again, I don't think I'm making assumptions. If anything, I think an apparent widespread misunderstanding of the definition of pulp fiction is the issue.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as I don't think this is the primary issue.

Click to expand...

Calla Lily said:

Did you read my very long multi-quote before posting this?

Click to expand...

No.

I beg your pardon?

Click to expand...

Wow, as in I'm surprised you read all of that into my comments. And while I don't think the intention you assigned to my posts is what I intended, I'm obviously in the minority so I'll respect the rules and drop out of the conversation. I think it's possible that I'm too abrupt and opinionated for this forum, and if that proves to be the case then I'll go elsewhere. I'm honestly not trying to upset anyone.

Niccolo said:

Bolding/highlighting mine.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Niccolo... As much fun as this topic is, and as much I'd love to continue the conversation. I seem to be upsetting people, so I think it'd be better if I just bowed out.

If you are honestly interested in learning about the history of pulp fiction. There are several resources online as well as several books written about the men and women who wrote for the pulps. My favorite is a book called Pulp Writer: Twenty Years in the American Grub Street. It's a fascinating book on how these writers (one in particular) lived and wrote. If you love pulp writing as much as I do, you'll enjoy the book. It's a great place to start.

[FONT=&quot]Just to pop in to say that it’s very annoying how Lovecraft’s dense baroque prose with no direct dialogues keeps getting mentioned as bad. It’s not bad. All the sentences are functional, as are the paragraphs. The characters are vivid, the atmosphere very real, and the plots have great structure.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Although the fantasy of having a serious conversation with whoever started this cannot be fulfilled, for reasons of time and mortality, I would urge everyone in hearing range to stop using other people’s quality measurement scales and trust their intuition and develop their own. You’d be doing the whole world a favor. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It’s fashionable enough to admit that Hammett and Chandler on one hand, and Eric Ambler and Graham Green on the other, were giants, but Ian Fleming is ignored, although he has absolutely fantastic bursts. The only real writer and critic I know who agrees with me is Kingsley Amis, R.I.P. Everyone else is pretending that Fleming is not an extension of Hammett and Chandler and Ambler and [FONT=&quot]G[/FONT]reene. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Likewise with Lovecraft, Robert Howard, and Clark Ashton Smith—the three provincial poet geniuses. Their prose is dense but not clunky. Their prose is magnificent. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I simply can’t understand why so many people appear to be one-style fetishists. Only style X is great, therefore styles Z, Y, and B are bad writing. How hard can it be to enjoy all those styles on their own terms, without equating personal taste with objective quality?[/FONT] Listen, anonymous reader of rant, it may seem in the short term to help maintain a coherent persona by embracing one style only and despising the rest, but in the long term this will make you a severely limited, warped, annoying person. It's not win-win, it's lose-lose. It should be a quickly passing phase to possibly help deal with some nasty patch of real life, not a permanent condition...

[FONT=&quot]It’s like so many people hypnotize themselves into accepting external quality definitions and then invest time and effort into defending those imported definitions, instead of investing that same time and effort to develop their own. Especially when they are beginner writers, high on binge-reading of various half-digested ‘writing rules’. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Some of these people actually prefer to then say that books like Dune and The Godfather were successful in spite of being bad (as in not by the ‘writing rules’ of twitter diva editor John Smith), then to actually admit that maybe these quality measurement scales are mostly B.S. intensely dependent on passing fashion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Rant over, thank you for the attention.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]P.S. I also have a hard time finishing anything by the late Laymon, but this goes for universally praised highly literary horror writers like Ramsey [FONT=&quot]Campbell and Charles L Grant too--somet[FONT=&quot]imes t[FONT=&quot]he vibe just doesn't click. Layman [FONT=&quot]was a [FONT=&quot]very competent writer[FONT=&quot] as far as I can tell.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]

ShaunHorton said:

So, I'm curious as to what some of my fellow author's opinions on him are. Supposedly he has a big cult following and he's well known as a horror author. One of the greats, I'm told.

Is this what we're trying to be compared to? I can write a wet dream that closer to horror and better quality than this. And yet people hold him up on some kind of pedestal as one of the greats? What am I missing?

Click to expand...

He was popular over here in the UK, I think more so than his native US. I've read a few of his books, but thought they were very poor indeed and didn't seem to improve. Poor stories, endless pointless gore scenes and a writing style that I didn't like much. No real ideas in the books, either, although I did read one called 'Funland' that could have been interesting, but just got stupid. It was all a bit padded out.

When I was at University in the 1990s someone had a copy of a book called The Stake. It was passed around a lot of people but no one ever finished it.

I never really understood how he got so popular, but I suspect he'll be quickly forgotten (Not wishing to speak ill of the dead.)

I've read a handful of Laymon's work, and while that doesn't qualify me to criticize the man's body of works as a whole, I can say this: He's fairly entertaining, and I plan to read more of his stuff, but he isn't great.

Also, it irks me that he calls his characters' butts "rumps." I just wanna throw the damn book across the room every time I see that.

I read his book One Rainy Night. I really enjoyed it a great deal.

I'm a huge fan of Laymon's work, and if it weren't for books like Funland, The Woods are Dark, Midnight's Lair, One Rainy Night and Flesh, I might never have decided to have a go at this whole writing malarky. I don't think he was as technically good a writer as guys like King, Koontz, Simmons or McCammon, but he was a million miles away from being a 'bad' writer.

I've read a couple Laymon books, and while they aren't great literature, I enjoy them enough. Laymon's work is the literary equivalent of a made-for-TV Syfy movie. Fun but disposable.

The only thing that bothers me is the constantly sexuality. Penis this, vagina that. It gets to be a little much. All the characters are horny all the time and can't keep their genitals in their pants. Oh, and he has a bad habit of calling peoples' butts "rumps." For some reason that grates me.