Little-known facts on the Masters of Horror

What I find most disturbing is that darkness teaches writing. He hasn't specified which grade level. I can see him now, hunched over his students' papers, grading them with remarks like, "Stop dumbing down your writing!" And, "Any fifth grader could read this!"

It's sad. I hope his students aren't impressionable enough to believe his views on what makes for good writing. Otherwise, they may be scarred for life.

Darkness,

You haven't commented on the fact that your research on Lovecraft is incorrect. He lived without money most of his life, I referred to S. T. Joshi's biography. Haven't you read it?

Regards,
Scott

These are my last comments on the "hack" issue here, but I think I'll start a new thread about the earmarks of a "hack" because I'd be interested in what horror writers (frequently accused of as being "hacks" by the intelligentia) have to say themselves. If such a discussion has already taken place, someone please let me know.

Personally, my favorite authors have been dead for at least 100 years, but I agree that writers like Stephen King should not be judged by those authors' literary styles. It is, I think, and apple and oranges thing, but I also believe that they mix well in a fruit salad genre.

I would not consider King a hack. His stories are character driven, not plot driven. He admits that in 'On Writing.' His use of literary/rhetorical devises is appropriately subtle. I randomly turned to page 215 of 'Salem's Lot' (it's the King book at my fingertips) and found alliteration, assonance, metaphor, simile, onomatopoeia, personification, and hyperbole. Again, I thought they were subtle (which suggests unconscious, to a degree). Hacks know the devices, and they punch you in the face with them. While most of King's book, 'On Writing' is memoir, he deals with craft in the 100 page section also called 'On Writing.' A hack--as I understand the term--really would not even know how to write a writing manual. He even spends some time on grammar, of all things. He's also self-critical--not a hack characteristic, I think.

Someone commented that Darkness is a writing teacher. I had writing teachers who thought King was a hack, and they were still excellent writing teachers. I absolutely hated 'The Sun Also Rises' but loved 'Moby Dick.'

That's my two cents (yes, a cliche--sign of a hack).

Cathedral, I mentioned darkness is a writing teacher. His comments on what constitutes a hack writer have nothing to do with his ability to instruct. What I find most troubling are his grandiose and condescending tone regarding literature in general. This may prove to be a disservice to his students if he's practicing what he's preaching in the classroom.

Silver King: Your statement "I can see him now, hunched over his students' papers, grading them with remarks like, 'Stop dumbing down your writing!' And, 'Any fifth grader could read this!' is a comment on his ability to instruct.

Of course you're right, Cathedral. I do have a flair for dramatic images at times.

In some ways, darkness could help his cause by avoiding blanket assessments about other writers. There are simply too many members here to think others won't weigh in with opposing views. But as Liam mentioned earlier, darkness seems to be courting only the opinions of those who agree with him. It simply doesn't work that way. You can lead whatever chorus you want, but not everyone here will sing the same tune.

And one other thing: If someone claims to be a writing instructor, then they had better display a fundamental grasp of our language to communicate their thoughts clearly. I've failed to see that in most of his posts.

(I'll add that I have no problem understanding where you're coming from, Cathedral.)

let's not do personal attacks. remember our rule: respect your fellow writer.

we can disagree about the ideas, but let's avoid judging character.

Thanks, Mac and emerald. I hadn't noticed his posts were removed. But why would he delete his own posts in the first place?

I didn't mean to flog anyone. And because we have no point of reference left, it makes every other poster in this thread seem strong-armed for disagreeing with his position.

In any case, I won't respond to any more of darkness' future posts. There's no way of knowing he won't continue the same behavior, soliciting advice and discussion, and then deleting his posts when things don't go his way.

It's a waste of time; and I feel badly for everyone who spent time responding to his lengthy posts.

I'll go out on a serious limb here, and I expect the worst for saying this: darkness is a coward who's not man enough to stand behind his own words and ideals. Instead, he'll erase them and hope no one noticed.

Ouch, sorry folks. I simply pointed out that his initial thread title and such was about 'fact' and that this thread turned out to be more opinion than fact. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off, I thought I was simply supporting my fellow authors here when they 'heaven forbid' disagreed with him.
{she puts tape on mouth}

I apologize to all if I seemed overtly contentious. I called myself engaging an opinion with another. Please, let the thread continue. The "factual" portions of the posts were interesting.

MacAllister: I started a new thread on what constitutes a hack. Any thoughts?

Popeyesays said:

HPL's family fortune declined sharply after his childhood. He was raised by his mother and an aunt, as his father died early in his life. They owned the home, with a scanty inheritance, but that was about it. He married for a few years in his thirties and lived with his wife in New York, but when they seperated he returned to Providence.

When his regular magazine changed ownership, the new publisher didn't like him much at all, and he rarely got anything published in his own name. He turned to doing edits and re-writes of other people's work and out and out ghostwriting to survive.

Much more prolific than his fiction are the long-term and varied correspondences with other writers who became known as the Lovecraft Circle. This included August Derleth among others

"At the time of his birth Lovecraft's family was quite well-to-do, most of the wealth derived from the extensive business interests of Lovecraft's maternal grandfather, Whipple Van Buren Phillips. This prosperity, however, was not to last. The death of Whipple Phillips in 1904 had two calamitous effects: it robbed Lovecraft of one of his major early influences (for with the death of Lovecraft's father in 1898 of paresis the raising of the lad had been entrusted to his mother, his two aunts, and especially his grandfather); moreover, because of the mismanagement of affairs by Phillips's business associates, Phillips's fortune was squandered and the Lovecrafts were forced to move out of their palatial mansion. "
S. T. Joshi http://www.themodernword.com/scriptorium/lovecraft.html

I recommend Joshi as perhaps the most competent biographer of an enigmatic man.

Regards,
Scott

Click to expand...

Oh joy, another King threat.

Lovecraft is unreadable.

Why did Darkness delete all his posts?


The reason why the best popular literature iis written between the 4th-and 6th grade level is because that's the comfortable reading level of most people. You're not writing technical journals, you're writing entertainment.

I don't see the problem here.

To hack or not to hack

Flapdoodle said:

Oh joy, another King threat.
Lovecraft is unreadable.

Click to expand...

Oh no, just out of style now. He wrote/clung to a florid 19th Century style of horror fiction writing. I find most of his short stories enjoyable and go back to read them once in a while. His longer works, like "Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath" aren't as good. A hack? Yes, probably -- in that he wrote for cheap magazines at low rates and in a small genre.

I like to compare the pulps of the 1930s and '40s to today's ebooks. Aside from electronic issues of old (and often out-of-print) books, many ebooks are written by little known or lesser know writers and are produced rapidly, with no fanfare, on a publishing shoestring. Yep, I'm a hack; an ebook slut. *grin*

JDCrayne said:

Oh no, just out of style now. He wrote/clung to a florid 19th Century style of horror fiction writing. I find most of his short stories enjoyable and go back to read them once in a while. His longer works, like "Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath" aren't as good. A hack? Yes, probably -- in that he wrote for cheap magazines at low rates and in a small genre.

I like to compare the pulps of the 1930s and '40s to today's ebooks. Aside from electronic issues of old (and often out-of-print) books, many ebooks are written by little known or lesser know writers and are produced rapidly, with no fanfare, on a publishing shoestring. Yep, I'm a hack; an ebook slut. *grin*

Click to expand...

No, not just out of style - I've read plenty of 19th century authors, and not had a problem with any of them. Lovecraft I just find unreadable, but I love his ideas and imagination. Just can't read the bloody things very easily.

Flapdoodle said:

No, not just out of style - I've read plenty of 19th century authors, and not had a problem with any of them. Lovecraft I just find unreadable, but I love his ideas and imagination. Just can't read the bloody things very easily.

Click to expand...

He's a difficult read, I agree. I can't take him too often. It would probably be easier to get through if I were on some really good drugs. But he sets the mood like no one else I have ever read. If you can wade through all the 19th century stuff, you will start looking over your shoulder to see what's sneaking up on you.

Dripping with adverbs

Flapdoodle said:

No, not just out of style - I've read plenty of 19th century authors, and not had a problem with any of them. Lovecraft I just find unreadable, but I love his ideas and imagination. Just can't read the bloody things very easily.

Click to expand...

Well, I grant that once you've read about one lumbering squelchy monster dripping with adverbs you've pretty much done the genre. I particularly like Lovecraft's half-human entities. That's a fascinating idea and one that the Lovecraft Circle really exploited, but if you have trouble with his prose there's no point in forcing yourself to read the stuff.

As for 19th century authors, I recently slogged my way through about 2/3 of "Uncle Silas," and that was all I could take. The darned thing seemed interminable. Wilkie Collins' "The Moonstone," on the other hand was easy to read and quite enjoyable, and so is Stoker's original "Dracula" (which has a lot of humor tucked in here and there).