How did Lovecraft do it?

[teh603]

So I got to reading some Lovecraft stuff I got off a website of free ebooks- his stuff is in the public domain now so its legal- and I found myself marvelling at his simplistic writing style. Sure he has an amazing imagination and pretty good descriptions, but he commits two grievous sins: he tells rather than shows, and he summarizes everything!

Anyone know how the heck he got away with it? A modern audience would rip his head off and jam his manuscripts down his bleeding neck stump if he was to bring that to a workshop.

And yes, I am cross-posting this from the NaNoWriMo board. I figure I might get a wider variety of answers since this board is as much readers as writers.

[frostschutz]

... who?

[teh603]

H. P. Lovecraft.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by teh603

Anyone know how the heck he got away with it? A modern audience would rip his head off and jam his manuscripts down his bleeding neck stump if he was to bring that to a workshop.

My theory? That imagination and those ideas were for his time pretty unique. Also, writing style changes. Read Dickens for a while, and then imagine taking one of those manuscripts to a modern-day workshop. It would be brutal...! And that's not even close to what can be said about any of the Romance authors (the Bronte sisters come to mind).

Lovecraft's writing would be ridiculed by a modern audience, but he didn't write for us. And in fairness, people who read and actually enjoy his stories don't read them for the writing style. Personally, I think if I read only books that were well written by skilled writers and not just good story tellers, I wouldn't read very much.

[Namekuseijin]

It's precisely the telling which makes it worthwhile. I bet Cthulhu isn't any more horrific than anything you'd find in movies now. But telling that only looking at it would drive you mad is a potent narrative device that does a far better job than showing a description of the creature that obviously won't drive you mad (or probably will).

Literature is oral medium recorded on paper, there's always the figure of the narrator "telling a story" and the story unfolds from his POV. Leave "show don't tell" to visual media like movies or games, which is why no movie villain will ever be as nightmarish as Cthulhu, since we can see it's just some bad makeup or clear cheesy CG.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Leave "show don't tell" to movies, which is why no movie villain will ever be as nightmarish as Cthulhu, since we can see it's just some bad makeup or clear cheesy CG.

I disagree. Movies that don't show anything other than glimpses and leave the rest to the viewer's imagination have created some of the most memorable monsters of all time. Think of "Alien". That monster was terrifying--until they actually caught it on camera.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

I disagree. Movies that don't show anything other than glimpses and leave the rest to the viewer's imagination have created some of the most memorable monsters of all time. Think of "Alien". That monster was terrifying--until they actually caught it on camera.

ok, so "don't show, just suggest" is also worthwhile. And didn't Lovecraft resorted to it too?

[anamardoll]

I've been listening to Shadow Over Innsmouth recently -- they have a really lovely version for $6 on Audible -- and I really like Lovecraft's style, though I agree he wouldn't be appreciated as much today.

His clean telling really provides a stark contrast to the horrors he's supposedly not showing, and if you get into the groove with the story, it's got a very compelling feel overall. For instance, SOI *starts out* making it clear that the protagonist survives everything, which normally would cut all the tension out, but it's only at the end that you get the real twist. Very effective.

But, yes, I completely agree that he'd be eaten alive by modern editors. Possibly not without reason, but it's worth saying that ALL literary rules can and have been broken to good effect at some point or another.

[JeremyR]

I don't know why people are saying he wouldn't be appreciated today - he is more popular now that he ever had been in his lifetime. Not even close. He couldn't even sell out a 500 copy hardback of his stuff.

I also suspect most of his detractors have never really sat down and read Lovecraft carefully. He does frequently "show" in his books, but generally only after a long build up. It really depends on the story - if it's trying to shock you with a description of a monster, that part happens at the end - if there's another twist, that happens at the end and the showing takes place much earlier.

And as to the summarizing thing, I know he did it in some stories, like Re-animator and Lurking Fear, because it was written over many parts for a magazine and he had to re-cap at the start of each episode.

It's also not true that writing styles have changed. For whatever reason, writing/language has more or less frozen around the 1920s (maybe earlier). When HPL sounds archaic, it's because he's deliberately choosing to be tying to set the mood.

[anamardoll]

I think it's definitely true that writing styles have changed. There's a strong feeling nowadays that you MUST hook the reader in the first chapter -- if not the first sentence -- whereas a lot of older books really expect you to hang in and stick with it.

You'll see this in movies, too, I think. A lot of older movies just sort of expect you to hang in there until the good bits. I recall "The In-laws" extremely fondly, but when I watched it again a year or so ago, I was shocked at how long it takes for the interesting and funny bits to get rolling. There's a lllllloooooonnnnnggggg set-up for the jokes and you're just expected to behave yourself and wait for it.

I think any technique -- writing or movie making -- refines and changes over time. In these cases, I think the techniques has changed at least in part due to the many competing sources for attention. The reader is going to read A book, but unless you hook them immediately, it may not be YOUR book.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I've been listening to Shadow Over Innsmouth recently -- they have a really lovely version for $6 on Audible -- and I really like Lovecraft's style, though I agree he wouldn't be appreciated as much today.

His style is more "conversational", he writes as if he is sitting down and telling you the story face to face. I can imagine it works very well for an audiobook, better, actually, than in writing.

I have this urge to go read Lovecraft now... Cthulhu rises on December 21st, right?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

His style is more "conversational", he writes as if he is sitting down and telling you the story face to face. I can imagine it works very well for an audiobook, better, actually, than in writing.

I have this urge to go read Lovecraft now... Cthulhu rises on December 21st, right?

I think this is part of it -- it does sound so much more like a story. The version I got from Audible is FANTASTIC, though. I rarely rave about narrators, but this guy nails it. I'll see if I can't dig up a link...

Ah! Here it is. I don't think this is an affiliate link -- I got it straight from my Audible library:

http://www.audible.com/pd?asin=B003IM28EI

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I think this is part of it -- it does sound so much more like a story. The version I got from Audible is FANTASTIC, though. I rarely rave about narrators, but this guy nails it. I'll see if I can't dig up a link...

Ah! Here it is. I don't think this is an affiliate link -- I got it straight from my Audible library:

http://www.audible.com/pd?asin=B003IM28EI

Thanks for the link! Karma to you... and off to the audio-section of the library

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

It's precisely the telling which makes it worthwhile. I bet Cthulhu isn't any more horrific than anything you'd find in movies now. But telling that only looking at it would drive you mad is a potent narrative device that does a far better job than showing a description of the creature that obviously won't drive you mad (or probably will).

Literature is oral medium recorded on paper, there's always the figure of the narrator "telling a story" and the story unfolds from his POV. Leave "show don't tell" to visual media like movies or games, which is why no movie villain will ever be as nightmarish as Cthulhu, since we can see it's just some bad makeup or clear cheesy CG.

The showing, if you pay close attention to the mythos could not be done.
What makes the elder gods and unmentionable horrors cause madness is the concept that their existence stretches into more dimensions of reality than our normal reality even has, and that in proximity to them humans develop an ability to percieve them...but do not develop brains that can process the added dimensions of reality. M.C. Escher on steroids.

This was truly a novel concept in Lovecraft's day, and it is an integral part of the overall mythos not re-explained in every story.

The narative style often follows because the persons to whom the events actually happened are now often wholly mad.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by teh603

So I got to reading some Lovecraft stuff I got off a website of free ebooks- his stuff is in the public domain now so its legal- and I found myself marvelling at his simplistic writing style. Sure he has an amazing imagination and pretty good descriptions, but he commits two grievous sins: he tells rather than shows, and he summarizes everything!

Anyone know how the heck he got away with it? A modern audience would rip his head off and jam his manuscripts down his bleeding neck stump if he was to bring that to a workshop.

And yes, I am cross-posting this from the NaNoWriMo board. I figure I might get a wider variety of answers since this board is as much readers as writers.

First, I am not a horror fan, and I've only read some of Lovecraft. But you're missing the time and the place, teh603.

There were no workshops in that day. At the height of Lovercraft's popularity, Doc Savage Magazine was selling in excess of 200,000 copies a month! And I guarantee that Doc is not fine writing...

There was no television during the time, only radio, toward the last few years of H.P.'s life. Shucks, comic books didn't exist!

The pulps of the 20's, 30's, and 40's were the place for artistic ferment. They paid peanuts, but if you wanted to write something totally different, the only outlet was the pulps. And you got read, by people! Maybe you had to write a rattling good story, but they were outlets for unheard of stories, totally different takes on reality.

Modern horror, much of modern fantasy, modern science fiction, all came from the pulps. not to mention the detective story... All from cheap pulps, having to fill it's pages with something, as long as it had good story telling, style be damned.

I don't sneer at Lovecraft, or Howard, or E.E. Smith P.H.D. Their writing style may be obsolete, but the story telling keeps them "coming back for more".

And still today, among people who want a rattling good read, and don't give a hoot about literary standards. I read E.E. Smith and Cabell....