How did Lovecraft do it?

[J. Strnad]

I'll have a Poe/Lovecraft/Strnadian comics series coming out in March 2012. It's great fun writing pseudo-Poe, but Lovecraft is a problem. In comics, you have to show the monster, and Lovecraft's creations (for reasons so ably given above) are best left to the imagination.

[MV64]

Lovecraft isn't the only one. Stephen King is not a good writer, but he's a hell of a story teller. Harry Turtledove is an awful writer, yet he has legions of fans because he crafts interesting stories. The list goes on. Stories matter more than writing.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

I'll have a Poe/Lovecraft/Strnadian comics series coming out in March 2012. It's great fun writing pseudo-Poe, but Lovecraft is a problem. In comics, you have to show the monster, and Lovecraft's creations (for reasons so ably given above) are best left to the imagination.

I recognize your name and perhaps your work, JS. Is it possible I met you briefly through the late Lou Stathis?

Hope you'll drop a link to a sample whenever your series debuts.

[QuantumIguana]

I once read a foreword to one of Stephen King's books that was written by Larry Niven. He said essentially that if you find yourself breaking out of a story to note how clever the author's writing is, the author has failed, because it distracts from the story. I look the prose like the soundtrack for a movie: if it is done right, you barely notice the soundtrack, but the movie wouldn't be the same without it.

I do get annoyed when people want to "elevate" a book out of the mire of science fiction, claiming that if it is good, it isn't science fiction. I reread "A Wrinkle in Time" a few years ago, and was annoyed by a blurb inside the back cover that essentially said "It isn't science fiction, it's good!"

[QuantumIguana]

There are good reasons for rules, but you also need to understand when to break those rules. By telling, Lovecraft invites you to experience the character's horror. Showing would let you see the creature, but you might not find it so horribly. Or showing would let you see that the character was experiencing horror, but his telling lets you share the character's horror. Lovecraft can make strange colors and shapes part of the horror, and by showing, we wouldn't have the same experience as the character does.

A writer's group may look down on writing in certain ways, but perhaps readers might feel different.

[Prestidigitweeze]

One danger of writers' groups is that they can encourage participants to look at craft and even content in a group-sanctioned way. The best groups don't do that, but if you have even a few members who are inclined to be prescriptive, or who only value one time-sensitive style or approach, then you're back at the Iowa School of Writing filling in the blanks in someone else's idea of form (and even syntax).

Imagine what would have happened if Lovecraft had belonged to something like that: Humble and plausible fiction that offended no one's attention span and showed you everything.

Without his crazy-ass explanations, Raymond Roussel's novels would be half as fun as they ended up being. Same with Lovecraft, whether you find him frightening, amusing or both.