DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Le Zombie, v. 5, issue 1, whole no. 48, July-August 1942

Transcribe
Translate

Le Zombie, v. 5, issue 1, whole no. 48, July-August 1942

Page 9

WEATHER DEPT

D.B. Thompson's "As The Wind Listeth...."

There is no truth in the rumor that Thrilling Wonder doesn't have friend. There is one Friend on the regular payroll.

Most amateur critics of the professional pulps and of the authors appearing therein are guilty of two common errors; errors which quite often completely negate any value which might otherwise be present. They assume, first, that of two stories which are otherwise approximately equal, the one in which they can discern the workings of a formula is necessarily inferior to the one in which they cannot do this. And second, they assume that the writing of what is commonly called a "pot-boiler" is necessarily very easy for the professional writer, and that any author who writes one, now and then, is a hack. As a sort of corollary to both of these, may be added the tendency to discredit any work of one who has once gained the title of "hack", regardless of the quality of work done subsequently.

The biggest hole in the first of these assumptions results from the fact that it isn't always possible to determine whether or not a given story actually does follow a formula. A story might actually "fit" a formula, because the story logically develops that way, yet be written without any utilization of that handy but tricky device. At the same time, the "non-formula story" may be written strictly in accordance with a formula used by its author alone; or, more likely, it may follow a standard formula throughout, with one major modification which throws the would-be critic off the track.

Of course, a really master hand can so disguise his use of  a set form that no casual reader can detect its presence. In that case, it may be safe to say that his tale is superior to the one in which the skeleton sticks out starkly. But the superiority does not result from absence of formula, but from the greater skill in its use. And, finally, the well-written formula-story may well be superior, because of the perfect timing involved.

The "pot-boiler" is nearly always a formula story. Scott turned out novels for the sole purpose of paying his debts. He followed a rather transparent formula. And what happened? His stories gained a niche among the classics of English literature. But those stories would have to be called "pot-boilers."

As for the ease in writing them; well, just try it. Sure, some of them have obvious flaws which certainly could have been eliminated by an exhaustive study and careful revision. Also they often contain flaws that can't be eliminated, without eliminating the story. Some of you would of course contend that the latter event was to be desired anyway; but as long as sufficient readers are willing to pay out hard cash for magazines, that isn't going to happen. And meantime, the man who has real possibilities as a writer is mastering his trade and will in time smooth out such weaknesses. And while learning, he eats.

The idea that "once a hack, always a hack" is, of course, completely unjustified. It is also true that practically every author who writes for a long time in a single field is, eventually, to acquire the title of "hack" simply because he can't continue indefinitely writing new and interesting stuff, and following a different plan in every story. He becomes a hack because his readers become fed up, although to a newcomer, his latest work may be infinitely superior to his earlier, much-praised writing.
(over)

Saving...

WEATHER DEPT D.B. Thompson's "As The Wind Listeth...." There is no truth in the rumor that Thrilling Wonder doesn't have friend. There is one Friend on the regular payroll. Most amateur critics of the professional pulps and of the authors appearing therein are guilty of two common errors; errors which quite often completely negate any value which might otherwise be present. They assume, first, that of two stories which are otherwise approximately equal, the one in which they can discern the workings of a formula is necessarily inferior to the one in which they cannot do this. And second, they assume that the writing of what is commonly called a "pot-boiler" is necessarily very easy for the professional writer, and that any author who writes one, now and then, is a hack. As a sort of corollary to both of these, may be added the tendency to discredit any work of one who has once gained the title of "hack", regardless of the quality of work done subsequently. The biggest hole in the first of these assumptions results from the fact that it isn't always possible to determine whether or not a given story actually does follow a formula. A story might actually "fit" a formula, because the story logically develops that way, yet be written without any utilization of that handy but tricky device. At the same time, the "non-formula story" may be written strictly in accordance with a formula used by its author alone; or, more likely, it may follow a standard formula throughout, with one major modification which throws the would-be critic off the track. Of course, a really master hand can so disguise his use of a set form that no casual reader can detect its presence. In that case, it may be safe to say that his tale is superior to the one in which the skeleton sticks out starkly. But the superiority does not result from absence of formula, but from the greater skill in its use. And, finally, the well-written formula-story may well be superior, because of the perfect timing involved. The "pot-boiler" is nearly always a formula story. Scott turned out novels for the sole purpose of paying his debts. He followed a rather transparent formula. And what happened? His stories gained a niche among the classics of English literature. But those stories would have to be called "pot-boilers." As for the ease in writing them; well, just try it. Sure, some of them have obvious flaws which certainly could have been eliminated by an exhaustive study and careful revision. Also they often contain flaws that can't be eliminated, without eliminating the story. Some of you would of course contend that the latter event was to be desired anyway; but as long as sufficient readers are willing to pay out hard cash for magazines, that isn't going to happen. And meantime, the man who has real possibilities as a writer is mastering his trade and will in time smooth out such weaknesses. And while learning, he eats. The idea that "once a hack, always a hack" is, of course, completely unjustified. It is also true that practically every author who writes for a long time in a single field is, eventually, to acquire the title of "hack" simply because he can't continue indefinitely writing new and interesting stuff, and following a different plan in every story. He becomes a hack because his readers become fed up, although to a newcomer, his latest work may be infinitely superior to his earlier, much-praised writing. (over)