Transcribe
Translate
Acolyte, v. 2, issue 3, whole no. 7, Summer 1944
Page 18
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
permutations and combinations. The predominance of one aspect and the subordination of the other aspects is not a matter of rule but rather a matter of what effect does the author desire, and what purpose does he wish to achieve? Whichever aspect-dominance best achieves his purpose is certainly the best one. But no two stories can or ought to have any arbitrarily assigned aspect-dominance. The only answer to this matter of proportioning the "aspects" is this: it depends on your narrative purpose. The only time when one can be definite in condemnation is when a writer has, to the point of absurdity, squelched one of the aspects. He can suppress and emphasize within wide limits. If he knows his business, he knows just how and what and how much to suppress and to emphasize and over-emphasize to get a "true" and valid story-entity. If he does not know his business, that is, if he lacks the instinct of dramatic rightness, all his babble about proportions is like a madman laughing into a well. He should stick to mathematics or something precise, and avoid pursuits where intuition dominates. But please do convince your pals that there is absolutely no such thing as novelty of plot. All plots are banal and hackneyed. The personality of the characters is what carries a story; that, and suspense, arising not so much from wondering how it'll turn out, as from participating in the nature of the viewpoint-character to such an extent that the reader shares the hero's emotions through his sumpathy for a fellow-human. My best stories--that is, those sold for the most money, or sold to the more esteemed magazines, or those longest remembered by readers and friends--have been stories utterly lacking in plot novelty. What these stories did have was: (a) striking personalities, (b) colorful atmosphere, and (c) a theme whose truth and effectiveness had considerable in common with the Joe Doakes reader's daily life and problems. I am always interested in glancing at a fan magazine, but it is only fair to confess that I do not keep in touch with the fan world. I wrote for Diablerie for fun and to humor Bill Watson, whose kind invitation to attend a conclave had to be declined. I've written just 25 weird yarns since "Spanish Vampire". Not many--and only that and "Apprentice Magician" and "Khosru's Garden" appeared in Weird Tales. Since May 1932 I have done but 69 fantasy yarns; since my start in 1924, just a bit short of 100, including collaborations. Of my total of 454 yarns, about 430 were done professionally, that is, since May 1932. Of professional stuff: 69 fantasies, 62 westerns, 137 adventures, and 131 detectives; the rest are miscellaneous. So you see why, perforce, I am not in touch with the fan world. Fantasy is a sort of hobby with me; I write a fantasy yarn only when I feel that fantasy is the ideal medium for a theme, or to depict some personality or situation. I don't write a fantasy just to be writing a fantasy (I used to do that, in 1932-33, until I got mortally sick of my own stuff!). I am not remotely interested in fandom's classifyings, dogmatic cries, awards of crowns of dung and wreaths of orchids. To me, fantasy is something to enjoy, rather than to make into a cult. I enjoy writing. Why should I limit my writing to just one field? I meet all kinds of people, I've travelled considerably; I've moved in so many strata of life, I have so many interests, that I simply could not cramp myself to doing just fantasy or just any other one kind of fiction. Doing nothing but fantasy is almost inconceivable! I can hardly imagine living all these years and seeing the world only in terms of cosmic terror, or as a setting for Gothic yarns, or in terms of science-fiction. As for those who can and do, all power to them. On the other hand, I do not by any means dismiss the fans with a -- 18 --
Saving...
prev
next
permutations and combinations. The predominance of one aspect and the subordination of the other aspects is not a matter of rule but rather a matter of what effect does the author desire, and what purpose does he wish to achieve? Whichever aspect-dominance best achieves his purpose is certainly the best one. But no two stories can or ought to have any arbitrarily assigned aspect-dominance. The only answer to this matter of proportioning the "aspects" is this: it depends on your narrative purpose. The only time when one can be definite in condemnation is when a writer has, to the point of absurdity, squelched one of the aspects. He can suppress and emphasize within wide limits. If he knows his business, he knows just how and what and how much to suppress and to emphasize and over-emphasize to get a "true" and valid story-entity. If he does not know his business, that is, if he lacks the instinct of dramatic rightness, all his babble about proportions is like a madman laughing into a well. He should stick to mathematics or something precise, and avoid pursuits where intuition dominates. But please do convince your pals that there is absolutely no such thing as novelty of plot. All plots are banal and hackneyed. The personality of the characters is what carries a story; that, and suspense, arising not so much from wondering how it'll turn out, as from participating in the nature of the viewpoint-character to such an extent that the reader shares the hero's emotions through his sumpathy for a fellow-human. My best stories--that is, those sold for the most money, or sold to the more esteemed magazines, or those longest remembered by readers and friends--have been stories utterly lacking in plot novelty. What these stories did have was: (a) striking personalities, (b) colorful atmosphere, and (c) a theme whose truth and effectiveness had considerable in common with the Joe Doakes reader's daily life and problems. I am always interested in glancing at a fan magazine, but it is only fair to confess that I do not keep in touch with the fan world. I wrote for Diablerie for fun and to humor Bill Watson, whose kind invitation to attend a conclave had to be declined. I've written just 25 weird yarns since "Spanish Vampire". Not many--and only that and "Apprentice Magician" and "Khosru's Garden" appeared in Weird Tales. Since May 1932 I have done but 69 fantasy yarns; since my start in 1924, just a bit short of 100, including collaborations. Of my total of 454 yarns, about 430 were done professionally, that is, since May 1932. Of professional stuff: 69 fantasies, 62 westerns, 137 adventures, and 131 detectives; the rest are miscellaneous. So you see why, perforce, I am not in touch with the fan world. Fantasy is a sort of hobby with me; I write a fantasy yarn only when I feel that fantasy is the ideal medium for a theme, or to depict some personality or situation. I don't write a fantasy just to be writing a fantasy (I used to do that, in 1932-33, until I got mortally sick of my own stuff!). I am not remotely interested in fandom's classifyings, dogmatic cries, awards of crowns of dung and wreaths of orchids. To me, fantasy is something to enjoy, rather than to make into a cult. I enjoy writing. Why should I limit my writing to just one field? I meet all kinds of people, I've travelled considerably; I've moved in so many strata of life, I have so many interests, that I simply could not cramp myself to doing just fantasy or just any other one kind of fiction. Doing nothing but fantasy is almost inconceivable! I can hardly imagine living all these years and seeing the world only in terms of cosmic terror, or as a setting for Gothic yarns, or in terms of science-fiction. As for those who can and do, all power to them. On the other hand, I do not by any means dismiss the fans with a -- 18 --
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
