|
Post by themirrorthief on Aug 28, 2019 18:09:11 GMT -5
HOward was not only a great great writer but he freaking created a genre...and he created at least two classic characters in Conan and Solomon Kane with Red Sonya being a template for many more
|
|
|
Post by sorcerer on Sept 2, 2019 20:59:39 GMT -5
So there's a lot here, and I appreciate that you're approaching the subject with some care! My impression is that most posters here resonate with the gist of MirrorThief's most recent post. Although I don't begrudge any of you your obvious love for Howard, I cannot disagree more strongly with this way of approaching him.
It's true that writing does depend on talent, and I agree somewhat with what Von K said above about a million words making for a reasonable apprenticeship, but far more important is a willingness to analyze work dispassionately. When I started, I probably produced two million in dross. Once I learned to look at fiction incisively rather than personally, I stopped writing dross almost immediately.
I began this thread in the hopes of improving one of my favorite wobbly novels from that two million, and I have absolutely no intention of forgetting how important it is to look clearly and critically at every aspect of what a writer is doing. I'm not interested in overlooking any of Howard's shortcomings, nor in heaping adoration on him for things he does which sometimes work and other times do not. To do that would only hamper my own ability to broaden and improve my own work.
So I can only reiterate that putting himself into his own writing was something that Howard did, but that this isn't a key to his success. Unless you want to argue that Howard wasn't putting himself into his Kull stories, or that those stories were really great, really, I'm simply going to tell you that this was a quirk of his which sometimes worked, and sometimes fell flat. There have been thousands of Mary Sues out there, and I'm not going to emulate random quirks and foibles from Howard's writing out of superstitious desperation.
I do realize that I haven't by any means addressed many of the other (often useful) comments here, but I'm in the middle of a move and I won't be able to post much for a while. I'll see about reading the great story openings article Von K linked before I post here again.
|
|
|
Post by zarono on Sept 3, 2019 8:30:23 GMT -5
I think REH's "secret to success" may have been his vivid imagination which would be hard to replicate but something that could a writer could study and learn from is REH's sense of pacing. Howard knew when things needed to happen in a story (exposition, action, weirdness), he doesn't let the reader get bored.
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Sept 3, 2019 16:48:09 GMT -5
Good luck with the move Sorcerer. We have a Writer's Talking about Writing thread you might be interested in: swordsofreh.proboards.com/thread/474/writers-talking-writing?page=1Here are some of the quotes from REH on the topic: Robert E Howard on ...The secret of writing...Where do you begin?Character agency...Plots...Outlining...There are a few more from REH in the thread, plus lot's of advice from many other writer's.
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Sept 3, 2019 17:46:34 GMT -5
It's true that writing does depend on talent, and I agree somewhat with what Von K said above about a million words making for a reasonable apprenticeship, but far more important is a willingness to analyze work dispassionately. When I started, I probably produced two million in dross. Once I learned to look at fiction incisively rather than personally, I stopped writing dross almost immediately.
Jack London wrote about the importance of analyzing successful writer's work to improve one's own. He's quoted in the article I linked to. I am a mere apprentice at fiction writing btw. I take the craft seriously though and hope it won't take me too much longer now to break into the journeyman phase. Jim Butcher's learning curve was probably a little shorter than most, no doubt because he benefited from good instruction from the writing classes he took. It took him 9 years to get up to speed, but he said that even if it had taken him 20 it would still have been worth it. I have a hunch that many of the precocious talents that get off to an early start have learned various key skillsets earlier in their lives. REH for instance was read poetry from a very young age and grew up surrounded by storytelling in various forms. It's well known for instance that journalism and news reporting is a good background for a fiction writer because journalists and news reporters are used to regularly writing the essentials and getting copy out to tight deadlines. However Storycraft is it's own kind of beast, and sometimes such writers can have difficulty decoupling from factual presentation techniques and integrating with fictional ones.
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Sept 3, 2019 18:04:57 GMT -5
I think REH's "secret to success" may have been his vivid imagination which would be hard to replicate but something that could a writer could study and learn from is REH's sense of pacing. Howard knew when things needed to happen in a story (exposition, action, weirdness), he doesn't let the reader get bored. That's one of your own key traits too Zarono. I've also noticed that REH has a good sense of story structure, which goes along with the pacing I guess. I think Michael Moorcock once said that an innate sense of structure was an asset to any writer intending to be prolific (or maybe it was that most prolific writers tend to have a good innate sense of structure).
|
|
|
Post by scottoden on Sept 3, 2019 22:26:51 GMT -5
I think the "secret" to any writer's success -- from REH on down to what little I've had -- isn't defined by one thing, but by the synchronicity of having ALL the elements firing at the same time. The imagination, the technical know-how, the innate (or learned) understanding of story, the robust vocabulary, the grasp of character and human nature, the sense of pacing, and sheer dumb luck. All of these things have to meet in congress in one day or across several, and from their alchemy the magic of salable fiction is made.
So, the secret isn't really a secret. Its cultivating the skills and intuitions that go in to storytelling and writng, and waiting for the pieces to come together. Then, the artist touches fire and legends are born.
|
|
|
Post by themirrorthief on Sept 3, 2019 22:58:22 GMT -5
this is a cool thread...personally I don't think its so much a learned thing...either you got it or you don't. Of course you can get a lot better via practice. But there has to be something there to start with. I wish I had the drive to become a writer but I don't. A big part of it is just wanting really bad to be a writer. anyway, just some thoughts
but when it comes to poetry...I would square off against anybody!!! yeehaww
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Sept 4, 2019 5:25:20 GMT -5
'The Secret to REH's Success'
Dunno, always kind of thought that REH was for writing what Frank Frazetta was for art, a kind of dynamic imagination, fast pace, gets you involved from the get go, not stilted, maybe the technique might suffer at times, but it's all part of the effect.
|
|
|
Post by zarono on Sept 5, 2019 7:26:52 GMT -5
I think REH's "secret to success" may have been his vivid imagination which would be hard to replicate but something that could a writer could study and learn from is REH's sense of pacing. Howard knew when things needed to happen in a story (exposition, action, weirdness), he doesn't let the reader get bored. That's one of your own key traits too Zarono. I've also noticed that REH has a good sense of story structure, which goes along with the pacing I guess. I think Michael Moorcock once said that an innate sense of structure was an asset to any writer intending to be prolific (or maybe it was that most prolific writers tend to have a good innate sense of structure). Many thanks VK, you are too kind as always
|
|
|
Post by zarono on Sept 5, 2019 7:37:38 GMT -5
I think the "secret" to any writer's success -- from REH on down to what little I've had -- isn't defined by one thing, but by the synchronicity of having ALL the elements firing at the same time. The imagination, the technical know-how, the innate (or learned) understanding of story, the robust vocabulary, the grasp of character and human nature, the sense of pacing, and sheer dumb luck. All of these things have to meet in congress in one day or across several, and from their alchemy the magic of salable fiction is made. So, the secret isn't really a secret. Its cultivating the skills and intuitions that go in to storytelling and writng, and waiting for the pieces to come together. Then, the artist touches fire and legends are born. Right on!
|
|
|
Post by sorcerer on Sept 14, 2019 16:41:00 GMT -5
I think REH's "secret to success" may have been his vivid imagination which would be hard to replicate but something that could a writer could study and learn from is REH's sense of pacing. Howard knew when things needed to happen in a story (exposition, action, weirdness), he doesn't let the reader get bored. Obviously there are inborn characteristics that will give some people better potential as writers than others. Psychometric Openness - a broad trait including imagination - has been found to correlate with artistic interest and achievement in a number of studies (for example, this one from 2016). But the field of creative writing is hardly as restrictive as physics, mathematics, or classical literature. I've mentioned Jim Butcher as a writer with a wide following. Does anyone really think he is in the upper 1% for either verbal ability or imagination? It takes skill, not genius, to write a riveting story.
This is to me the most useful tidbit I've seen lately, because it rings true for Howard's better work, but not his worse stories. I also doubt that characterization is nearly as much on REH's mind as plot if he so consistently outlines. He may have felt as though character is more important than plot, but I think the character of Conan is truly built through the plot, rather than most things he thinks or says. He strikes us as real because he plans and acts, and we can only gather snippets of his actual values or thoughts on the basis of very occasional slips and musings. One of the longest of these passages is in Queen of the Black Coast:
"I am not afraid either," she said meditatively. "I was never afraid. I have looked into the naked fangs of Death too often. Conan, do you fear the gods?"
"I would not tread on their shadow," answered the barbarian conservatively. "Some gods are strong to harm, others, to aid; at least so say their priests. Mitra of the Hyborians must be a strong god, because his people have builded their cities over the world. But even the Hyborians fear Set. And Bel, god of thieves, is a good god. When I was a thief in Zamora I learned of him."
"What of your own gods? I have never heard you call on them."
"Their chief is Crom. He dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?"
"But what of the worlds beyond the river of death?" she persisted.
"There is no hope here or hereafter in the cult of my people," answered Conan. "In this world men struggle and suffer vainly, finding pleasure only in the bright madness of battle; dying, their souls enter a gray misty realm of clouds and icy winds, to wander cheerlessly throughout eternity."
Belit shuddered. "Life, bad as it is, is better than such a destiny. What do you believe, Conan?"
He shrugged his shoulders. "I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."
I quote this conversation here with Belit to stress how little development Conan's character really has - half of these lines were already given, sometimes close to verbatim, in Tower of the Elephant. There is no more to say because Howard doesn't seem to know more he might say. His character is consistent, but not well developed. Rather, it is the plots in which he is placed that make Conan shine. In this sense, then, the impulsive and chivalrous barbarian is an excellent character because he moves plots forward so effortlessly.
And reflecting on this for some days, now, I think the stories I used to write which didn't work when I read them later were those with weak plots. The characters and setting were extremely well-developed, but reading them later I simply didn't care about them because they seemed as though they didn't matter. Lovecraft may have made do without it in his Arkham Cycle, but in action-adventure stories, I think the primary focus should in fact be on a strong, fast-paced plot.
I'll add also that it's no good to to try to build a weak plot up by simply throwing in an obstacle and have the protagonist(s) wrestle with it for a while before they overcome it: dramatic challenges must be foreshadowed, to create suspense. I noticed this in Howard's Hour of the Dragon, where the battle with the grey ape of Vilayet was mesmerizing even though it was unbelievable, as Conan could simply have hurried away:
Ahead of him, presently, he saw the dim outline of a stair sloping sharply upward, and knew it must be the stair he sought. Then he whirled suddenly, crouching in the deep shadows at its foot.
Somewhere behind him something was moving—something bulky and stealthy that padded on feet which were not human feet.
It hurts the scene that Conan doesn't leave, but it doesn't ruin it.
On the other hand, do any of you remember where, much later in the book, Conan fights a ghoul in the forest? I'd be surprised if you can. Here the battle clearly cannot be avoided, but Howard springs it on the reader without warning or any attempt to build suspense, and it falls flat.
|
|
|
Post by themirrorthief on Sept 21, 2019 8:56:11 GMT -5
Howard must have done something right, here we are nearly ninety years later talking about his writing
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Sept 21, 2019 19:04:25 GMT -5
Ahead of him, presently, he saw the dim outline of a stair sloping sharply upward, and knew it must be the stair he sought. Then he whirled suddenly, crouching in the deep shadows at its foot.
Somewhere behind him something was moving—something bulky and stealthy that padded on feet which were not human feet.
It hurts the scene that Conan doesn't leave, but it doesn't ruin it.
On the other hand, do any of you remember where, much later in the book, Conan fights a ghoul in the forest? I'd be surprised if you can. Here the battle clearly cannot be avoided, but Howard springs it on the reader without warning or any attempt to build suspense, and it falls flat.
Not sure where you're coming from here Sorcerer, REH is quite clear why Conan doesn't leave: I remember the ghoul fight right down to the frosty arc cut by Conan's blade. And the mysterious city of ghouls on the border of Zingara and Argos. Surely that whole weird scene's not something easily forgotten? You may underestimate how many times some of us have read Hour. I've read it some six or seven times and that makes me a laggard compared with other REH fans here. That's not counting all the comicbook iterations many members here will have added to their book reading of the yarn over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Sept 21, 2019 19:24:39 GMT -5
|
|