The Fountain Pen

I’m in a bit of a quandary and I’m a bit discouraged and bummed out. It’s no secret that I enjoy H. P. Lovecraft’s stories; his stories scratch and itch of mine like no other author has. We tend to emulate the people we look up to, those we admire, and in my case I’ve given this some thought. So imagine my dismay when the aspect of his stories I want to emulate were maligned on a Lovecraft mailing list.

In particular the author of the post accused that Lovecraft fell into a stylistic rut of having a lone survivor present his testimony after the fact, and then meet some horrific end. These are exactly the stories that excite me and scratch that aforementioned itch; likewise this is the type of story I want to write. From my perspective these kind of stories make perfect sense, so allow me to defend them.

In my opinion a first person narrative carries more emotion, more immersion, more atmosphere, and more identity than a third person account. A first person account is personal; it’s easier to believe the account was left behind just for you, and no one else, and that alone can add weight to the tale. A first person account is just like sitting down with a friend and having him recount some grizzly tale, and it’s always more frightening when he’s telling his own tale and not someone else’s: it’s easy to distance yourself from and dismiss a story that is in the third person.

I’ve thought about first person narratives and it seems to me the only tense that makes sense is aorist, or perhaps a perfect tense (one year of Greek and already I’m erudite). The events have to have taken place in the past; it would make sense if they were currently happening; if that were the case there would be no story and you would be there in person witnessing it all firsthand. So now it seems the only way to tell a first person story is if you lived through the events long enough to write about them, hence you will be reading the accounts of a survivor (possibly lone). You could mix it up and have a ghost tell the story, but that’s just a gimmick and one I dismiss as weak.

For me these are the kinds of stories that really strike my fancy. They are the only things that have come close to creeping me out. Maybe I’m alone in this, but any writer who does not write for himself is missing out on the joy writing can bring. In the end I’ll probably not feel comfortable widely sharing my stories that emulate this style. Too bad too because I wonder what Lovecraft would have said.

Posted by Seth Croston Barber at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was recently talking with a friend of mine and each of us confessed we have never been scared by a book, and in truth feel no contents of any book will ever instill even a remote sense of fear. I’m sure psychologists everywhere have opinions on why this is, and frankly I don’t much care. I’m not sure I read stories to scare myself, I’m not even sure if I like being scared (and I’ve read articles stating scary movies succeed because we like being scared). And yet, when the weather cooperates and casts a pallor of gloom around me, you will be sure to find me in a dimly lit room (candles if I can) devouring as much Lovecraft and other “masters” as I can find. You might even be treated to an impromptu ghost story of my own creation.

So what am I writing when I write a horror story if I concede I will not scare anyone with it? If I am not writing to frighten, then what am I doing exactly? I’m still coming to grips with why I read, but it seems to me, from my perspective only, horror literature isn’t about fright and terror in the reader’s psyche, it’s about something else, something I can’t put my claw finger on.

Posted by Seth Croston Barber at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was quite afraid I would end up echoing daglo tonight. After not getting enough sleep last night, working my tired brain to exhaustion at work, and entertaining a couple of missionaries this evening I was quite afraid I would not get any time to work on my novel (I still don’t have a title yet, but that will come in time); I was most especially afraid I would add stress and pressure to my situation and not only get nothing done, but feel bad about it too. I don’t work well under pressure, I don’t respond well to stress, and somehow my attitude was right and I felt free.

I managed to plan out a few more bits and pieces about the characters in my novel, and a few notes on the greater plot picture. Sadly I still need to define, in greater detail, the movements in my plot. I feel quite satisfied though, for I confirmed something: when I relax and seek to enjoy the process, jotting down things that seem exciting to me, I get more done than if I work under pressure. Hopefully the “pressure” of a deadline will only serve as motivation to actually right, and not a source of stress.

And now the quandary of my tale. I am writing fantasy fiction. I have decided I want multiple races (I think it’s fun!). I’m not yet sure if I should include some of the “standard”; races (i.e. Elves and Dwarves, Orcs and Trolls) or forge out on my own creating all new races. On the one hand, using familiar races will engage my audience quicker, yet it also means I will need to do more research into them in order to maintain a certain level on consistency, lest I frustrate a reader by presenting an elf that is not very “Elvish” (if you know what I mean). On the other hand, creating my own races offers me plenty of opportunity to be imaginative and inventive; I will not have to conform to any standards. However, I may not be able to engage my audience and I run the risk of boring them with details that may not be pertinent.

So what do I do, and what would you suggest? I’ve only got 30 days… .

Posted by Seth Croston Barber at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)