Discussion Forums > The Lounge
How would YOU have ended Lord of the Rings?
Ixarku:
--- Quote from: undetz on March 03, 2011, 10:57:39 AM ---You're joking, right? From a purely technical standpoint HPL is possibly one of the greatest writers ever. The pacing of the stories is pretty much perfect, with constantly mounting tension until the climax at the end. He drops enough hints to give the reader an idea of what's going on, in fact the revelation in his stories often comes as a confirmation, but this doesn't diminish its effect on the reader, to the contrary, it enhances it. Despite the fact that he writes about things that often derive their horror from being contrary to the natural laws of the universe there's never anything resembling an ass-pull.
His understanding of rhythm and intonation was excellent, certainly, he's often long-winded in his descriptions, but the language flows from one sentence to the next. Never does one receive the impression of a shopping list where ordered items are ticked off after having been brought to the reader's attention. Try reading his stories as though you were speaking them out loud with no music or chatter in the background, and you may see what I mean.
If you've ever read some of the letters he wrote you'll notice that they're better formulated than much of what passes for literature, and he wrote those in one go. When crafting a story he kept writing and rewriting until he was satisifed, polishing the language, timing when a new bit of information would be revealed to the reader. No, to say Lovecraft's writing technique is horrible only goes to show you haven't studied the matter which you expound.
--- End quote ---
Um, go to hell? Actually I studied Lovecraft’s writing a bit although it was years ago, and I’ve read quite a lot of it. You’re either missing my point or deliberately ignoring it. Lovecraft is often guilty of reporting the action rather than describing it. At times, parts of his stories read like newspaper articles. He’s also very fond of describing things in abstract terms rather than concretely. He throws around a lot of meaningless adjectives like ‘horrible’ and ‘eldritch’ and ‘cthonic’. His prose tends towards the verbose and feels overwritten at times. His characters are largely two dimensional. As a whole, his writing tends to feel amateurish. I would even argue that his pacing is uneven at times.
Does any of this mean that his stories weren’t enjoyable? No. Personally, I love his stories and the rather unique feel that they have. How Lovecraft wrote works as whole. He conveys exactly the impression he wants to convey, but he does so by doing a lot of no-no’s in creative writing. From a purely technical standpoint, his writing is flawed, even if he does so deliberately. Although some critics have labeled him an amateur, I personally think he demonstrates a solid understanding of technique – he deliberately breaks the rules to achieve the effect he seeks.
I’m making essentially the same argument for Lovecraft as for Tolkien. The works of both authors had their flaws, deliberate or otherwise, which is something that fanboys are often all too quick to dismiss. I enjoy the work of both authors, but that doesn’t mean that I think they’re perfect or that I won't look at them from a critical point of view.
Tiffanys:
The hobbits really did seem gay, huh...
Ixarku:
--- Quote from: Tiffanys on March 03, 2011, 10:35:07 PM ---The hobbits really did seem gay, huh...
--- End quote ---
Don't go applying your human-o-centric heterosexual boundaries to something as pure as one hobbit's love for another hobbit! Their love is transcendental, I tells ya!
fohfoh:
--- Quote from: Tiffanys on March 03, 2011, 10:35:07 PM ---The hobbits really did seem gay, huh...
--- End quote ---
Teh gay of the six-tay ain't the same as teh gay of today.
datora:
.
It's possible that LotR is responsible for the creation of Rule 34. Just sayin' ...
(click to show/hide)
Seriously ..? Comes up with an excuse NOT to bone the elf??
I fucking KNEW it ...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version