This is an issue I hold very dear:the censor ship of the writer and what is art. A few days ago I was reading, or should I say rereading, one of CAS's many letters. He touched upon how many editors and publishers do not like his work because attention is not paid to 3 dimensional characters (Characters we love or care about, blah,blah,blah) and the lack of plot. I reread some of his stories and found plot. He is just different. It makes him unique.

So this posses the question what is the better story: Character driven or plot and atmospere driven? This is an issue I find becoming more of a problem by peddlers to the public demand. They teach up and coming writers that anything different from the norm (anything but character driven stories) are bad.

Anyone who is different from the norm is not allowed into the publishing business and must take an alternate route.

I recently came across a young hot shot who attends every writers conference and does this and that and I told them that atmosheric and plot driven stories are a genuine form of literature. I then used Poe as an example and said, "Why do people always remember the black cat or stories like that. They relate the plot with great excitement but you ask them about the rather thin characters and they do not recall?" I made a point at saying Poe, Bierce, CAS, Lovecraft, they are known for their wonderful plots and atmospheric stories. This hot shot then said, "But characters are better than plot. If no one cares about the characters then the plot is useless. I'd rather have characters I love and can relate to. They make the plot and atmospheric. He then trashed Connan and I said ok why is Connan remembered. Because of the great atmospheric adventures Robert E. Howard put him through, right? He said, "No. Because of the movies". I don't get writers these days. Some people are good with characters and some are not. Everyone has something unique to bring to the table. I am writing on passion so please forgive me. lol.

In the small amount of comptetent writing I have managed to put togethe till date, I personaly prefer an atmosphere driven story rather then character studies - being frank, my characters aren't very multi dimensional and are utilised only to touch upon strange phenomena . I supose this can be said of CAS to .

Well OConner,

Your little Hot Shot should be trashing Conan (sp.). Conan was a Thief, a
Reaver, a Slayer, and destined to wear the Jeweled Crown of Aquilonia upon
His Troubled Brow. If Conan were to actually meet your Mr. Hot Shot he would
slit him from his A-hole up to his Pie-hole. Conan hates Hot Shots. It is enough
to make him speak in an Austrian accent even.

On the other hand, I wouldn't say that Euvoran, the son of Karpoom was in any
way a poor characterization. Would you? I thought that story was a real classic.

FWIW,

Cathexis

I like all the classic story characters Cathexis. But you do raise a good point on the moral stand point. I guess it is the same way with Robin Hood. In some cultures or view points he is seen as a hero. Others a common thief. Interesting concept. I am of the original group- a hero.

David Kartas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the small amount of comptetent writing I have
> managed to put togethe till date, I personaly
> prefer an atmosphere driven story rather then
> character studies - being frank, my characters
> aren't very multi dimensional and are utilised
> only to touch upon strange phenomena . I supose
> this can be said of CAS to .

Interesting Dave. What genre do you write in and how long have you been a writer? You have a website?

I don't have a website . I am prety unsure about my writing . Only pieces from the last year are actualy worth reading . I do post things in the members only section of Filthy Creations , but those aren't edited .

[filthycreations.proboards.com]

I can send along something if you want .

I think both plot-focussed and character-focussed stories are fine and have their place. I think it all depends on the form and what the author is trying to do with his fiction. At the risk of generalising I think the short story form tends not to be so character-focused, while novels are more so, but of course there are exceptions. Lovecraft, Smith and others do seem to attract more than their share of flack regarding their lack of likeable characters, but this surely misses the point. Their fiction has a distinctly cosmic focus, which would make having strong human elements counter-intuitive and would actually undermine their cosmic ambitions. Same applies to Olaf Stapledon's First and Last Men and Brian Aldiss' Hothouse or Heliconia trilogy among many others. I certainly think in Lovecraft' case that he was trying to achieve an objective aesthetic to his fiction, although I'm not sure how well he managed to achieve this or even if such an ambition is really possible.

I'm not sure if I see Clark Ashton Smith's fiction as being particularly plot-focused either. Certainly conceptually his stories are generally strong, but for me the plots dramatically seem rather irrelevant, predictable and linear. Instead he seems to just want to explore and evoke a sense of profound otherness through language and prose. The reading notes in the Collected Fantasies seem to indicate that Smith readily took on plot amendments and suggestions from August Derleth (off hand I'm thinking specifically of the suggestions made for 'The Maker of Gargoyles') among others and judging by the quality of those suggestions I personally think that many of them seem to be distinct improvements, although others might disagree. I also imagine that Smith knew quite well that dramatic plotting wasn't his main strength judging by his apparent easy adoption of some of these suggestions. However, as I said, I don't judge Smith harshly for this, as most writers have their strengths and it weaknesses and as O'Connor wisely said: it is the individual blend of strengths and weaknesses which makes a writer unique. Something which should be calibrated! Anyway, personally read Smith for his plots or characters as such.

I think there is a certain level of artistic fascism in creative writing teaching these days. If a young writer doesn't write to a set template (character, realism, show not tell, blah...) then he/she doesn't stand a chance of being published. Indeed getting published at the cost of a writers uniqueness seems to be the mission statement of most writing workshops.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Oct 09 | 07:54AM by The English Assassin.

Interesting observations gentlemen - ask your hot shot what he thinks of the plays or stories of Oscar Wilde - still widely read and performed - and, frankly, "The Picture of Dorian Grey", both the book and Hurd Hatfield, George Sanders film are without what the modernists call Character development - but assume (in Wilde's terms) the fundamental fact of "man's fallen nature" - a factor common to all, and in no need of "development", only exposition. I doubt that your "hot shot" can do anything at all with "character" work, since his own seems rather withered - a common result of inept education.