Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5016116" data-attributes="member: 957">I'll claim that Lovecraft's writing is superior to your presentation of &quot;objectiveness&quot;.&nbsp; Subjectively, I'll take Lovecraft's &quot;cheating&quot; over most modern horror's cliche dependency on gratuitous visualizations as a cover up lack of ideas.&nbsp; I actually *prefer* the lack of description.&nbsp; But the fact that Lovecraft has created a really interesting idea for me to imagine for myself is a critical element.&nbsp; (And perhaps I am forgetting a story right now, but I believe you may be referencing Notebook Found in a Deserted House, which is by Robert Bloch, not Lovecraft)You may be correctly referencing items that are objectively present in the stories.&nbsp; But those items being &quot;flaws&quot; is not just purely &quot;subjective&quot;, but even quite reasonably subject to dispute.Honestly, I find the use of Lovecraft buzzwords to be overblown.&nbsp; There are several stories in which he clearly (subjectively) got hung up on them and I groan a little over them.&nbsp; But there are many stories without these elements.All that said, I happen to agree with you that Lovecraft is far from the greatest when it comes to prose.&nbsp; But I'm going to stand by the position that this is completely subjective and further that prose is only part of being a great author.&nbsp; I think his settings, moods, characters, and most importantly ideas, make him a truly great author even without the prose of some others.&nbsp; I find his writing craft to be far superior to many other who write unimaginative shlock in meticulous prose.Of course, YMMV.&nbsp; That is because it is subjective.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5016116, member: 957"] I'll claim that Lovecraft's writing is superior to your presentation of "objectiveness". Subjectively, I'll take Lovecraft's "cheating" over most modern horror's cliche dependency on gratuitous visualizations as a cover up lack of ideas. I actually *prefer* the lack of description. But the fact that Lovecraft has created a really interesting idea for me to imagine for myself is a critical element. (And perhaps I am forgetting a story right now, but I believe you may be referencing Notebook Found in a Deserted House, which is by Robert Bloch, not Lovecraft) You may be correctly referencing items that are objectively present in the stories. But those items being "flaws" is not just purely "subjective", but even quite reasonably subject to dispute. Honestly, I find the use of Lovecraft buzzwords to be overblown. There are several stories in which he clearly (subjectively) got hung up on them and I groan a little over them. But there are many stories without these elements. All that said, I happen to agree with you that Lovecraft is far from the greatest when it comes to prose. But I'm going to stand by the position that this is completely subjective and further that prose is only part of being a great author. I think his settings, moods, characters, and most importantly ideas, make him a truly great author even without the prose of some others. I find his writing craft to be far superior to many other who write unimaginative shlock in meticulous prose. Of course, YMMV. That is because it is subjective. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification