« December 2009 | Main | February 2010 »

January 27, 2010

Pickman's Model

H.P. Lovecraft may be the most overrated horror writer in the world next to Scott Smith (who is overrated only in that he was able to publish such a horrible book as The Ruins). Lovecraft breaks so many of the rules of contemporary writing that I don’t believe he would be published in today’s marketplace. 
He has the strong points like being able to produce a very brooding moody piece, but his characterization are horrid, and let’s not even get started about dialog.  His language and word choice is also so frilly that sometimes you forget that you are reading what is supposed to be a horror story. 
And now “Pickman’s Model.”
What says more about the hellish horrors of New England living than the Salem Witch Trials and pacts with the Devil?  Nothing, except when Lovecraft writes about them.  Pickman is an artist of exceptional talent.  He can bring the portraits on canvas alive.  The narrator even says this.  There is of course a reason.  Pickman is not natural.  He has either sold himself to the Devil or he is a devil himself.
In this way, “Pickman’s Model” is little more than a bedeviled human story.  Pickman is a man haunted by what he is and what he lives amongst.  He paints the horrible creatures and scenes to satisfy himself and because that seems to be his job.  I suppose even Satan needs a portrait artist.  Lovecraft gives us that artist in his own flowery way.
The story talks about the horror of the creatures in the pictures.  They are wolf-like and eat the flesh of humans in different locals.  They even invade the subway, which is departure for Lovecraft.  He often keeps an older idea of things not bringing in much contemporary ideas and scenery. 
This story fits the mold of haunted people and places in both capacities.  The narrator is haunted by the photograph of the creature Pickman was painting.  He is haunted by Pickman’s other works of the macabre as well.  Pickman haunts the narrator too, especially after he realizes that the artist isn’t a human at all but something far more sinister. 
Pickman is a haunted man.  He is haunted by the creatures he paints and the idea of what he is or isn’t.  He lives in a horrible location and does his work on a pit that could be called a literal hell hole. He is haunted by his past, which seems to lie somewhere in 1692 and Salem.  Pickman seems to be one of the dog monsters in his paintings, but he tries to live in polite society.
The setting of the story is haunted as well.  Lovecraft makes reference to Gallow’s Hill, the famous site where so many witches were hanged.  He makes reference to the old houses of Boston that the narrator didn’t seem to know still existed.  He talks about houses of certain design thought to be hundreds of years in the past. Pickman’s studio is a haunted place.  The creatures of the night come forward to feast and he has to kill them.
Lovecraft did haunted places well.  He painted vivid pictures of the locale to make the readers feel on edge and unnerved, but so often he forced it.  “Pickman’s Model” is over the top in that grand Lovecraftian way.  Men are driven mad by simple pictures.  They are haunted by these things far more than they should be.  As my wife said, “It seemed awfully melodramatic.  I got the point early on; he could have just moved on.”  I agree.  The story had power about four pages in, but Lovecraft just doesn’t know when to say when.

January 26, 2010

On Writing Horror: The Art of Madness or the Madness of Art

aJoyce Carol Oates is a strange combination.  She is both literary and genre writer.  Yet, with this going on, she is not shunned by either one.  This is a strange place to be in the literary world.  Not only does she span both literary ideas, she does so unabashedly.  She doesn’t mind people knowing that she writes genre fiction.   So who better to write an essay on the madness of art?

Oates in her essay actually never calls herself a “horror” writer.  She calls her horror fiction gothic.  The thing is that Gothic is not a genre in its own right.  Many different genres including literary can have a gothic theme or feel.  It is really a theme more than a specific genre.  So in her own way, Oates is denying that she is a genre writer.  Is she then ashamed of writing a genre?

Oates doesn’t seem to be embarrassed of her genre writing.  She really explains that all writing is commercial, which seems to be new vogue word for genre writing, but some isn’t as commercial as others.  She seems to believe the most important part of writing isn’t the genre but the story itself. 

All writing is madness.  For that matter, as Henry James said, all art is madness.  When you get to the bones of it, creating a work of art either: portrait, story, or song the creator relies on insanity.  We (and by this I mean the artist, writers in our case) listen to the voices in their heads.  A symptom of psychosis is hallucinations.  A hallucination is the perception of a stimulus when none is present.  Writers and musicians rely on this voice.  They even talk about in critique compositions.  “I can really hear your voice in this piece.”  A writer does not actually use her voice when writing.  She uses a voice in her head that is right for the story.  The songwriter and musician do the same thing.  So, a writer creates from a sense of madness. 

So does that make all artists clinically insane?  Oates doesn’t think so, nor do I.  Mental illness, especially those with psychotic features, aren’t cognitively processing enough during times of “insanity” to writer or compose anything near lucid.  What Oates means is there is madness in what an artist does.  She spans two separate literary worlds than do not care too much for each other.  Literary writers consider genre writers hacks, and genre writers think that literary writers are hoity-toity.  She’s crazy for trying to be both.  Beyond that, writers are crazy are in general.  They write a story that is completely made up.  The characters are not real people even if they are based on a real person.  The plot is contrived even the settings are just matte paintings sometimes of familiar things, sometimes of fantastic creations.  The writer sets everything up and makes it move to the music in her own head.  She gives the whole shebang a voice that is not necessarily her own but one residing in her frontal lobe.  Then to do the ultimate form of insanity, she tries to put it on display for “sane” people to see and deal with.

Henry James as quoted by Oates said that art is mad.  Of course it is and the artists are even madder for making it. 

I can say this, for maybe the first time ever that I’m happy to be a little off because I love writing.  If writing is crazy, lock me up in the state hospital.  I’ll even tell you how to do the commitment.

January 21, 2010

Zombi dogs

funny-dog-pictures-zombies-tummy.jpg

January 20, 2010

Better Living Through Psychopharmocology

funny-pictures-cat-took-your-prozac.jpg

January 19, 2010

The Residency

It's been a few days since I came back from my 4th residency at Seton Hill University. It was an enjoyable time.  I presented the 11th chapter of my novel for general critique.  Suprisingly, I didn't have to do very much defending.  It seemed to go over well, which I think bodes well for the work as a whole.

I received positive feedback from my mentor, Mike Arnzen, PhD, and Stoker Award Winner.  I feel better and better about this project.  I've even put down more words on paper, or in this case on screen.  A suggestion he provided has added to the story as well.  I'm adding quotes at the beginning of each chapter, either from the Bible, different public domain hymns, and quotes from a fictional book that is part of the canon of my novel.

 This residency left me cold and tired, but triumphant.  I feel that I may make it and get an MFA.  I was going to say make it and be a writer, but I'm already one of those. 

By the looks of things, 2010 is going to be a positive year for writing.  I'm glad.  I had a hell of a bad 2009. 

Keep looking up, I suppose

January 04, 2010

Hosea (Yes, the book of the Bible)

Okay, this is going to be an unusual post.  I'm goint to blog about the Old Testament book of Hosea.  Why?  I decided to read what are called the minor prophets. I'm doing this to aid me in writing my thesis novel which depends a lot on misinterpretation of the Bible and made up books.

Hosea deals with a prophet by the same name.  God has this prophet marry a prostitute so that He can use this marriage as a metaphor for His relationship with Israel and Judah.

This book is one of the more disturbing in the Bible.  It is because of the way the prophet is treated.  His basically forced to marry a prositute, who then has children by her johns.  Hosea names them names like Not Loved and Not Mine.  Then Hosea is forced to remarry her and let her treat him badly.  The point is made plainly to Israel and Judah, but Hosea is truly treated horribly in this regard.

I add Hosea to the books of the Bible that truely bother me.  So for now it's Esther, Job, and Hosea.

 


Hosting by Yahoo!