DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Acolyte, v. 3, issue 4, whole no. 12, Fall 1945 |

Transcribe
Translate

Acolyte, v. 3, issue 4, whole no. 12, Fall 1945

yourself to creation of a mood, the prediction of the future, the limning of individual reaction to fantastic disaster, daydreaming of the future, composition of a satire, and funny stuff.
These are types of stories, not types of writer-motivation. Maybe we're tangling with semantics, but I think not. I think you actually feel a writer sits down and consciously determines that he wants to do a "mood" story or a "satire" or build a private "Utopia".
That's why I say you don't go far enough.
To me (and to my little-known collaborator, a man name of Sigmund Freud) there are only two primary writer motivations: namely, ego-gratification and catharsis.
(You can combine ego-gratification and catharsis in one object by picturing an enema apparatus with your name printed on it.)
Seriously, though, I think all writer-motivation analysis must be approached from these two angles.
The ego-gratification phase is, I think, self-evident. There is ample evidence in the pages of any pro magazine...fantasy or mundane... of the guy who writes a yarn to demonstrate his amazing knowledge, his facile cleverness. In fantasy, there is the guy who wants to gain a sort of perverted recognition by shocking his readers (as a kid you met the same guys at a boys' camp; they were the ones who talked at the dinner table about eating loathsome concoctions). There is the guy who Utopiayarns in order to make the reader identify him as a profound thinker and a leader...the guy who writes in an absurdly brusque fashion in order to underplay normal emotional reactions and appear ultra-sophisticated.
And of course, since every author writes for readers, he is nothing more or less than an actor who performs for an audience...applause is the object, ego-gratification the obvious key to his work.
So much for that. It is, as I said two paragraphs ago, self-evident...and why didn't I shut up then?
But...this method of catharsis...
Now I am highly tempted to illustrate what I mean by "analyzing" the cathartic element in the work of a number of contemporary writers. I believe I can detect the obvious confessional element in the content of several fantasy producers.
But that would be vastly unfair.
I must therefore limit myself to a discussion of the cathartic material discernable in my own yarns...dreary as the process may be.
Between the ages of 17 and 28 (1935-45) I published about 125 fantasy yarns. Let's ignore the obvious ego-gratification and concentrate on catharsis. (I'm new at this too; never even thought of it until I read your article...let's stumble through it now that I have the list before me.)
During the years 1935-38 I wrote stories about Egypt, about Druids, and a number of pseudo-Lovecraftian tales. A casual survey would imply that I wanted to demonstrate my knowledge of Egyptology and Druidism (which is very shabby and limited) and that I wished to imitate the work of the master.
But that's a mistake--it's the mistake you made in your article; considering motivation in terms of story-content or apparent story-content. Here's where catharsis comes in. Ignore "what is the story about?" Ignore the style. Concentrate on what lurks beneath the surface. Character and setting.

Saving...

yourself to creation of a mood, the prediction of the future, the limning of individual reaction to fantastic disaster, daydreaming of the future, composition of a satire, and funny stuff. These are types of stories, not types of writer-motivation. Maybe we're tangling with semantics, but I think not. I think you actually feel a writer sits down and consciously determines that he wants to do a "mood" story or a "satire" or build a private "Utopia". That's why I say you don't go far enough. To me (and to my little-known collaborator, a man name of Sigmund Freud) there are only two primary writer motivations: namely, ego-gratification and catharsis. (You can combine ego-gratification and catharsis in one object by picturing an enema apparatus with your name printed on it.) Seriously, though, I think all writer-motivation analysis must be approached from these two angles. The ego-gratification phase is, I think, self-evident. There is ample evidence in the pages of any pro magazine...fantasy or mundane... of the guy who writes a yarn to demonstrate his amazing knowledge, his facile cleverness. In fantasy, there is the guy who wants to gain a sort of perverted recognition by shocking his readers (as a kid you met the same guys at a boys' camp; they were the ones who talked at the dinner table about eating loathsome concoctions). There is the guy who Utopiayarns in order to make the reader identify him as a profound thinker and a leader...the guy who writes in an absurdly brusque fashion in order to underplay normal emotional reactions and appear ultra-sophisticated. And of course, since every author writes for readers, he is nothing more or less than an actor who performs for an audience...applause is the object, ego-gratification the obvious key to his work. So much for that. It is, as I said two paragraphs ago, self-evident...and why didn't I shut up then? But...this method of catharsis... Now I am highly tempted to illustrate what I mean by "analyzing" the cathartic element in the work of a number of contemporary writers. I believe I can detect the obvious confessional element in the content of several fantasy producers. But that would be vastly unfair. I must therefore limit myself to a discussion of the cathartic material discernable in my own yarns...dreary as the process may be. Between the ages of 17 and 28 (1935-45) I published about 125 fantasy yarns. Let's ignore the obvious ego-gratification and concentrate on catharsis. (I'm new at this too; never even thought of it until I read your article...let's stumble through it now that I have the list before me.) During the years 1935-38 I wrote stories about Egypt, about Druids, and a number of pseudo-Lovecraftian tales. A casual survey would imply that I wanted to demonstrate my knowledge of Egyptology and Druidism (which is very shabby and limited) and that I wished to imitate the work of the master. But that's a mistake--it's the mistake you made in your article; considering motivation in terms of story-content or apparent story-content. Here's where catharsis comes in. Ignore "what is the story about?" Ignore the style. Concentrate on what lurks beneath the surface. Character and setting.