Retro Review - Edmond Hamilton, "The Monster-God of Mamurth" (1926)

[jordan179]

This is one of a series of reviews I'm going to do of the short stories featured in The Best of Edmond Hamilton (1977), edited by his wife, Leigh Brackett. I've already done an Edmond Hamilton review not from that book.

===

Comments

[jordan179]

Or at least the part of me that will always be a 12 year old boy in love with monsters likes it.

One good thing about Hamilton's tale is that he mentions the monster very early on (it's on the Carthaginian stela) but he does not actually show the monster until the hero actually kills it, very near the end of the tale. In fact, the monster's nature is slowly revealed all through the story, from the stela to the mysterious footprints to the hairy leg he brushes, to the final bloody outline.

This shows discernment -- nothing ruins a good monster story more than a full description of the monster at the beginning. A writer needs to play on the reader's Fear of the Unknown -- then, once he gets him good and scared, it's ok to get descriptive. Lovecraft, too, knew to keep his terrors offstage, the subject of vague descriptions and mysterious clues, until close to his climax (or at least an early climax).

The two major stories in which Lovecraft seems to violate this dictim ("At the Mountains of Madness" and "The Shadow Out of Time") are examples of misdirection. The "monster" in AtMoM is the Shoggoth, not the Elder Things; the "monsters" in TSOoT are the Flying Polpys, not the Great Race of Yith. In both those stories, Lovecraft plays with your head by first hinting at a "monster" that turns out to be a somewhat sympathetic interesting alien civilization, then revealing Something MUCH Worse To Fear.

Anyway, Hamilton getting this right in his first published story demonstrates that he had the instincts of a great writer!

In his later work, Hamilton improves first on theme, then background, and later on characterization.

[eric_hinkle]

One good thing about Hamilton's tale is that he mentions the monster very early on (it's on the Carthaginian stela) but he does not actually show the monster until the hero actually kills it, very near the end of the tale. In fact, the monster's nature is slowly revealed all through the story, from the stela to the mysterious footprints to the hairy leg he brushes, to the final bloody outline.

This shows discernment -- nothing ruins a good monster story more than a full description of the monster at the beginning. A writer needs to play on the reader's Fear of the Unknown -- then, once he gets him good and scared, it's ok to get descriptive. Lovecraft, too, knew to keep his terrors offstage, the subject of vague descriptions and mysterious clues, until close to his climax (or at least an early climax).

I agree completely. It's especially true when the monster is either (a) supposed to be 'indescribable', or (b) very badly done. For a cinematic version of that, go and see The Giant Claw. Just don't blame me for any ensuing brain damage.