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

[eric_hinkle]

I have the collection and I've read the story. It's clumsy, as you said, but I really do like it. Or at least the part of me that will always be a 12 year old boy in love with monsters likes it.

I'm eager to see what happensd when you move on to the stories that earned him the nickname "World-Wrecker".

[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")

[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

[carbonelle]

I won't get to read this book until after the middle of November (and maybe not until November) but I look forward to reading your posts once I have done.