Garovorkin Asks #3 : Of Lovecraft and Men part One

Mr. Garovorkin asks: H. P Lovecraft great writer of Horror or Overrated ?


"Lovecraft's style is of the most offensive"
M.R. James

"Actually, he's not that bad, Montague!"
Michael S. Collins

"You're very Lovecraftian, Michael."
Christopher Collins, occassional writer himself and father of yours truely.

Lovecraft, then. Onwards...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garovorkin H P Lovecraft is one of the most significant voice in Horror fiction literature and by many considered the Greatest of all the question is, is that in fact the truth? Does he deserver to be considered greatest ? What was his greatest contributions to the Genre. Who inspired him and who did he in turn, inspire and influence ? What do you think?

You don't have pose some intresting questions, Mr Garovorkin. Interesting puzzles. At the outset, I'd say: significant, but on a par with M.R., Blackwood and co as opposed to superior. Definetly not deserving of a lowly reputation though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leedswho Lovecraft's influence on the genre is HUGE and undeniable. I think only a fool would try to argue otherwise. Whether or not that makes him a great writer is another matter. There's no doubt that he took a long time to reach his stride (though there are classic pieces among his earlier work - The Rats in the Walls, for instance) but some of the stories written during his last decade or so are among the best in the genre, I think (in particular, The Call of Cthulhu,The Colour Out of Space, The Whisperer in Darkness, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, and The Shadow Out of Time, to name my five personal favourites.

There can be many influential writers who were far from great writers, Diderot is one I mentioned in previous. Massively influential - inventor of the encyclopedia! - but his prose was terrible. And you hit upon an interesting point almost immediately: that Lovecraft died. He died young, he was only 46. When Lovecraft was my father's age, he'd been dead for over three years. I'll remind him of that. He wont thank me.

But the point is that he was getting into his stride, in the decade before his death. Imagine how good he could have got, if he lived a normal length life we might even realise he was yet to hit his peak.

I am however in a minority. I think his best stuff was in the 1917-22 period, between Dagon and The Moonbog. Just a great series of short horror stories that channeled the energy and pyschological doubt of de Maupassant.

Quote:

His greatest achievement (and in some ways it's not the one that's had the most influence) was in creating a new kind of horror fiction altogether that essentially looked at the horrors of the past - the vampires, ghosts and werewolves - and recognised that they were pretty redundant in the modern age. His development of 'cosmic horror' - which was based on his atheism and his rare understanding of the full implications of living in an Einsteinian universe - was genuinely unique. It's not every writer who can create a new genre (or sub-genre, if you like). For that, he deserves to be remembered

Good point. Though I would argue that the monsters were redundant in the modern age. Doing vampires as Dracula would be definetly - we can talk about sex now, folks - but why scrap a good bogeyman when you can revitilise them?

Tlotoxl in The Aztecs says "Let there be no more talk against us, that the Gods are against us." Well, in Lovecraft the Gods are almost certainly against us! But then, very few protoganists in horror truly believe God is on their side.

Quote:

As for his style, which is always a contentious issue, I find that I appreciate it more with age. It is meticulously orchestrated and, in his best work, is nowhere near as hyperbolic as his detractors claim. Quite often I think they're simply missing the point: his best stories are structured more like symphonies than stories. So, yes, I think he's a great writer. Not the best writer of supernatural stories (I'll leave you guessing on that one!), but undoubtedly one of the most important.

Hyperbole in fiction is a contentious issue with me. While it works in reality as a construct, who deems it neccessary to exist in fiction?

Example
The fine example of hyperbole is "These books weigh a ton." Now if you said that in real life, fair enough, you're being hyperbolic. But what of fiction? It is a made-up construct. How do you know the books do not actually weigh a ton? It matters not a jot that the realm of fantasy portrayed is accurate in every other aspect to our own: in fiction, there can be no hyperbole, because in creating everything about the world and the phrase itself, the writer places words for a reason. That reason being they are part of his world. Now, if every last word and person and life and event is a construct of this sole persons mind, then no one can claim with 100% confidence that the books do not actually weigh a literal ton. And because of that, hyperbole has no place in fiction.

I do, quite naturally, enjoy Lovecraft's style. It is very readable, archaic yet modern and drifts the reader in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adso I think conceptually, Lovecraft is, as King said, the "dark and baroque prince" of the genre. His writing is poor at times, but when concept, structure and language come together (as in "At the Mountains of Madness") then he's a world-beater. King's work, especially as it's started to gel into one conintuity (or to borrow Tat Wood's phrase, 'continuum'), is happy to acknowledge his debt to HPL.

King really should acknowledge, if he hasn't already, his debt to John Wyndham!

And Lovecraft's frailties are nothing compared to half the people who followed him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leedswho lol. Well, there's 'going on' and there's constructing stories so carefully and minutely that they build to crescendos of horror that have been unmatched by any other writer, but I guess it's all perspective.

A story should only go on as long as the drama requires it. To go less is to undermine it, but to go longer is to abuse it. In his earlier tales of dread - Dagon, The Tomb - Lovecraft manages to stick to the right side of the line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trubshawe I remember an article on him a while back that described him as "the best ever bad writer" which I think sums it up nicely.

I disagree. If he is likeable, and indeed he is, and if he is considered "the best" of something, then how can he be considered bad? I've read bad writing, and Lovecraft's prose is nowhere near the depths I've encountered. I don't care if thats a unpopular notion: it's the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Reynolds Heh. Dickens he aint but he has scared the poop out of me a few times in the past.

Douglas Adams. Roald Dahl. Lovecraft. M.R. James. A.M. Burrage. E.F. Benson. H.G. Wells. John Wyndham. None of them were Dickens, but they managed to suffice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuddly Kroton I've never read any Lovecraft, mainly because everyone I have met who banged on about him were all insufferable bores. For my horror, I prefer the work of Poe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leedswho But how do you know you prefer the work of Poe if you've never read Lovecraft? It's a huge mistake to judge Lovecraft by his imitators, many of whom completely miss the point of his fiction.

I'm going to continue this thread tommorow, having run myself a bit dry in the last eight hours. However, I will say this - clearly, I'm an insufferable bore. But I like Poe too, and depending on my mood I might prefer him, to hell with M.R. James low estimation of both.

I'll call this a "to be continued"....