Lovecraft: First impressions

[Rylot]

If I want to read about characters I'll read Stephen King. If I want some really interesting and mind-bending world building that has influenced a lot of modern horror writers I'll read Lovecraft. He's not for everyone for sure but there's some pretty interesting stories and ideas buried in his stories.

Edit: I've also read some collections of other writers that Lovecraft edited that might tickle your fancy more. It combines Lovecraft's aesthetics and ideas with much better writers.

 

[lacktheknack]

The power of his writing lies in the disturbing implications.

Pickman's Model went from "odd" to "pants-crapping" in just a couple lines, and nothing inherently awful happened in the whole story. The whole story was basically a set up from "What if this horrible thing happened? Imagine if this disaster happened?" and then suddenly making us realize that it totally could (in-story), and we're one deranged artist away from it.

I find his writing to be overloaded with purple prose, but then, so was Shakespeare.

It's a specific kind of horror that not everyone responds to. I almost shat myself when reading the end of Pickman's Model, but if you don't, I fully get why. It's the same fear response that makes me terrified of Slenderman while other people think he's more adorable than anything else.

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

And Lovecraft is never about characters,

I don't think characterization is really important in Lovecraft's books.

I like the way you guys say these things as though they aren't damning indictments of his writing style.

Exactly, thats a component that shouldn't be missing from a horror story. If you can't empathize with the protagonist of a story, you aren't going to experience fear when he/she does.I understand that sometimes such stories should be told with a level of cold detachment, but not to the point where it feels like it's being recalled by a robot.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

The accounts are always (at least in the three examples listed above) retrospectively, so you're already aware that no harm befalls the "main character".

or maybe, dramatic plot twist, the story will end with the character mater-of-factly describing how they then died using horrific detail, or worse absorbed into some horrific abomination of mangled flesh and thus have lots of time to sit there reflecting(again, in a detached, matter of fact sort of way) on how they got into such a horrific predicament.

... Haven't read any of the things myself, but I totally want to write a book now that does exactly this just so people who assume what you do get a neat little twist ending

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

Couldn't disagree more if you were a Nazi SS Officer at the end of your training and I was your puppy.

The characters are exactly the way they're supposed to be. The stories aren't about the characters, they're about what the characters see. In almost every instance, the story tellers in Lovecraft's books are the everyman, thrust into situations of insanity. Furthermore, many of the characters are presented in the form of a sort of blank person that serves to put [i/]you[/i] (or me, since you didn't like it) in the story.

As for the tone, it's what makes his work beautiful to me. The cold and emotionless descriptions of cosmic horrors just adds to the central theme of the utter insignificance of humanity. The cold, dark universe doesn't care what emotion you feel. It's going to shred your mind and then your body regardless.

Finally, I agree that his stories are more disturbing than anything, but as far as I'm concerned, that's what scary really means. Scary isn't things jumping out. Scary isn't worrying about a serial killer being behind you. Scary is the feeling of discomfort that persists after you finish the story. Lovecraft conveys this the utter unknown. The sense that it doesn't even matter if something wants to hurt you or not, it's so purely alien you can do nothing but flee.

It's important to note that all of this, especially the last point, is VERY subjective. Being a combination of fiction AND horror, the personal effect it has is just as important as grammar.

Side note: I recommend you avoid using emoticons. They tend to damage credibility around here.

Well, opinions are opinions, aren't they? I think theres something terribly wrong when a horror story reads like a Wikipedia page, just stating fact after fact. For me, it completely detaches me from the whole "scary" aspect of it. And I find it difficult to project myself onton a completely blank slate who's only personality trait is to blindly disregard their self-preservation instincts.

The only reason the worlds he builds come across as dull and bleak are because he couldn't be bothered to flesh them out with any interesting detail. The thing I find most disturbing here is that he persisted writing even though he wasn't very good at it.

Also, thanks for the recommendation, but I think I'll keep using them from time-to-time. They help keep things light.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

The main problem I had with him was his blatant racism. Normal for his time, but he took it to wacky extremes.

But, considering that this is an author that did go insane after a while and, I believe, eventually killed himself...

I don't think its too surprising when you go through a complete chronologically organized volume of his work... you find that most of his early work barely had a hint of racism, while his later works were full of it. Seems like it was tied to whatever psychological problems he was developing.

Actually, Lovecraft's racism dropped off a great deal by the end of his life. He also never went insane and actually died of cancer. /nitpicking

OT: Lovecraft's style is really a double whammy in some respects. Not only was he writing in the early 20th century, but he also believed that the writing styles of the 1800s were superior to the writing styles of his own day, so he's actually double-dated in that regard.

Personally, I do find his work to be fairly dry by modern standards, but I was always fascinated by the [italics] ideas [/italics] in his works. It took me a couple of years to realize that he was describing 4-dimensional beings being observed by mere human perception; and when I did, it really blew my mind.

He's not for everyone, but his idea are generally considered the basis of American horror (right up there with Poe) and his work has influenced fiction a great deal ever since. If you don't particularly care for his style, you might try reading some of the authors that have followed in his footsteps, expressing some of the same ideas but in different voices. Caitlin R Kiernan, Ramsey Campbell, Clive Barker, Brian Lumley, and others. There are bunches to choose form.

 

[Bravo 21]

Well, I picked up a big book of Lovecraft's tales a few summers back, and while it took me a while to get into them, they really grew on me.

 

[Rufio's Ghost]

I actually just started reading some of Lovecraft's stories myself... and I really like them!! WOO- but, that means I disagree with you on a few points (sorry).

I think you may be reading his work with the wrong mindset. From what I have read, many of the stories are more about intrigue than horror. It's the unsolved mysteries, the strange coincidences, and the general build up that make Lovecraft's stories so maddening.

I really like the way the stories are framed. The characters retell their tales in a lifeless/monotone way because their experience literally broke them; it's like the glimpse of the unknown shattered their humanity. I'd say that's pretty damn cool.

The characters are given some traits. Most are scholars/artists and all of them (thus far, like I said haven't read all of his stories) have a dangerous sense of curiosity. It may not be a lot, but it is something... and you have to take into account that they are short stories (not too much room for characterization- especially if it is not your focus).

That being said, it's not for everyone. I'm very active in any story I read/play through/watch etc. so lack of characterization doesn't bother me. I don't empathize with characters, I become them.

Oh, one more thing. I don't think the emoticons ruined your credibility. I didn't even notice them! ;D

 

[BaronUberstein]

I personally loved "Beyond the Mountains of Madness". I haven't read much beyond that, but the short stories I have read have certainly been fun to read. I didn't care about the characters, what held me was the universe. The setting and lore.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Couldn't disagree more if you were a Nazi SS Officer at the end of your training and I was your puppy.

The characters are exactly the way they're supposed to be. The stories aren't about the characters, they're about what the characters see. In almost every instance, the story tellers in Lovecraft's books are the everyman, thrust into situations of insanity. Furthermore, many of the characters are presented in the form of a sort of blank person that serves to put [i/]you[/i] (or me, since you didn't like it) in the story.

As for the tone, it's what makes his work beautiful to me. The cold and emotionless descriptions of cosmic horrors just adds to the central theme of the utter insignificance of humanity. The cold, dark universe doesn't care what emotion you feel. It's going to shred your mind and then your body regardless.

Finally, I agree that his stories are more disturbing than anything, but as far as I'm concerned, that's what scary really means. Scary isn't things jumping out. Scary isn't worrying about a serial killer being behind you. Scary is the feeling of discomfort that persists after you finish the story. Lovecraft conveys this the utter unknown. The sense that it doesn't even matter if something wants to hurt you or not, it's so purely alien you can do nothing but flee.

It's important to note that all of this, especially the last point, is VERY subjective. Being a combination of fiction AND horror, the personal effect it has is just as important as grammar.

Side note: I recommend you avoid using emoticons. They tend to damage credibility around here.

Well, opinions are opinions, aren't they? I think theres something terribly wrong when a horror story reads like a Wikipedia page, just stating fact after fact. For me, it completely detaches me from the whole "scary" aspect of it. And I find it difficult to project myself onton a completely blank slate who's only personality trait is to blindly disregard their self-preservation instincts.

The only reason the worlds he builds come across as dull and bleak are because he couldn't be bothered to flesh them out with any interesting detail. The thing I find most disturbing here is that he persisted writing even though he wasn't very good at it.

Also, thanks for the recommendation, but I think I'll keep using them from time-to-time. They help keep things light.

And yet in my opinion, the disregard for one's own life in search of knowledge the very thing that makes me relate to it. The pursuit of knowledge at any cost is what I feel makes humanity what it is. Yeah, we may know almost for certain that down that tunnel is some cosmic horror that will probably fuck our minds just from looking at it and if not that, will eviscerate us, but we HAVE to know. We HAVE to see it.

Silly, snarky comment aside, I still strenuously disagree on the point of not fleshing out his worlds with interesting detail. If we were talking about his full works and not just those 3(which are a bit lighter on detail), I would wonder if we're even talking about the same author. His worlds overflow with fascinating little details and a sense of combined familiarity and mystery. If you didn't find it interesting, that's the way it goes. I on the other hand, feel utterly immersed in the stories he tells.

 

[repeating integers]

Add me to the list of people who completely disagree.

His work doesn't scare me, in terms of making me jump or anything - it just unsettles me a great deal. His works aren't precisely horror - they're more like fantasy, actually. It just so happens that the fantasy worlds described are loathsome and horrifying. The Call of Cthulhu is a somewhat overhyped story, IMO - I agree with Lovecraft's own assessment, "middling". At the Mountains of Madness is my favourite of his - though that particular one reads more like a fantasy-mystery. The cold, clinical description of certain events in that book only enhances the effect for me, and it has a lovely twist in its tail too.

And yeah, sorry, but the modern obsession with making relatable characters annoys me. It's like people have convinced themselves that they have to be in the shoes of the protagonist all the time. Lovecraft's stories are meant to be read like a report of an event to the authorities by someone who was there - I find this much more immersive, personally, because it helps bridge the gap between the fictional world and the real world, intimating that these horrible, loathsome things are indeed out there, hiding in some dark corners that we can't see.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I find Lovecraft fascinating precisely because of all the weird quirks that were mentioned before. The fact that he has only two or three thematic outlines and structures he revisits time and again is really indicative of the fact that the guy has some serious bugs to get through in his noggin, and his dry delivery sort of clashes against the fantastical settings in a way that's fairly interesting to watch.

See, Lovecraft was born and raised in a very old-fashioned corner of Rhode Island. The Lovecrafts really were your average case of decayed, decrepit aristocracy, and Howard grew up with certain ideas about form and style that come from that mindset. Like, say, the way he structures his stories, his emphasis on using the exact words at all times, and his very cerebral approach to deescriptive passages.

What's really striking is when you realize just how much of an absolute pessimist the guy was for most of his life. It took decades for him to very privately recant his "SCIENCE WILL KILL US ALL!" leitmotiv in a letter to his editor, for instance. The notion of transgressing boundaries was always really strong in his works, and I think the realization of that transgression motivated the way his protagonists aren't ever simply overwhelmed. They're consumed by whatever it they've seen or unleashed, and a bit like Poe's narrators, they go batshit before our very eyes.

It's wooden, it's clumsy, it's racist and hilariously paranoid by today's standards (Stephen King is right when he says Lovecraft is an example of what NOT to do), but it's left such a huge imprint in today's horror landscape I'm just amazed when I see someone call himself or herself a horror buff and then go "Love-who?" when I drop "A Shadow Over Innsmouth" as an example.

 

[Korak the Mad]

I am a huge fan of Lovecraft, and many of his stories do need to be read more than once because there are many things that you might miss. His writing style does take some getting used to, it took me while to get used to his writing but I did and I can read his stuff alot faster. My mother has tried reading his work on several occasions and she just can't read his work, she described his writing style as "ponderous" and does desribe his writing. I wouldn't describe Lovecraft's work necessarily as just horror, I would place it in the macbre category.

Lovecraft does introduce characters but he only gives a small amount of detail because he wants you see through the characters eyes. When I read his work I see myself in the character's place and really makes alot more sense if you think like that.

The creatures, not the Mythos Deities, Lovecraft wrote about are incredibly detailed. Not just by appearance but he also describes their attitude towards humans, other beings and even the Mythos Deities. Lovecraft says that many of these creatures are not evil, but because of Man's ignorance to the things around him, and the creature's own perception of what is right, Man sees these things as evil. My number one favorite story Lovecraft wrote is "The Shadow Out of Time", "At the Mountians of Madness" being second.

In "The Shadow Out of Time" a man has his mind swapped with another being, but as the being has his body in the present, the man's mind is sent to the being's body which is billions of years in the past. The beings known as "The great race of Yith" or yithian are beings that gather knowledge from all across time and space, and they do so by switching minds with the target. After they have finished gathering information they and the switched mind return back to their body. There are a few who switch minds to avoid death and the yithians treat the switched mind with great hospitality, because that is considered a taboo of sorts. They do make mass migrations of minds to avoid extinction, but they only switch minds with non-sentient beings (that can manipulate their enviroment) during those migrations. These beings seem to be the most benign in the Mythos.

 

[Alhazred]

I've been a massive Lovecraft fan since I bought a massive collection of his stories a couple of years back. I've always been able to overlook the flaws in his work (weak characters, purple prose syndrome) because so much of what he writes about appeals to me; ancient ruins, grotesque monsters, conspiracies, cults and insanity.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

What do people expect? He is not a modern writer. Its why i cant get into Lord of the RIngs, so boring and a chore to read. Films are awesome though. I enjoy lovecraft though, his stories are short so the awkward writing isnt an issue.