Lovecraft: First impressions

[Frission]

I liked him. He certainly had several flaws, but it's still interesting to read his works, at least for the general culture that it provides.

 

[BeeGeenie]

It's true. Lovecraft reads like a dictionary... that someone let a dyslexic add a few words to now and then. (My favorite Elder God is Fhqwhgads) But hey, some people are into that sort of thing. And you have to admit that his monsters are interesting, even if his writing style isn't.

 

[TheRookie8]

Lovecraft does receive some criticism when it comes to his writing style. His popularity, in my opinion, comes from the idea that the unknown evokes terror and uncertainty. I also enjoy his rather civil method of describing a person's descent into madness.

That being said, I did not particularly enjoy the stories you picked out, either. I would recommend "The Music of Eric Zahn", "Shadow over Innsmouth", "Herbert West: Reanimator".

Recently, I also enjoyed the comic "At the Mountains of Madness", leading me to think that comic adaptions of Lovecraft works are the best way to go.

 

[Animyr]

It's been a while since I read Lovecraft, but I don't remember being all that impressed by his writing either, per se. It seemed very clunky and doesn't hold up that well to modern tastes. With Lovecraft, it's more about his ideas then his actual writing.

I do remember being enjoying the Color out of Space, though. Even with the dry and matter of fact narration it still unsettled me.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

Recently, I also enjoyed the comic "At the Mountains of Madness", leading me to think that comic adaptions of Lovecraft works are the best way to go.

I can definitely support this viewpoint; though I found the original works of Lovecraft to be unsettling, they never really scared me. However, picking up a comic-book adaption of some of his works (I think it was Shadow Over Innsmouth, the Dunwich Horror and Colour Out of Space) actually made me find it genuinely difficult to go to sleep that night. I think part of it is that his descriptive style gives a lot of different interpretations that work well in graphic format.

 

[Loop Stricken]

TLDR: It's not very good.

It was at the time.

 

[repeating integers]

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.

Why would they be?

I don't need a character to relate to in a story which isn't about him.

All stories are about characters. Characters may not be human, may even be inanimate, but if you have no character for the audience to care about then you have no story.

Anyone can make up vaguely-described weird shit. A good writer will get us to care about the vaguely-described weird shit, at least beyond an enjoying-weird-shit-for-its-own-sake sort of notion. From everything I've seen, Lovecraft doesn't do that.

They're merely the tool to get to the real part of the story, namely, the discovery of something unnatural, ancient, etc.

All characters are always tools. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be good tools.

but I believe it's definite choice.

Just because he made a choice doesn't mean he can't be criticized for it.

He doesn't make you care. He doesn't cater to your needs in literature, and that's fine. He does mine - I do care when reading his stories, for reasons I've stated. I guess I just don't need characters like you do.

 

[Phuctifyno]

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.

I like how they aren't. The idea that a story has to be character focused in order to be any good is just a trend started by people trying to sound smart on the internet.

James Bond used to be about dumb fun, gadgets & girls, and places you'd like to vacation but can't afford to; now it's about the character. Star Trek used to be about big philisophical ideas and interesting sci-fi concepts; now it's about the characters. Batman used to be about crime-fighting fantasy, detective work, and creative villains; now it's about the character. Hell, even Hitman used to be a video game about interesting locations, puzzle-solving, and cold calculation; now it's just about the boring character. You could even argue that the core of the Star Wars prequels' suckitude was that they tried to base the whole story around a character, which was the complete wrong direction - the good trilogy was always populated with interesting characters, but not all about them.

Well constructed characters and arcs have always been a useful tool to make a story feel accessible and contained, but should be a small part of the bigger whole, not the entire focal point that everything else revolves around (unless we're talking about a piece of fiction written for the sole purpose of exploring a character, which is fine, but does not define all fiction). If an author chooses not to use that tool, either from incompetence in that field or just disinterest, it doesn't automatically render the work dismissible.

In the OP, Mossberg mentions that Lovecraft's descriptions seem "conjured up in a fever-dream" and counts it as a negative, which explains why he didn't enjoy it and maybe never will. It's the vivid and exploratory imagination that fans enjoy, as well as the creepiness, which is mostly left to the imagination of the reader. That's a valid thing to complain about, since not everybody is into a "get what you give" style of reading, but it doesn't make the writer suck.

These have already been mentioned, but to understand what I mean, one should read Pickman's Model, which is essentially about terrifying paintings, or The Music of Erich Zann, which is essentially about terrifying music. Obviously, neither are conveyed in their true form on the page, so the scariness and quality of the story is ultimately left to the reader's imagination.

So in summation, Lovecraft sucked because he was racist. Where's my coat?

 

[Dark_Reaction]

Ok, so to get the ball rolling, H.P. Lovecraft was an author of several famed horror stories that lived in the early 20th century.His work was apparently beloved by many, and it still holds great influence in today's culture. For those who don't know, he's probably most famous for creating the Cthulhu mythos.

But first, a bit of backstory: I'm a highschool student, and a fan of literature. A few of my favorite movies/books/games have been refered to by friends as "Lovecraftian", such as Amnesia: The Dark Descent. That sounded like a recommendation to me, so I went to my local bookstore and picked up a compilation of his stories, of which there were dozens. I should probably point ou that I don't fancy myself reviewer, but I still wanted to share my thoughts with the cultured denizens of the escapist!

The reason this is a first impressions, rather than a full review is because I couldn't will myself to finish the entire book. It's just not very good. The three (arguably most famous Lovecraft stories) that I read are:

1. The Rats in The Walls.

2. The Call of Cthulhu.

3. The Dunwich Horror.

I'd have suggested The Colour Out of Space, The Music of Erich Zann and/or (especially) The Shadow Out of Time over The Dunwich Horror/Rats in the Walls; but, that's besides the point really.

It's unlikely that alot of people share my opinion, but his writing just isn't good. His manner of story-telling is fatally flawed and I'm surprised it has reached the stature it has. He never offers a shred of characterization to the narrator, or main character. It impossible to emapthize with someone who's in a frightening situation when you know absolutely nothing about them, and they only serve the purpose of furthering the flimsy plot.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".

And the the accounts are presented so matter-of-factly with no emotion to fuel it at all. Not only that, but the writing is all over the place, making it difficult to keep up with whats going on, and what characters are doing what. They take place on a sort of arbitrary timeline to make reading it even less enjoyable than it already was. All the "frightening landscapes come across as something he the author conjured up during a fever-dream, and is only there for the purpose of "20th century shock value." ...

...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.....

Actually, I've found that quite a few people share your opinion, and that's fine - there are many authors I just don't particularly care for myself, and its mostly a matter of personal taste.

With regards to your further statements: Lovecraft's works don't really seem (to me at least) to be much about characterization, as that's not really the focus of the story at hand.

As you noted, his tales tend to be more matter-of-fact presentations of various events, without a great deal of emotion/concern placed upon the protagonists, and personally I quite enjoy that: I'm generally not reading a Lovecraft story for a better understanding of the poor schmuck being tormented by cosmic horrors - I'm reading it because I want to hear about the events surrounding a poor schmuck's encounter with cosmic horrors, thus its entirely reasonable to me for the focus to be more heavily laid upon the events that take place over the feelings of the (generally mundane) characters taking part in those events.

That they are 'completely blank slates' (which I'd say is arguable to some degree) doesn't harm my enjoyment of the depiction of the events at hand, as they themselves are not my primary focus so much as the events they experienced are - in fact, often enough, it forms a framework by which the story is told that adds a sense of personal recounting, as though I'm actually sitting down at a table somewhere with one of these now-nearly-deranged individuals and listening to them recount their experience directly, or have discovered some ancient journal recounting the horrors they witnessed/experienced.

If you find it difficult to project onto these characters, that may have more to do with you focusing too heavily upon the characters themselves as opposed to the events at hand; but it could also just be a matter of differing opinions with regards to narrative presentation and characterization.

And finally, and worst of all, its not scary. That's a pretty big flaw when it comes to a horror novel. It's a bit disturbing at best.

This is unquestionably a matter of opinion, because I can say without doubt that Lovecrafts works do frighten me on some level. I'm rarely a fan of the horror genre, particularly with regards to films, but the sense of our utter lack of importance within reality and our complete inability to comprehend/defend against the various cosmic horrors that Lovecraft presents are, to me, some of the most horrifying materials I've yet encountered. If anything, the minimalist depiction of the characters furthers these feelings, because the fact is that the characters being presented are - like most of humanity in the Lovecraft Universe - generally insignificant in the grand scheme and their only real value is as a means to learn about the events at hand, thus rendering them as an individual relatively meaningless with regards to my interests in the events being presented.
I suppose I could compare them to a book or television really - I don't watch television or read a book to find out more about the television/book itself as a character, I merely use it as a means to access information about events that took place (which may provide characterization of other beings in the process, but rarely the means by which that information is presented; ie, the tv/book itself as an entity).

Frankly, I'm not particularly concerned with excessive descriptions of gore and I'm generally not touched (in terms of fright) by such things as roving maniacs or psychopaths - at least, nowhere near to the degree that the concept of humanity being incredibly small and generally meaningless in the grand scale of a Universe populated by multidimensional, super-powered 'alien' beings with no real concern for the insect-equivalent humans scurrying about on this pale blue dot which are so pathetically underdeveloped as to be effectively incapable of even viewing such entities without their feeble psyches shattering as a result. Admittedly, body horror is something I occasionally can get drawn into, and there are few works short of Kafka that I could point at for a quality depiction of body horror that rival The Shadow Out of Time (probably my favorite of Lovecraft's works) - then again, I may have had an easier time than most relating to the character presented in that story (and many of Lovecrafts other works) as I suffer from extremely vivid/often horrifying dreams, and a very real fear of various aspects of my personality becoming dissociated and thus empowered by environmental stress, driven towards a bid to "take control" (I quite enjoyed the concept of Fight Club for that very reason, an expression of my own concern that I, as a mental entity, am not nearly as well-established as I might hope/believe).

These are some big ideas, and they are quite intimidating the more one examines them - especially considering the likelihood that, somewhere out there, there ARE what we would consider 'cosmic horrors', and that they (and the Universe at large) truly have no concerns with regards to the plight of humanity, anymore than we as humans have concerns for the plight of fleas or ants or bacteria. In that regard, Lovecraft reminds me - in this moment at least - of Douglas Adams, in the sense that both tackle these fears/concerns regarding the very small place of humanity in our vast Universe in relation to our perceived sense of self-worth; but, whereas Adams tends to examine the topic playfully with sardonic comedy, Lovecraft plays it straight and attempts to expound upon the feelings of terror related to the uncertainty of our true position in reality and our imperfect perception of our own self importance on that grand scale.

TL;DR: That's just, like, your opinion man.

EDIT: FYI, if you'd like a more modern revisioning of Lovecraftian themes in a film outlet, I HIGHLY recommend John Carpenter's film "In the Mouth of Madness" starring Sam Neil. At the very least, you'll get a kick out of Dr. Alan Grant going off his rocker against other-dimensional nightmare beings, which is always a hoot. Carpenter's "The Thing" is, obviously, also a good time if you've not had the pleasure of watching Kurt Russel battle shoggoth-equivalents.

 

[Trinab]

Lovecraft's biggest strengths to me, is his ability to do something few writers can do. He can infuse a tale with a sense of dread.

The first Lovecraft story I read was 'The Nameless City.' In it, well, nothing really happens. There is no climax, no monster, there is a 'mild' shattering revelation, that causes the protagonist to flee, but it is nothing horrific, rather something undesired.

However, the thing that instantly hooked me on his writing was the ominous sensation of dread and paranoia that infused the entire story. He made describing a building haunting and unsettling. I was awed by that, and as I further read his books, I could see that dread and paranoia infuse almost all his stories.

Not all of his works are masterpieces, some of them fail to even convey that sensation. But the ones that do, are my particular favorites. The dread, the paranoia, coupled with his rough worldbuilding and the feeling of cosmic hopelessness is what I think attracts people to his work.

Fun Fact:

I read somewhere, (sorry, I can't recall the source ,) that the Lurker in the Pool in Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' was a nod to Lovecraft by Tolkien, as was Gandalf's comments of 'even darker things, gnawing at the deep places of the world.'

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I adore Lovecraft, but I never found him scary. I seriously don't think its meant to be. Its supposed to be disturbing. Its supposed to grip you and make you want to keep reading. All your other complains are about his style. And Lovecraft stories are NEVER about the characters, its about the consequences of what they find. More often than not, his form of characterization is the skeptic turned believer (and likely disturbed, suicidal, messed up person) by brushing shoulders with things that should not exist.
And he's great at suspense, which is my favourite part of his stories.
TL;DR: I disagree and think he's the shit.

 

[repeating integers]

I read somewhere, (sorry, I can't recall the source ,) that the Lurker in the Pool in Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' was a nod to Lovecraft by Tolkien, as was Gandalf's comments of 'even darker things, gnawing at the deep places of the world.'

Hell, the ring itself is a somewhat Lovecraftian entity, with its slow, whispering madness & corruption. If the Elder Things left any relics behind, I'd expect them to function in a similar manner.

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

TL;DR: That's just, like, your opinion man.

Thats true enough, it's just my opinion and alot of people disagree with me. I'm not saying that I wasn't able to enjoy it at all, but it definitely left something to be desired.

One of the big arguments I've heard are about how Lovecraft's creatures are so beyond our understanding that the sheer sight of them is enough to drive whatever bland protagonist happens to be at the wheel at the time, to complete madness. I find that a bit lazy, and condecsending to be honest.

It's like the authors saying: "You couldn't possibly understand, so I might as well not explain it to you at all." Maybe you should give the reader the benefit of the doubt, Lovecraft? You're not that terribly clever, and I really doubt that if I saw Cthulhu (or read about him?) I would be so shocked that it would strip me of all emotion.Thats not bragging on my part, it's just not the way the human mind works.

You make some interesting points though, when you talk about how the accounts seem to come from someone you're sitting across a table from. It certainly has a tendency to read that way some of them time, but only if the guy you're sitting across from is a Wikipedia page. People in shock don't mindlessly spout facts and exposition, they're so overcome by emotion and fear that they can barely contain it. If the main character doesn't seem to be afraid (or exhibiting any other emotion) how can that elicit an emotion in you?

I adore Lovecraft, but I never found him scary. I seriously don't think its meant to be. Its supposed to be disturbing. Its supposed to grip you and make you want to keep reading. All your other complains are about his style. And Lovecraft stories are NEVER about the characters, its about the consequences of what they find. More often than not, his form of characterization is the skeptic turned believer (and likely disturbed, suicidal, messed up person) by brushing shoulders with things that should not exist.
And he's great at suspense, which is my favourite part of his stories.
TL;DR: I disagree and think he's the shit.

Thats something I've never really understood either. He seems to think that we should be afraid of something just because we don't understand it, or because it "doesn't belong". Come to think of it, that mindset probably explains his blatant racism, but thats a whole different topic. I don't understand how alot of things work, but that doesn't make me inherently afraid of them. If that was the case I would have a crippling phobia of algebra.

You're right though, most of my complaints are about his style. But does that make them exempt from critisism?

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

You're right though, most of my complaints are about his style. But does that make them exempt from critisism?

No. I can actually see where you're coming from. The first time I read Lovecraft, while I thoroughly enjoyed it, I was a little disappointed as it was not the insane scary story I was expecting. I do not think his style is for everyone, but I certainly do see merit in it.
I personally think that to understand the fear of what you don't understand you have to encounter something incomprehensible and alien that just kinda gives you chills. Or think about the uncertainty of the future, how fragile sanity and life is, etc.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

Lovecraft only ever wrote one book, everything else was written either as novellas or as magazine serials which were popular at the time. Lovecraft endures because of his imagination rather than his style. His ideas of a empty universe that cares nothing for us was seminal for much of 20th century horror.

Yes his style is rather bombastic and can be hard to get into, but without it we wouldn't have some of the better horror stories of the modern era. Lovecraft isn't for everyone, hell it isn't really for most people, but without him we would have a rather large hole in modern horror.

Also if you want a Lovecraft story with more characterization I would give a look at either "The thing on the doorstep" or "Herbert West: Reanimator" as both are written from the perspective of someone shocked but not necessarily completely despondent.

 

[waj9876]

I admit my love of the mythos may partially stem from my love of all things creepy and horrifying. And sure, I'll admit he wasn't perfect. No writer is perfect. I personally fucking love everything to do with the world he created. Just the feeling it gives me. The overall dread over what will happen next, as it is never good. The fear that, I'll admit not everyone feels, is there for me. And I fucking love every moment of it.

Haven't even read a quarter of the books associated with the mythos yet. And I can already honestly say my favorite entity in the series is Hydra. Not even that big a fan of Cthulhu, to be perfectly honest. But he still left such an impression on me that I can't read or hear the words "Cthulhu f'tang" without wincing.

You don't like the Lovecraft mythos, I can respect that. But I would have to highly disagree on it as well. I love the mythos. I just do.

 

[Thaluikhain]

One of the big arguments I've heard are about how Lovecraft's creatures are so beyond our understanding that the sheer sight of them is enough to drive whatever bland protagonist happens to be at the wheel at the time, to complete madness. I find that a bit lazy, and condecsending to be honest.

It's like the authors saying: "You couldn't possibly understand, so I might as well not explain it to you at all." Maybe you should give the reader the benefit of the doubt, Lovecraft? You're not that terribly clever, and I really doubt that if I saw Cthulhu (or read about him?) I would be so shocked that it would strip me of all emotion.Thats not bragging on my part, it's just not the way the human mind works.

Err, that's the point, the monsters are completely beyond what humans can understand, and their presence spontaneously generates mental illnesses in exactly the way doesn't happen for anything else.

Personally I find it annoying when people inevitably have these problems with monsters who are just aliens and not even bullet proof, but to condemn Lovecraft because the mind doesn't work that way is like condemning science fiction for having space ships or fantasy for having wizards. Yes, we know thing don't work that way in the really real world, but that's not the point.

 

[tautologico]

One of the big arguments I've heard are about how Lovecraft's creatures are so beyond our understanding that the sheer sight of them is enough to drive whatever bland protagonist happens to be at the wheel at the time, to complete madness. I find that a bit lazy, and condecsending to be honest.

It's like the authors saying: "You couldn't possibly understand, so I might as well not explain it to you at all." Maybe you should give the reader the benefit of the doubt, Lovecraft? You're not that terribly clever, and I really doubt that if I saw Cthulhu (or read about him?) I would be so shocked that it would strip me of all emotion.Thats not bragging on my part, it's just not the way the human mind works.

Err, that's the point, the monsters are completely beyond what humans can understand, and their presence spontaneously generates mental illnesses in exactly the way doesn't happen for anything else.

Personally I find it annoying when people inevitably have these problems with monsters who are just aliens and not even bullet proof, but to condemn Lovecraft because the mind doesn't work that way is like condemning science fiction for having space ships or fantasy for having wizards. Yes, we know thing don't work that way in the really real world, but that's not the point.

It's important to try to understand the mindset of people at the time a text was written. Lovecraft was a big science nerd and he read a lot to understand the developments in physics and astronomy at the start of the century. Human culture was deeply rooted, at the time, in Enlightenment ideals that put humans at the center of the universe. Then people started to see that the universe is much bigger and our planet is ridiculously small next to it, that humans are not a sacred, special creature but the result of a natural process of evolution, etc. He didn't NEED to explain why simply seeing beings much bigger and more powerful than us, that think of us as we think of ants, was disturbing. The mere existence of such beings was enough to make the "descent into madness" believable, and to disquiet/disturb readers. (If you read Lovecraft expecting it to be super scary, well, you can't blame him if the stories weren't written to satisfy these expecations).

Of course this feeling that we are insignificant in the universe is quite common nowadays, but it was not when he wrote. But having to know the context to really understand a piece of literature is not particular to Lovecraft.

 

[The Madman]

I think one of the reasons I so enjoy Lovecraft is because his writing style was so bizarre. His best works read like someone struggling to describe a terrifying lucid nightmare, it's just strange and surreal and even a bit nerve-wracking. The fact that he genuinely wasn't a terribly good author kind of adds to that, adds a strange bit of flavour to an already weird experience.

He also wrote horror in a way no other author really does. He didn't get gruesome or strange like Clive Barker does, nor did he do character-driven horror like Stephen King. Instead he tends to describe a terrifying existential concept and then leaves it for the reader to ponder over, deliberately leaving details vague and mysterious. It demands the reader think things over, ponder it, and by extension that's where the horror element comes from as you begin to realize just how fucked up some of his written nightmares are.

Hell, he even got his own genre of horror: Cosmicism, and as of yet no ones done it better than he did.