Has Lovecraft become required reading?

[Anton85]

Lovecraft arguably isn't a horror writer. He never had the knack of making anything scary.

That said, his influence was pretty substantial right from day 1. Along with the rest of the pulp writers who Gygax obviously preferred to Tolkien, whom he only raided for superficial similarities.

What is frightening is often dependent on the reader. To me, Lovecraft is the most frightening author of all. My mother is deaf so loosing my hearing is one of the things that scares me. The idea that I dont have the ability to perceive the world as it really is, is doubly scary to me.

Also remeber that Lovecraft actually was insane, and spent a number of years in an asylum. His writings have an air of authenticity.

 

[Desdichado]

Also remeber that Lovecraft actually was insane, and spent a number of years in an asylum. His writings have an air of authenticity.

Actually, no. That isn't true at all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Lovecraft didn't write fiction, he was a biographer & documentarian.

 

[NiTessine]

Well, accepting for the moment the premise of "required reading", I would have to reject the notion implicit in the question that there has been a point in time when Lovecraft was not required reading.

Mind you, the premise is easy for me to accept, since my group is pretty much entirely composed of English majors, one of whom even wrote his BA thesis on "The Shadow over Innsmouth". Another has written a course essay on Lovecraft, and I've personally written a short essay on old H.P. for an inspirational reading booklet in the upcoming RPG Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

Also, I've seen a D&D-inspired one-shot requiring the players to have a working understanding of philosophy from Diogenes to Derrida and everything in between just to be capable of participating. Requiring to be conversant in he works of, say, Tolkien, Lovecraft, Howard, Vance, Leiber and Moorcock is light compared to that.

I ramble, but my computer's clock shows it's 5:54 in the morning, so I'm allowed to.

 

[Reynard]

Not just Lovecraft but the entire stable of Weird Tales writers -- Lovecraft, Howard, Smith, etc... -- are "required reading" for anyone who wants to run D&D in the swords and sorcery genre -- because those works defined that genre. Sure, you have pastiches by the likes of Jordan and Salvatore, but in the end the pulp writers of the mid to late 30s created what we call sword and sorcery.

 

[Umbran]

Also remeber that Lovecraft actually was insane, and spent a number of years in an asylum. His writings have an air of authenticity.

Lovecraft's father and mother both wound up in Butler Hospital, for different reasons. Lovecraft as a youth suffered from night terrors. But I see no reports that he himself was ever in an asylum.

 

[Desdichado]

Not just Lovecraft but the entire stable of Weird Tales writers -- Lovecraft, Howard, Smith, etc... -- are "required reading" for anyone who wants to run D&D in the swords and sorcery genre -- because those works defined that genre. Sure, you have pastiches by the likes of Jordan and Salvatore, but in the end the pulp writers of the mid to late 30s created what we call sword and sorcery.

I think more and more that it is not essential to look back at the founders of the genre from nearly a hundred years ago, in order to have the "authentic D&D experience" or whatever. I.e., I guess I reject the notion that there is any required reading whatsoever. There's too much ersatz fantasy that's D&D influenced and vice versa these days; nothing should be more "required" than anything else. If someone wants a game that feels like Tolkien, then hey... go for it. If you'd rather have a Howard/Smith/Leibier-like S&S game, great. If you'd rather have a game that feels like Salvatore, Weis, Hickman or Kemp or whomever, well, that's fine too. The "D&D subgenre" (for lack of a better label) has long been much bigger than the Three Musketeers of Weird Tales writing, and I don't think there's necessarily any benefit from steeping yourself in a Weird Tales diet unless you just happen to like that and happen to want to.

In fact, I think it would be great if there were greater diversity of taste in D&D in general. I think all too often there's too much of a tendency to tread very closely in the footsteps of what came before; a kind of nearly moribund recreation of the same thing over and over again.

But maybe that opinion's a bit far afield from what the original poster was looking for...

 

[BryonD]

I think more and more that it is not essential to look back at the founders of the genre from nearly a hundred years ago, in order to have the "authentic D&D experience" or whatever. I.e., I guess I reject the notion that there is any required reading whatsoever.

As a short answer: I agree with you completely.

That said, I think you get into ambiguity of terms of what constitutes an "authentic D&D experience".

I think the fairest and best answer is: practically any roleplaying experience (presumably, but not exclusively tabletop) with a clear degree of fantasy elements to it.

Some people can play GURPS and accurately describe it as their idea of an "authentic D&D experience". Others feel that 1E falls to far from the tree to be authentic.

I'm certain that there are people out there for whom any DM without some notion of Lovecraft would be incapable of producing the "authentic" feel, no matter how good the DM may be. A couple caveats are still needed here: "authentic" is not a preeq for "fun as hell", and I wouldn't be suprised in today's evolution of RPGs if there are not some good GMs out there with a solid grasp of Lovecraft, even though their knowledge is fully second hand and outside of their conscious awareness of its "Lovecraftiness"

No particular reading is required to make a great game.

Some particular reading may be required to make certain particular games work.

Lovecraft reading makes any game better.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Clark Ashton Smith isn't even listed in Appendix N.

 

[Desdichado]

No particular reading is required to make a great game.

Some particular reading may be required to make certain particular games work.

I like that distinction.

I guess I've just been impressed with younger players lately, who don't have the same preconceived notions, from having read all the same authors that we did when we were their ages. I think that's a Good Thing™ and the hobby as a whole would benefit from there being more of it. They've run games that it would never occur to me to run, and they're awesome games, too.

Lovecraft reading makes any game better.

I agree with that too. Just because reading the iconic S&S writers isn't necessary doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea. There's some good stuff there in Lovecraft, Howard, Smith, Leiber, etc.