Has Lovecraft become required reading?

[Desdichado]

I'm going to disagree, both with your view and your allusion of objectivity. If you wish to try and bring some form of objectivity, consider Lovecraft is published in Library of America, so there is enough critical thought that he has enough merit to be published there. Many authors write "memorable stories", few get into Library of America or have such a pervasive and increasing influence more than 70 years after their death.

I don't know what being in the Library of America is supposed to prove. Maybe you could clarify.

I'm talking about his writing craft. He's not that great at it. In fact, he's quite poor at it. He over-uses words like "blasphemous" and "nameless" and "Cyclopean" and "eldritch." He thinks the addition of more exclamation points makes his writing more exciting (it doesn't.) He "cheats" by never describing anything; "it can't be described" or the narrator faints, or something. The promised payoff isn't delivered in most of his stories.

And his most notorious example is the narrator who literally stopped to write his story while the freakin' monster was breaking into his house. While it was a laudable attempt to bring the plot "into the moment" (something that Lovecraft was poor at in general; he had a removed, slightly lecturely writing style), it was really quite silly at the same time.

How much craft issues bother you is, of course, subjective and subject to personal interpretation. But a lot of those flaws certainly are objective ones.

Also: although it is probably an atypical recommendation, I think the best place to start with Lovecraft, especially for a fantasy and D&D fan, is "The DreamQuest of Unknown Kadath." While it's not a typical Lovecraft story, in many ways, it does the cosmic horror better than the iconic Lovecraft stories. And the fact that it's also a sword & sorcery story at the same time is just a bonus. Other than that, I've always been partial to "The Shadow Over Innsmouth", "The Colour Out of Space", "Rats in the Walls", "Dreams of the Witch-House", "At the Mountains of Madness," and "The Dunwich Horror."

The latter illustrates some of the problems with Lovecraft in general, though. I mean the one villian that Lovecraft spends so much time building up gets killed by a dog? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Luckily he had a backup or the story would have been dead on arrival.

 

[BryonD]

I'll claim that Lovecraft's writing is superior to your presentation of "objectiveness".

Subjectively, I'll take Lovecraft's "cheating" over most modern horror's cliche dependency on gratuitous visualizations as a cover up lack of ideas. I actually *prefer* the lack of description. But the fact that Lovecraft has created a really interesting idea for me to imagine for myself is a critical element. (And perhaps I am forgetting a story right now, but I believe you may be referencing Notebook Found in a Deserted House, which is by Robert Bloch, not Lovecraft)

You may be correctly referencing items that are objectively present in the stories. But those items being "flaws" is not just purely "subjective", but even quite reasonably subject to dispute.

Honestly, I find the use of Lovecraft buzzwords to be overblown. There are several stories in which he clearly (subjectively) got hung up on them and I groan a little over them. But there are many stories without these elements.

All that said, I happen to agree with you that Lovecraft is far from the greatest when it comes to prose. But I'm going to stand by the position that this is completely subjective and further that prose is only part of being a great author. I think his settings, moods, characters, and most importantly ideas, make him a truly great author even without the prose of some others. I find his writing craft to be far superior to many other who write unimaginative shlock in meticulous prose.

Of course, YMMV. That is because it is subjective.

 

[Desdichado]

Subjectively, I'll take Lovecraft's "cheating" over most modern horror's cliche dependency on gratuitous visualizations as a cover up lack of ideas.

You create a binary situation that doesn't exist. You don't have to pick from one of two bad styles; you can get the best of both worlds. Lovecraft's stories notoriously lack any payoff; there's a buildup of dread that just kinda sits there. It's like all foreplay and no sex.

(And perhaps I am forgetting a story right now, but I believe you may be referencing Notebook Found in a Deserted House, which is by Robert Bloch, not Lovecraft)

No, I was specifically thinking of "The Diary of Alonzo Typer" by Lovecraft. That's not the only example of where his style undercuts his obviously desired effect, though... just one of the most notorious.

You may be correctly referencing items that are objectively present in the stories. But those items being "flaws" is not just purely "subjective", but even quite reasonably subject to dispute.

Look, I already caveated this with the note that how much they bother you is, of course, subject to personal interpretation. But they're flaws, pure and simple. Maybe they don't particularly bother you, maybe you think his other strengths more than make up for them, maybe you even bizarrely enjoy his flaws as a departure from tried and true methods that other authors use (because they work well.) That's what's subjective. Whether or not the flaws exist isn't, though.

 

[BryonD]

You create a binary situation that doesn't exist.

No, I describe my own personal perception.

You don't have to pick from one of two bad styles; you can get the best of both worlds. Lovecraft's stories notoriously lack any payoff; there's a buildup of dread that just kinda sits there. It's like all foreplay and no sex.

I completely reject your claim that there is no payoff. Again, if it doesn't work for you then I have no dispute with your personal subjective assessment. But the payoff is there in spades when I read.

No, I was specifically thinking of "The Diary of Alonzo Typer" by Lovecraft. That's not the only example of where his style undercuts his obviously desired effect, though... just one of the most notorious.

Fair enough. But, at a minimum that Bloch emulated the style weighs more in its favor, I would suggest, than your opposition goes against it.

Look, I already caveated this with the note that how much they bother you is, of course, subject to personal interpretation. But they're flaws, pure and simple.

This is wrong.

Maybe they don't particularly bother you, maybe you think his other strengths more than make up for them, maybe you even bizarrely enjoy his flaws as a departure from tried and true methods that other authors use (because they work well.) That's what's subjective. Whether or not the flaws exist isn't, though.

Oddly, you are referencing my enjoyment as "bizarre", and yet Lovecraft is extremely popular. It seems bizarre is the new "typical".

But, obviously you are set (might I suggest bizarrely so) that these elements being "flaws" is an objective fact. So there is no point in trying to argue it. Just, for the record note, that our *opinions* differ.

 

[babomb]

I'd say Lovecraft is "recommended reading". I don't think any particular book is considered "required reading" for D&D.

Blasphemer!

Cthulu will come punish you himself!

...that is if Cthulu actually cared about whether people venerate Cthulu or not.

But he does care! If you worship him, you get to be devoured FIRST!

I actually think he's a terrible author. Objectively so, even. But he had interesting enough ideas more often than not that he was able to overcome his lack of writing craft and create memorable stories anyway.

I like Lovecraft, but I have to (mostly) agree with this. I would say that he is not a terrible author, but he is a pretty bad writer, though I may be drawing a distinction where none exists. I feel much the same way about Lovecraft as I do about Charles Dickens: he has great ideas, but the way he tells the stories is often lacking. Lovecraft's prose is at times awkward and turgid. He is rather good at building suspense, but this often leads to an anti-climax; some of his descriptions of monsters are frankly more silly than scary.

I don't think there is a way to measure writing on a purely objective basis. However, I can tell you, having written a research paper on Lovecraft that involved reading as much literary criticism on him as I could find, that the consensus seems to be that if Lovecraft is great, it is in spite of his prose, rather than because of it. Even the Lovecraft apologists generally spoke of his stories as highly flawed masterpieces.

 

[JoeGKushner]

For D&D?

Absolutely not.

For some ideas on where a lot of 'eldritch' horror comes from? Couldn't hurt.

The problem with Lovecraft IN D&D is D&D is essentially about swinging swords and spells to kill things and take their stuff. Lovecraft is about mankind realizing how pitiful and small he is. About the closest I'd think we'd see to that in a long standing fantasy series that puts sword against eldritch horror on a continuous basis even against fate and destiny is Berserk by Kentaro Miura.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

Also: although it is probably an atypical recommendation, I think the best place to start with Lovecraft, especially for a fantasy and D&D fan, is "The DreamQuest of Unknown Kadath." While it's not a typical Lovecraft story, in many ways, it does the cosmic horror better than the iconic Lovecraft stories. And the fact that it's also a sword & sorcery story at the same time is just a bonus. Other than that, I've always been partial to "The Shadow Over Innsmouth", "The Colour Out of Space", "Rats in the Walls", "Dreams of the Witch-House", "At the Mountains of Madness," and "The Dunwich Horror."

Someone recently described Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath as reading like Lovecraft fan fiction, and I agree. So much of it is, "Hey, remember this guy or place from that other story? Here's a cameo!" A lot of it was good despite that due to the vivid scenery, but the ghouls just killed it for me.

I also don't like At the Mountains of Madness, for the same reason. The opening is brilliant, but then when they start unravelling the mystery, for some reason it turns into a history lesson which just lists a bunch of stuff that was pulled together from his other works. Making all of his stories fit together makes them *less* mysterious and ruins the atmosphere! Then the climax is especially disappointing because it's such a long story.

Colour Out of Space and Dreams in the Witch-House are what I'd recommend. The Case of Charles Dexter Ward is awesome, although the ending was too pat I think the ride was good enough to make up for it.

 

[Dragonhelm]

For D&D?

Absolutely not.

For some ideas on where a lot of 'eldritch' horror comes from? Couldn't hurt.

The problem with Lovecraft IN D&D is D&D is essentially about swinging swords and spells to kill things and take their stuff. Lovecraft is about mankind realizing how pitiful and small he is.

When I think of D&D, I tend to think about high fantasy, or at least the fantasy genre in general.

Now, I'll admit that D&D is a highly flexible system, used for a variety of campaigns, from the deserts of Athas to the gothic horror of Ravenloft. Yet in each of these cases, some themes remain constant.

Now, I can see how Lovecraftian themes work with the warlock class, at least in terms of a patron. Yet it's hard for me to reconcile cosmic horror with swords and sorcery.

I think it's a matter of expectations. When I play D&D, I expect things like heroes fighting dragons, not heroes fighting cosmic horrors and going mad. I expect my heroes to be heroes, not insignificant gnats who fight against impending doom only to lose in the end.

 

[Stormonu]

I really like dislike Lovecraft's actual writing style*. I was introduced to Lovecraft though the Deities & Demigod section, and later saw movies such as Dagon, and other stories that were based on his works or aspects of cosmic horror, so I finally sat down and read a few stories (Call of Cthulu, The Dunwich Horror, Pickman's Model) and just didn't like the writing. The ideas he presents are pretty good, but getting through his stories, is for me, a chore.

* The only person's writing I dislike more is Shakespeare, actually. But there's a story that goes with that.

 

[SSquirrel]

Lovecraft's basic oeuvre, Howard's Conan stories, The Hobbit, the first two Dying Earth books, the Harold Shea stories, Lankhmar, Elric, ERB's John Carter books, and Poul Anderson's fantasies... Those are from whence D&D came.

Hmm..of those I have read the Hobbit and what HPL I could take before "Unspeakable!!" and gables for the millionth time became too much to bear. Oh yeah, and I read some Elric earlier this year. While I understand the language of the times and different approach to science and all that, I don't have any particular obsession w/the period like some of my friends who love steampunk and such. I can read it, but it doesn't speak to me. *shrug*

I was commenting to my wife tonite how I'm re-reading some of the Timothy Zahn Star Wars novels and the characters from the original trilogy that turn up, I can always hear them giving every line in my head. Zahn has a way of describing Artoo's bleeps and such that you know exactly which of the sounds he is likely making, yet he doesn't use many words to get the idea across. Sure this is taking people who were in a movie, re-projecting them as a bit older into the character again and using the book as a script, but other characters come off the page just as strongly.

My wife doesn't like Raymond Feist, but I've loved the various books sets in the world of the Riftwar for 20 years now. He doesn't paint these same sonic pictures in my head like Zahn does, but the depth he gives to the world setting makes it very easy to believe it all and see it in your head. HPL nattering about the gables is intended to achieve the same thing, but (as someone else in the thread said), it was much more lecturing professor

I completely reject your claim that there is no payoff.

Count me in the "not a drop of dread produced" eitehr crowd. Seriously, not scary. I'm 33. Maybe it's just being raised on a diet of modern fantasy and sci-fi novels, action films and slasher flicks, but it's all so ridiculously tame. Half the time there is no description at ALL. So some random cloud of something with nothing to shape in my mind, yeah, not real helpful. At least partially describe it.

Fair enough. But, at a minimum that Bloch emulated the style weighs more in its favor, I would suggest, than your opposition goes against it.

No, we see his every single year in pop music and movies. Unoriginal music act gets pushed by label(too many to count)/new original movie (Blair Witch is a good example here) is released and does big box office. Instantly, labels start signing bands who are remotely similar and greenlight albums. Movies are pushed thru rapidly to take advantage of the current fad of whatever teh current film is.

Bloch emulating a bad writing style from Lovecraft just shows he followed a bad style. Uwe Boll is a hack director and if someone made a movie in his style and it was awful as well, that oesn't suggest that Uwe Boll's original work is now better b/c someone copied it.

Oddly, you are referencing my enjoyment as "bizarre", and yet Lovecraft is extremely popular.

In an extremely small subset of the populace. You know, us gamers. Stop 5 typical people at the mall and ask who HPL is and I bet you get blank stares from them.

The only person's writing I dislike more is Shakespeare, actually. But there's a story that goes with that.

Don't get me started on Shakespeare. I don't want to start a war about how little I think of his work. heh. My ex-wife was an English major, that was great fun.