Has Lovecraft become required reading?

[MarkChevallier]

Is it some kind of unintentionally hilarious coincidence that two of the people who're dissing Lovecraft are also dissing Shakespeare*?

Lovecraft is no Shakespeare, but he is nowhere near as bad as you imply. He can craft a creepy story - that'll stand the test of time for 70 years - and his flaws, whilst present in abundance in his worst stories, are totally unnoticable in his best work.

And how can you not like At The Mountains of Madness?

(*most debates on Shakespeare ask if he is one of the great writers in the English language or the GREATEST writer in the English language)

EDIT - And dissing Shakespeare and Lovecraft whilst praising Timothy Zahn's Star Wars novels! My sides may split from laughter!

 

[Jhaelen]

Is it some kind of unintentionally hilarious coincidence that two of the people who're dissing Lovecraft are also dissing Shakespeare*?

...this seems to confirm my suspicion that what many really dislike is the archaic style. Yes, the novels are not written in modern English. That might make them more difficult to read and/or care about.

It's one thing to say you don't care about Shakespeare (which I could fully understand), but concluding that Shakespeare is 'objectively' bad because he's writing in an archaic style?!

And saying that Lovecraft is 'cheating' by not describing unspeakable(!) horrors is, imho, just a sign of not getting the point.
In the days of the explicit violence of splatter-horror movies evoking feelings by _not_ describing/showing something, so that the reader's/viewer's imagination can take over seems to be a lost art (at least lost on some...).

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Why? I don't think it demonstrates anything in particular.

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

Well, that's factual incorrect on many levels. I didn't say that you're enjoyment of Lovecraft was bizarre, I said your enjoyment in particular of his flaws was bizarre.

And Lovecraft is not extremely popular and never has been. He's extremely influential; I'll give you that. But not popular. He's a niche cult icon, not a mass market figure.

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.

How enjoyable a piece of literature is is indeed a subjective evaluation. The elements of writing craft, however, are not. There are pretty concrete rules about what well-written prose looks like and what it doesn't look like. Ask any professional editor. Lovecraft had terrible writing craft. That's a pretty easily demonstrable, objective claim to make. It's not really an opinion, or if it is, it's such an overwhelmingly consensus opinion that it might as well not be.

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

This is a pet peeve of mine. You cannot interchangeably use 'high fantasy' and 'sword & sorcery.' They're actually two fairly different subgenres. The last sentence I quoted there, about cosmic horror and sword & sorcery, is particularly wrong; cosmic horror has been a part of sword & sorcery since literally the very first sword & sorcery story, and most of the classic, iconic sword & sorcery mileus feature a pretty hefty dose of it.

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.

That's because to you D&D is high fantasy. Not sword & sorcery.

Not that I'm one to think that this matters, and in fact I'm occasionally irked with other people do this as if it's meant to be an argument killer. But, as a curious aside at least, if nothing else, Gary Gygax strongly disagreed with you on that. He always saw D&D as a sword & sorcery game, not a high fantasy one, and from the get-go he included cosmic horror elements. Often watered down and made more accessible (compare mind flayers to Cthulhu, for example, or shoggoths to the various jellies and oozes) but unmistakeable in their origin nonetheless.

 

[Desdichado]

And how can you not like At The Mountains of Madness?

I do like MoM, but it's not hard to imagine how someone would not. It starts off creepily enough, evocative and atmospheric. Then it turns into an extremely dry, lecturely discourse on the ancient history of starfish people, who are bizarrely humanized, completely diluting and in fact countering the very atmosphere and tone that made the earlier part of the story so successful. Then, the end is confused mass of lack of description of any kind so you're not exactly sure what's going on, and it is incredibly cheesy to boot. I mean, are we supposed to be frightened just because "TEKELE-LI!" is written in all caps and has exclamation points after it?

To me, Mountains is a great example of a highly ambitious trainwreck that I can enjoy more for what it tries to do than for what it actually manages to accomplish. But that's how I feel about Lovecraft in general; I have a fascination with him and his ideas, but I get that more from reading between the lines in his work than from reading what he really wrote.

EDIT - And dissing Shakespeare and Lovecraft whilst praising Timothy Zahn's Star Wars novels! My sides may split from laughter!

That does seem to be an open invitation to not take that seriously, doesn't it?

...this seems to confirm my suspicion that what many really dislike is the archaic style. Yes, the novels are not written in modern English. That might make them more difficult to read and/or care about.

What novels? Neither Shakespeare nor Lovecraft wrote novels, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

It's one thing to say you don't care about Shakespeare (which I could fully understand), but concluding that Shakespeare is 'objectively' bad because he's writing in an archaic style?!

Well, nobody concluded that except you, in order to knock it down as unreasonable. So... nice job tilting at the strawman, I guess.

I actually quite like archaic style. In fact, I think that's one of Tolkien's main strengths; his ability to write in an archaic style and yet make it sound conversational. Few authors have ever been able to pull that off. In any case, if you're trying to imply that I don't like Lovecraft because of his archaic style, that's not what I've said at all (but I don't remember seeing anyone else say that either, so again... no idea where that came from.) The problem with Lovecraft is that he isn't able to write in an archaic style, although he does occasionally try to, and he does a relatively poor job of it. His command of the English language wasn't sufficiently strong to allow him to write in an archaic style, so he was stuck with just using a bunch of weird words and British spellings as a substitute for archaic style.

And saying that Lovecraft is 'cheating' by not describing unspeakable(!) horrors is, imho, just a sign of not getting the point.
In the days of the explicit violence of splatter-horror movies evoking feelings by _not_ describing/showing something, so that the reader's/viewer's imagination can take over seems to be a lost art (at least lost on some...).

And you'd be wrong there again, because at least in this case, I know you're directly referring to something that so far only I've said. I understand and thoroughly approve of the idea that the imagination does a much better job than the written word at evoking terror and suspense, so you want to be very careful about when and how you reveal your horrors. However, Lovecraft just flat out failed spectacularly at utilizing this technique. He either never revealed anything at all by cheating and just failing to describe his monsters (which leads to a flat, anticlimactic end to his suspense, assuming he was able to generate it at all, which he was pretty hit and miss on anyway) or he describes his monsters and they're just silly rather than scary when he does. Which also leads to flat and anti-climactic endings.

I didn't miss the point at all, contrary to your assertion, and I'm not some splatterpunk junkie that is looking for gratuitous gore or something. But the whole point of that technique you describe is wasted if the reveal never happens, or if when it happens the reader just says, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" because it's so silly.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Those who - wrong or right - are officially considered pioneers are often treated more equal than others, as it were.

The field of fiction writing is no exception to this rule.

 

[Stoat]

And how can you not like At The Mountains of Madness?

I'm a big Lovecraft fan, but Mountains is not one of my favorites, for pretty much the reasons Hobo goes into. The Elder Things are little too anthropomorphic, penguins aren't scary and the end is muddled.

I like Lovecraft's fantasy better: The Doom That Came to Sarnath, Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath, etc.

I don't particularly find Lovecraft to be scary. Maybe creepy or unsettling. Colour Out of Space came the closest to creeping me out, followed by the Festival.

As for the OP, Lovecraft isn't required by any means. He's as fundamental to the game as anybody else in Appendix N, but you don't have to read him to know what to do with a mind flayer or an aboleth.

 

[SSquirrel]

Is it some kind of unintentionally hilarious coincidence that two of the people who're dissing Lovecraft are also dissing Shakespeare*?

Lovecraft is no Shakespeare, but he is nowhere near as bad as you imply. He can craft a creepy story - that'll stand the test of time for 70 years - and his flaws, whilst present in abundance in his worst stories, are totally unnoticable in his best work.

I'm glad you can read them and enjoy them. I can't. No idea if it's coincidence or not, but if it is, it's UNSPEAKABLE!!

And how can you not like At The Mountains of Madness?

I think Hobo covers pretty well why it starts out well and goes south.

EDIT - And dissing Shakespeare and Lovecraft whilst praising Timothy Zahn's Star Wars novels! My sides may split from laughter!

We are discussing why an author does or does not evoke feeling and imagery for you. I went ahead and gave some descriptions of something I've been reading recently that does a very good job of painting scenes in my head, plus he has a good command of language. Maybe too many people around me took themselves far too seriously and went overboard anytime they would read Shakespeare, feeling the urge to perform it. It certainly isn't anything I'm going to grab and read for fun.

...this seems to confirm my suspicion that what many really dislike is the archaic style. Yes, the novels are not written in modern English. That might make them more difficult to read and/or care about.

Actually the stage play directions are much more distracting to the story than the archaic style.

In the days of the explicit violence of splatter-horror movies evoking feelings by _not_ describing/showing something, so that the reader's/viewer's imagination can take over seems to be a lost art (at least lost on some...).

There are plenty of examples of modern horror movies where you don't see the monster until near the end. Along the way you get some shadows, maybe a quick view of part of it. You have imagined a good portion of it thru careful reveal, but it isn't until the full final reveal that you have the whole picture.

Lovecraft either had final reveals that were very anti-climactic (All the buildup for THAT!?) or he never even gets past the most early stages of reveal. Half of his monsters could have been anything. lack of effective reveal is a large part of why his stories have een been scary or even creepy to me.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

I agree. I really, really don't like the Far Realm for this reason. The Abyss, the Elemental Tempest, the Astral Sea, the Shadowfell and the Feywild; all these things fit together into a cohesive whole, all supporting the heroic-fantasy theme of the game. And then there's the Far Realm, hanging off the side of things for no apparent reason except to give aberrations a place to be from.

Oddly, I'm fine with most of the aberrations themselves - beholders, illithids, chaos beasts, foulspawn, and so forth. But then, most of those things aren't so much Lovecraft as Lovecraft-filtered-through-Robert-E-Howard. While they retain the visual appearance of Lovecraft tentacle horrors, and the aura of wrongness and insanity, they live in the human world and can be defeated by human brawn and brains.

The Far Realm is more straight Lovecraft.

Is it some kind of unintentionally hilarious coincidence that two of the people who're dissing Lovecraft are also dissing Shakespeare*?

I'm a Shakespeare fan. Shakespeare isn't the best reading material, but that's because he was a playwright, not a novelist; his stuff isn't supposed to be read. Watch Shakespeare performed by actors who understand the text, and it's really, really good stuff.

For reading material, the sonnets are pretty good, if you like poetry.

And how can you not like At The Mountains of Madness?

Oh dear God the BORING. Maybe it's better if you've already read a whole bunch of Lovecraft's other stuff, I'm sure it really ties the mythos together, but for me it was fifty pages of "And I care about this stuff... why?"

In general, I regard Lovecraft in much the same way I regard George Lucas, which is to say I consider him a man of tremendous vision and no writing talent whatsoever. Hobo describes it nicely; it's possible to get a lot out of Lovecraft by reading between the lines, but reading the lines themselves kind of kills it.

 

[Dragonhelm]

This is a pet peeve of mine. You cannot interchangeably use 'high fantasy' and 'sword & sorcery.' They're actually two fairly different subgenres.

Fair enough. I wasn't really meaning "sword & sorcery" in terms of the subgenre, but rather as a statement that D&D heroes often wield swords and practice some form of sorcery. Semantics!

That's because to you D&D is high fantasy. Not sword & sorcery.

To me, D&D is an amalgam of things. It takes from high fantasy, sword & sorcery, and so on. You can tell so many types of stories with D&D.

I do like most of my games to be high fantasy in feel, but I don't consider all of D&D to be high fantasy. I'm a huge Dragonlance fan, but I still enjoy other worlds too.

But, as a curious aside at least, if nothing else, Gary Gygax strongly disagreed with you on that. He always saw D&D as a sword & sorcery game, not a high fantasy one, and from the get-go he included cosmic horror elements. Often watered down and made more accessible (compare mind flayers to Cthulhu, for example, or shoggoths to the various jellies and oozes) but unmistakeable in their origin nonetheless.

This, to me, is part of how D&D borrows from all over. Certainly, illithids are influenced by Cthulhu, but they've since grown to be their own sort of monster.


Oh, and I like Timothy Zahn. I know he has his critics who make fair points, but I genuinely enjoy his novels.

 

[MarkChevallier]

A lot of reasonable points made by the Hatecrafts (I copyright that term, it's mine! )

Personally, I found the ancient history portion of At The Mountains of Madness its most compelling section - the revelation of mankind's existence as a by-product of an ancient alien race's attempt to create a slave labour force, the scope of the history being covered - it seemed to reinforce one of what's commonly seen as Lovecraft's big theme, the random and meaning-free nature of the universe. I found it quite creepy. Although in retrospect, the penguins were stupid, and I can understand after reading your critiques that not everyone will be equally grabbed by it.

And I'm sorry for dismissing Timothy Zahn too much. I'm certainly no fan of those particular Star Wars books, and I'm confident he won't be remembered as much as Shakespeare or Lovecraft, but it was snobbish of me and I apologise. Take your fun where you can find it.

Personally, I do feel much of Lovecraft's reputation comes from his position in the early stream of cosmic horror, but more of it (for us gamers and for many others) comes from the Call of Cthulhu roleplaying game, and its early revelation of story driven game with excellent scenarios and campaigns. It's kept Lovecraft alive far more than any dry anthology. But I feel this dismissal of him as a writer is almost an unfair backlash - he's not that bad; he's easy to dis because his flaws STAND OUT.

But he was a pulp writer. Try to read any pulp writer and you'll usually see similar flaws. Amongst his peers, Lovecraft is good, and more than that, he's good, full-stop, provided he's read with an understanding that you're not reading regular modern prose (with all of its own insistencies on naturalistic speech and the bland, brief style only people like Jack Vance can break out of), but pulp prose. In the same way as Shakespeare is the greatest writer ever provided you remember you're not reading prose, but Elizabethan poetry intended to be acted on stage.

Anyways, just my opinion. I'd suggest Lovecraft to anyone wanting to do creepy horror in their gaming, or just looking for a read that they might well thoroughly enjoy.