Lovecraft: Hack or Genius?

[Desdichado]

The initial tone of your posts just seemed a little 'agree with me!!'. Honestly, I don't even understand my own fascination with Lovecraft. Something about how he writes draws me in. Not scary, no, but creepy would work for a good amount of his stories. Its really nothing like anything else I've read, and that's part of the draw for me.

Which demonstrates my own failings as a writer, apparently! No, I'm not trying to convince people to agree with me, I'm actually quite curious for people who don't to let me know why.

And frankly, I share a lot of that fascination with Lovecraft, even when his writing also frustrates me. I've read at least half of his known works, if not closer to 75%, and I still think he's got some absolutely brilliant ideas. I sure haven't done that with any other writers who I don't think are particularly skilled. I think Lovecraft had the raw talent, but never developed some of the crucial skills of a successful writer.

 

[Crothian]

I thoroughly disagree. Anyone who's read a fair sampling of his work is qualified to judge how good it is. Same with any other author. I completely disagree that one must be an academic literary critic with a background in the history of literature, his contemporaries or anything else to judge its works on its own merits. That may be important for other types of inquiry into his works, but not for judging the quality of what he wrote on its own merits.

Well, that answers a question then; you want to judge him using todays standards and not the standards that he wrote under and lived in. That is an important disctinction when judging a work that is not current.

I still say he neither genius or hack. I think he has some good ideas and nice turn of phrases but over all I found nothing particular exceptional nor terrible about his writing.

 

[Desdichado]

The other problem, and the one that makes me agree with the term 'hack' is that he wrote for the pulp magazines of the 1920s and '30s.

I should probably clarify, as there are two ways of using the term 'hack' when referring to writers; one being simply a question of to whom they sold the stories, and the other being a question of their writing ability. I used the word referring more to latter usage of the word. I don't think there's any argument that's he's a hack from the first usage; he'd undoubtably have agreed himself.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, that answers a question then; you want to judge him using todays standards and not the standards that he wrote under and lived in. That is an important disctinction when judging a work that is not current.

I don't think there's a meaninful distinction anyway. It's not like he wrote so long ago that today's standards wouldn't apply to him. And, you're ignoring where I compared him not only to his contemporaries but also to his predecessors and inspirations. Poe was a much better writer than he was. Lord Dunsany was a much better writer. They both wrote before Lovecraft, and Lovecraft transparently tried to imitate their styles at various points in his own career. I think this whole line of inquiry is a bit of a dodge, if I may say so, Crothian. I don't see how it is relevent. It's not like Lovecraft wrote in the time of Chaucer, or Milton or Homer and the literary standards and culture of his time is significantly different from our own.

 

[Crothian]

I don't think there's a meaninful distinction anyway. It's not like he wrote so long ago that today's standards wouldn't apply to him. And, you're ignoring where I compared him not only to his contemporaries but also to his predecessors and inspirations. Poe was a much better writer than he was. Lord Dunsany was a much better writer. They both wrote before Lovecraft, and Lovecraft transparently tried to imitate their styles at various points in his own career. I think this whole line of inquiry is a bit of a dodge, if I may say so, Crothian. I don't see how it is relevent. It's not like Lovecraft wrote in the time of Chaucer, or Milton or Homer and the literary standards and culture of his time is significantly different from our own.

Your position is there has no been significant changes to the world in the past 50 years or so? Its not a dodge, there are differnet ways and criteria to judge a person. Taking into account when they lived is not out of line. It is just like taking into factor he wrote for the pulp magizines and not for novels. They are all factors that can be disgarded or can be used in this determination.

I did give an answer so its not like I'm dodging the question...

 

[Abraxas]

Uh, yeah, no kidding. I asked for people's opinions. Coming on board and then saying, "that's just your opinion!" is stating the blindingly obvious.

Ummm. Sorry, I thought it was blindingly obvious that I was merely stating that it's a preference thing. Thanks for being sharp enough to point that out.

Other than blatantly bad spelling and/or grammar, wether or not a writer is a hack or a genius is merely subjective opinion. How exactly are you quantifying a writer's skill? By number of readers? By use as an example of good writing in schools? By any number of other criteria that change with the times?

I look at my bookshelf and, with few exceptions, the only books on them are books that I truly enjoy (the kind that I can read multiple times), and for those books the authors were great writers. In fact with the exception of Arthur C. Clarke there is no author that I have ever even tried to read everything by because I think they are that good.

enjoy

 

[Desdichado]

Other than blatantly bad spelling and/or grammar, wether or not a writer is a hack or a genius is merely subjective opinion. How exactly are you quantifying a writer's skill? By number of readers? By use as an example of good writing in schools? By any number of other criteria that change with the times?

No, I qualify a writer as hack or genius based on how much I enjoy him, naturally. As we've both stated, this is a chance to discuss your opinion on Lovecraft's writing.

I'm not so nebulous as to say merely that "I know what I like," though; I've given some concrete reasons why I think he fails (in many cases) as a writer in the very first post of the thread. If you like him, then why?

As to whether or not he's a hack or genius; my opinion is that he's both. He's a genius who wasn't able to fully realize his potential. He's an extremely frustrating writer to read, as his ideas are great.

 

[MarkAHart]

I just recently started re-reading Lovecraft. I have owned several books of his stories, but have always had difficult "getting into" them. This time around, I forced myself to slow down, take in the whole story, and remain patient. So far, I have been surprised at how good his stories are underneath the ponderous weight of adjectives.

First, I think he had some fantastic ideas -- ideas and plots we now take for granted, or even consider hackneyed because they've been done so many times in so many ways. Also, as pointed out in the article "The Shadow Over D&D" in a recent issue of DRAGON, Lovecraft and his correspondents practiced their own form of an SRD through the mythos.

In writing style, Lovecraft was a product of his time, and his writing comes across dated in ways -- his dialogue (or lack of it) is one of his weakest points (I believe Stephen King pointed this out), and his writing style leans towards florid. At the same time, his writing style also possesses a unique flavor that I think is part and parcel of the Cthulhu cycle.

At times, his writing is difficult to chew through, and frustrating in its roundabout way of reaching the point. For me on the plus side, his writing evokes a specific mood and feel that epitomizes horror.

 

[Abraxas]

OK, but I was under the impression from your comments refering to Tolkien that you were saying Lovecraft is a hack because he doesn't have these great abilities that Tolkien had (even though the greatness of those abilities were merely opinion).

Anyways - I think he did realize his potential (in the books I have) and they are suitably creepy given the context of the time in which they were written. I mean, c'mon, it was only a year after his death that the War of the Worlds radio broadcast caused mass hysteria. I'm pretty sure that that wouldn't hapen today without a conspiracy among all major broadcasters.

His stories were creepy but not scary, kind of a sub genre of horror. (although I must admit I have never read a story that was scary, something about the printed word just doesn't translate into scary for me) I really enjoyed the oddity of them. Something about the "things man was never meant to know" schtick strikes a chord with me and he wrote about that very well (and Lovecraft didn't have a ponderous style like Tolkien )

Unfortunately its very hard to say exactly why they work so well for me.

enjoy

 

[WayneLigon]

So, obviously Lovecraft is much-loved in the gaming community. Do you think me (and this guy who wrote that article) are out to lunch, or are we on to something?
Discuss.

Well, he was much-loved in the horror and dark fantasy community for decades before he was a gaming fan favorite. Every generation has discovered him again and again, like they do Howard and Leiber and other masters of fantasy.

I would actually hesitate to even call him a 'horror' writer, if horror writing means 'scary'. He's more in line with the other fantasists of his time as a 'weird' writer.

Lovecraft and his imitators are kinda like anime or James Joyce. Either you 'get it' or you don't and there doesn't seem to be much middle ground.