Lovecraft: Hack or Genius?

[Desdichado]

I was (incorrectly, IMO, I might add) chastised for bringing this up in another thread related to Lovecraft, but it does deserve it's own thread. If nothing else, that way it'll be the actual focus of the conversation rather than a sideline. I posted the following earlier:

Indeed it was a bit harsh. But not undeservedly. It articulated much of my own feelings on his writings, to be honest with you, and better than I had done before reading it. Something about Lovecraft as a horror writer just didn't sit right with me, and I think I finally discovered that "non-Euclidean" wasn't a descriptor that was scary. Lovecraft as a writer has some good ideas, but then botches his execution. Rather than making his tales actually scary, he continually tells the reader that they're scary in the vain hope that the readers will be scared. That, and the strange idea that merely making things very alien will make them scary, lead to the ironic position of a classic horror writer who's work isn't really very scary.

Granted, some are much better than others, but overall, the article's description of Lovecraft as an "eccentric hack" with momentary flashes of brilliance is on the money, in my opinion.

The quote also references this article on the Wizards' website.

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.

 

[shadowlight]

Hack. Next question?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Like every writer, its a matter of taste. There is no end all, be all answer one way or another. The long discussions on whether Tolkien's works are crap or not that would pop up with the Lord of the Rings movies are proof of that.

I'm a big fan of Lovecraft's stuff. Its just like nothing else and it is creepy in its own way. I can't really describe accurately WHY I like it, but I just do. You aren't onto anything, and you're not out to lunch either. You've just got your own opinion that happens to differ from others.

But then again, this is the internet and there is only ONE TRUE WAY and ONE TRUE BELIEF. So maybe you're just wrong.

 

[Wombat]

I always found Lovecraft brilliant for setting a mood or a scene, but some of his fiction, particularly his longer works, tend to meander and the plot gets lost in the descriptions. But for all that and all that, I do enjoy his works immensely -- I just place a caution on them, especially for more modern tastes.

I think this is why I prefer Poe as a horror writer; very clean, very concise, very plot-driven.

 

[Abraxas]

I think he's more an eccentric Genius with momentary flashes of Hacknitude.
Plus, he was writing in a time before the everyday horrors we call entertainment on TV existed.

 

[Warrior Poet]

I'd categorize him in the middle, neither hack nor genius.

I don't find his writing ability to be earth shattering, but I don't think he's bad and just happened to be popular by luck or fiat, either.

I think he's a good writer, and I think, given the time in which he wrote, descriptions like "non-Euclidian" probably had more resonance, not only because quantum mechanics was in its (relative) infancy, but also because for most people, such a term represented something that was, indeed, beyond ken, and the fear of the unknown probably tied into cultural fears prevalent at the time, I think. I suspect his horror may have capitalized on the notion that there's so much visible horror that's known (WWI, world-devastating swine flu, economic collapse), then just THINK about how much horror there is about stuff we DON'T know. In some ways, he's continuing the tradition of Hawthorne, Poe, Collins, Dunsany, Machen, and so forth (though I think Hawthorne and Poe are more skilled in terms of wordsmithing on the page).

Also, I know one of his big influences was Lord Dunsany, with an emphasis on the dreamlike quality of certain things -- not necessarily horror, but just weird. Pickman's Model is supposed to be horrific, I think, as are things like The Temple, The Call of Cthulhu, and The Shadow Over Innsmouth, but his "Silver Key" stuff was more weird and atmospherically hazy, as was The Shadow Out of Time, and some others.

So, I'd say he's decent: neither a candidate for a Nobel, nor a Bulwher-Lytton.

Warrior Poet

 

[Pierce_Inverarity]

Hack AND Genius

I agree, his stories aren't the scariest stories ever written, but the fantastic descriptions and sense of looming darkness and horror of "things that should not be" was certainly groundbreaking and is often brilliantly executed. On the other hand, he was a writer of pulp fiction and so by very definition a hack.

I consider Raymond Chandler equivalent for the mystery genre. His plots are loose and untidy, but the dialogue sparkles and Phillip Marlowe sets the standard for all hard-boiled P.I.'s

Both authors wrote pulp fiction. Both were brilliant but uneven. Both are enjoyable reads.

 

[Turanil]

Discuss.

There is no question that Lovecraft was a bad writer. And what you say is also true. The genius of Lovecraft is to have invented this weird Cthulhu Mythos, that was so much better than traditional horror featuring werewolves and demons from Hell.

I think the Strength of the Mythos, is that these are alien beings from distant stars, creatures unfathomable, in a hopeless world where there is no ultimate deity of love to save mankind. This is far much better and interesting IMO, than the habitual stuff of Christian evil (i.e.: the Devil and damning your soul).

Now as to writing style Lovecraft is bad (adding adjective over advjective in almost every phrase), and as you say, telling the reader that the story is scary rather actually scaring him.

 

[Turanil]

He was writing in a time before the everyday horrors we call entertainment on TV existed.

Exactly. And regularly watching these "entertainment on TV" is a much more effective way of losing one's sanity than seeing Azatoth in the center of the Universe.

 

[Wormwood]

Off-the-cuff theory:

HPL was cursed/blessed with being considered a "writer's writer".

Appreciated by writers who drew inspiration from (and in some cases, improved upon) the themes he explored---but unappreciated by his own audience.

Because so many in the "Geek Arts" (sci-fi/fantasy fandom, roleplaying, etc) fancy themselves creative, they value HPL more for inspiration than entertainment.

Or not. I'm four beers in.