Lovecraft: Hack or Genius?

[trancejeremy]

I would agree that HPL was both. He wrote some really good stories, plus a lot of crap (his "collaborations", mostly). But he was definitely influential, as nearly every modern horror writer has done something based on him. (Only exception I can think of is Clive Barker)

Raymond Chandler wasn't a very good mystery writer (as you point out, his plots generally didn't make sense, or in some cases were unresolved*), but he definitely wasn't a hack. He was not a very fast writer, and only wrote a comparative handful of stories. He was a brilliant writer when it came to description and dialogue. Every piece of his is literally a masterpiece.

And if you read some of the essays by him, that was essentially his point. He didn't like the clever/gimmick myteries of Christie and such. He was more focusing on the telling, not the story itself.



* (Often because he wrote his novels by piecing together and expanding completely unrelated short stories)

 

[MonsterMash]

Shouldn't this have been a poll?

My tuppence worth, at best HPL is an inspired, inventive writer, but with a tendency to overwrite and at worst a formulaic hack, with outright racist attitudes.

 

[Crothian]

Do you judge him based on todays standards or do you judge him based on the standards of when he was writing? Literary focus changes through out history so many writers that were great in their time don't seem to stack up in modern times. Horror is really one of the areas hardiest to survive. Many of the classic horror books from 50-100 years back and more just don't live up to todays standards.

so, my vote is neither, we can't really judge that with out a lot more research.

 

[Terath Ninir]

We could always compare the quality of *your* writing with his and see who comes out better.

I kid!

I think it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss a writer as a hack. (Not saying you're intellectually dishonest, though; just that you're falling into a failing common to English majors, whether you be one or not.) Charles Dickens, for example, was a hack, yet is taught in every English class that can manage to fit one of his books in.

You can dismiss an author like Lovecraft or, say, Arthur Conan Doyle for the quality of their writing, but to do so shows a lack of understanding of what is important in writing. There's more to writing than writing skill, as with Tolkien. His books are mediocre writing at best, yet who can deny his importance?

No, skill at writing is not always the most important thing with an author. The truly great artists, the ones with world-changing visions, can rise above even that. Dickens, Doyle, Lovecraft, Tolkien: all are technical bad writers, but to deny their place in literary history is to deny reality.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Is Bram Stoker a hack? Arthur Conan Doyle? Mary Shelley etc?

Only one of the horror legends of old that I can say I find even the slightest
"scary" is Edgar Allan Poe and then I mean more his poetry than his prose.

It's a hard thing to judge.

Genius? Not really. But the man made one awesome mythology and I think it
is really that that has survived to this day. One might say that the same goes
for the rest of the legends I mentioned. Who remembers any of Bram Stoker's
or Mary Shelley's other books? Is Arthur Conan Doyle remembered for anything
else than creating Sherlock Holmes?

That's why I like his books. Not for horror, but rather the unveiling of the myths.

 

[Mystery Man]

No, skill at writing is not always the most important thing with an author. The truly great artists, the ones with world-changing visions, can rise above even that. Dickens, Doyle, Lovecraft, Tolkien: all are technical bad writers, but to deny their place in literary history is to deny reality.

How does one become a "technically bad writer" and not get published and beloved by millions? I want to know, I need the money!!

 

[Desdichado]

Do you judge him based on todays standards or do you judge him based on the standards of when he was writing? Literary focus changes through out history so many writers that were great in their time don't seem to stack up in modern times. Horror is really one of the areas hardiest to survive. Many of the classic horror books from 50-100 years back and more just don't live up to todays standards.

Both. Comtemporary and friend of Lovecraft's, Clark Ashton Smith was a good writer, for instance. Yet he was still primarily a writer of pulp magazine weird tales, and he's much less remembered today. So I think the idea that "Lovecraft isn't good by today's standard's, but he was for his time" is baloney.

Not to mention that he mentioned several influences, including Poe, Machen, Stoker, and others who were also much better writers than he.

so, my vote is neither, we can't really judge that with out a lot more research.

Have you read him? Then you can judge him. True, your judgement may be missing some details, but so what?

 

[Mystery Man]

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:

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.

If I'm reading the same thing you read:

Fans of his horror tend to disparage his fantasy because it is so very different from his other work; fans of fantasy rarely discover it because they only know of him through his reputation as an eccentric hack.

The author himself does not imply that he thinks Lovecraft is a hack. Or at least I'm not reading that into it.
The article goes over the merits of his writing and is a very well done literary analysis. I will agree that Lovecrafts stories are not "scary". Weird yes. Imaginative yes. He uses antiquated adjectives that don't jive well with today's generation but his command of the English language is superlative.

 

[Desdichado]

I think it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss a writer as a hack. (Not saying you're intellectually dishonest, though; just that you're falling into a failing common to English majors, whether you be one or not.) Charles Dickens, for example, was a hack, yet is taught in every English class that can manage to fit one of his books in.

I'm not an English major, nor am I particular fond of the opinions taught in Western literary criticism. I think you're also confusing writing skill with audience. Charles Dickens was most definately not a hack, unless you discount him because of the audience for which he wrote.

Which, contrary to your implication, most university literature programs have done until extremely recently, and many still do today.

You can dismiss an author like Lovecraft or, say, Arthur Conan Doyle for the quality of their writing, but to do so shows a lack of understanding of what is important in writing. There's more to writing than writing skill, as with Tolkien. His books are mediocre writing at best, yet who can deny his importance?

To say that Tolkien's books are poorly written is to show a lack of understanding, IMO. Importance is not necessarily equivalent to quality. Lovecraft is important, as I've said many times before, because of his brilliant ideas, which many subsequent author's have executed more skillfully than he.

No, skill at writing is not always the most important thing with an author. The truly great artists, the ones with world-changing visions, can rise above even that. Dickens, Doyle, Lovecraft, Tolkien: all are technical bad writers, but to deny their place in literary history is to deny reality.

It's beyond the scope of this discussion, but I disagree that DIckens, Doyle or Tolkien are bad writers.

 

[Desdichado]

The author himself does not imply that he thinks Lovecraft is a hack. Or at least I'm not reading that into it.
The article goes over the merits of his writing and is a very well done literary analysis. I will agree that Lovecrafts stories are not "scary". Weird yes. Imaginative yes. He uses antiquated adjectives that don't jive well with today's generation but his command of the English language is superlative.

Are you sure you're reading the same article I am? Are you reading the same Lovecraft that I am? Command of the English language was not one of his strength's as a writer. IMO, his strenght's were mostly limited to brilliant and innovative ideas, which he really struggled to develop well, partly because of his lack of command of the language. Just because he used a handful of arcane and archaic adjectives does not mean he had a command of the English language.

Tolkien, on the other hand, probably had the greatest command of the English language of any writer I've ever read. His ability to effortlessly jump from style to style; to keep a reader's attention through a 40 page chapter of expository dialogue and to hearken back to epic, Anglo-Saxon works just through word choice is second to none. In fact, I don't think anyone else has really even attempted it.