Lovecraft: Hack or Genius?

[Psychic Warrior]

Lovecraft was a genius of ideas but, sadly, only a fair to middling writer. It is obvious from his writings that he often struggled to put into words some of the fantastic ideas he had. Sometimes he got them right (Call fo Cthulhu, Colour out of Space) sometimes not (The Silver Key, Nyarlantrotep). Not really enough to call him a 'hack' I would say as the quality of his ideas make much of his work worth reading through.

 

[Templetroll]

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.

Creepy is a good choice to describe Lovecraft's work. Have you seen an animal/pet staring at the corner where the walls and ceiling meet and not thought of the Hounds? His style would plant images in your mind, in your memory, that would pop up later after your imagination had a chance to make them really horrific!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

Whereas I can enjoy a writer while fully admitting that he is a hack, if sometimes a rather guilty enjoyment. I would consider Alan Dean Foster a hack for example. At least partially because of the definition that I use for 'hack', which is largely writing in a manner consistent with the pulps.

There are also some very talented and technically skilled authors who I do not read because I have no enjoyment of them. This holds true with movies as well, I thought that Kiss of the Spider Woman was a great movie, and one that I never want to see again.

The Auld Grump

 

[Fenris]

I have to go with WayneLigon here and say that you can't really call Lovecraft a horror writer. King and Barker are horror writers. Lovercraft and Poe are Terror writers. There is a subtle difference. But this is a distinction that an English PhD (who did his thesis on King) pointed out himself. Horror deals with physical threats and fear, terror with psychological threats and fear. Most modern writers are horror writers. Very rarely in Lovecraft stories is the protagonist in real physical danger, they are instead always on the edge on sanity however (OK, usually over the edge). Does this change Joshua's question, no. But let's get on the same page first.

That said, hack or genius, I like reading his stories, so I don't care.

But, come on, all the great geniuses shoot themselves

 

[Turanil]

<...> I want to know, I need the money!!

Hum! I think I second this opinion.

 

[Desdichado]

Creepy is a good choice to describe Lovecraft's work. Have you seen an animal/pet staring at the corner where the walls and ceiling meet and not thought of the Hounds? His style would plant images in your mind, in your memory, that would pop up later after your imagination had a chance to make them really horrific!

Well, don't forget, he didn't write about the Hounds. That was (I believe) Robert Bloch, and I found it in a collection of non-Lovecraft Cthulhiana.

EDIT: Correction: it was Frank Belknap Long, not Robert Bloch.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I love Lovecraft. When I read a story, the story and ideas are far more important than things like the dialog and the characterizations. Not that they aren't important, but I can read a book with flat characters if the ideas behind the story are brilliant. Whereas no matter how snappy the dialog is, if the ideas bore me I'm going to drop the book. Lovecraft delivers very good stories IMO. A wierd creepy vibe is very present througout, and I can get into the horror his characters are going through.

I don't get scared while reading a horror novel, if I will get scared it's becuase an idea of terror is planted in my brain and later I encounter something that brings it to the surface. IT did that too me after I read it, I would be walking at night and I'd be half expecting the clown to peer at me in the distance. When I read Stephen King's story "1408" I was was thinking I bet the phone is going to ring and I'm going to crap my pants when it does. I was visualizing the scene in the book and it really creeped me out at the time. I still think that's one freaky story.

P.S. I think we should just call King a writer, he crosses too many genres to just be pidgeon holed as a horror novelist.

 

[Arnwyn]

I was (incorrectly, IMO, I might add) chastised

Heh. That's what they all say.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Time tells, if he was a hack he would not be read today, genius I don't know because there was at least one person that inspired him (can't remember the name), plus drugs, and I just think talented with some luck with names.

 

[Desdichado]

Time tells, if he was a hack he would not be read today,

Outside of relatively small, fairly insular circles, I'm not sure that he is much read today, actually.

genius I don't know because there was at least one person that inspired him (can't remember the name)

I've already mentioned several folks earlier in this thread that he transparently aped in style and content both, including (but not limited to) Edgar Allen Poe and Lord Dunsany

plus drugs,

Most drugs weren't illegal in his day. All kinds of folks used them. I've never heard that he did, though, in any biographical work I've ever read.

and I just think talented with some luck with names.

Huh?