Lovecraft: Hack or Genius?

[John Q. Mayhem]

I love HPL's stories, even though he's not the best writer. I agree with what people have said about his wonderful imaginative skills. I also tend to read Mythos stories to "unveil" the Mythos. I really need to read the Dreamlands books soon...

 

[Shemeska]

Lovecraft was a genius of ideas but, sadly, only a fair to middling writer.

That's pretty accurate IMHO. I read 'The Colour out of Space' at the county library when I was 8 years old. I didn't sleep that night and I had nightmares about crumbling people in the attic for weeks. I never knew his name, or who he was at the time, I just picked up a horror anthology and read that story. Years later in my senior year of highschool I picked up a few volumes of his collected works and devoured them in the space of a few days. Some absolutely brilliant ideas and concepts in his stuff, but you have to get around the language he uses, and his inability to properly write dialogue. In some of his letters I think he actually admits that he felt himself honestly piss poor at dialogue between characters.

For atmospheric horror he's the king of the mountain, but that mountain is built atop the crumbling bodies of things called characterization and dialogue.

I adore his writing. But, like fine cheese, ultra dark espresso, and raw fish, it's an accquired taste that not everyone will appreciate.

 

[Qlippoth]

One person's opinion (not mine):
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wbur/arts.artsmain?action=viewArticle&id=735169&pid=30&sid=13

 

[Evilhalfling]

Lovecraft will always be my favorate horror writter, despite his flaws and even the dullness of some of his stories - (Is anything he set in the dreamlands worth reading?)
His stories have frightened me. Perhaps 2 of Kings stories did the same and none of the few Koontiz books or classic by Poe ever have.
He explored the edges of his reality with imagination and style. Halfway convicing me that there were hostile things just beyond what we can percieve.

Of course the othe book that had me questioning reality was the Illumanti trillogy, when I read this as a freshman I had to keep stoping and thinking ( is this what is actually happening?)
well not the zomies etc... but the hidden and controlled nature of poltics. When I reread it
I had spent the intervening years considering if such conspericies were possible. And the book was only an okay read. I had observations to counter its claims, and my world view was secure.

whoa tangent -

 

[Desdichado]

Lovecraft will always be my favorate horror writter, despite his flaws and even the dullness of some of his stories - (Is anything he set in the dreamlands worth reading?)

The DreamQuest of Unknown Kadath was always my favorite Lovecraft story by far.

 

[nikolai]

I think that's how I describe a hack -- a writer who puts out material I'm actually embarrassed to read. Which is where, for example, Fritz Leiber avoids hackiness -- I'm never embarrassed by any of his stuff. He's such an amazing stylist, I'm always impressed by his work.

Have you read The Knight and Knave of Swords? You're right that Fritz Leiber has written some amazing stuff (Swords against Death), and is a superb stylist. But a lot of his stuff is dross of the highest order. Particularly the later Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories. That's pretty much the embodiment of stuff I'm embarrassed to read.

 

[Kesh]

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 am of the firm belief that the English teachers who include Dickens in their curriculum only do so because his writing was so unbelievably bad that it damaged their psyche. Thus traumatized, they inflict these abominations upon their students in a misguided sense of paternity, believing that there must be some redeeming quality to the works or their own teachers would not have included them. And thus, the cycle of abuse continues...

Yes, I hate Dickens.

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?

I think that's the point, though. Lovecraft was a hack writer, but a genius of imagination and storyteller.

Whereas Dickens was just plain awful.

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.

I agree, after a slight alteration to your list.


... hate...

 

[barsoomcore]

Have you read The Knight and Knave of Swords?

Oh, geez, you're right. I'd blocked that from my mind.

Okay, put Leiber down for a dose of hackamundo.

Sigh.

 

[Warrior Poet]

A hack? Yeah, I think so. But then, I'd say he was also a genius.

This reminded me (though Joshua Dyal was referring to the "ability" definition of hack, rather than the "type" definition): Lovecraft was often trying to pay the bills, and some of the stories were written to fill column inches, not necessarily send readers scurrying to lock the doors and check the basements. They may have been intended as such, but no one is an awesome writer at every attempt (nice job, Harper Lee. Write one really excellent book, then never set pen to paper again. "One show, goodbye"). He probably had to get things in on deadline, too, and as someone who has to write to deadline frequently, that can "reduce" some of the creative care one might take with work otherwise.*

*Comments for general consumption, not directed specifically at barsoomcore. Carry on.

Oh, I think Moorcock's earned a "hack" label . . . Don't get me wrong, I love my Moorcock, but he's sure embarrassing at times.

I love the Elric saga, but tried to read Blood a few years back, and just had to stop. It's so full of great ideas, but the writing is . . . well, hard to reconcile with the name Micahel Moorcock, frankly.

Whereas Dickens was just plain awful.

High five to you, sir. Dickens, bleah. "Nor am I looking for Nickwick Napers with four Ls and a silent Q!" (Monty Python/John Cleese)

Warrior Poet

 

[Wombat]

In the case of Moorcock, I would love to take all of his Elric novels and condense them down into a single novel of about 300 pages, cutting out the extraneous and repetitive material. He has some great ideas, but he just goes on and on with his "weirdness quotient" for my tastes.

Each of us have their own notions of "hacks". I consider John Grisham a serious hack, but I know that very few people would agree with me. I happen to like a good chunk of Lovecraft, but not all of him by any means. Edgar Rice Burroughs was a self-admitted hack.

But there is another side to this -- just because someone is a hack doesn't mean they are not fun to read. Heck, ERB said he only had one plot (boy meets girl, boy loses girl through social faux pas, boy regains girl through great battles, repeat), but he is still fun to read.