Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andrew D. Gable" data-source="post: 1999502" data-attributes="member: 4144">Good concepts.&nbsp; Sometimes, I think, if the author has a really good idea, it can show through and make that author shine despite any &quot;technical&quot; problems.Lovecraft certainly fell into the trap of overusing florid adjectives like &quot;non-Euclidean&quot;, &quot;cyclopean&quot;, &quot;Stygian&quot;, etc.&nbsp; Sometimes, to be honest, his stuff doesn't make&nbsp; alot of sense.&nbsp; He strikes me as really more of an artist than an author.&nbsp; Sometimes he wrote well, sometimes very poorly, but he almost always had really good concepts.&nbsp; And I am definitely a Lovecraft fan.Arthur Conan Doyle was listed as well, personally I consider him a good author, but then I'm not a critic.&nbsp; He's another.&nbsp; Sherlock Holmes is an extremely enduring sort of image or genre (notwithstanding it was really created by Poe).&nbsp; Bram Stoker?&nbsp; Once again, not always great, but he has Dracula -- an enduring motif.&nbsp; And Lovecraft has the whole bleak, uncaring universe thing.I'll bet a lot of the reason Lovecraft's remembered so is all the other authors who've followed up, picked up loose ends in his tales, taken dropped names, etc. and made their own tales, which were in turn taken on by others.&nbsp; I know I think that.&nbsp; Honestly, Lovecraft himself isn't that memorable or great an author.&nbsp; But the Cthulhu Mythos -- now that's something.&nbsp; Lovecraft's less an author, maybe, and more of a phenomenon.And Hand of Evil, the two (really) main influences were probably Arthur Machen and Lord Dunsany.&nbsp; Machen for the &quot;terrestrial&quot; aspect, Dunsany for the weird Dreamlands/fantasy stuff.&nbsp; And Lovecraft couldn't afford drugs!&nbsp; The man lived off of ice cream! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andrew D. Gable, post: 1999502, member: 4144"] Good [i]concepts[/i]. Sometimes, I think, if the author has a really good idea, it can show through and make that author shine despite any "technical" problems. Lovecraft certainly fell into the trap of overusing florid adjectives like "non-Euclidean", "cyclopean", "Stygian", etc. Sometimes, to be honest, his stuff doesn't make alot of sense. He strikes me as really more of an artist than an author. Sometimes he wrote well, sometimes very poorly, but he almost always had really good [i]concepts[/i]. And I am [i]definitely[/i] a Lovecraft fan. Arthur Conan Doyle was listed as well, personally I consider him a good author, but then I'm not a critic. He's another. Sherlock Holmes is an extremely enduring sort of image or genre (notwithstanding it was really created by Poe). Bram Stoker? Once again, not always great, but he has Dracula -- an enduring motif. And Lovecraft has the whole bleak, uncaring universe thing. I'll bet a lot of the reason Lovecraft's remembered so is all the other authors who've followed up, picked up loose ends in his tales, taken dropped names, etc. and made their own tales, which were in turn taken on by others. I know I think that. Honestly, Lovecraft [i]himself[/i] isn't that memorable or great an author. But the Cthulhu Mythos -- now that's something. Lovecraft's less an author, maybe, and more of a phenomenon. And Hand of Evil, the two (really) main influences were probably Arthur Machen and Lord Dunsany. Machen for the "terrestrial" aspect, Dunsany for the weird Dreamlands/fantasy stuff. And Lovecraft couldn't afford drugs! The man lived off of ice cream! ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification