Lovecraft, where to start?

[nikolai]

I'm glad Joshua's sharing his views on Lovecraft. The board would be a much duller place if people didn't give their opinions on things, or if they stuck rigidly to the thread topic.

I'm not sure I agree with Joshua's views though. One problem with them is that they evaluate Lovecraft as a horror writer. I accept that Lovecraft isn't scary. But, surely someone can be a great writer even if they're not scary. If you consider his work from the point of view of the weird tale or literature of the fantastic, you can argue that he's very influential and highly rated from a totally different perspective.

 

[Awakened]

While I certainly don't disagree with you, when have you ever read any of my fiction?

I never said I read any of your fiction. I've read your posts, and just by being realistic I can assume that you have flaws as a writer. No one is perfect.

They're only misleading if you disagree with me. I find your opinions misleading, personally.

What opinions where those? I never said whether I thought Lovecraft was a good or a bad author, mostly because no one cares what I think about the topic, and they shouldn't. They should find out for themselves. What I find misleading about your opinion is the way you give negative criticism along with your recommendations, you state several stories and proceed to say that Lovecraft doesn't know how to scare his audience. What's the point of reading any of the horror stories you listed if the author cannot horrify?

Uh, since when is a thread asking about opinions on where to start with Lovecraft an inappropriate thread to share my opinions on where to start with Lovecraft? What I think of Lovecraft's writing is certainly in important part of why I recommended that he start with the works that I recommended.

Since now. The title of the thread is Lovecraft-Where to Start. Not Lovecraft- Genius or Hack. Start a thread if you want to criticize, don't hijack a book recommendation thread just because you feel the need to ramble on about Lovecraft's inadequacies.

I'm having fun, you know.

 

[Desdichado]

I never said I read any of your fiction. I've read your posts, and just by being realistic I can assume that you have flaws as a writer. No one is perfect.

Oh. Well, in that case, your statement was completely irrelevent.

What opinions where those? I never said whether I thought Lovecraft was a good or a bad author, mostly because no one cares what I think about the topic, and they shouldn't. They should find out for themselves. What I find misleading about your opinion is the way you give negative criticism along with your recommendations, you state several stories and proceed to say that Lovecraft doesn't know how to scare his audience. What's the point of reading any of the horror stories you listed if the author cannot horrify?

Apparently you also didn't even read my criticisms carefully, you just jumped right into bashing me. Which leads squarely (albeit ironically) to my next point...

Since now. The title of the thread is Lovecraft-Where to Start. Not Lovecraft- Genius or Hack. Start a thread if you want to criticize, don't hijack a book recommendation thread just because you feel the need to ramble on about Lovecraft's inadequacies.

...I hardly need you to teach me netiquette. I've been posting on these boards (or their prior iteration) since the summer of 2000, and I'd been posting on Usenet for years before that. I think by now I know how to handle myself, thankyouverymuch. If you don't like my posts, there's a handy ignore feature; no hard feelings from me if you use it.

 

[Yuan-Ti]

Late to the party, but I just wanted to say: The Statement of Randolph Carter (http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lovecraft/thestatementofrandolph.htm) is one of the best short stories in the English language. It also happens to be the one I recommend to anyone who asks about HPL. Most of them call me back 30 minutes later and say, "Wow! What should I read next?"

 

[mmadsen]

No, it's not. That's actually a particularly common complaint about much of Lovecraft's writing. Good ideas, very hit and miss execution.

And it's a complaint I agree with. I've read plenty of Lovecraft, and while there's generally a kernel of brilliance in each story, most of them could be edited way, way down -- and I don't need to be explicitly told how horrifying something is. He needed a Post-It note with "Show, don't tell" on it, by his writing desk.

That said, I enjoyed "The Call of Cthulhu". "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" should have had most of the first few chapters cropped. "The Rats in the Walls" had a creepy premise, but the resolution didn't work for me at all. "At the Mountains of Madness" bored me to cyclopean, non-Euclidean tears.

I think it's a good idea to start with the now-iconic "The Call of Cthulhu" and then move on to his shorter stories.

 

[mmadsen]

I still stand by my recommendation of "The DreamQuest of Unknown Kadath" as the best Lovecraft ever wrote. For those who think I'm merely a lone voice crying out of the wilderness, here's at least one guy who agreed with me. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=books/main/classicsdreamquest

A passage from that essay:

The only fantasy novel from an author not known for his subtlety, this bizarre, witty, elegant little gem is an odd tale with an odd history. That we have the story at all is amazing, since Lovecraft wrote it for his own amusement and never submitted it to any publisher, refused to circulate it among his friends (contrary to his normal practice), and did not even bother to type it; it was not published until years after his death.[1] Written in deliberate imitation of another author (the inimitable Lord Dunsany), it is nonetheless distinctly, even quintessentially Lovecraftian. It never mentions Cthulhu, yet paradoxically it's fair to say it's the best Cthulhu Mythos novel ever published.​

I you like "The DreamQuest of Unknown Kadath", you owe it to yourself to read the works of Lord Dunsany (as I'm sure JD has).

 

[Kesh]

I have to back Joshua, actually. While I adore Lovecraft, his actual writing isn't terribly consistent nor frightening. He has some fantastic ideas, and can paint an interesting canvas when inspired, but tends to falter when attempting to convey the fear he thinks the reader should be feeling.

 

[Awakened]

...I hardly need you to teach me netiquette. I've been posting on these boards (or their prior iteration) since the summer of 2000, and I'd been posting on Usenet for years before that. I think by now I know how to handle myself, thankyouverymuch. If you don't like my posts, there's a handy ignore feature; no hard feelings from me if you use it.

I'd love to teach you netiquette, but to be honest I'm not to good at it myself. I like the world you're living in though, where longevity equals knowledge of how to conduct oneself. If that were true, Strom Thurmond would have been like Mother Teresa.
Here is my story recommendation list:
The Shadow Over Innsmouth (Awesome)
The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath
The Call of Cthulu
The Cats of Ulthar
Celephais (sooo cool)
Beyond the Wall of Sleep

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Since now. The title of the thread is Lovecraft-Where to Start. Not Lovecraft- Genius or Hack. Start a thread if you want to criticize, don't hijack a book recommendation thread just because you feel the need to ramble on about Lovecraft's inadequacies.

You know, I have to say that your attitude about this whole discussion strikes me as out of place here. I don't agree with Joshua's opinions about Lovecraft, but this thread is certainly a place where they can be discussed.

JD has always added interesting commentary to any discussions when Lovecraft has come up. Even though I don't share his point of view, any thread where someone is asking where to start, what are the best stories, etc., is certainly a place where opposing viewpoints can (and should) be expressed. If I was asking what I should read by a particular author, I'd welcome both those who enjoy the author, and those who can express their differing viewpoints without resorting to "He sucks". I don't want rabid fanboys or bashers, as they don't contribute in any way.

Opposing views presented in context promotes good discussion. I've never seen JD rant against HPL, he has always given his opinions in a fair and informed way. I think you are taking this whole thing way to seriously, and might want to step back a little.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not sure I agree with Joshua's views though. One problem with them is that they evaluate Lovecraft as a horror writer. I accept that Lovecraft isn't scary. But, surely someone can be a great writer even if they're not scary. If you consider his work from the point of view of the weird tale or literature of the fantastic, you can argue that he's very influential and highly rated from a totally different perspective.

Yeah, true. But Lovecraft himself was a horror writer, and even saw himself as such (ever read his essay on the writing of horror fiction?) There's no denying that he's been highly influential, even to me. As I've said earlier, he had brilliant ideas. That's probably my own personal greatest weakness; I don't often have great, original ideas.

As for considering his work from the perspective of a weird tale or fantastic literature writer, that's exactly why I prefer "The DreamQuest" to anything else he ever wrote.

I should perhaps clarify; the fact that I've said Lovecraft had some failings as a horror writer shouldn't be taken to indicate that I'm not a fan of much of his work, or that I'm painting everything he wrote as inferior. I've been a Lovecraft fan for probably close to 20 years, and some of his work is really good. Some of his ideas are downright brilliant. "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" is, actually, a pretty disturbing bit of horror fiction.

For those of you who are really big fans of Lovecraft's work; what exactly do you consider to be his strong points? Cthulhu's Librarian, for example, recommended some collections; I'd love to see some specific story recommendations, and why you like them, for instance. Although, perhaps, that does indeed go beyond the scope of the thread at bit.