H.P Lovecraft

[evil-frosty]

I have never read any of his books and was wondering what everyone thought of them. I know his stuff is rather bizarre to the extreme. I saw some of his books today and was looking at them, but my dad said i probably wouldnt like them. So what is your opinion on Lovecraft?

[Innis Cabal]

Highly over rated, and not really all that creative. It actually makes me rage seeing so much Lovecraft in every form of media. Its just so...trite. It wasn't when it was written, but we're not talking about then. We're talking about now. Now? Just....he's boring, racist, and...ya. Thats about as much as there is to say on him.

[Mystic Muse]

I haven't read them. however apparently the copyright license on a large amount of his books is up and they are now downloadable Legally online.

of course that might not be true. I heard that on these boards however so that increases the likelihood that it is. The only things I really know about them is this.

1. They are REALLY bleak
2. they're pretty Racist.

[Deepblue706]

I think he's pretty neat.

Although stories that include Cthulu And Friends tend to be more popular, I recommend the "Dream Cycle" stories. The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath was a fun read for me.

You might appreciate him if you're interested in Edgar Allen Poe (who was an influence for him) or Stephen King (who he influenced).

[reorith]

like most authors who are not Phillip K. ****, there is very little reason to read the works of h. p. lovecraft.

[arguskos]

H. P. Lovecraft was one of the founding authors of the "unknowable beyond" school of horror writing, as I understand it. His works are similar in some ways to those of J. R. R. Tolkien, in that his writing is less impressive than the ideas behind it (namely, that of the whole mythos Lovecraft paints with his works). As pieces of writing, they are sorta "eh". As foundations of a bleak, horrific, terrifying world, they're pretty good.

[DraPrime]

I just recommend going to the library and picking up a book with a bunch of his short stories. You're bound to find something satisfying there.

[golentan]

I recommend reading lovecraft. I know I enjoyed a lot of the atmosphere, the sense of grandiose things that had happened and would continue to happen in the universe, the mysteries and mythos that was accessible on earth, and the knowledge that "Like Uses" could and had survived in the universe. A lot of the material didn't age well, but I still enjoyed it. And because of the narrative I just dismissed the racism as an artifact of the narrator, which took away a lot of the pain.

Yes, that was my take away from Lovecraft. You can stop giggling now.


like most authors who are not Phillip K. ****, there is very little reason to read the works of h. p. lovecraft.

I categorically disagree with everything in that statement.

[Zaydos]

I like them, but you really need to get somewhere undisturbed to read them where you can just seep into the book. The writing isn't the best, but if you go into the world and put yourself in it it can get kind of creepy. If you don't; I don't like it so much when I don't (for example Dream Quest everyone else I know says it's better but I just couldn't immerse in it). I'd say try it and see if you like it.

*Also I don't advice this immersion with Phillip K. ****, I've sworn off reading multiple of his books in a row (honestly he's a better writer and a creepier/bleaker one than Lovecraft). Yes Phillip K. is awesome and you should read him, just take a day off between books

[reorith]

I just recommend going to the library and picking up a book with a bunch of his short stories. You're bound to find something satisfying there.

the collection The Best of H. P. Lovecraft: Bloodcurdling Tales of Horror and the Macabre has a decent variety with enough of the classics. "pickman's model" made me smile.


*Also I don't advice this immersion with Phillip K. ****, I've sworn off reading multiple of his books in a row (honestly he's a better writer and a creepier/bleaker one than Lovecraft). Yes Phillip K. is awesome and you should read him, just take a day off between books

i break up Philip K. ****'s works with Lethem and Holt.

[Zevox]

I like some of his work. I have one collection of his short stories, and generally enjoyed them, though sometimes to wildly varying degrees. I tended to like the cosmic horror stuff best. The Call of Cthulu, The Colour Out of Space, The Whisperer in Darkness, The Haunter of the Dark, those kinds of things. Not because they were frightening - they rarely were, truthfully, and I probably wouldn't have liked them if they were, as I tend not to find scaring myself to be fun - but because they were the most fascinating. Though one that stands out as not of the cosmic horror variety but still fascinating and enjoyable is Herbert West - Reanimator.

And yeah, Lovecraft was rather racist. In most of his stories it's pretty easy to ignore, as it doesn't play any large role - he just tends to cast the cultists of his horrors as "ill-bred people" and the like. Annoying, but not a deal-breaker. I know of one, though, that pretty much relied on the reader being racist for it to have any real impact: Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family. Yeah, I wasn't a fan of that one. On the other hand, the ending to another story did alter amusingly when I read it due to the racist/not racist disconnect there.
The ending to The Shadow Over Innsmouth, where the main character mutates into one of the fish-people he ran from in the main story, then dreams of descending into the sea to join them. Lovecraft, I suspect, intended that to scare people like crazy, with the character mutating like that simply because his grandfather or great-grandfather had been one of those fish-people. A "tainted blood" sort of thing being what he was going for, I'd guess. With me, it instead made me wish I could mutate into an immortal fish-person and go live in the place he was describing.
Zevox

[Falconer]

I've read some of his work, having heard so much about him in places like these forums. I was under the impression that it was some sort of nightmare-inducing thing...and was dreadfully disappointed. He's not a terrible writer, but highly overrated in terms of the horror genre, which his books are usually classified as. His chief flaw when he gets to the horrific abominations, eldritch terrors, and assorted creepy crawky things is that he doesn't make them scary. He tells you they're scary. He writes about how seeing them would drive you mad, absolutely mad with terror, and how traumatic it was for whatever character was encountering them, and things like that.

Granted, his work was, to my knowledge, the beginning of a whole mythos and was very original and maybe even considered scary when they were written. So they're noteworthy... but they're just not scary, which is what I was led to believe they were.

Regards,
-Falconer

[Tiktakkat]

Granted, his work was, to my knowledge, the beginning of a whole mythos and was very original and maybe even considered scary when they were written. So they're noteworthy... but they're just not scary, which is what I was led to believe they were.

Horror is like most literature - standards and assumptions change over time, and what was horrifying to one generation is yawn inducing to another.
Likewise horror is highly subject to the motivations of the audience - what frightens one person inspires giggles in another.

As a comparison, looking even further back into the "roots" of horror, I picked up a book containing short stories by Ambrose Bierce. His horror stories contain the original references to Hastur that Lovecraft borrowed. How scary are they? Less than your average campfire story from a bored 10 year old. Conversely his Civil War short stories still make me shudder just to mention them. Those will disturb your sleep.

That said, Lovecraft is a foundation author. When you consider the sheer number of "great" authors, both horror and otherwise, who either worked with, corresponded with, or cite Lovecraft as an inspiration, you kind of, sort of, "have to" figure there is something there. And there is.
Is it any good?
Some of it. Some of it is blecherous. And some of it is not horror, but still relevant to the genre.
Is it racist?
Definitely. To the point of Lovecraft needing a serious smack in the mouth for it.
Is it relevant to "understanding" a lot of horror and fantastic literature?
Absolutely! Lovecraft's influence is all over the place in style and content, and unless you simply do not care about missing all of the subtext that springs up everywhere, you really need to make an effort to at least scan his works to get some insight into what is there.

[T-O-E]

Anyone who thinks Lovecraft isn't scary clearly hasn't read his most bloodcurdling narrative... CATS. AND. DOGS. (http://www.psy-q.ch/lovecraft/html/catsdogs.htm) :smalleek:

[thegurullamen]

I tried reading At The Mountains of Madness and found it too dry, which is what I hear about most of his work. I love the ideas he's presented, but I hate the way he presented them. Thankfully, a slew of authors have fallen in behind him and taken up the task. My favorites are Stephen King and Canadian VG developers, Silicon Knights with their superb Eternal Darkness game for the GameCube. It's Lovecraft in every imaginable way.

[doliest]

I personally love his work; the racism isn't that hard to deal with and is rather easy to overlook if you see it coming. He's built the foundation of an entire Genre which really does make him the J.R.R. Tolkien of Sci-fi.

[Gorgondantess]

Ever seen an old episode of Twilight Zone? One of the 'what a twist!' episodes that are totally predictable because it was so brilliant that everyone copied it to the point that it's overdone and trite, but watching the old episode you find a certain charm and appeal that any cheap knockoff can't really give? Kindof like Tolkein, as compared to, say Eragon? That's Lovecraft.
Now, a lot of his stuff isn't that great. SOme of it is brilliant, some of it is good, and some of it is mediocre. Do not start on Call of Cthulhu, his most famous piece. I'd advise you start with a shorter work- The Music of Erich Zann, or The Outsider. Both favorites of mine, each quick, good reads, keeping your eye from start to finish. Once you sample those, if you find you enjoy them, then I'd advise you move on to one of his more long-winded pieces- Shadow Over Innsmouth is a classic.
And don't bother going to the library, unless you like the feel of paper in your hands. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:H._P._Lovecraft)

In the end, he writes a lot like E.A. Poe- so if you enjoy him, you'll like Lovecraft. His is Poe turned sci-fi.

[Satyr]

Lovecraft is almost a tragic figure in himself, if you only regard his work. You can see that he had some very great ideas when he wrote the whole stuff, but his personal quirks and neuroses kept the things to become too scary (seriously, we are talking about someone who thinks that penguins are "grotesque" and old houses are scary.... because they are old, and with old I mean 300 years or so, meaning not old at all) and his almost complete lack of writing skills made the things worse. Lovecraft is a terrible author with some for their day innovative ideas, but thanks to his inability to express these ideas, his tales are hard to read. A badly written story based on a good idea is still a badly written story, and this is were the tragic lies. Think of Lovecraft. Try to imagine how he forms his ideas up in his mind, and how is inable to formulate them effectively. For him, writing must have felt like constantly trying to press a camel through the eye of a needle. Compared to what he probably wanted to express, every single horror tale of him is an exercise in failure.

It also really doesn't help that the scarriest things in his texts is his blatant racism.

[Bhu]

http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/ You can also find most of his stuff here if you want a peek before buying.

[Obrysii]

Horror is like most literature - standards and assumptions change over time, and what was horrifying to one generation is yawn inducing to another.
Likewise horror is highly subject to the motivations of the audience - what frightens one person inspires giggles in another.

This is very true.

A classic example is Dracula. Today, it's a relatively boring read with little action. When it was written, it was considered significantly more horrifying. Why? Blood.

Blood was considered the horror standard of the time - the idea of giving blood transfusions was new and considered scary, and the thought of a creature living by drinking blood was equally so.

Likewise, I would suggest that body horror - the alteration of one's body, the descent into madness, and unreal monsters - contributed largely to Lovecraft's thoughts on what "horror" or "scary" was ...

[Klose_the_Sith]

Personally, I love HP. The racism is hardly something which bothered me, truth be told - not because I'm personally racist myself, but because I just ... don't care. Sure, there's racism in there if you're looking for it - but I just read stories about people doin' stuff.

Also I think his writing style is awesome. I mean, I don't expect it to be for everyone, but the way he utterly layers on poetic slatherings is something which I enjoy, especially with his various amusing anachronisms.

If you don't want to enjoy Lovecraft then that's cool, means I'm weirder for loving it all to bits so much - and weird is my business :smallcool:

[factotum]

I think his work is an acquired taste. There's bags of imagination there, but the writing style is seriously clunky (especially his habit of not using one adjective when 23 will do) and some of the attitudes are dated. They're also not ones to read if you're used to the modern idea of showing the nasties in all their gory detail--Lovecraft believed it was more terrifying to hint at the true horror of it all.

[bosssmiley]

He's good if you're in the right mood, and an incredibly addictive gateway drug to old-school pulp fantasy if you find yourself wanting more of the same.

Like Poe, Dunsany and Hodgson he writes in a deliberately archaic, high-flown style that can take a little tuning into. Oh, and his personal hang-ups (weird dreams, fish, the cold, scary black men, foreigners) are a major source of inspiration.

If nothing else you should read Lovecraft for cultural context. The guy was pen pal/co-conspirator with R.E.Howard, Klarkash-Ton, and most of the other primary inspirations for D&D (and thus most modern fantasy/cosmic horror).

[Starfols]

Lovecraft being incredibly racist is kind of a misnomer. He's really not any more racist than any author of the era. He's about as racist as Hemmingway or Poe, less racist than Twain or Brontë.

As for poor writing, I finished every story so far in one sitting (with one exeption; Charles Dexter Ward), which I don't do often. Lovecraft's writing goes heavily into the 'ooooo, mysterious' theme and stays there pretty much constantly, which I lurve.
The only complaints I have is that it when he's writing about mundane stuff, it's pretty dry (a complaint I have with all writers of the period), descriptions of strange stuff can get confusing (describing things that are, by their nature, indescribable insures this), and repeating adjectives a lot (usually the words (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cyclopean) in question have few or no synonyms).

His writing is quite different, probably not worth acquiring if you're not into surreal, supernatural shenanigans, but well worth it if you are.

[golentan]

less racist than Twain

That's always bothered me. I never found much racist in Twain's writing. He made disparaging comments about the institution of slavery, despite being raised by a slave owner. He wrote about it's dehumanizing effects, said that under their skin all men are much the same, and made characters like Jim dynamic and interesting who were in most ways an equal companion to the others in the story. Some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_twain#Abolition.2C_emancipation.2C_and_anti-racism) Examples (http://classi****.about.com/od/marktwainfaqs/f/faq_mtwain_slav.htm) here. (http://quotations.about.com/od/marktwainquotes/a/twainracist.htm)

Apart from the use of the N word (which, well, different times), I can't think of any real racism on Twain's behalf. But people keep claiming him as a racist.

[Zaydos]

I tried reading At The Mountains of Madness and found it too dry, which is what I hear about most of his work. I love the ideas he's presented, but I hate the way he presented them. Thankfully, a slew of authors have fallen in behind him and taken up the task. My favorites are Stephen King and Canadian VG developers, Silicon Knights with their superb Eternal Darkness game for the GameCube. It's Lovecraft in every imaginable way.

I like Lovecraft but At The Mountains of Madness took me two tries to read. It's long, and only gets good near the end. The best part about it was it really does present the most information into the mythos of anything I've read (and one of the few from things that actually understood what they were talking about). But yeah Lovecraft can be dry at times.


They're also not ones to read if you're used to the modern idea of showing the nasties in all their gory detail--Lovecraft believed it was more terrifying to hint at the true horror of it all.

I have to second this. I liked that Lovecraft only hinted because it let me use my imagination to create the monster (hint I'm on a mostly D&D forum because I like the game better than computer games for this same reason) and because horror monsters in movies never really scared me. So yeah I agree, if you like seeing the monster in detail you won't get much out of it (save cultural references) but if you find the hint of terror more horrific go for it.

Like I've said I like Lovecraft. Also for whoever mentioned he was like Poe, Lovecraft accreditted Poe as who his later works drew inspiration from and who he was actively trying to write like (yay random trivia).

[Starfols]

Apart from the use of the N word (which, well, different times), I can't think of any real racism on Twain's behalf. But people keep claiming him as a racist.

That's my point. People equate uses of such words and themes in works as racism, when they're really just the modus operandi of the time.

[golentan]

That's my point. People equate uses of such words and themes in works as racism, when they're really just the modus operandi of the time.

But lovecraft was offhandedly racist and believed in racial superiority, while Twain was vehemently anti-racist and offhandedly used common parlance. So I object to calling lovecraft "Less racist" than Twain. /pet peeve

[Tiktakkat]

But lovecraft was offhandedly racist and believed in racial superiority, while Twain was vehemently anti-racist and offhandedly used common parlance. So I object to calling lovecraft "Less racist" than Twain. /pet peeve

Actually, I would say Lovecraft was actively racist, and used racist term without a second thought because he saw nothing wrong with using it to dehumanize those he despised.

Twain was anti-racist, and only used racist terminology to throw it back in the faces of racists, mocking them that despite dehumanizing terminology the innate humanity of particular characters would always overwhelm such feeble sneering.

[urkthegurk]

Well, Lovecraft was specifically racist, although he might not have meant to be. I read an essay on him that suggested he was xenophobic, and that he hated it about himself, and that his wife hated it too. It makes sense, given his other neuroses, and I think in his writing he's trying express that inexplicable fear. But I do find that preoccupation a bit of a drag.

I like him because he was one of the first to start just making monsters up, off the top of his head. he basically re-wrote the mythology part of science fiction. You have to love him for that.

If you want to write, play, or seriously read sci-fi or fantasy, he's a must-read.


Personally, I love HP. The racism is hardly something which bothered me, truth be told - not because I'm personally racist myself, but because I just ... don't care. Sure, there's racism in there if you're looking for it - but I just read stories about people doin' stuff.


Sorry, but that's how racism is allowed to exist. At least have the distinction of character to look at a thing and say 'this is bad, I don't condone this.' Otherwise you imply you have no skill at judgement, and that sort of invalidates anything else you might say.

You don't have to cast aside every idea this person has to disagree with them. Racism does hurt people, in a real and literal sense, so it is bad, in our real world. Anyone not being hurt by it is still benefiting from it, and it is my advice that they should be outraged by this fact.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Meh... Lovecraft isn't any more racist than say... Walt Disney, Spielberg, Lucas, or James Cameron.

I guess if you write about cosmic horror, futility, and fear, you get a lot more flak for it.

God, I'm glad I graduated from college.

I like Lovecraft. The man had some pretty original ideas, and that's hard to come across these days. He's a fascinating individual with a troubled mind, whose fears and neuroses are available for anyone to examine, and in some cases, enjoy. He wrote during a time when constructing eloquent prose was more of an art form, and if you appreciate the evolution of the English language you might even enjoy yourself (rather than complain that it's 'hard'). To me, he has a very distinct voice, and that's perhaps the most important trait in a writer.

Yes, he's 'dated.' But that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Marx Brothers are dated. Cartoons by Tex Avery are dated. You know what? Most old stuff is a hell of a lot better than anything the entertainment industry has shat out in the past 15 years or so.

Perhaps the worst thing about Lovecraft is that his special brand of cosmic horror has become so commonplace that most people are desensitized to it, or fail to realize what it really stands for. I find a lot of his works are very relevant right now. So I'd heartily recommend them. Hopefully they'll encourage the exploration of odd ways of thinking, or examining the more primal, nonsensical, surreal, or subconscious fears.

[GolemsVoice]

It's this time of the year again. every few months, somebody opens a thread on the last gentleman of Providence, and each time, people chime in about how he#s not scary. I should save a standard response to post each time. :smallwink:

So, this comes from somebody who LOVES Lovecraft.

First of all: If you don't like him, don't read him. I can see many reasons why one wouldn't like him. His writing style, his creatures, his ideas, his racism, etc. make him a very personal choice. So, if you disagree with anything I'm saying, just say: I don't agree, and it's my personal choice, just like it's his personal choice to like this.

I personally find his writing very fitting to what he writes about. The long-winded, adjective-filled, mulitlayerd sentences go well with the bizarre atmosphere of uncertain dread that lingers in many of his scenes, and fits the old manuscripts, winding alleys, and the sense of ancient mysteries. When he manages it. And there are certainly instances where he doesn't, and launches into a paroxysm of metaphors and purple prose over something unimportant or mundane. There's times when you think "Get to the point, man!", but there's also times when you can't put a book down because you are spellbound by his writings. For me, the latter occurs more often than the first.

His horror: No, it IS NOT SCARY. You will very likely not stay awake at night because of what you read, and you very likely won't jump in disgust or terror like you would do when watching a horror movie. That's because his strengths don't lie in momentary terror, in the quick scare. It's more of a mindset you have to (willingly) get behind. Let the old houses, the haunted swamps, the decaying landscape set the stage for you, and immerse yourself in cosmic helplessness, as your mind becomes a waning candle in cosmic darkness. You need not feel so in your everyday life at all, but if you decide to let it get to you, you'll have a fascinating experience. Again, if you just don't GET what he wants to invoke, no sweat. It doesn't mean he's a bad author, he just fails to do anything for you. Many of Lovecraft's works become much more accessible once you know about the man. The sea, and it's inhabitants, frightened him. The stars fascianted him. He despised religion, and thought himself a staunch adherent to science. >He valued the olda bove the new-fangled. Strangers terrified him, especially those of another "race". I wouldn't say he hated them all that much, it was more that he feared them, even more after he had to compete with them for work and room in New York. It doesn't excuse him, but it explains alot. But the real point is: The man wrote about things that he personally feared. So it's only naturally that some tales will have no, or at least a diminished effect fior you.

Still, he was one of the first to radically abandon the concept of hope and success, the idea of a "quest" that you have to fullfil to defeat evil once and for all. You'll find his concepts everywhere today, but few had the strength, (or, like Lovecraft himself, didn't care enough about the readers) to go down the path as deep as Lovecraft.

Before I forget it: I actually think that the ending of "Shadows over Innsmouth" was the closest thing to a positive ending you can get wuith Lovecraft.

Bottom line: Is Lovecraft up-to-date? No. Is he scary? Most likely not. Is his work full of flaws, both technical and intellectual? Sure.
But he did create a wonderful "world" full of new ideas and fascinating thoughts, whose dark wonder and looming dread managed to captivate and fascinate me, despite it's many flaws? Hell yes!

[Starfols]

But lovecraft was offhandedly racist and believed in racial superiority, while Twain was vehemently anti-racist and offhandedly used common parlance. So I object to calling lovecraft "Less racist" than Twain. /pet peeve

Are we talking about the people, or the books? Outside of writing, you're absolutely right. But in writing, the protagonists/narration of Twain's books use discriminatory words, and usually don't put it in a context where use of such words is bad.

[Falgorn]

In my opinion, Lovecraft wasn't a very skilled writer. He was racist, as so many have said, and his stories were...not that great.
But what makes him so popular, and why I like him, is the idea he tends to focus on.
That you, as a single human, can do relatively nothing. Your life means nothing and your death means nothing. The universe will continue without your life...
The idea of complete powerlessness tends to scare mankind, and that's what made his works popular. Knowledge that everything around you was crumbling, but you can't do anything.
That is something I'd be afraid of.

[Tiktakkat]

Are we talking about the people, or the books? Outside of writing, you're absolutely right. But in writing, the protagonists/narration of Twain's books use discriminatory words, and usually don't put it in a context where use of such words is bad.

The words are irrelevant in assigning intent when compared to the characters they are used for.
Twain presented noble and heroic black characters. In such a context he does not have to overtly say such is wrong, the simple act of other characters using such terminology directed at those characters becomes all the demonstration needed of their want of higher qualities.

[Elderac]

For fans of Lovecraft, I strongly recommend the HP Podcraft podcast that discusses his stories. It is very well done and does touch on his faults as well as his strong points.

You can find it at www.hppodcraft.com .

Lovecraft is only about Cthulu and has influenced many writers past and present. Give it a listen. I think you'll like it.

[GolemsVoice]

Lovecraft is only about Cthulu

You meant isn't, didn't you?

[Febreezium]

You meant isn't, didn't you?

I hope he did, especially as he misspelt Cthulhu.

And as for the arguments about old HP being racist, he definitely was, even outrageously so for his time. This seemed to come about due to depression at the loss of his ancestral home and all the crazy low-paid jobs and awful rooms he lived in during the 20s and 30s.

This also shaped some definite... opinions... of people of lower classes.

Not only that, but he's recorded as being one of the most asexual men ever seen and you can sometimes see the sublimation of this drive in his writing, especially in the way in which the few women you find are treated.

That being said, if you can stomach the bigotry in his descriptions of people and creatures (which often frequently refer to racial traits and inferiority) and how monumentally simple anyone who isn't a white male from a decent background is, then you'll find ideas and stories which were unique and rightly revolutionary. His ideas of man being ultimately useless, an accident, of Cosmic Horror and of the nature of the Universe were, as people have said, revolutionary and any work since that goes along these themes will have been inspired by Lovecraft.

Some of the better stories would be The Whisperer in the Darkness (which I still have some nightmares about...) The Colour Out of Space and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, all of which have few, if any, racial overtones. There are other brilliant ones but these tend to have clear racism within them.

[GolemsVoice]

especially as he misspelt Cthulhu.

Well, it's supposed to be unpronouncable anyway.

Some more about his racism:

I've read that at the beginning, his racism was more or less unformed, a general aversion to people not of "old English stocK", whatever that meant for him. Later, when he moved to New York, he, the Province gentleman, who had never worked, had only frequented his New England circles, had to compete with the masses of poor working class men, much of them immigrants. He stood no chance. Forced to live among people he saw as inferior, but who were obviously much more successful in their daily life, he began to literally FEAR them. So his vague negative feelings took the form of intense disgust and probably self-loathing turned against others.

[Starfols]

The words are irrelevant in assigning intent when compared to the characters they are used for.
Twain presented noble and heroic black characters. In such a context he does not have to overtly say such is wrong, the simple act of other characters using such terminology directed at those characters becomes all the demonstration needed of their want of higher qualities.

No, I'm talking about protagonists' language, and the narration describing characters. Also, not every black/native american character is strong or heroic, sometimes he just uses colorful descriptions of bit characters. I was just pointing out that Twain and Lovecraft have the same vocabularies.

From what you and other people are saying, maybe the third of Lovecraft that I haven't read is very different from what I have read. Usually, if it describes non-white people at all (not often), he describes the characters race along with whatever other adjectives he uses. Seeing how he adds several adjectives to each character and thing he describes, it didn't stick out much. I might've also overestimated how racist he was, after hearing him repeatedly described as really racist.

[GolemsVoice]

A friend of mine, who studies American literature, told me that Twain used the stereotypical "goofy black character" to get a few laughs from his readers, because at the time he wrote, such characters were a staple of comedy. I haven't read anything of the man himself, so I can hardly comment.

[Tiktakkat]

No, I'm talking about protagonists' language, and the narration describing characters.

So by that standard, Richard Wright, author of Native Son, and Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple, are also racists because of the protagonists' language and the narration describing characters.


I was just pointing out that Twain and Lovecraft have the same vocabularies.

Which is irrelevant given the significantly different context in which they use it.

[urkthegurk]

From what you and other people are saying, maybe the third of Lovecraft that I haven't read is very different from what I have read. Usually, if it describes non-white people at all (not often), he describes the characters race along with whatever other adjectives he uses. Seeing how he adds several adjectives to each character and thing he describes, it didn't stick out much. I might've also overestimated how racist he was, after hearing him repeatedly described as really racist.

He had a reputation of being racist when he was alive, and then if you read his books looking for that you can see its there. He hated his fears, though, and he didn't seem to like being racist. But he never decided what to do about it.

[R. Shackleford]

Lovecraft isn't good enough to be required reading in grade school, and he's not someone that I think most English departments would dedicate an entire course around. This means that Lovecraft is an author that many probably discover outside of compulsory education.

This makes him kind of a basic literary in-joke. He's required reading to understand a number of references in popular culture and within the literary genres of horror, sci-fi, and fantasy. Its kind of like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Its a testament that he's stayed relevant for so long.

I don't try to fault him too much for his racism, because it was just part of the mentality at the time, and his racism, misogyny, self-loathing, and Anglophilia are as much a part of his works as New England. Without those, he really would've just been a dime-store Poe. I can't fault him for it showing in his writing, because my psychology plays out in my own writing. Its possible to write without that coming through to some extent.

That said, he's too damn wordy. The only time I can truly feel scared if when I hear readings of his work. Reading Lovecraft doesn't scare me; tt just gives me a headache.

[bosssmiley]

Lovecraft isn't good enough to be required reading in grade school,

That's because there's a great deal of snobbery in Eng Lit depts about what is or isn't 'literature'. You do know that even Charles Dickens wasn't considered worthy to be part of the canon of great literature until F.R.Leavis spent most of his career defending the guy.

Salman Rushdie: literary. J.G.Ballard: genre. But Ballard could write rings around Rushdie. Go figure...

[Starfols]

So by that standard, Richard Wright, author of Native Son, and Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple, are also racists because of the protagonists' language and the narration describing characters.
Which is irrelevant given the significantly different context in which they use it.

Firstly, I haven't read Native Son/The Color Purple, and I probably won't anytime soon, so I really can't say.
I think you may be misinterpreting me. Twain uses unpleasant words as adjectives when describing characters, and the Protagonists use these words in an offhand, without any consequence, or context to moralize such words at all. They are in the same context, Twain just occasionally has themes that oppose the racial backdrop. I can't give examples, as they are neither comfortable nor allowed.

All that aside, that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Sorry, but that's how racism is allowed to exist. At least have the distinction of character to look at a thing and say 'this is bad, I don't condone this.' Otherwise you imply you have no skill at judgement, and that sort of invalidates anything else you might say.

I also do not care about your opinion of me. That's just how I operate - I'll judge things on their own merits from my perspective, because yours is utterly useless there.


You don't have to cast aside every idea this person has to disagree with them. Racism does hurt people, in a real and literal sense, so it is bad, in our real world. Anyone not being hurt by it is still benefiting from it, and it is my advice that they should be outraged by this fact.

Oh yes, how outrageous - I am truly infuriated out of my skin. Look, I'm not going to stand in favour of anything that I actively consider racist, but at the same time I'm not going to sit around nanny-picking every little thing which simply talks about poor breeding habits of people with more melanin. Do I honestly think that Lovecraft is racist? Sure. I still couldn't give a rats ass that he was slightly smug and superior because I just don't - your inability to tolerate that viewpoint is no different to an inability to tolerate someone from another ethnicity, regardless of how convinced of your moral high ground you may be.

[Tiktakkat]

Firstly, I haven't read Native Son/The Color Purple, and I probably won't anytime soon, so I really can't say.

I have, I can.


I think you may be misinterpreting me. Twain uses unpleasant words as adjectives when describing characters, and the Protagonists use these words in an offhand, without any consequence, or context to moralize such words at all.

As do Richard Wright and Alice Walker.
In fact, they do it to an even greater degree, with even more excessive language.


They are in the same context, Twain just occasionally has themes that oppose the racial backdrop. I can't give examples, as they are neither comfortable nor allowed.

The context is more than a simple phrase, it is the effect of the entire piece.
However, given that standard, Lovecraft was indeed "better", as he regularly used the context of portraying the objects of his racist language as the servants of elder evils, thus suggesting a very objective connection between the two.
Oh wait . . .


All that aside, that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all.

What point were you trying to make?
That Twain used nasty words?
That he used, by some presumed count, more than Lovecraft?
That from that we can infer that his books are more racist than Lovecraft's?
You can certainly try to make that point, but there are people who will oppose it, for the reasons given - you are not taking into account the entire context and effect.

[GolemsVoice]

I think this whole Racism debate has gone out of hand, and is giving the wrong impession of Lovecraft's works. Yes, Racism is an unpleasant element in his works, but not so prominent that entire volumes need to be written about it.

[Starfols]

I think this whole Racism debate has gone out of hand, and is giving the wrong impession of Lovecraft's works. Yes, Racism is an unpleasant element in his works, but so prominent that entire volumes need to be written about it.

Thank you, that was exactly my argument, before all this got derailed. Tiktakkat, sorry, but I don't think I can reply to you without repeating myself, but your argument has been duly noted.

[hamishspence]

Ironically, Lovecraft's outline of the aliens in At the Mountains of Madness shows surprising empathy for the beings- they may be weird starfish aliens- but they are "men", so to speak- not "horrors".

[R. Shackleford]

That's because there's a great deal of snobbery in Eng Lit depts about what is or isn't 'literature'. You do know that even Charles Dickens wasn't considered worthy to be part of the canon of great literature until F.R.Leavis spent most of his career defending the guy.

Salman Rushdie: literary. J.G.Ballard: genre. But Ballard could write rings around Rushdie. Go figure...

I did not know that. That makes me feel a bit sad.

Though I still don't know if I'd ever admit Lovecraft myself.

[GolemsVoice]

Thjere are several instances of this in his works. "At the Mountains of Madness" is one, and the ending of "Shadows over Innsmouth" is another. That's what makes me think that Lovecraft was fully conscious of his weaknesses (he mocked himself in several poems) and able to avoid them, if he set his mind to it.

[hamishspence]

"and we will dwell amid the wonders and the glory, forever."

Shadows over Innsmouth in particular has quite a few short stories taking the concept and playing with it.

One with dolphins as the ancient and terrible allies of the Deep Ones. Hmm.

[JonestheSpy]

I don't try to fault him too much for his racism, because it was just part of the mentality at the time, and his racism, misogyny, self-loathing, and Anglophilia are as much a part of his works as New England. Without those, he really would've just been a dime-store Poe. I can't fault him for it showing in his writing, because my psychology plays out in my own writing. Its possible to write without that coming through to some extent.


Really just not true. What sets Lovecraft apart from his literary forebears is his acute awareness of the implications of modern science regarding humanity's place in the world, and the existential crisis caused thereby. I've been working my way through some of his letters, and it is very clear that in his youth he was wildly enthusiastic about astronomy, chemistry and other sciences, and the constant stream of new discoveries occuring. This led directly to a profound and gloomy form of atheism, with all thoughts meaning and purpose in the universe being nothing but comforting illusions. Not an uncommon view in 21st century America, but a profoundly new and disturbing one a century ago.

Yes, his xenophobia, Freudian issues, etc are what gave form to his existential horror, but they aren't what marks him out from other writers. Heck, read any volume of science fiction from the first half of the 20th century and you'll see just as much prejudice, only clothed in optimistic garb by far more forgetable authors.

[chaosgirl]

Lovecraft being incredibly racist is kind of a misnomer. He's really not any more racist than any author of the era. He's about as racist as Hemmingway or Poe, less racist than Twain or Brontë.

Really, LESS racist?

Really? (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:l3qiSwtRaEwJ:en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Creation_of_*******+On+the+creation+of+**** ***+love+craft&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

[Starfols]

Really, LESS racist?

Really? (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:l3qiSwtRaEwJ:en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Creation_of_*******+On+the+creation+of+**** ***+love+craft&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)


From what you and other people are saying, maybe the third of Lovecraft that I haven't read is very different from what I have read.

Guess so. Thanks for clearing that up.
I suppose I should now specify and say his stories.

[hamishspence]

H. G. Wells's writings one what happens to primitive societies that run into modern ones "they have to go" as well as his on eugenics, make uncomfortable reading today.

Lovecraft is perhaps not as aberrant :smallamused: so to speak, as it might seem.

[Bhu]

Really, LESS racist?

Really? (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:l3qiSwtRaEwJ:en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Creation_of_*******+On+the+creation+of+**** ***+love+craft&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

You sure thats not just someone messing with Wiki?

[WalkingTarget]

You sure thats not just someone messing with Wiki?

Yes, Lovecraft wrote that. The man was racist and there's not a lot of getting around it. Even if some of his other class-conscious prejudices waned over time, his belief that certain groups of people were inherently biologically inferior to others is a mark against him. Given that he embraced many other scientific advances quickly, it's strange that race theory remained lodged in his head long after it was discarded by the scientific community. This coming from somebody who's a big fan of the man's weird fiction.

As for Twain, I think I remember him saying some rather disparaging things about Native Americans, but I was under the impression that he was rather vocal about the inequalities that minorities had to suffer through fairly consistently.

[hamishspence]

I suspect Twain's dislike was for the culture rather than anything racial.

The men of the Arthurian era are characterized as "white Indians" for their rather savage tendencies, in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

[dangerprawn]

I think people should some Lovecraft. I think he made an important contribution to the horror genre (writing out of the early 1900's adventure stuff), but it is really dated compared to other writers of the same time. I read a lot of Lovecraft when I was an angsty teenager, but I haven't gone back to him in years. On the other hand, I read A Princess of Mars at least once a year, and love it each time.

It's the writing styles that are different. Lovecraft is quite possibly the worst dialog writer ever. Ever. Comic strips in the newspaper have better and more realistic dialog.

[Rowan Intheback]

Lovecraft takes a really specific taste and actually he is not very good. The structure for nearly every single one of his stories goes like this:


So thing horrible happened. I can't believe how bad it was. I wish it didn't know about it. Let me tell you.
I started to notice something odd.
Turns out that odd thing is horrible. I'm going to find out more.
Reference to the Necromicon. The forbdden and rare volume that is apparenly the only reading material avalable in Arkham Massechusetts.
**** guys this thing is like really super awful.
The awful thing finally happens.
Wasn't that totally awful? Yeah I wish I didn't know about it.
I am now dead OR I forever corrupted/insane cause I know some spooky stuff you guys.


For that reason it is not necessary to read all of his work. He was one of the pioneers of sci fi and SOME of his stories are pretty good but most are really bad. As he is an author from the 1910s-30s who was considered to be anachronistic in his own time, racism pretty much comes with the territory; I recommend ignoring it.

In my opinion his best stories in no particular order are:

The Call of Cthulhu
At the Mountains of Madness
The Color From Out of Space
Herbert West Reanimator
The Dunwhich Horror
Shadow Over Innsmouth

His style of writing is poorly paced especially by today's standards. If you really can't stand to read his stories I recommend audio books or radio dramas adapted from his writing. If you just want to know more about this particular sector of nerd culture I'd recommend reading about his work on Wikipedia.

Lovecraft had some really neat ideas. The reason Lovecraft is wroth reading is he provides some really interesting concepts that aren't often seen. Although he was obsessed with the past Lovecraft's goal for Scifi was very for ward thinking. He saw others writing about "monsters" or "aliens" and felt that ultimately they were all too human. He felt that if we encountered an alien force it would have goals and behaviors that we could never understand; and if we did, it would be because our minds had twisted and broken to do so. While it is debatable whether or not Lovecraft ever really accomplished his goal by reading his stories you can really expand your literary perspective.

[ghost_warlock]

Racism is present, but how much is actually present in the stories has been exaggerated by the internet.

Lovecraft is primarily a horror writer, who focused on the insignificance of humanity in relation to the cosmos. However, not all of his writing is about this. He was also greatly inspired by Lord Dunsany and tried to ape Dunsany's style for a while...some fairly trippy stuff, there (see, primarily, The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath as well as The Silver Key). Additionally, although prose was his primary medium, he did write some poetry as stand-alone pieces.

Lovecraft's stories vary widely in length, although I suppose many are fairly short. As such, novel-length compilations contain anywhere from 5 to 15 (or so) of his stories.

You can read most all of Lovecraft's work at this website (http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lovecraft/). It claims to be the "complete works" but there are a few items conspiciously absent, such as the novel The Lurker At the Threshold (co-authored with August Derleth), his poetry, as well as a few other stories which were largely co-authored (primarily with August).

To get a good spread/taste of his work, I'd suggest the following list of stories (personal favorites in bold; all can be found at the website I linked):

At the Mountains of Madness
Beyond the Wall of Sleep
The Call of Cthulhu
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward
The Cats of Ulthar
The Colour Out of Space
Cool Air
The Doom That Came to Sarnath
The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath
Dreams in the Witch-House
The Dunwich Horror
Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family
The Festival
Herbert West: Reanimator
In The Vault
The Music of Erich Zann
The Outsider
Pickman's Model
Polaris
The Rats in the Walls
The Shadow Out of Time
The Shadow Over Innsmouth
The Silver Key
The Statement of Randolph Carter
The Thing on the Doorstep
The Whisperer in Darkness

[WalkingTarget]

You can read most all of Lovecraft's work at this website (http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lovecraft/). It claims to be the "complete works" but there are a few items conspiciously absent, such as the novel The Lurker At the Threshold (co-authored with August Derleth), his poetry, as well as a few other stories which were largely co-authored (primarily with August).

A note on things "co-authored" with August Derleth: after Lovecraft died, Derleth wrote a lot of stories as "posthumous collaborations" by taking story fragments (sometimes as little as a single sentence) by Lovecraft and expanding them to full-length. Lurker is one of these and, while I haven't read it in particular, most of the others that I've read aren't anything special and I think that Lovecraft's legacy was tainted by them for quite some time due to his inclusion as an author for works by somebody who was trying to ape his style (in my opinion, unsuccessfully). I am not aware of anything that Lovecraft wrote with somebody else during his lifetime other than his day job running a ghostwriting/revisioning service. Of those stories, the only one that gets much publicity is "Imprisoned with the Pharaohs" that he ghost wrote for Harry Houdini.

Edit - wikipedia tells me that of Lurker's 50k words, only about 1200 were Lovecraft, the rest were Derleth.