# Lovecraft: Hack or Genius?



## Desdichado (Feb 3, 2005)

I was (incorrectly, IMO, I might add) chastised for bringing this up in another thread related to Lovecraft, but it does deserve it's own thread.  If nothing else, that way it'll be the actual focus of the conversation rather than a sideline.  I posted the following earlier:


			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Indeed it was a bit harsh. But not undeservedly. It articulated much of my own feelings on his writings, to be honest with you, and better than I had done before reading it. Something about Lovecraft as a horror writer just didn't sit right with me, and I think I finally discovered that "non-Euclidean" wasn't a descriptor that was scary. Lovecraft as a writer has some good ideas, but then botches his execution. Rather than making his tales actually scary, he continually tells the reader that they're scary in the vain hope that the readers will be scared. That, and the strange idea that merely making things very alien will make them scary, lead to the ironic position of a classic horror writer who's work isn't really very scary.
> 
> Granted, some are much better than others, but overall, the article's description of Lovecraft as an "eccentric hack" with momentary flashes of brilliance is on the money, in my opinion.



The quote also references this article on the Wizards' website.

So, obviously Lovecraft is much-loved in the gaming community.  Do you think me (and this guy who wrote that article) are out to lunch, or are we on to something?  

Discuss.


----------



## shadowlight (Feb 3, 2005)

Hack.  Next question?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 3, 2005)

Like every writer, its a matter of taste. There is no end all, be all answer one way or another. The long discussions on whether Tolkien's works are crap or not that would pop up with the Lord of the Rings movies are proof of that.

I'm a big fan of Lovecraft's stuff. Its just like nothing else and it is creepy in its own way. I can't really describe accurately WHY I like it, but I just do. You aren't onto anything, and you're not out to lunch either. You've just got your own opinion that happens to differ from others. 

But then again, this is the internet and there is only ONE TRUE WAY and ONE TRUE BELIEF. So maybe you're just wrong.


----------



## Wombat (Feb 3, 2005)

I always found Lovecraft brilliant for setting a mood or a scene, but some of his fiction, particularly his longer works, tend to meander and the plot gets lost in the descriptions.  But for all that and all that, I do enjoy his works immensely -- I just place a caution on them, especially for more modern tastes.

I think this is why I prefer Poe as a horror writer; very clean, very concise, very plot-driven.


----------



## Abraxas (Feb 3, 2005)

I think he's more an eccentric Genius with momentary flashes of Hacknitude.
Plus, he was writing in a time before the everyday horrors we call entertainment on TV existed.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Feb 3, 2005)

I'd categorize him in the middle, neither hack nor genius.

I don't find his writing ability to be earth shattering, but I don't think he's bad and just happened to be popular by luck or fiat, either.

I think he's a good writer, and I think, given the time in which he wrote, descriptions like "non-Euclidian" probably had more resonance, not only because quantum mechanics was in its (relative) infancy, but also because for most people, such a term represented something that was, indeed, beyond ken, and the fear of the unknown probably tied into cultural fears prevalent at the time, I think.  I suspect his horror may have capitalized on the notion that there's so much visible horror that's known (WWI, world-devastating swine flu, economic collapse), then just THINK about how much horror there is about stuff we DON'T know.  In some ways, he's continuing the tradition of Hawthorne, Poe, Collins, Dunsany, Machen, and so forth (though I think Hawthorne and Poe are more skilled in terms of wordsmithing on the page).

Also, I know one of his big influences was Lord Dunsany, with an emphasis on the dreamlike quality of certain things -- not necessarily horror, but just weird.  _Pickman's Model_ is supposed to be horrific, I think, as are things like _The Temple_, _The Call of Cthulhu_, and _The Shadow Over Innsmouth_, but his "Silver Key" stuff was more weird and atmospherically hazy, as was _The Shadow Out of Time_, and some others.

So, I'd say he's decent:  neither a candidate for a Nobel, nor a Bulwher-Lytton.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Pierce_Inverarity (Feb 3, 2005)

*Hack AND Genius*

I agree, his stories aren't the scariest stories ever written, but the fantastic descriptions and sense of looming darkness and horror of "things that should not be" was certainly groundbreaking and is often brilliantly executed.  On the other hand, he was a writer of pulp fiction and so by very definition a hack.  

I consider Raymond Chandler equivalent for the mystery genre.  His plots are loose and untidy, but the dialogue sparkles and Phillip Marlowe sets the standard for all hard-boiled P.I.'s

Both authors wrote pulp fiction.  Both were brilliant but uneven.  Both are enjoyable reads.


----------



## Turanil (Feb 3, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Discuss.



There is no question that Lovecraft was a _bad_ writer. And what you say is also true. The genius of Lovecraft is to have invented this weird Cthulhu Mythos, that was so much better than traditional horror featuring werewolves and demons from Hell. 

I think the Strength of the Mythos, is that these are alien beings from distant stars, creatures unfathomable, in a hopeless world where there is no ultimate deity of love to save mankind. This is far much better and interesting IMO, than the habitual stuff of Christian evil (i.e.: the Devil and damning your soul). 

Now as to writing style Lovecraft is bad (adding adjective over advjective in almost every phrase), and as you say, telling the reader that the story is scary rather actually scaring him.


----------



## Turanil (Feb 3, 2005)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> He was writing in a time before the everyday horrors we call entertainment on TV existed.



Exactly. And regularly watching these "entertainment on TV" is a much more effective way of losing one's sanity than seeing Azatoth in the center of the Universe.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 3, 2005)

Off-the-cuff theory:

HPL was cursed/blessed with being considered a "writer's writer". 

Appreciated by writers who drew inspiration from (and in some cases, improved upon) the themes he explored---but unappreciated by his own audience.

Because so many in the "Geek Arts" (sci-fi/fantasy fandom, roleplaying, etc) fancy themselves creative, they value HPL more for inspiration than entertainment.

Or not. I'm four beers in.


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 3, 2005)

I would agree that HPL was both. He wrote some really good stories, plus a lot of crap (his "collaborations", mostly). But he was definitely influential, as nearly every modern horror writer has done something based on him. (Only exception I can think of is Clive Barker)

Raymond Chandler wasn't a very good mystery writer (as you point out, his plots generally didn't make sense, or in some cases were unresolved*), but he definitely wasn't a hack. He was not a very fast writer, and only wrote a comparative handful of stories. He was a brilliant writer when it came to description and dialogue. Every piece of his is literally a masterpiece. 

And if you read some of the essays by him, that was essentially his point. He didn't like the clever/gimmick myteries of Christie and such. He was more focusing on the telling, not the story itself.



* (Often because he wrote his novels by piecing together and expanding completely unrelated short stories)


----------



## MonsterMash (Feb 3, 2005)

Shouldn't this have been a poll?

My tuppence worth, at best HPL is an inspired, inventive writer, but with a tendency to overwrite and at worst a formulaic hack, with outright racist attitudes.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 3, 2005)

Do you judge him based on todays standards or do you judge him based on the standards of when he was writing?  Literary focus changes through out history so many writers that were great in their time don't seem to stack up in modern times.  Horror is really one of the areas hardiest to survive.  Many of the classic horror books from 50-100 years back and more just don't live up to todays standards.  

so, my vote is neither, we can't really judge that with out a lot more research.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 4, 2005)

We could always compare the quality of *your* writing with his and see who comes out better.  

I kid!   

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.

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?

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.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Feb 4, 2005)

Is Bram Stoker a hack? Arthur Conan Doyle? Mary Shelley etc?

Only one of the horror legends of old that I can say I find even the slightest 
"scary" is Edgar Allan Poe and then I mean more his poetry than his prose.

It's a hard thing to judge.

Genius? Not really. But the man made one awesome mythology and I think it
is really that that has survived to this day. One might say that the same goes 
for the rest of the legends I mentioned. Who remembers any of Bram Stoker's 
or Mary Shelley's other books? Is Arthur Conan Doyle remembered for anything
else than creating Sherlock Holmes?

That's why I like his books. Not for horror, but rather the unveiling of the myths.


----------



## Mystery Man (Feb 4, 2005)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> 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.





How does one become a "technically bad writer" and not get published and beloved by millions? I want to know, I need the money!!


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Do you judge him based on todays standards or do you judge him based on the standards of when he was writing?  Literary focus changes through out history so many writers that were great in their time don't seem to stack up in modern times.  Horror is really one of the areas hardiest to survive.  Many of the classic horror books from 50-100 years back and more just don't live up to todays standards.



Both.  Comtemporary and friend of Lovecraft's, Clark Ashton Smith was a _good_ writer, for instance.  Yet he was still primarily a writer of pulp magazine weird tales, and he's much less remembered today.  So I think the idea that "Lovecraft isn't good by today's standard's, but he was for his time" is baloney. 

Not to mention that he mentioned several influences, including Poe, Machen, Stoker, and others who were also much better writers than he.


			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> so, my vote is neither, we can't really judge that with out a lot more research.



Have you read him?  Then you can judge him.  True, your judgement may be missing some details, but so what?


----------



## Mystery Man (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I was (incorrectly, IMO, I might add) chastised for bringing this up in another thread related to Lovecraft, but it does deserve it's own thread. If nothing else, that way it'll be the actual focus of the conversation rather than a sideline. I posted the following earlier:
> 
> The quote also references this article on the Wizards' website.
> 
> ...




If I'm reading the same thing you read:



> Fans of his horror tend to disparage his fantasy because it is so very different from his other work; fans of fantasy rarely discover it because they only know of him through his reputation as an eccentric hack.




The author himself does not imply that he thinks Lovecraft is a hack. Or at least I'm not reading that into it. 
The article goes over the merits of his writing and is a very well done literary analysis. I will agree that Lovecrafts stories are not "scary". Weird yes. _Imaginative_ yes. He uses antiquated adjectives that don't jive well with today's generation but his command of the English language is superlative.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> 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'm not an English major, nor am I particular fond of the opinions taught in Western literary criticism.  I think you're also confusing writing skill with audience.  Charles Dickens was most definately not a hack, unless you discount him because of the audience for which he wrote.

Which, contrary to your implication, most university literature programs have done until extremely recently, and many still do today.


			
				Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> 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?



To say that Tolkien's books are poorly written is to show a lack of understanding, IMO.  Importance is not necessarily equivalent to quality.  Lovecraft is important, as I've said many times before, because of his brilliant ideas, which many subsequent author's have executed more skillfully than he.


			
				Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> 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.



It's beyond the scope of this discussion, but I disagree that DIckens, Doyle or Tolkien are bad writers.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> The author himself does not imply that he thinks Lovecraft is a hack. Or at least I'm not reading that into it.
> The article goes over the merits of his writing and is a very well done literary analysis. I will agree that Lovecrafts stories are not "scary". Weird yes. _Imaginative_ yes. He uses antiquated adjectives that don't jive well with today's generation but his command of the English language is superlative.



Are you sure you're reading the same article I am?  Are you reading the same *Lovecraft* that I am?  Command of the English language was not one of his strength's as a writer.  IMO, his strenght's were mostly limited to brilliant and innovative ideas, which he really struggled to develop well, partly because of his lack of command of the language.  Just because he used a handful of arcane and archaic adjectives does not mean he had a command of the English language.  

Tolkien, on the other hand, probably had the greatest command of the English language of any writer I've ever read.  His ability to effortlessly jump from style to style; to keep a reader's attention through a *40 page chapter of expository dialogue* and to hearken back to epic, Anglo-Saxon works just through word choice is second to none.  In fact, I don't think anyone else has really even attempted it.


----------



## Mystery Man (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Are you sure you're reading the same article I am?  Are you reading the same *Lovecraft* that I am? Command of the English language was not one of his strength's as a writer. IMO, his strenght's were mostly limited to brilliant and innovative ideas, which he really struggled to develop well, partly because of his lack of command of the language. Just because he used a handful of arcane and archaic adjectives does not mean he had a command of the English language.




Yes I read the article you linked to and I think you're looking for something that's not there. I personally have always likes his style for its own unique sake.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Tolkien, on the other hand, probably had the greatest command of the English language of any writer I've ever read. His ability to effortlessly jump from style to style; to keep a reader's attention through a *40 page chapter of expository dialogue* and to hearken back to epic, Anglo-Saxon works just through word choice is second to none. In fact, I don't think anyone else has really even attempted it.




Truer words have never been spoken. Except for the last part, I do believe it's been _attempted_.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> His ability to effortlessly jump from style to style; to keep a reader's attention through a *40 page chapter of expository dialogue* and to hearken back to epic, Anglo-Saxon works just through word choice is second to none.




Yes, but would you believe that there are very many readers who do NOT stick with Tolkien for all 40 pages of that. Tolkien's command of the English language is the single biggest problem to most that don't like his writing.

You don't like Lovecraft. Fine. Nothing wrong with that. But not liking him does not make him a hack.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Both.  Comtemporary and friend of Lovecraft's, Clark Ashton Smith was a _good_ writer, for instance.  Yet he was still primarily a writer of pulp magazine weird tales, and he's much less remembered today.  So I think the idea that "Lovecraft isn't good by today's standard's, but he was for his time" is baloney.




Well, I wasn't saying that he was respected in his own time.  I don't know what his was thought of  back then.  I'm just saying that is an importanty piece to note, comparing him to his contemporaries is always the best way to judge a person.



> Not to mention that he mentioned several influences, including Poe, Machen, Stoker, and others who were also much better writers than he.
> 
> Have you read him?  Then you can judge him.  True, your judgement may be missing some details, but so what?




judging him, and actually being qualified to judge him are two different things.  Reading his books does not make one qualified, there has to be a certain level of understanding of the topic and the time period.


----------



## Grompi (Feb 4, 2005)

Why ain't it easy to call someone a hack from our point in the story? Lovecraft and Howard wrote some pretty interesting stuff given their place in literary history.


----------



## Abraxas (Feb 4, 2005)

> His ability to effortlessly jump from style to style; to keep a reader's attention through a *40 page chapter of expository dialogue* and to hearken back to epic, Anglo-Saxon works just through word choice is second to none.



Gotta agree with what Ankh-Morpork Guard said about this.
What you said is subjective opinion, just like calling Lovecraft a hack (or a genius).


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Yes, but would you believe that there are very many readers who do NOT stick with Tolkien for all 40 pages of that. Tolkien's command of the English language is the single biggest problem to most that don't like his writing.



Of course I'd believe it.  Those are mostly the people who don't even get to "The Council of Elrond" in the first place, though.

I've never heard anyone complain about Tolkien's command of the English language, though.  I think that's a straw man.  What's complained about by those who don't get very far with Tolkien is his pacing.


			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> You don't like Lovecraft. Fine. Nothing wrong with that. But not liking him does not make him a hack.



Hence the discussion.  No need to dismiss either opinion out of hand; I'm interested in others ideas.  I've always been fascinated with gamers' collective fascination with Lovecraft, so I start a thread to talk about it.  This isn't meant to be insulting to anyone.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, I wasn't saying that he was respected in his own time.  I don't know what his was thought of  back then.  I'm just saying that is an importanty piece to note, comparing him to his contemporaries is always the best way to judge a person.



I don't want to judge Lovecraft, I want to judge his works of literature and his skill in creating them.  I honestly am not particularly interested in judging him as a person, or necesssarily even knowing more than I already do about his biography.  As it turns out he was not important or particularly well regarded as a writer in his own time.  Nobody who wrote for the pulps was.


			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> judging him, and actually being qualified to judge him are two different things.  Reading his books does not make one qualified, there has to be a certain level of understanding of the topic and the time period.



I thoroughly disagree.  Anyone who's read a fair sampling of his work is qualified to judge how good it is.  Same with any other author.  I completely disagree that one must be an academic literary critic with a background in the history of literature, his contemporaries or anything else to judge its works on its own merits.  That may be important for other types of inquiry into his works, but *not* for judging the quality of what he wrote on its own merits.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Gotta agree with what Ankh-Morpork Guard said about this.
> What you said is subjective opinion, just like calling Lovecraft a hack (or a genius).



Uh, yeah, no kidding.  I *asked* for people's opinions.  Coming on board and then saying, "that's just your opinion!" is stating the blindingly obvious.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Of course I'd believe it.  Those are mostly the people who don't even get to "The Council of Elrond" in the first place, though.
> 
> I've never heard anyone complain about Tolkien's command of the English language, though.  I think that's a straw man.  What's complained about by those who don't get very far with Tolkien is his pacing.




I have heard some complaints about his lofty language and such. Never has bothered me, and I love Tolkien's style, but I have seen it mentioned before. Though you're right, pacing is the usual complaint.



> Hence the discussion.  No need to dismiss either opinion out of hand; I'm interested in others ideas.  I've always been fascinated with gamers' collective fascination with Lovecraft, so I start a thread to talk about it.  This isn't meant to be insulting to anyone.




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.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 4, 2005)

The answer of course is both, contrary to Mr. Dyal's opinion HPL actually had a very good grasp on the English Language, read his letters for a better idea of his abilities in that regard rather than trust to his stories.

Part of the difficulty is who he chose to emulate in his writings, Algernon Blackwood, Clark Ashton Smith, Edgar Allen Poe, and  Lord Dunsany in particular. (I would actually cite C. A. Smith as the worse offender in regards to style.)

The other problem, and the one that makes me agree with the term 'hack' is that he wrote for the pulp magazines of the 1920s and '30s. Yes, the format that you are writing for _does_ impact whether or not you are a hack, and in fact Charles Dickens referred to _himself_ as a hack! And I would certainly place Dickens as a good writer, with a firm grasp of language. The format enforced certain limitations, one of which was that unless you had some other means of support you rushed the stories out. Otherwise you might well starve to death as a writer. (HPL missed more than one meal as it was.) And finally, whether you like his style or not, the editor of Weird Tales did a very, very poor job of editing, being more concerned that the story fit the number of column inches he required than that it be a well written story.

The need to rush things out was not something that Tolkien ever had to worry about, he could and would take a decade to polish things. The books produced after his death suffered because he had not had the time to add that polish.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> 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.



Which demonstrates my own failings as a writer, apparently!    No, I'm not trying to convince people to agree with me, I'm actually quite curious for people who don't to let me know why.

And frankly, I share a lot of that fascination with Lovecraft, even when his writing also frustrates me.  I've read at least half of his known works, if not closer to 75%, and I still think he's got some absolutely brilliant ideas.  I sure haven't done that with any other writers who I don't think are particularly skilled.  I think Lovecraft had the raw talent, but never developed some of the crucial skills of a successful writer.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I thoroughly disagree.  Anyone who's read a fair sampling of his work is qualified to judge how good it is.  Same with any other author.  I completely disagree that one must be an academic literary critic with a background in the history of literature, his contemporaries or anything else to judge its works on its own merits.  That may be important for other types of inquiry into his works, but *not* for judging the quality of what he wrote on its own merits.




Well, that answers a question then; you want to judge him using todays standards and not the standards that he wrote under and lived in.  That is an important disctinction when judging a work that is not current.

I still say he neither genius or hack.  I think he has some good ideas and nice turn of phrases but over all I found nothing particular exceptional nor terrible about his writing.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> The other problem, and the one that makes me agree with the term 'hack' is that he wrote for the pulp magazines of the 1920s and '30s.



I should probably clarify, as there are two ways of using the term 'hack' when referring to writers; one being simply a question of to whom they sold the stories, and the other being a question of their writing ability.  I used the word referring more to latter usage of the word.  I don't think there's any argument that's he's a hack from the first usage; he'd undoubtably have agreed himself.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, that answers a question then; you want to judge him using todays standards and not the standards that he wrote under and lived in.  That is an important disctinction when judging a work that is not current.



I don't think there's a meaninful distinction anyway.  It's not like he wrote so long ago that today's standards wouldn't apply to him.  And, you're ignoring where I compared him not only to his contemporaries but also to his predecessors and inspirations.  Poe was a much better writer than he was.  Lord Dunsany was a much better writer.  They both wrote before Lovecraft, and Lovecraft transparently tried to imitate their styles at various points in his own career.  I think this whole line of inquiry is a bit of a dodge, if I may say so, Crothian.  I don't see how it is relevent.  It's not like Lovecraft wrote in the time of Chaucer, or Milton or Homer and the literary standards and culture of his time is significantly different from our own.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't think there's a meaninful distinction anyway.  It's not like he wrote so long ago that today's standards wouldn't apply to him.  And, you're ignoring where I compared him not only to his contemporaries but also to his predecessors and inspirations.  Poe was a much better writer than he was.  Lord Dunsany was a much better writer.  They both wrote before Lovecraft, and Lovecraft transparently tried to imitate their styles at various points in his own career.  I think this whole line of inquiry is a bit of a dodge, if I may say so, Crothian.  I don't see how it is relevent.  It's not like Lovecraft wrote in the time of Chaucer, or Milton or Homer and the literary standards and culture of his time is significantly different from our own.




Your position is there has no been significant changes to the world in the past 50 years or so?    Its not a dodge, there are differnet ways and criteria to judge a person.  Taking into account when they lived is not out of line.  It is just like taking into factor he wrote for the pulp magizines and not for novels.  They are all factors that can be disgarded or can be used in this determination.  

I did give an answer so its not like I'm dodging the question...


----------



## Abraxas (Feb 4, 2005)

> Uh, yeah, no kidding. I *asked* for people's opinions. Coming on board and then saying, "that's just your opinion!" is stating the blindingly obvious.




Ummm. Sorry, I thought it was blindingly obvious that I was merely stating that it's a preference thing. Thanks for being sharp enough to point that out.

Other than blatantly bad spelling and/or grammar, wether or not a writer is a hack or a genius is merely subjective opinion. How exactly are you quantifying a writer's skill? By number of readers? By use as an example of good writing in schools? By any number of other criteria that change with the times?

I look at my bookshelf and, with few exceptions, the only books on them are books that I truly enjoy (the kind that I can read multiple times), and for those books the authors were great writers. In fact with the exception of Arthur C. Clarke there is no author that I have ever even tried to read everything by because I think they are that good.

enjoy


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Other than blatantly bad spelling and/or grammar, wether or not a writer is a hack or a genius is merely subjective opinion. How exactly are you quantifying a writer's skill? By number of readers? By use as an example of good writing in schools? By any number of other criteria that change with the times?



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.

I'm not so nebulous as to say merely that "I know what I like," though; I've given some concrete reasons why I think he fails (in many cases) as a writer in the very first post of the thread.  If you like him, then why?

As to whether or not he's a hack or genius; my opinion is that he's both.  He's a genius who wasn't able to fully realize his potential.  He's an extremely frustrating writer to read, as his ideas are great.


----------



## MarkAHart (Feb 4, 2005)

I just recently started re-reading Lovecraft.  I have owned several books of his stories, but have always had difficult "getting into" them.  This time around, I forced myself to slow down, take in the whole story, and remain patient.  So far, I have been surprised at how good his stories are underneath the ponderous weight of adjectives.

First, I think he had some fantastic ideas -- ideas and plots we now take for granted, or even consider hackneyed because they've been done so many times in so many ways.  Also, as pointed out in the article "The Shadow Over D&D" in a recent issue of DRAGON, Lovecraft and his correspondents practiced their own form of an SRD through the mythos.

In writing style, Lovecraft was a product of his time, and his writing comes across dated in ways -- his dialogue (or lack of it) is one of his weakest points (I believe Stephen King pointed this out), and his writing style leans towards florid.  At the same time, his writing style also possesses a unique flavor that I think is part and parcel of the Cthulhu cycle.

At times, his writing is difficult to chew through, and frustrating in its roundabout way of reaching the point.  For me on the plus side, his writing evokes a specific mood and feel that epitomizes horror.


----------



## Abraxas (Feb 4, 2005)

OK, but I was under the impression from your comments refering to Tolkien that you were saying Lovecraft is a hack because he doesn't have these great abilities that Tolkien had (even though the greatness of those abilities were merely opinion).

Anyways - I think he did realize his potential (in the books I have) and they are suitably creepy given the context of the time in which they were written. I mean, c'mon, it was only a year after his death that the War of the Worlds radio broadcast caused mass hysteria. I'm pretty sure that that wouldn't hapen today without a conspiracy among all major broadcasters.

His stories were creepy but not scary, kind of a sub genre of horror. (although I must admit I have never read a story that was scary, something about the printed word just doesn't translate into scary for me) I really enjoyed the oddity of them. Something about the "things man was never meant to know" schtick strikes a chord with me and he wrote about that very well (and Lovecraft didn't have a ponderous style like Tolkien )

Unfortunately its very hard to say exactly why they work so well for me.

enjoy


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> So, obviously Lovecraft is much-loved in the gaming community. Do you think me (and this guy who wrote that article) are out to lunch, or are we on to something?
> Discuss.




Well, he was much-loved in the horror and dark fantasy community for decades before he was a gaming fan favorite. Every generation has discovered him again and again, like they do Howard and Leiber and other masters of fantasy.

I would actually hesitate to even call him a 'horror' writer, if horror writing means 'scary'. He's more in line with the other fantasists of his time as a 'weird' writer.

Lovecraft and his imitators are kinda like anime or James Joyce. Either you 'get it' or you don't and there doesn't seem to be much middle ground.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Feb 4, 2005)

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 (Feb 4, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 4, 2005)

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 (Feb 4, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

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



Hum! I think I second this opinion.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2005)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> 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! (Feb 4, 2005)

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 (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

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



Heh. That's what they all say.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 4, 2005)

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 (Feb 4, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				HoE said:
			
		

> 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


			
				HoE said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				HoE said:
			
		

> and I just think talented with some luck with names.



Huh?


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Feb 4, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> How does one become a "technically bad writer" and not get published and beloved by millions? I want to know, I need the money!!



Good _concepts_.  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 _concepts_.  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.  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 _himself_ 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!


----------



## jester47 (Feb 4, 2005)

The problem writing horror or terror literature in an effort to write a scary story is that the writer must understand the psychology of the time.  Saramago's Blindness is really scary to me.  Steven Kings IT is not.  

Lovecraft knew what he was.  He knew that he was not a great writer.  If you had asked his opinion he would have told you that the best was the writer with "Howard" as his last name rather than his first.  

He was a genius.  However his collection of psychosis limited his outlook and ambition, and thus they limited his tools for conveying his ideas.  Hence his hack writing.  Indeed many of his stories are him trying to work through his fears and phobias.  

Aaron.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> 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.




Ummm, you are correct, he was as far as I know a life long tee totaller, no drugs at all, at all. And I gather that Edgar Allen Poe's drug addiction was largely the creation of his biographer, a person who hated his guts. (Not the best choice for an accurate biography...) Much of the rumors about HPL and drug use apparently stems from the embrace of his writings by the counter culture in the '60s and '70s. Now if the subject was Cooleridge...

And yes, drug laws are a  relatively recent invention in the States, in some communities Ice Cream Sodas were outlawed before morphine...

The Auld Grump


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 4, 2005)

I'd say Lovecraft has at least a decent audience today.  All of the local bookstores have a full shelf of Lovecraft.  That doesn't happen unless the books *sell*.  Plus, there are any number of tribute anthologies out, which is also the sign of a popular writer.

As for how you become a successful writer with fair to middlin' skill: you don't.    Not unless you are a genius in some area that shows through.  Lovecraft had that genius in creating a horror mythos.  Tolkien had it in creating languages and settings.  (When I DM, I feel for him.  I can make a cool setting, but I'm only a fair to middlin' DM.  )  They are great because those ideas show through very, very strongly.  That is not the case with most so-so writers.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 4, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Huh?



Lovecraft - Cthulhu - Yig - Tulzscha - Shantaks - Shub-niggurath...They just roll off the tongue, they are cool sounding and create a feeling when you hear them, maybe that is genius.  

The drug thing, yes it was a different time, the occult was big, really big, people did a lot of strange things and discussed a lot of strange things.  I just do not know if HP was going down to the local drug den hanging with other occultist and sharing ideas and just recording the haze.  

I do think he had something but so did a number of other people that were writting in the same period, in a way a golden age for writers.


----------



## Alhazred (Feb 4, 2005)

Someone made the comment that HLP was a writer's writer, which is very true.  His literary criticisms were excellent and his skill as an editor meant that many writers and would-be writers sought his advice (August Derleth, Robert Bloch, etc).  However, these skills were never successfully transferred to his own writing ( such as his tendency toward flowery descriptive passages).  He was a fair writer and, like most fair writers, muddled through with only a modicum of recognition.  (Frankly, I would say the same situation applies to most contemporary writers of fantasy - sword and sorcery, sci-fi, horror, etc).  So no, I wouldn't say that he was a hack, but he wasn't exceptional.

Writing abilities aside, his ideas were, in my humble (and non-English major) opinion tremendous.  His writing evokes the bewilderment, despair and uncertainty toward the future which consumed many people subsequent to the Great War, through the decadence of the Roarin' Twenties (Prohibition and the rise of organised crime, the early days of fascism and the growth of the Soviet Union, corruption in government, accusations of rampant corporate greed) and the collapse of the stock market in October 1929.  The Cthulhu Mythos reflects and even magnifies these fears and feelings - humanity is irrelevant and headed toward eventual extinction, whether through its own ineptness or the machinations of alien entities which barely notice our existence.

Ultimately, I think that Lovecraft was a genius (although I think 'genius' is perhaps too strong), but his genius was hampered by his writing.  Which is too bad, but I love his stories nonetheless.

PS: I didn't read the original article, the link to which was posted in the first post.  I do, however, intend to read it - after supper.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 4, 2005)

Nobody else ever did what Lovecraft did when he was on top of his game. _The Rats in the Walls_, _The Lurker on the Threshold_, _The Dunwich Horror_ -- these are tremendous stories that pack a huge emotional wallop.

I think the truth is that HP was interested in ideas that are almost IMPOSSIBLE to write about. He's constantly groping for ways to express ideas that cannot be expressed. The WHOLE POINT of half his horrors is that they cannot be described -- which is obviously a bit of a problem when it comes time to describe them. Sometimes he knocked it out of the park and sometimes he swung and he missed. More often he missed, but I think he did better than other writers who have gone after the same thing.

When he's bad, he's pretty much unreadable. There's a lot of schlock in there. And I'm always cautious about recommending HP to people who are unfamiliar with his work -- I try to mention a couple of the better stories and let people know what they're in for. Certainly plenty of people don't find him much to their taste.

A hack? Yeah, I think so. But then, I'd say he was also a genius. A very focused, narrow sort of genius but within those borders, nobody touches HP.


----------



## shady (Feb 5, 2005)

From Stephen King, "On Writing"

"HP Lovecraft was a genius when it came to tales of the macabre, but a terrible dialogue writer. He seems to have known it too, because in the millions of words of fiction he wrote, fewer than five thousand are dialogue."

I'd say he was generally a genius with relatively (for a writer who has remained popular to this day) poor writing skills. Of his contemporaries, there were others with a similar mythological genius and better writing skills (Howard) or better writers with slightly less encompassing vision (Smith, Leiber). For longevity of popularity, it looks like vision wins.

And King for that matter is a far better writer (though not quite as good as he thinks he is) but has nowhere near the imaginative sweep of Lovecraft.

Bear in mind none of them were creating these mythologies and continuities without the huge genre underpinnings we now have.

Whatever, as others have written, hack is a derogatory term, and too easily wielded. I think UK mainstream criticism would regard most fantasy and SF writers (maybe excepting Banks and possibly Mieville, and for some reason children's authors) as hacks. 

If you mean regular and prolific turnover "just for a living" then equally Moorcock could be considered a hack. And he isn't, is he?


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 5, 2005)

Oh, I think Moorcock's earned a "hack" label. There's a lot of schlock surrounding the Eternal Champion.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Moorcock, but he's sure embarrassing at times.

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.

Howard teeters on the edge. _The Vale of Lost Women_ gets pretty close to embarrassment...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 5, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Oh, I think Moorcock's earned a "hack" label. There's a lot of schlock surrounding the Eternal Champion.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love my Moorcock, but he's sure embarrassing at times.
> 
> ...



Have to agree, like so many others they just did not know where to stop, Farmer another one and a big one John Norman!


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Feb 5, 2005)

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 (Feb 5, 2005)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 5, 2005)

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


----------



## Evilhalfling (Feb 5, 2005)

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 (Feb 5, 2005)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 5, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 6, 2005)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 7, 2005)

nikolai said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 7, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Kesh said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 7, 2005)

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.


----------



## Mystery Man (Feb 7, 2005)

If you want to get your wife to look at you funny ask for Moorcock for your birthday.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 7, 2005)

I've never been a fan of Moorcock either, for that matter.  Then again, I didn't read anything of his until after I was 30, so maybe I'd just lost the magic or something like that.  I read the first two (or maybe three) Elric books and thought they were both pretty bad, and haven't looked for another Moorcock book since.


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 7, 2005)

Well for what it's worth think of how few people have managed to write a sucessful Cthulhu mythos story. August Derleth's stuff is just awful, a handful of Bloch's are good and out of all the "modern Chtulhu" stuff the only one that I've read which actually caught the feeling and imagination of a good HPL story was one written by Warren Murphy one of the co-authors of the "Destroyer" aka Remo Williams pulp novels. 

I think one of the reasons why he mentions "Non-Euclidian Geometry" so often is that while you can do math with triangles that have more than 180 degrees total in all the angles. We can't construct any in the real world. So it is an effective tool for conveying the fact that something is radically different from what we are used to in our 3 dimentions.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Feb 7, 2005)

My assessment of Lovecraft (who I mostly enjoy), is that his writing is very streaky.  Some stories are great (Shadow Over Innsmouth), but others are bland or outright boring.  There have been many stories that have built up this sense of horror and dread, only to let me down entirely at the end.  That's also a big problem with most Mythos writers.  Most are so vague and ambiguous in their descriptions of what is actually going on that they simply lose the reader and the focus of the story.  

Kane


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 7, 2005)

I also think "non-Euclidean" was kind of a _thing_ in the 20s and 30s. Einstein had published the theory of general relativity in 1920, and I think it freaked a lot of people out. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that Lovecraft was reasonably well-informed on such scientific matters and even familiar with Einstein's work.

I certainly detect a general "Holy crap, this universe is messed up," in the Mythos and I suspect that derives in some part from the spectacular undermining of commonly-held assumptions about how things worked that took place in the early 1900's.

Oh, and JD: If you can find it, read _The War Hound and the World's Pain_ -- one of the best Grail stories ever told. By Moorcock. And I really like the first four Jerry Cornelius novels, but they're a long way from being for everyone.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 8, 2005)

And since HPL has now been dead long enough for his works to enter the public domain many are available online. One of several sites: http://terror.org.pl/~darkeye/bookz/hor_lovecraft.html

The Auld Grump


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 8, 2005)

On a slight tangent, Moorcock is a really odd writer in that he deliberately changes his style from book to book depending on what he is writing. And he has done a lot of pastiches, in the style of certain authors. Some stuff is also very experimental. 

His Elric stuff was done when he was fairly young and was imitating Howard.  The first 6 books or so, anyway. The later Elric novels are much easier to read.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> His Elric stuff was done when he was fairly young and was imitating Howard.  The first 6 books or so, anyway. The later Elric novels are much easier to read.



Continuing the slight tangent; that seems to be the opposite of what I've heard from most -- that he should have quit while he was ahead after the first three or so Elric books, and that they've generally all gone downhill from there as being little more then poorly-done rehashes.


----------



## MonsterMash (Feb 8, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> If you want to get your wife to look at you funny ask for Moorcock for your birthday.



Surely you get plenty of emails advertising it everyday.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I also think "non-Euclidean" was kind of a thing in the 20s and 30s. Einstein had published the theory of general relativity in 1920, and I think it freaked a lot of people out. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that Lovecraft was reasonably well-informed on such scientific matters and even familiar with Einstein's work.



I'm sure he was; he mentioned it a few times.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I certainly detect a general "Holy crap, this universe is messed up," in the Mythos and I suspect that derives in some part from the spectacular undermining of commonly-held assumptions about how things worked that took place in the early 1900's.



One that I can identify with, and I think that's actually one of Lovecraft's stronger points.  I'm not nearly as pessimistic about life in general as ole H.P., but I share his distrust of putting too much faith in science.  I read a quote once, by a physicist who's name I forget, that encapsulates my own opinion quite well (and I'm paraphrasing here); "The greatest discovery of the last century is the enormous scope of our ignorance."

*That's* where Lovecraft was the strongest, IMO.  IMO, also, that message has been the most diluted over time since he wrote.  If anything, we have more faith in our own knowledge and scientific advances than every before.  Science is almost dogmatic.

But, I've never said Lovecraft didn't have good concepts, just good execution.  


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Oh, and JD: If you can find it, read _The War Hound and the World's Pain_ -- one of the best Grail stories ever told. By Moorcock. And I really like the first four Jerry Cornelius novels, but they're a long way from being for everyone.



Will do.  My local library is already tapped out; it's got a fair amount of Moorcock, but it looks like it's mostly Eternal Champion stuff.  I've got a few ILL requests already out, but I'll see what I can do about bringing that book next.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 8, 2005)

It must have really been interesting times, around the 20's, you had so much going on in science, Edison, Westinghouse, Einstein, Tesla, Ford, Casey, and so many more changing the way men thinks and look at the world; some good, some bad, some just down right strange and bizarre.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 8, 2005)

Yeah, kind of like... right now, actually.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Feb 8, 2005)

I just read the Dream Quest for the first time...Joshua Dyal is absolutely right, without question (from me) the best HPL story.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

ha HA!  Thanks, John Q.


----------



## jester47 (Feb 9, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> It must have really been interesting times, around the 20's, you had so much going on in science, Edison, Westinghouse, Einstein, Tesla, Ford, Casey, and so many more changing the way men thinks and look at the world; some good, some bad, some just down right strange and bizarre.




Thing is, if a person does not feel this about any time that they might be living in, then they are not paying attention.  

A.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 9, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> It must have really been interesting times, around the 20's, you had so much going on in science, Edison, Westinghouse, Einstein, Tesla, Ford, Casey, and so many more changing the way men thinks and look at the world; some good, some bad, some just down right strange and bizarre.



 Interesting times? Interesting times?!?! Don't you know how horrible an insult that is?!

[/Prachett joke]


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Feb 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> [/Prachett joke]



The Ankh-Morpork guy refer to Pratchett?  Never...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 9, 2005)

Andrew D. Gable said:
			
		

> The Ankh-Morpork guy refer to Pratchett?  Never...



 I do it less than I'd lie to, actually.

Though if you'd like, Barrick could run into a not-so-bright Darth Nobby.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 9, 2005)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Thing is, if a person does not feel this about any time that they might be living in, then they are not paying attention.
> 
> A.



True but the difference is that these were the movers and shakers of those times, they were is the paper, in the news, and the changes they were bring about was everywhere to be seen; radio, electricity, roads, phones, the spirit, the afterlife.  Today, not so much, oh it is there but you do have to look for it.      The people of those times knew what life was like before, we grew up with them and can't image what it would be like to loose them, HPL knew this and it was reflected in his writing, the old ones, the time before, that would drive you mad if you lost the comfort of your world.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2005)

Y'know, a thought occured to me last night.  I had ripped and "fixed" some audio tracks in audacity (thanks for the tip barsoomcore!) and was listening to them on my PC while reading a book of Lovecraft pastiches in bed with stories by the likes of Robert E. Howard, August Derleth, Frank Belknap Long, etc. and I thought it'd be fun to have a thread here (probably in the Story Hour section) where folks could write short story Lovecraft pastiches and stick 'em up there for others to read.

What does everything think?  Is that a stupid idea, or does it sound fun?  I'm game to start the thread, as soon as I can whip up a short story.

That way, when I say "Lovecraft is teh suxx0rz" everyone can point to my story and say, "u r 2, punk."


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 11, 2005)

It sounds like a great idea and a way for posters to get comments back on their writing.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 11, 2005)

Y'know, I kinda think the whole "shared-world" anthology idea is one that's been sitting around, waiting for the internet.

A shared Story Hour (Lovecraft or not) might be fun.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Y'know, I kinda think the whole "shared-world" anthology idea is one that's been sitting around, waiting for the internet.
> 
> A shared Story Hour (Lovecraft or not) might be fun.



That's why you've got my support for Dicator, mang.  I think this would be totally fun.


----------

