On the subject of Lovecraft, to which we keep returning:
My own take is that he was supremely talented at describing dread and disgust and horrifically deficient in describing anything else; his admitted and proud disinterest in people as subjects of fiction shows in his work and renders the whole remote and soulless. His racism, as visible in his fiction as it was in his letters, is not just a pollutant but the toxic fuel that drives it, that renders it an embarrassment today.
I have always maintained that Lovecraft wrote what amounted to florid role-playing manuals, a universe that other writers could run with if they wanted; and though few of those who followed him were able to sculpt the language in quite the way he did, many had other positive attributes that more compensated, among them the solid understanding that stories usually require characters. I find his cosmology interesting, but his stories impenetrable, his racism appalling and his overall lack of interest in human concerns repellent.
I understand the debt we owe him, as the creator of that role-playing manual. I do not respect him as a writer, and never have. I consider him a villain of sorts, and have indeed used a version of him as one, in my GUSTAV GLOOM novels. The bad guy there is a one-time pulp writer called Howard Philip October, and you better believe that some of his awfulness is me commenting on Lovecraft, down to the very last volume.
People who say that I need to put him in the perspective of his time, only get me to call their bluff. Okay, at approximately the same time this producer of pulp fiction was producing his ooga-booga scares, give or take a decade or so, the equally disreputable field of detective fiction was being blown up into a fine art by Dashiell Hammett and later, Raymond Chandler. While he was farting around with his thesaurus, mystery fiction was producing Cornell Woolrich and James M. Cain. In the disreputable field of science fiction, John W. Campbell was astonishing the readers with stories like “Twilight” and “Night” that were not escapist fantasies but attempts to address big question, and a couple of years later taking over ASTOUNDING and blowing up his field with his demand that his contributors meet the same literary standards as mainstream fiction, while providing SF thrills, a demand that shifted the field away from the BEM of the month, and giving flight to the careers of Heinlein, Asimov, Pohl and others; an innovation that in years to come helped pave the way for Bradbury, Vonnegut, Silverberg, Ellison, Le Guin, an absolute revolution coming along every decade or so; all while many of the purveyors of horror fiction continued to produce Lovecraft pastiches.
There’s always room for shit to be published, journeyman stuff to be published, just-plain-fun stuff to be published. And there are backlashes, as we have learned in recent years. But it is certainly instructive to note what happens to a field when it chooses people like Hammett and Chandler as formative icons, what happens to one when it chooses people like Heinlein and Asimov as formative icons, and what happens to one when it picks a Lovecraft as a formative icon. Mystery and science fiction had ghettos, but on the page they had mushrooming possibilities and crossover successes. Horror had decades of navel-gazing reiteration, that is still going on in some quarters even after other influences finally found their way in.
Lovecraft wasn’t a big fat zero. I’ll be the first to admit that he had something. But between what mysteries got from their icons, and what science fiction got from its icons, and what horror got from its icon, I think it’s clear that horror picked the most limiting, unhealthiest role model, and for generations paid the price.
Comment By: John H. Stevens
August 21st, 2015 at 10:18 am
Of them all, Lovecraft has become a virtual industry. The tension between using him for extreme effect and thoroughly domesticating him is fascinating to behold.
Comment By: Jeff Deischer
August 21st, 2015 at 10:18 am
I kind of have to agree with you, Adam. I’ve read a bit of Lovecraft, just didn’t grab me.
Comment By: Justin Semmel
August 21st, 2015 at 11:18 am
His racism seemed kind of lost in two ways – he could take you to places you could never go, mentally, on your own, and was harsh on all of humanity. Such harshness had street cred at the time.
Comment By: Zyada K
August 21st, 2015 at 12:18 pm
I read “At the Mountains of Madness” when I was fairly young (middle school, I think or maybe even 5th grade) and I remember being quite enthralled by it. I picked it up again when I was in my 30s and OMG it was boring. Things are horrifying because you’ve never seen them before? They’re eeeevil because they’re ugly? I didn’t catch on at the time, but yeah, no plot, no people, no conflict except the whole “aliens are going to eat us” schtick.
Comment By: Craven Sean
August 21st, 2017 at 11:17 am
I think part of the appeal is an emotional resonance with outsiders — if you hit the right Lovecraft at the right passage in your life you bond. It happened to me. But I agree with you for the most part — I don’t seem to be able to read him with pleasure anymore — and I’ll add that the cosmic horror for which he’s best known is a watered-down version of what he read in Machen, Blackwood, and Hodgson. But in his defense bad prose is not the same as bad writing. I think the architecture of his best work is intricate and fascinating and have benefited from studying it — he once said something to the effect that a horror story should be built as convincingly as a hoax and that his work has survived his prose, his disinterest in the human experience, and his fondness for dreadful unpronounceabilities is either a testimony to that strength or to a depraved public appetite for bad prose, alienation, and twisted tongues.
Comment By: CJ Hurtt
August 21st, 2017 at 3:17 pm
He had great story ideas, bad prose, and shitty views