TSOU -- The Rats in the Walls
HARMSDM
"The Rats in the Walls"
Sources: _The Dunwich Horror_, Arkham; _The Best of H. P. Lovecraft_,
Ballantine.
Synopsis: A New England businessman discovers through a friend of his
son's (Norrys) that his family once owned a large mansion in Exham. After
his son's death, he moves to the house and has it restored. He is troubled
by the sounds of rats in the walls that only he and the cats can hear.
Upon investigating, he and Norrys discover a stairway leading into a cavern
littered with human bones and bearing evidence of cannibalism. The narrator
goes insane and kills Norrys, and now tells his story from the asylum in
which he is now staying.
Comments: I liked this story. The background material, though excessive,
was interesting nonetheless, and the final scenes were quite chilling.
I'm not even going to say anything about the cat's name. It is
a racist term, and you either deal with it or you don't. If anyone else
wants to comment on it, though, go ahead. (But please -- keep it polite.)
This story was the longest Lovecraft had ever written up until this
time, and it was the first that he submitted directly to _Weird Tales_,
instead of having it published in the amateur press at first. Henneberger,
the publisher of _WT_ told him that it was one of the best tales to have
ever appeared in the magazine. (I believe he owed Lovecraft money, though.)
If you read the story, you may have wondered who Attis and Cybele
were. These two deities were Middle Eastern gods who were adopted by the
Roman Empire about a hundred years after the coming of Christ. They (and
Christianity) were part of the 'Mystery Religions', cults that stressed
multiple levels of initiation, secret rites, and hidden knowledge. One
myth states that Cybele, the Earth Mother, fell in love with her son, Attis.
He spurned her affections, and later castrated and killed himself beneath
a pine tree. Thus, Attis became one of the "vegetable gods" who is killed
and resurrected each year and thus serves as an agricultural patron. The
cult's priests were required to castrate themselves as well, which may explain
why the sect did not survive to the present.
Lovecraft knew a good deal about mythology, and probably encountered
the Attis myth in Frazer's _The Golden Bough_, if nowhere else. From what
we know about Lovecraft, he was very sexually repressed. Some people might
say that this story shows just how afraid of his own sexuality Lovecraft was.
I agree to some extent, but I can't help wondering why he chose this
particular myth to do so. (There's a passage in Catullus, a Roman poet,
on this subject, but I can't read enough Latin to make a translation.)
One other note -- here we once again see "Nyarlathotep" turn up,
seemingly for no apparent reason. Why is this? My theory on this is
that Lovecraft used his Mythos names as a way of evoking an atmosphere
of horror in his readers. In anthropology, we often talk about how things
that lie "between" our set categories (night and day, land and sea, etc.)
are sources of power because they are, to some degree, indefinable. It
may be that Lovecraft was using an analogous tactic here -- that of creating
a definition and then allowing our own fears to fill in what it means.
What just occurred to me is this: Many of us complain that Derleth and
later writers "ruined" the Mythos through their interpretations, but we
may blame Lovecraft for its own destruction, as he used his creations again
and again in different tales, each time squeezing out our own "definition"
for his own. Later authors then built even more on this, destroying even
more of the ambiguity, until it became largely unsuccessful and most authors
dropped.
I hope not too many people read that. Let's move on.
This story has inspired at least one other work I can think of:
P. H. Cannon's "Cats, Rats, and Bertie Wooster", which is rather funny
and available in _Scream for Jeeves_ from Necronomicon Press. I can't
recall any stories that have built on it.
One of the pieces in the film _Necronomicon_ built on this story.
I didn't have that much time to see it (somebody wanted to watch _Desperado_
instead), but I did see enough to get a good idea of the plot. The beginning
is much the same (even though Exham Priory looked like Jabba the Hutt's
palace), but then it took off on a tangent to an entirely different story.
Oh well.
Does anyone know where Exham Priory is? We had a discussion on
it earlier, but I don't recall anyone ever coming to a solution.
I think that's more than enough.
Daniel
Donovan Loucks
I'm not even going to say anything about the cat's name. It is a
racist term, and you either deal with it or you don't. If anyone else
wants to comment on it, though, go ahead. (But please -- keep it
polite.)
I never make much of such things because Lovecraft lived in a different
time from ours. Back then, using a name like "Nig" or "Nigger-Man" for a
black cat was not uncommon. I wouldn't do it today for fear of offending
someone, but in another time, who knows? It's hard to condemn a white man
who lived in the '20s and '30s for using this term, when blacks in our
time freely use it towards each other.
Lovecraft knew a good deal about mythology, and probably encountered
the Attis myth in Frazer's _The Golden Bough_, if nowhere else. From
what we know about Lovecraft, he was very sexually repressed. Some
people might say that this story shows just how afraid of his own
sexuality Lovecraft was. I agree to some extent, but I can't help
wondering why he chose this particular myth to do so. (There's a
passage in Catullus, a Roman poet, on this subject, but I can't read
enough Latin to make a translation.)
I wouldn't refer to Lovecraft as sexually "repressed"--it would probably
be more correct to say that he was sexually "disinterested". There are
those whose interests are so overwhelmingly intellectual that the physical
aspects of life hold no sway over them. If it weren't for the fact that I
have a friend who is like this, I probably couldn't understand why
Lovecraft was the way he was--and many people can't. Think of him as a
sort of intellectual (rather than religous) monk. I don't consider myself
one of those people, but I do think about how much time I could have for
more intellectual pursuits if I didn't have to eat, excrete, sleep, and
copulate. I'd have an extra 10 hours a day on my hands!
One other note -- here we once again see "Nyarlathotep" turn up,
seemingly for no apparent reason. Why is this? My theory on this is
that Lovecraft used his Mythos names as a way of evoking an atmosphere
of horror in his readers. In anthropology, we often talk about how
things that lie "between" our set categories (night and day, land and
sea, etc.) are sources of power because they are, to some degree,
indefinable. It may be that Lovecraft was using an analogous tactic
here -- that of creating a definition and then allowing our own fears
to fill in what it means. What just occurred to me is this: Many of us
complain that Derleth and later writers "ruined" the Mythos through
their interpretations, but we may blame Lovecraft for its own
destruction, as he used his creations again and again in different
tales, each time squeezing out our own "definition" for his own. Later
authors then built even more on this, destroying even more of the
ambiguity, until it became largely unsuccessful and most authors
dropped. I hope not too many people read that. Let's move on.
I read it, and I see your point and even agree to some extent. But
Lovecraft used these names well to build up an atmosphere of horror.
Remember, to those of us who have heard these names a bazillion times,
they seem "thrown in". But to _Weird Tales_ readers, they were puzzling
sounding names that had no meaning, therefore evoking the mood that
Lovecraft intended. Later authors just threw them in, without any regard
to the results. Even later authors (whose initials are "Brian Lumley")
stamped, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, and numbered these creatures
until they were nothing but another species of animal in the Lovecraftian
universe.
Does anyone know where Exham Priory is? We had a discussion on it
earlier, but I don't recall anyone ever coming to a solution.
We didn't arrive at any conclusions, but our favorite fungi, Bob Cannard
<BobTh...@interramp.com>, came up with some interesting information:
I'm not aware of any real area called Exham either. I would expect
Exham to be in the far southwest--near the south coast of Devon, not
far from the very real city of Exeter and the equally real desolation
of Exmoor. The suffix "-ham" refers to a triangular piece of land in
the fork of two rivers. I presume there is a river Ex, and I believe
there is a south coast seaside resort called Exmouth, but do not have
an adequate map to hand to check.
There is a River Exe that empties into the Channel at Exmouth, winding
back north to Exeter and almost to the Bristol Channel. It passes mostly
through the shire of Devon, but even extends into Somerset. Lovecraft
mentions that "the priory overlooked a desolate valley three miles west of
the village of Anchester". We weren't able to turn up this village on any
maps, but we didn't try too hard, either. Perhaps someone else here has
quick access to a good map of Great Britain.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Donovan K. Loucks Phoenix, Arizona dlo...@primenet.com |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lovecraft Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dloucks/hplpage.html |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| alt.horror.cthulhu FAQ: |
| ftp://ftp.primenet.com/users/d/dloucks/alt.horror.cthulhu |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Karl Kluge
> I never make much of such things because Lovecraft lived in
> a different time from ours. Back then, using a name like
> "Nig" or "Nigger-Man" for a black cat was not uncommon. I
> wouldn't do it today for fear of offending someone, but in
> another time, who knows? It's hard to condemn a white man
> who lived in the '20s and '30s for using this term, when
> blacks in our time freely use it towards each other.
The difference is that blacks in our time know what it is to _be_
a "nigger" in America -- Lovecraft did not. Same thing with gays
using terms like "queer" and "faggot" in conversation. It has to
do with paying dues.
Arthur Levesque
H>The Shadow over Usenet "The Rats in the Walls"
H>He is troubled by the sounds of rats in the walls that only he
H>and the cats can hear...
In 1990, I was at the Avon Theater in Providence for the world
premiere of "Bride of Reanimator." There was a throw-away line
where Dan hears noises and Herbert says "Rats in the Walls." That
actually got the biggest laugh.
H>If you read the story, you may have wondered who Attis and
H>Cybele were...
I liked the way his speech regressed... I haven't read it
recently, so I can't quote any of it from memory, but you know
what I mean.
H>One of the pieces in the film _Necronomicon_ built on this story.
H>The beginning is much the same ... but then it took off on a
H>tangent to an entirely different story.
I just watched _Necronomicon_ recently... I thought that the
first story started like "Rats in the Walls"; and I was disappointed
when it turned into something unrelated and inferior.
--
/\ Arthur Levesque, baks...@ix.netcom.com <*> Servant of Cthulhu
\B\ack King of the Potato People =/\= Unconventional Conventionist
\S\lash "That man confuses me. Kill him." -Zorgon the Malevolent
\/ http://www.tiac.net/users/gwiii/art/bakslash.html [fnord]
Gevera
(HARMSDM) writes:
> This story has inspired at least one other work I can think of:
>P. H. Cannon's "Cats, Rats, and Bertie Wooster", which is rather funny
>and available in _Scream for Jeeves_ from Necronomicon Press. I can't
>recall any stories that have built on it.
>
>
Stephen King wrote a story called "Jerusalem's Lot" which was in the
anthology _Night Shift_ which constantly mentions rats in the walls. I
ran it as a COC game at a con two weeks ago and it worked. I don't know
if it's directly inspired by HPL's "Rats" or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it won't give up it wants me dead goddamn this noise inside my head-NIN
(shhh-dead Cthulhu lies dreaming)
gev...@aol.com (Bert)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARMSDM
From: Donovan Loucks <dlo...@primenet.com>
>HARMSDM <HAR...@ctrvx1.Vanderbilt.Edu> wrote:
>I wouldn't refer to Lovecraft as sexually "repressed"--it would probably
>be more correct to say that he was sexually "disinterested". There are
>aspects of life hold no sway over them. If it weren't for the fact that I
>have a friend who is like this, I probably couldn't understand why
>Lovecraft was the way he was--and many people can't. Think of him as a
>sort of intellectual (rather than religous) monk.
That does seem more accurate to me -- but the question still
remains. Why, out of all the myths that would be available to a man of
Lovecraft's erudition, would he choose such an explicitly sexual one?
The same thing happens this week in "The Unnamable". I do agree with
you for the most part here -- but I still find his choices of inspiration
baffling for a man who had no interest in sex.
>> Many of us
>> complain that Derleth and later writers "ruined" the Mythos through
>> their interpretations, but we may blame Lovecraft for its own
>> destruction, as he used his creations again and again in different
>> tales, each time squeezing out our own "definition" for his own. Later
>> authors then built even more on this, destroying even more of the
>> ambiguity, until it became largely unsuccessful and most authors
>> dropped. I hope not too many people read that. Let's move on.
>I read it, and I see your point and even agree to some extent. But
>Lovecraft used these names well to build up an atmosphere of horror.
>Remember, to those of us who have heard these names a bazillion times,
>they seem "thrown in".
What I mean is that there doesn't appear to be any particular reason
for Nyarlathotep's inclusion here. Contrast it with "At the Mountains of
Madness". The characters in that story know about this because they've
read and researched, whereas here de la Poer is either calling upon unknown
depths of his erudition or has undergone a revelation.
> But to _Weird Tales_ readers, they were puzzling
>sounding names that had no meaning, therefore evoking the mood that
>Lovecraft intended. Later authors just threw them in, without any regard
>to the results. Even later authors (whose initials are "Brian Lumley")
>stamped, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, and numbered these creatures
>until they were nothing but another species of animal in the Lovecraftian
>universe.
I agree. I think that Lovecraft's careful craftsmanship
kept the various parts of the Mythos mysterious through most of his fiction.
Still, even in Lovecraft's lifetime less talented authors picked up the
technique and were using it in their own tales. My argument is that when
Lovecraft began to use these concepts throughout his stories, he laid the
groundwork for others to adopt and codify them. I'm not really trying to
point a finger at Lovecraft or Derleth at all.
Daniel
Pomponio Magnus, ter consuli, comes litoris saxoni
striking young lady that bears a strong resemblance to Amanda Donohue.
Donovan Loucks
That does seem more accurate to me -- but the question still remains.
Why, out of all the myths that would be available to a man of
Lovecraft's erudition, would he choose such an explicitly sexual one?
The same thing happens this week in "The Unnamable". I do agree with
you for the most part here -- but I still find his choices of
inspiration baffling for a man who had no interest in sex.
Although we know that the myths of Attis and Cybele are "explicitly
sexual", did Lovecraft? And even if he did, his intent was clearly to
draw upon the horrific aspects of these myths, not their sexual aspects.
What sexually-charged myths does Lovecraft draw upon for "The Unnamable"?
What I mean is that there doesn't appear to be any particular reason
for Nyarlathotep's inclusion here. Contrast it with "At the Mountains
of Madness". The characters in that story know about this because
they've read and researched, whereas here de la Poer is either calling
upon unknown depths of his erudition or has undergone a revelation.
By the same token, there's no "particular reason" for the long list of
"mythos" names in "The Whisperer in Darkness". I agree with you entirely
when you said in your original message, "Lovecraft used his Mythos names
as a way of evoking an atmosphere of horror in his readers". In the same
way more mainstream horror authors might spew out a string of names like
"Belphegor..Astaroth..Beelzebub...". It's merely a device.
I agree. I think that Lovecraft's careful craftsmanship kept the
various parts of the Mythos mysterious through most of his fiction.
Still, even in Lovecraft's lifetime less talented authors picked up the
technique and were using it in their own tales. My argument is that
when Lovecraft began to use these concepts throughout his stories, he
laid the groundwork for others to adopt and codify them. I'm not
really trying to point a finger at Lovecraft or Derleth at all.
Yes, Lovecraft did invite the eventuality of others trying to codify his
creations merely by inventing them, just as Sherlockians or Trekkers
attempt to codify their respective universes. Lovecraft can't be held to
blame for this, but I believe Derleth can. Lovecraft occasionally has
conflicting information on his fictional creations, which adds to their
mythic qualities. These contradictions make it pretty clear that these
things were just plot devices to Lovecraft, and not the sole intent of his
stories. It is to his credit that he didn't attempt to religiously
classify and categorize these creations.
gun...@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
> Lady Silvia Marsh owns Exham Priory today. I met her. She is a
> striking young lady that bears a strong resemblance to Amanda Donohue.
I assume you mean that Lady Marsh owns the Exham pile of rubble. It was
dynamited to obliteration in 1923."
-Guy Bock
Cat From Saturn
says...
>
> The Shadow over Usenet
> "The Rats in the Walls"
>
>Sources: _The Dunwich Horror_, Arkham; _The Best of H. P. Lovecraft_,
>Ballantine.
I also liked this story, although I found it too implausible at times.
But anybody could say that; this isn't why I answered.
This is:
> One other note -- here we once again see "Nyarlathotep" turn up,
>seemingly for no apparent reason. Why is this? My theory on this is
>that Lovecraft used his Mythos names as a way of evoking an atmosphere
>of horror in his readers. In anthropology, we often talk about how things
>that lie "between" our set categories (night and day, land and sea, etc.)
>are sources of power because they are, to some degree, indefinable. It
>may be that Lovecraft was using an analogous tactic here -- that of creating
>a definition and then allowing our own fears to fill in what it means.
>What just occurred to me is this: Many of us complain that Derleth and
>later writers "ruined" the Mythos through their interpretations, but we
>may blame Lovecraft for its own destruction, as he used his creations again
>and again in different tales, each time squeezing out our own "definition"
>for his own. Later authors then built even more on this, destroying even
>more of the ambiguity, until it became largely unsuccessful and most authors
>dropped.
>
> I hope not too many people read that. Let's move on.
I'm torn at this point.
I could argue that the reason some authors (including Lovecraft) use Mythos
names out of the context they were originally "intended" to be in is to show
that the Mythos is vast and complex. The concepts involved were never
meant to be understood by simple human brains. Any attempt at understanding
these concepts or entities are bound to yield multiple interpretations. In fact,
these Mythos entities are so complex and omni-potent (comparatively) that
it would be ridiculous for a human to announce : "I alone know the truth
concerning _________ (insert favorite Mythos name here)". It is then
the duty of the authors, in order to keep the reader from thinking
he knows the facts behind a Mythos name, to play around with them, to show
that they can never be fully comprehended.
I could say that, but that's not really how it goes is it?
Nowadays what you see is the author doing exactly what he shouldn't be doing:
defining the Mythos. We all fall prey to this, because as a reader you don't say:
"Hum. This takes the mystery out of the Mythos. Naughty author." We say:
"Oh good. Someone has done the work of thinking up an absolute for us. Yay."
But we can't blame ourselves, who wants their brain confused constantly anyway.
In order to keep the Mythos effective, authors do in fact need to "re-invent" it
constantly, by introducing different possible interpretations. Nothing is as
frightening as the unknown, the unknowable. But he/she
should not fall into the trap of trying to write canon.
I'll summon and send them something on the first person(s) who write(s) the
_Mythos for Dummies_ handbook!
(With the exception of Daniel Harms' Enc. Cth. , which only presents what
other authors have written.)
So, in _the Rats in the Walls_, we have lovecraft refering to Nyarlathotep in a way
similar to Azathoth (howling to the piping of amorphous, idiot pipers, at the center of
something significant). Is this a way to subtly evoke an atmosphere of confusion and
mystery, or was he only unsure about Nyarlathotep himself? Does it really matter?
No harm was done, and the story thus gained from it.
Cat From Saturn
(jytou...@cyberus.ca)
Guy Standen
> There was, however, a town known as Hexham located in northern England.
> It's about twenty miles west of present day Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
There still is. It's only a few miles from Hadrian's wall, which crops up
in several mythos related stories. One by REH with Bran Mak Morn is the
the Cthulhu and other kindred horrors collection, and the wall is also
mentioned by Brian Lumley in Cement Surroundings (I think thats what it's
called) where the Cthonians are introduced.
> Also, Lovecraft states
> that the Priory was "never destroyed by the Danes." This would seem to
> indicate that the priory was located in the south.
Perhaps Lovecraft meant that the Vikings didn't sack the Priory because
they knew better? Maybe it had a bad reputation. I got the feeling that
Exham was in the South from the story, but I can't put my finger on a
specific reason. I'll have to read it again.
> I cannot find any reference to Anchester, the village that is said to be
> nearby.
I think there is a Lanchester somewhere in England.
> Lovcraft says that it was the site of a camp for the third Augustan
> legion. Can anyone come up with a reference for their route or the
> territory tha t they would have covered?
It's probably in Tacitus's history of England. I seem to recall a map
with the main legion garrisons on it.
> Guy Bock
A great name to have :-)
--
# Guy Benjamin Standen Physics Department, University of Newcastle, #
! e-mail: G.B.S...@ncl.ac.uk Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K., NE1 7RU. !
* WWW URL: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~n4521528 *
# `One thought fills immensity' - William Blake #
Arthur Levesque
H>...I think that Lovecraft's careful craftsmanship kept the various
H>parts of the Mythos mysterious through most of his fiction... My
H>argument is that when Lovecraft began to use these concepts throughout
H>his stories, he laid the groundwork for others to adopt and codify
H>them. I'm not really trying to point a finger at Lovecraft or Derleth
H>at all...
Donovan Loucks <dlo...@primenet.com> replied:
DL>Yes, Lovecraft did invite the eventuality of others trying to codify
DL>his creations merely by inventing them, just as Sherlockians or
DL>Trekkers attempt to codify their respective universes...
Except that Sherlock Holmes' and Star Trek's universes are meant to
be logical, consistent universes which *CAN* be codified and understood.
The whole point of Lovecraft's works is that mankind *CANNOT* codify or
understand that which is beyond; and even the attempt can be disastrous.
--
/\ Arthur Levesque, baks...@nicom.com <*> Cthulhu matata!
\B\ack King of the Potato People =/\= Unconventional Conventionist
\S\lash "That man confuses me. Kill him." -Zorgon the Malevolent
\/ http://www.nicom.com/~bakslash/index.html [fnord]
Cat From Saturn
>were. These two deities were Middle Eastern gods who were adopted by the
>Roman Empire about a hundred years after the coming of Christ. They (and
>Christianity) were part of the 'Mystery Religions', cults that stressed
>multiple levels of initiation, secret rites, and hidden knowledge. One
>myth states that Cybele, the Earth Mother, fell in love with her son, Attis.
>He spurned her affections, and later castrated and killed himself beneath
>a pine tree. Thus, Attis became one of the "vegetable gods" who is killed
>and resurrected each year and thus serves as an agricultural patron. The
>cult's priests were required to castrate themselves as well, which may explain
>why the sect did not survive to the present.
>Daniel
I thought you might be interested to know that "true" religions, like Cthulhu Mythos,
can be contradictory. Funny how life imitates fiction that way.
This is what I found (totally by accident) on Attis and Cybele. If you see some words
that seem... invented, or just don't fit right, please consider that I'm translating this from
french as I go along. Be patient please.
_She_ is in fact from the middle east (Phrygia by some accounts) the heiress of all those
neolithic fertility goddesses; a personification of the reproductive forces in nature.
She had had a young and seductive lover, Attis (not her son in my version).
But he (as is often the case with these young loverboys) was unfaithful, so she struck
him with madness. He "emasculated" himself shortly after, and died.
Filled with pity, she gave him back his life.
In 204 B.C. the cult of Cybele made its way to Gaule, the favored roman province, right
across the Manche from England.
But the orgiastic rites that the cultists participated in scandalised the roman citizens
(disturbing their own orgies I'm guessing), who tried to chase them away. Cybele was
forbidden access to the towns during the day (? I'm quoting ?). I'm guessing this means
that most people abandonned the cult, at least on the surface.
The cult continued recruiting though, mostly from the slave population.
Attis, made into a god, symbolised the yearly cycle of nature.
(Birth, Youth, Reaping of fruits(no pun intended...), Death)
The initiates, as they did not castrate themselves anymore (the historical reason is
unclear, although the lack of volunteers might have done it), but were made to bear the
test of the "Taurobole" (from the french for Bull). A the term of a long rite of
purification, self-flagellation, self-starving, et al. they received the divine unction which
consisted of a bleeding bull's head.
That's it.
Cat from Saturn