The Philosophy of H.P. Lovecraft: The Route to Horror
D.E. Kesler
Of Late, I have been reading Timo Airaksinen's _The Philospy of H.P.
Lovecraft: The Route to Horror_, and I thought I might share some of my
intital thoughts with all of you.
I was at first surprised by the contents. The title of this work lead
me to believe that the book would contain a series of essays that
explored the influence of mechanistic materialism upon Lovecraft's
fiction. While this aspect of Lovecraft's work is touched upon, it does
not take center stage.
In many ways, this book is similar to Donald Burleson's _Lovecraft:
Disturbing the Universe_. For example, in the chapter entitled "The
Denial: The Colour Out of Space II," Airaksinen grabs a hold of
Lovecraft's reference to the Colour as a "naked threat" and runs with
it.
"The "colour" which looks so strange lives in a well. This is the only
metaphor of penetration Lovecraft uses, and even that is an inverted
one. Instead of being erect, the vital shaft is turned inward. It digs
into the earth and mother earth recieves it. The result is a cosmic
orgasm." (pg. 86)
Airaksinen also points out that the text suggests that during Ammi and
Nahum's final encounter that Nahum is naked. "How else could Ammi see
what he is seeing? He need not touch it, for instance, in order to look
inside his clothes." (pg. 86)
Now, I am not saying that I am buying into Airaksinen reading of this
tale, but it does make for interesting speculation.
Quite a number of Airaksinen's observations are on far more solid
ground. He points out the dichotomy present in "The Call of Cthulhu."
"I shall never knowingly supply a link in so hideous a chain [of
knowledge]. I think the professor, too, intended to to be silent
regarding the part he knew, and he would have destroyed the notes had
not sudden death seized him."
As Airaksinen correctly notes, "How can the narrator say that he will
not convey his beliefs to anyone if he has written them down and put
them in a safe place so that they will certainly survive him?" (pg. 109)
Also, Cthulhu's call is described as "a subterrene voice or
intellegence shouting monotonously in enigmatic sense-impacts
undescribable save as gibberish." If it is gibberish, then how can
Wilcox and Castro make sense out of it? It must be, in some manner,
intelligible.
We are also told, as Lovecraft often tells us, that "The Thing cannot
be described - there is no language for such abysms of shrieking and
immemorial lunacy, such eldritch contradictions of all matter, force and
cosmic order." But, as always, Lovecraft then provides a good
description of the beastie.
Airaksinen draws our attention to the fact that the open door of R'leyh
emits darkness, perhaps inspired by Milton's "Darkness Visible". How can
Cthulhu even be seen if he is darkness?
All in all, I am finding Airaksinen book to be quite an interesting
read.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
Richard D Magrath
>metaphor of penetration Lovecraft uses, and even that is an inverted
>one. Instead of being erect, the vital shaft is turned inward. It digs
>into the earth and mother earth recieves it. The result is a cosmic
>orgasm."
I always thought it was just because a well would make a good hiding place for
a murderous colour, and, if anything, would play on the idea that the dark,
unknown bottom of an old well could contain something really evil.
Richard D. Magrath
LtRi...@aol.com
"Oh," said Arthur, "oh well I'm sorry I didn't. What was it for?"
"The Most Gratuitous Use Of The Word 'Fuck' In A Serious Screenplay. It's very
prestigious."
-Life, the Universe and Everything
florinaldo
its internal logic and contents, and not trying to import all sorts of
external meanings and interpretations!!
But a bit more seriously, if the author had only made logical and sensible
points like the one you made, he could barely have sustained a whole book.
He had to overreach if he wanted to produce a serious piece of sufficient
length. And always remember that the intentions of the author do not
matter; it's what the critic can cram into the text that does.
--
Florinaldo
----------
Dans l'article <19990903185253...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
ltri...@aol.com (Richard D Magrath) a écrit :
Gregory L. Hansen
florinaldo <flori...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>What kind of terrible creature are you? Reacting to a work of fiction for
>its internal logic and contents, and not trying to import all sorts of
>external meanings and interpretations!!
>
>But a bit more seriously, if the author had only made logical and sensible
>points like the one you made, he could barely have sustained a whole book.
>He had to overreach if he wanted to produce a serious piece of sufficient
>length. And always remember that the intentions of the author do not
>matter; it's what the critic can cram into the text that does.
Reminds me of a story about an elephant that I've heard.
A new painting was displayed at an art exhibition, something of an
abstract peice. The critics and art lovers were gathered around it
ooh-ing and ah-ing. They were trying to uncover what the artist was
trying to express, finding emotion and meaning behind every brush stroke.
Then they were told it's time to meet the author, and a large double door
opened and in walked an elephant.
This is allegedly a true story.
--
"Honey, would you mind opening the window? The police have Daddy's
fingerprints on file." - Homer
Donovan K. Loucks
For example, in the chapter entitled "The Denial: The Colour Out of
Space II," Airaksinen grabs a hold of Lovecraft's reference to the
Colour as a "naked threat" and runs with it:
"The 'colour' which looks so strange lives in a well. This is the
only metaphor of penetration Lovecraft uses, and even that is an
inverted one. Instead of being erect, the vital shaft is turned
inward. It digs into the earth and mother earth recieves it. The
result is a cosmic orgasm." (pg. 86)
Freudians! Sometimes a well is just a well...
-------------------
Donovan K. Loucks <webm...@hplovecraft.com>
The H.P. Lovecraft Archive: http://www.hplovecraft.com
The alt.horror.cthulhu FAQ: ftp://ftp.primenet.com/users/d/dloucks/ahc
StoOdin101
>into the earth and mother earth recieves it. The result is a cosmic
>orgasm."
I never buy ANY Freudian interpretations of Lovecraft, because I don't buy
Freud's theories. I think it's as simple as the fact that a nasty, slimy old
well is a possible breeding place for creepy things.
>Also, Cthulhu's call is described as "a subterrene voice or
>intellegence shouting monotonously in enigmatic sense-impacts
>undescribable save as gibberish." If it is gibberish, then how can
>Wilcox and Castro make sense out of it?
I don't think they can. I think the cult's interpretation of the psychic noises
is simply man's effort to impose himself on those things he cannot understand,
just as those maligned Theosophists have imposed optimism on terrifying events.
And Wilcox _doesn't_ understand it, he just receives it.
>How can
>Cthulhu even be seen if he is darkness? Cthulhu is not darkness. The
darkness emanates and fades into the sky on membranous wings. Whether
Lovecraft meant literal wings or not is open to question. After all,
Black-winged Ones serve the Old Ones... The "darkness" within the aperture may
have been a flock or herd or whatever of the Black-Winged Ones.
" The one test of the really weird is just this -- whether or not there be
excited in the reader a profound sense of dread, and of contact with unknown
spheres and powers...." --- H.P. Lovecraft
D.E. Kesler
I do not doubt the validity of your tale. Although I am not familiar
with the elephant tale, I am familiar with a few, verifiable cases where
art critics have gone awry.
The erroneous comments on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is probably
the easiest to verify. For quite some time, critics noted the dark, and
somber hues. Some suggested that this was due to the fact that as a
sculptor, Michelangelo, was far more familiar with the gray color of
stone. Others suggested that he was quite a melancholy man.
Recent restoration of the ceiling has removed layers of lamp, candle,
and incense smoke, a coating of animal glue, and even a coating of Greek
wine that was applied in the eighteenth century in a vain effort to
brighten things up. All of the chemicals and water used in the cleaning
were carefully analyzied, and from this it was learned that less than a
gram of actual pigment was removed in the cleaning of the surface.
The end result has made all of those papers that dealt with
Michelangelo's melancholy colors invalid. The colors used where not
merely bright, they were electric. The restored ceiling shows that
Michelangelo had a leaning toward brilliant pastels and iridescent
hues. Of course, art historians were startled. A very small group of
scholars have even claimed that the restoration ruined the work,
suggesting that Michelangelo intended for his efforts to eventually be
covered with soot.
A similar situation arose for Lovecraftian scholarship in the form of
the infamous "Black Magic Quote."
So, I will readily concede that scholars often make errors; however, I
do not think that this is what is happening here in _The Philosophy of
H.P. Lovecraft: The Route to Horror_. I feel that Timo Airaksinen is
simply offering another way to read and appreciate a given piece of
work.
Of course I will readily concede that this has very little to do with
the intent of the artist. Consider the following. Any reader, critic
or otherswise, will bring to a given work all of the events that he or
she has experienced in the course of their lives. For this reason,
everyone who reads a given work will envision something slightly
different. In many ways, reading a given text is akin to the childrens
game of looking for familiar shapes in the clouds.
Consider the following excerpts from the Donald Spoto in his
introduction to _The Art of Alfred Hitchcock_.
"Frequently, if not usually, critics speak and write as if their
interpretations of art were the last words - as if their insights, as
bridges from artist to audience, closed the door to meaning, and
thenceforth no dog should bark. I do not think this is the function of
the interpreter. In this book, I have simply tried to widen the scope
of the creative, critical dialogue of one man's work..."
"Obviously, the passion a critic brings to the study of specific works
of art reveals much about the critic himself. In my setting forth
certain themes, ideas and images in the art of Alfred Hitchcock, it's
obvious that they have special significance for me. The act of
interpretation, after all, interprets the interpreter to himself."
Whenever I read a critic's response to a given piece of work. Instead
of worrying too much about the intent of the artist, I attempt to simply
look at the work through the eyes of the critic. Of course, I am free
to reject his or her view in the long run, but for the moment I simply
try to envision the same shapes in the clouds.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
D.E. Kesler
While it may be true that a well is just a well, Airaksinen suspects
that there may be hidden meaning behind the "very peculiar specimen."
Lovecraft wrote:
"The proportions of its body seemed slightly altered in a queer way
impossible to describe, while its face had taken on an expression which
no one ever saw in a woodchuck before."
Airaksinen responds:
"The readers uneasy guess is that it is like a satyr, Priapus, whose
bodily parts are impossible to describe because of shame. The reader
knows what is going on because this is the only slight alteration of the
male body which cannot be mentioned. No Victorian can be made to reveal
his or her knowledge of these things, not even under threat of torture,
which comes to these virgin peasants."
"The animal now has a face and expression, like a human being but
unlike an animal (fact), although a person may also be an animal
(disgust). We can only suspect that this expression is lust and
lechery. Men are like animals and vice versa, and animalistic desire
receives its (pseudo) human face. All of this is passed over in silence
and pretentious ignorance, otherwise too much would be revealed."
"The reference to animals has an another, even more drastic,
consequence. By recognizing it, we understand what is meant by the
recurring expression "strange days." Animals have certain days when
they are in heat and thus behave in strange ways, unpredictably and
uncontrollably. Since homo sapiens is always in heat, this may mean
that we always behave strangely. However, after the suggestions of the
animal nature, the strange days are restricted to that given period when
they are in heat. So the innocent farmers face a strangeness which they
cannot understand and which they must therefore reject. As we know,
psychological repression is rejection is repression, which, again, is
significant." (The Philosophy of H.P. Lovecraft: The Route to Horror,
pg. 85-86)
Please allow me to repeat something which I wrote earlier. I am not
buying all of this, but I do think it is interesting.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
Donovan K. Loucks wrote:
>
> Donald Eric Kesler <er...@fantasm.org> wrote,
>
> For example, in the chapter entitled "The Denial: The Colour Out of
> Space II," Airaksinen grabs a hold of Lovecraft's reference to the
> Colour as a "naked threat" and runs with it:
>
> "The 'colour' which looks so strange lives in a well. This is the
> only metaphor of penetration Lovecraft uses, and even that is an
> inverted one. Instead of being erect, the vital shaft is turned
> inward. It digs into the earth and mother earth recieves it. The
StoOdin101
>
> "The proportions of its body seemed slightly altered in a queer way
>impossible to describe, while its face had taken on an expression which
>no one ever saw in a woodchuck before."
>
>Airaksinen responds:
>
> "The readers uneasy guess is that it is like a satyr, Priapus, whose
>bodily parts are impossible to describe because of shame. The reader
>knows what is going on because this is the only slight alteration of the
>male body which cannot be mentioned.
his conclusions are interesting, but way, way out. Believe me, I have NEVER
made the uneasy guess that the creature's genitals had been Priapusically
altered. Nor had I ever thought that its face had become "pseudo human".
Rather, this statement implied to me the same thing the unnatural angles of
R'lyeh did some time later: that the creature had been altered in an
indescribable, profoundly alien way. Lovecraft describes this aspect more
fully in CHAS.DEXTER WARD, speaking of the things in Curwen's pits. I don't
have the book here, so can't quote it.
D.E. Kesler
To be quite candid, I really think that Airaksinen is stretching things
a bit far whith his thoughts on the woodchuck. My first response upon
reading "The Colour Out of Space" was that the plants and the animals
had been affected by some sort of radiation. Of course, I realize now
that this was not what Lovecraft had in mind when he wrote the piece,
but I still think 'radioactive' whenever I read anything about this
tale. First impressions are often tenacious.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
JohnXCross
>metaphor of penetration Lovecraft uses,
Of course. Of course. No surprise that closet psychoanalysts would take up the
poor wretch that was Lovecraft. From the evidence of his failed marriage it is
obvious he had some problems, but to pick apart his sad tales to find "hidden
sexuality" is absurd. Leave the Godless wretch alone.
"The God of the Bible is not a moral relativist, and He is most definitely
judgmental. The very nature of the Judeo-Christian God is a Lord who makes
distinctions. We make distinctions, too - and we have standards."
Booji Boy
people that like HPL. And is not a religious forum.
If we were talking about his work in a religious context that's one thing.
But they were not. I'm sure there are plenty of
newsgroups dealing with subject matter you seem to like.
JohnXCross <johnx...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990906234302...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
D.E. Kesler
The "closet psychoanalyst" you mention, Timo Airaksinen, is a Professor
of Philosphy at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He has written
extensively on the history of philosophy, epistemology, and ethics.
Other books by Dr. Airaksinen include _The Ethics of Coercion and
Authority_ and _The Philosophy of the Marquis De Sade_. Now, I am not
saying that you need to agree with what has written about Lovecraft, but
I don't think you should slur the man simply because you disagree with a
small portion of his views on Lovecraft.
Speaking of Lovecraft, I do not think your being entirely fair. You
have cited his failed marriage as evidence of some sort of mental
problem. First off, I suspect that you may be donning the garb of the
closet psychoanalysis yourself while denouncing it in others. Secondly,
your logic is flawed. Marriages fail for all sorts of reasons that have
very little to do with the mental stability of the individuals
involved. You seem to have done a bit of reading on Lovecraft's life.
At least you know that he was married. Are you familiar with the
details of their brief courtship, marriage and divorce? If so, then you
know that the issue of who, if anyone, is to blame is far from clear.
Personally, I feel that both Howard and Sonia must share the
responsability for their failed relationship.
You stated that the very notion of seeking hidden sexual images in
Lovecraft's fiction is absurd. With this statement, you may have
finally written something that some members of this group will agree
with. However, as I have stated before, one does not need to embrace
Airaksinen's point of view. I am also skeptical of much that he has
written about Lovecraft. I only offer it in order to expand the
critical dialouge on H.P. Lovecraft's work. If it encourages myself and
others to take a second, deeper look at the writings of Lovecraft, then
my efforts are not in vain.
John, if you really wish to join all of us in a dialouge about the
fictional efforts or life of H.P. Lovecraft you are more than welcome.
Unfortunately, I suspect the you are simply attempting to create
discord. If this is the case, please stop posting to our group.
Regardless, of how you chose to respond to this post, I wish you the
very best of luck in your future.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
MGCa...@aol.com
johnx...@aol.com (JohnXCross) wrote:
> Of course. Of course. No surprise that closet psychoanalysts would
> take up the poor wretch that was Lovecraft. From the evidence of his
> failed marriage it is obvious he had some problems, but to pick apart
> his sad tales to find "hidden sexuality" is absurd. Leave the Godless
> wretch alone.
You know, if you continue posting to this group, and if your posts
continue to represent nothing but reiterations of your judgment that
Lovecraft is a Godless representative of the Godless horror genre, then
I'm going to find myself psychoanalyzing *you* -- and almost
involuntarily, might I add -- in order to ferret out your presently
incomprehensible motives for being here.
IOW, please take your own advice and leave. You seem way too
fascinated with a person and a genre you've told the rest of us to shun.
Matt Cardin
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Franklin Hummel
In article <19990906234302...@ng-cl1.aol.com>,
JohnXCross <johnx...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Of course. Of course. No surprise that closet psychoanalysts would take
>up the poor wretch that was Lovecraft.
Just as it is no surprise that a Bible-thumping, narrow-minded,
know-it-all would post such uncompassionate insults to this newsgroup.
It's just disappointing.
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
====================================================================
* This Space For Rent *
====================================================================