Mythos: A shared world?
KAYVEN
In article <339BE3...@erols.com>, Hunter Eden <ed...@erols.com> writes:
> Now the thing about the Mythos is this: What's preventing me from
>writing a story where the Elder Gods return when the stars are right,
>kill off the Old Ones once and for all, including Azathoth, Nyarlathotep
>and friends?
Answer: Nothing. I believe the point being made here is that for the
Mythos to be considered a "shared world" it would have to contain a
certain amount of consistency. (For myself, I tend to side with Chris
Jarocha-Ernst.)
Unlike any other "shared world", the Mythos has several qualities that
makes it unique. 1) There is no need for the same character. In order to
have a story set in the Sherlock Holmes "shared world", Holmes must
himself play an important role. Want a story set in the world of King
Arthur? Arthur has to be on the scene either on or off the main stage.
In the Mythos, however, every writer is able to create their own character
and encounter either one or many of the objects d'art contained within the
listing of the Mythos. 2) There are no established settings. A Mythos
story could be contained in a Western, Ancient Roman, or even Pirate
setting. All of history is open to the writer. 3) There is no
established writer behind a canon of works. When it comes to the
discussion of any "shared world" eventually there is always an attempt to
create a standard in the personage behind the original. To take the
Shelock Holmes stories as an example, no matter what anyone writes that
takes place within that "shared world", it will never be accepted as
having the status of canon. Only Arthur Conan Doyle's works maintain that
style. The Mythos, however, doesn't have that problem. The Mythos was
created not by one person but by a group. And that group freely gave
permission to other writers to add and set their stories within that
"shared world". Thus the acceptance of a story as a canonical work is
still open and expanding. But the question remains as to how such a work
can be judged to be canonical. And I think Chris has hit the nail on the
head. There has to be a certain level of consistency to the written work
in order for it to be listed as having developed and extended itself from
those works already considered and accepted as being canonical. In other
words, a work can only be canon if it agrees in its basic information with
works already considered canon. Does this mean that you or anyone else
who wants to write a Mythos story is somehow barred from writing Mythos
fiction? No, not at all. You are free to write whatever you want to
write in whatever method or style you wish to write it in. It just won't
be considered part of the 'official' Mythos canon. And this doesn't
interfere with the quality nor the popularity of your work. In fact, the
same goes for being accepted as part of the canon. Such acceptance has
little to do with the quality of the work involved.
So to answer your question, there is nothing at all keeping you from
writing a story where Cthulhu ends up being a really friendly god who has
just been misunderstood or where Titus Crow ends up blowing up the moon to
destroy the Mi-Go base located there in 1960. Just don't expect it to be
seen as "official". But in the end, if you were trying to be completely
different, why would you even care if it was?
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <19970610173...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
KAYVEN <kay...@aol.com> wrote:
>Shelock Holmes stories as an example, no matter what anyone writes that
Speaking of Sherlock, I once read a book where Sherlock Holmes chases
Dracula. It was a wonderful book, consistent with Doyle's style of
writing, and not as cheesy as it could have been. I rather enjoyed it.
I'd sort of like to see Sherlock Holmes on the trail of Cthulhu.
--
Remember to floss between your toes every time you bathe!
Edward P. Berglund
Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
>
> In article <19970610173...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> KAYVEN <kay...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I'd sort of like to see Sherlock Holmes on the trail of Cthulhu.
How about Ralph Vaughan's SHERLOCK HOLMES IN THE ADVENTURE OF THE
ANCIENT GODS and SHERLOCK HOLMES IN THE DREAMING DETECTIVE? They were
published by Gryphon Books in 1992 and should still be available.
And Gryphon just published Vaughan's PROFESSOR CHALLENGER IN SECRETS OF
THE DREAMLANDS.
Edward P. Berglund
Keeper of the Knowledge
http://www.toddalan.com/~berglund/
Hunter Eden
KAYVEN wrote:
>
> In article <339BE3...@erols.com>, Hunter Eden <ed...@erols.com> writes:
>
> > Now the thing about the Mythos is this: What's preventing me from
>
> >writing a story where the Elder Gods return when the stars are right,
> >kill off the Old Ones once and for all, including Azathoth, Nyarlathotep
> >and friends?
>
> Answer: Nothing. I believe the point being made here is that for the
> Mythos to be considered a "shared world" it would have to contain a
> certain amount of consistency. (For myself, I tend to side with Chris
> Jarocha-Ernst.)
> Unlike any other "shared world", the Mythos has several qualities that
> makes it unique. 1) There is no need for the same character. In order to
> have a story set in the Sherlock Holmes "shared world", Holmes must
> himself play an important role. Want a story set in the world of King
> Arthur? Arthur has to be on the scene either on or off the main stage.
> In the Mythos, however, every writer is able to create their own character
> and encounter either one or many of the objects d'art contained within the
> listing of the Mythos. 2) There are no established settings. A Mythos
> story could be contained in a Western, Ancient Roman, or even Pirate
> setting. All of history is open to the writer. 3) There is no
> established writer behind a canon of works. When it comes to the
> discussion of any "shared world" eventually there is always an attempt to
> create a standard in the personage behind the original. To take the
Thank you for your reply. I think what's canonical is up to the
reader. I think Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique stories are part of the
Mythos. They deviate too much from the basic concept. This doesn't
mean at all that they are bad, just not Mythos. I actually think that
Chaosium has done quite a lot to canonizing the Mythos.
Hunter
Andrew Nellis
Gregory Loren Hansen (glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu) writes:
> I'd sort of like to see Sherlock Holmes on the trail of Cthulhu.
I read a book some time ago, I'm afraid I don't remember the name, in
which Sherlock Holmes attempts to prevent the summoning of the Great Old
Ones (or the Elder Gods, or the Outer Gods, or something like that...).
It was a rather odd book. The protagonist was Jack the Ripper, and other
characters included Dracula, the Wolfman, and Rasputin.
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ ...........................................
| Andrew Nellis | . God save me from my friends. I can .
| bs...@freenet.carleton.ca | . protect myself from my enemies. .
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ ................Marshal de Villares........
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <339E8C...@toddalan.com>,
Edward P. Berglund <berg...@toddalan.com> wrote:
>Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
>>
>> In article <19970610173...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>> KAYVEN <kay...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>
>ANCIENT GODS and SHERLOCK HOLMES IN THE DREAMING DETECTIVE? They were
>published by Gryphon Books in 1992 and should still be available.
>
>And Gryphon just published Vaughan's PROFESSOR CHALLENGER IN SECRETS OF
>THE DREAMLANDS.
Wow, I'm going to have to look for those! I just wrote it all down.
Thanks.
kenneth allen hite
In article <5nka1f$199$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Gregory Loren Hansen <glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>Speaking of Sherlock, I once read a book where Sherlock Holmes chases
>Dracula. It was a wonderful book, consistent with Doyle's style of
>writing, and not as cheesy as it could have been. I rather enjoyed it.
From the description, it was probably _Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula_,
by Loren Estleman, and it is every bit as good as you remember. IMHO,
it's one of the few pastiches to find the genuine Watsonian voice.
>
>I'd sort of like to see Sherlock Holmes on the trail of Cthulhu.
You might want to check out Darrell Schweitzer's story "The
Adventure of the Death-Fetch" in Marvin Kaye's magisterial
anthology, _The Game is Afoot_ (St. Martins Press 1994,
ISBN 0-312-11797-3).
--
Kenneth Hite, LHN hi...@midway.uchicago.edu
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people,
under the pretext of taking care of them, they must be happy."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Shannon Appel
In article <339E8C...@toddalan.com>,
Edward P. Berglund <berg...@toddalan.com> wrote:
>How about Ralph Vaughan's SHERLOCK HOLMES IN THE ADVENTURE OF THE
>ANCIENT GODS and SHERLOCK HOLMES IN THE DREAMING DETECTIVE? They were
>published by Gryphon Books in 1992 and should still be available.
Just as quick mini-review: the Ancient Gods was pretty so-so. It was
an early work. The Dreaming Detective, however, was quite good. Well
worth reading.
Shannon
Sascha LC Erni
just something my latin teacher told me lately:
"Never try to confront mythology with logic. all you'll achieve
is the destruction of its beauty."
any more to say?
lc
Bruce
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Bruce wrote:
Since this did not show up on Dejanews, I'm posting it again. Sorry for
any duplication ;-)
>
> On 11 Jun 1997, Andrew Nellis wrote:
>
> > Gregory Loren Hansen (glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu) writes:
> > > I'd sort of like to see Sherlock Holmes on the trail of Cthulhu.
> >
> > I read a book some time ago, I'm afraid I don't remember the name, in
> > which Sherlock Holmes attempts to prevent the summoning of the Great Old
> > Ones (or the Elder Gods, or the Outer Gods, or something like that...).
> > It was a rather odd book. The protagonist was Jack the Ripper, and other
> > characters included Dracula, the Wolfman, and Rasputin.
>
> Given how well Mr. Nellis was able to combine characters from the Three
> Musketeers and Batman with the Cthulhu Mythos in stories of his such as
> "Shoggoths and Swashbucklers" and "Dark Man, Dark Knight," I should think
> Sherlock Holmes and the Cthulhu Mythos would be right up his alley.
> Andrew, take a good, long look at this idea!!
>
> Bruce Turlish
> b...@efn.org
> Cthulhu Mythos Original Short Fiction Website
> to be found at:
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/6140/
>
>
>
Bruce Turlish
b...@efn.org
Cthulhu Mythos Original Short Fiction Website
to be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/6140/
Peter Miller
i disagree with that. the problem isn't logical analysis as a whole,
but lumley and derleth's brand of quick-fix logic, neatly pigeonholing
each entity under an abstact (not to mention _human_) concept.
things like AtMoM and SOoT show quite clearly that one of lovecraft's
strengths is that his creatures can stand up to analysis, have
realistic motivations, aren't just 'evil aliens' plotting to destroy
humanity 'cause they're evil, etc.
peter
Sascha LC Erni
On Sat, 14 Jun 1997, Peter Miller wrote:
> things like AtMoM and SOoT show quite clearly that one of lovecraft's
> strengths is that his creatures can stand up to analysis, have
> realistic motivations, aren't just 'evil aliens' plotting to destroy
> humanity 'cause they're evil, etc.
yes, agreed, but to me it's just a nice additional feature to hpl's work.
a myth does not NEED this sort of thing. hpl did just a great job, that's
all.
lc
Edward P. Berglund
Jason Thompson wrote:
>
> Edward P. Berglund (berg...@toddalan.com) wrote:
> : And Gryphon just published Vaughan's PROFESSOR CHALLENGER IN SECRETS OF
> : THE DREAMLANDS.
>
> What the hey?! This sounds even weider than Necronomicon Press' SCREAM FOR
> JEEVES... I have a feeling I might regret asking, but what's this book like?
> Has anyone read it, or does anyone know what to expect?
I think that Ralph Vaughan has captured the tone of the Professor
Challenger stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and at the same time we are
treated to a return to the Lovecraftian Dreamlands (as opposed to the
Lumleyian and Myersian Dreamlands). Professor Challenger's excursion to
the headwaters of the River Skai was a pleasure to read.
Andrew Nellis
Bruce (b...@efn.org) writes:
> Given how well Mr. Nellis was able to combine characters from the Three
> Musketeers and Batman with the Cthulhu Mythos in stories of his such as
> "Shoggoths and Swashbucklers" and "Dark Man, Dark Knight," I should think
> Sherlock Holmes and the Cthulhu Mythos would be right up his alley.
> Andrew, take a good, long look at this idea!!
Now if only the publishers felt the same way you did...
As a matter of fact, one of the stories I have been considering writing is
a multi-mythoi crossover between Sherlock Holmes and The Shadow. Three
guesses what the mythos of their opponents is. ;-)
Sascha LC Erni
On 17 Jun 1997, Andrew Nellis wrote:
> As a matter of fact, one of the stories I have been considering writing is
> a multi-mythoi crossover between Sherlock Holmes and The Shadow. Three
> guesses what the mythos of their opponents is. ;-)
hmmm... buddhism? nope. [thinkthinkthink] taoism? nope.
[morethinkmorethinkmorethink] ahh...
:)
lc
Bruce
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Bruce wrote:
>
> Re-posted because of non-appearance on Dejanews.
>
> > On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Edward P. Berglund wrote:
> >
> > > I think that Ralph Vaughan has captured the tone of the Professor
> > > Challenger stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and at the same time we are
> > > treated to a return to the Lovecraftian Dreamlands (as opposed to the
> > > Lumleyian and Myersian Dreamlands). Professor Challenger's excursion to
> > > the headwaters of the River Skai was a pleasure to read.
> > A thought that I would have about the above is why is it that such works,
> > which so many people would probably be interested in reading, should be
> > published by such an obscure publishing house like Gryphon? I have never
> > even heard of Gryphon before this, and am assuming it is a paperback line.
> > I suspect many more people would read Mr. Vaughan's works if they were
> > more readily obtainable, as they would likely be if published by Chaosium
> > or a "major" publishing house. If they're as good as Mr. Berglund makes
> > them sound, they would seem to be good candidates for republishing by
> > Chaosium, assuming that was possible etc.
Bruce
TheWalrous
If/when I ever write a mythos story, I'll go back to basics and just use
HPL's stuff, with maybe CAS and REH invented books. Forget the rest.
Darren
jp...@gte.net
Mr Shiny
I think the best thing to keep in mind is that almost all Mythos stories
do not feasture any kind of omniscient narrator. In fact, most feature a
very disreputable narrator, driven to the brink of insanity or beyond. As
such, and "facts" in the stories could be suspect, or at least open to
interpretation. So inconsistencies might hint at deeper "truths" than
even the characters in the stories comprehend.
This is a much more entertaining way to read the Lumley stuff - imagine
all Titus Crow believes is merely what Nyarlathotep has lead him to
believe . . .
Pagan Art
Frankly, you guys stun me...
These are works of fiction! By a hundred different authors no less!
This is not a shared world like Thieves' World or Wild Cards. There is no
agreement of what should be, could be, and can't be done. These stories
are most definitely not 'data'. Fiction is fiction, fact is fact. Don't
mix them up again.
We have a completed Cthulhu Mythos Bibliography at Pagan Publishing
(which will see print soon) which contains 35 entries for Llloigor alone.
And guess what? The first four I looked up are NOT CONSISTANT! There is
no way they will ever be consistant. In one Lloigor is a tentacular god,
in another, a race of lizard like immaterial beings. I will put even
money that the rest of the entries are in one way or another
contradictory.
As for 'Measuring' a story to include in a 'Mythos Canon', that's
absurd. There are people far more qualified than you who refuse to do it
(like the authors' themselves!) so maybe you should take the hint? Do it
for yourself, judge yourself. But don't preach on the net.
Each Mythos story is the Authors own vision of the Cthulhu and his
minions. In some they are comedic, in others dramatic, in most horrific.
They are never one thing however, the same.
Unrelated fiction defies classification. No matter how hard you may
try.
Dennis Detwiller
Silly Rabbit/Art Director/Second Gunman
Pagan Publishing
Dan Davenport
Pagan Art wrote:
>
> Frankly, you guys stun me...
>
> These are works of fiction! By a hundred different authors no less!
> This is not a shared world like Thieves' World or Wild Cards. There is no
> agreement of what should be, could be, and can't be done. These stories
> are most definitely not 'data'. Fiction is fiction, fact is fact. Don't
> mix them up again.
I understand this. Looking back earlier in this thread, you'll see that
I agree that the Mythos is _not_ a shared world.
> We have a completed Cthulhu Mythos Bibliography at Pagan Publishing
> (which will see print soon) which contains 35 entries for Llloigor alone.
> And guess what? The first four I looked up are NOT CONSISTANT! There is
> no way they will ever be consistant. In one Lloigor is a tentacular god,
> in another, a race of lizard like immaterial beings. I will put even
> money that the rest of the entries are in one way or another
> contradictory.
> As for 'Measuring' a story to include in a 'Mythos Canon', that's
> absurd. There are people far more qualified than you who refuse to do it
> (like the authors' themselves!) so maybe you should take the hint? Do it
> for yourself, judge yourself. But don't preach on the net.
> Each Mythos story is the Authors own vision of the Cthulhu and his
> minions. In some they are comedic, in others dramatic, in most horrific.
> They are never one thing however, the same.
> Unrelated fiction defies classification. No matter how hard you may
> try.
>
If I sounded like I was preaching, I apologize. Let me clarify my
position...
An earlier poster suggested that a comprehensive chronology of the
Mythos could be created, unifying every Mythos story into a cohesive
whole. I suggested that this was an impossible task, due to just the
kind of inconsitencies you mentioned earlier. So, _if_ a coherent
chronology is to be created, a Mythos "canon", some writings would have
to be weeded out.
I then offered my suggestion as to what the criteria for such culling
might be -- faithfulness to HPL's original ideas about the Mythos. And,
as I said, this is entirely a subjective criteria. I, personally, like
the way Chaosium handled the task.
I am not suggesting that everyone must agree with my criteria. In fact,
I am not even suggesting that a Mythos canon _must_ be created. We are,
as you say, talking about works of fiction, not fact. I am simply giving
my personal take on the criteria for a Mythos canon, if such a thing
were to be created.
Dan
Chris Jarocha-Ernst
kay...@aol.com (KAYVEN) writes:
[responding to someone from Pagan]
> Ironic how you pull out the Cthulhu Mythos Bibliography to argue that
>there shouldn't and can't be a Mythos 'Canon' when the writer of that
>scholarly work, Chris Jarocha-Ernst, has been one of the most vocal
>supporters of a 'Canon' on this very thread. (And why did you give your
>work to Pagan Publishing again, Chris? :>)
Hmm? "Give"? "Again"? What are you suggesting, Kayven?
John Tynes saw the '92 edition and made me an offer regarding publishing it. I
accepted. Contract and everything. It's taken far longer to get to print than
I first thought (and certainly longer than John thought, as he advertised the
bib in an issue of THE UNSPEAKABLE OATH a couple of years back), but this is
still the original deal here.
But thanks for speaking up on behalf of the "shared world" theory.
>Now as for the LIoigor question, I see no reason as to why these stories
>are inconsistent to such the terminal degree you seem to suggest.
Again, I ascribe it to varying interpretations of the unknown Mythos "facts".
Colin Wilson was the first person to treat the name "Lloigor" as a race rather
than a single entity. His publisher and editor of the work in question was
August Derleth, who created Lloigor. If Derleth didn't make a fuss, why should
we?
You want hand-waving-type justification? Try this: Lloigor and Zhar are often
referred to as "twin blasphemies". Maybe Lloigor is a collective mind and Zhar
its physical manifestation.
Is this "truth"? If I write a Mythos story and say so, it's become my truth.
>What is the point is the question of "Do we have to accept every story with
>Mythos elements as being part of the Canon?" And I just don't think we have
>to. Chris would argue that we do, and that is why he includes all the
>possible stories, no matter how wide off the mark they are.
I do make some exceptions. I've just posted on the "irreconcilable
contradictions" exception. I also exclude parodies, song lyrics, and
translations into other media. This means I don't consider any of Chaosium's
excellent game to be part of the Canon. However, fiction written using
elements from that game is OK, so Aniolowski's Q'yth-Az (or however they're
each spelled -- my apologies, Scott) is in. Fiction referring to "Dark Young
of Shub-Niggurath" as particular entities is in, even though no one used that
term before Chaosium did. (The DY the game refers to take their description
from Bloch's "Notebook...", where the narrator calls those entities
"shoggoths"! One has to assume the narrator got something wrong.)
>Let's face it, the Mythos isn't a copyrighted idea like Star Trek, Tarzan,
>etc. Thus anyone can write a story with Cthulhu and make the Big C anything
>from an alien god to a Jungian shadow aspect of the collective unconscious to
>an old man living on a forgotten deserted isle in the Pacific who writes
>letters to American writers in the 1920s telling them that people should avoid
>his island because Cthulhu will get them.
True, which is why I've been harping on the notion of "respecting the sources".
I can forgive authors who wrote seemingly contradictory depictions of Mythos
things out of ignorance, or those who wrote at a time when the notion of a
"Cthulhu Mythos" was little known and who drew on HPL for inspiration alone.
But that was then, this is now. Anyone working in the Mythos today, I believe,
should be aware that there are nit-pickers like myself who will squawk if they
get a major component of the Mythos wrong. They ain't operating in a vacuum
any more, if they ever were.
>I would hazard to say that those authors writing outside the 'shared world'
>more than likely don't want to be seen as maintaining a tradition, but instead
>to be seen as being original.
That's correct. But to my mind, if they want to be "original", they shouldn't
bother using someone else's ideas.
Going back to Dennis Detwiller's original comments:
>> As for 'Measuring' a story to include in a 'Mythos Canon', that's
>>absurd. There are people far more qualified than you who refuse to do it
>>(like the authors' themselves!) so maybe you should take the hint?
I suspect the authors find their time better spent writing new stories. As
I've said before, I would hope that fannish works like my bibliography and
glossary would serve them as reference tools, so that they can see what's been
said about, say, Rhan-Tegoth and not think they're working in Terra Incognita.
>>Unrelated fiction defies classification. No matter how hard you may try.
1) If it's using the Mythos, by definition it's not unrelated. It's Mythos.
2) I can try harder than some, apparently. :-)
--
Chris Jarocha-Ernst Rutgers University Computing Services
Internet: c...@nbcs.rutgers.edu Piscataway, NJ 08855-0879
KAYVEN
In article <5ouhp1$b...@erebus.rutgers.edu>, c...@rci.rutgers.edu (Chris
Jarocha-Ernst) writes:
>True, which is why I've been harping on the notion of "respecting the
>sources".
>I can forgive authors who wrote seemingly contradictory depictions of
Mythos
>things out of ignorance, or those who wrote at a time when the notion of
a
>"Cthulhu Mythos" was little known and who drew on HPL for inspiration
alone.
>But that was then, this is now. Anyone working in the Mythos today, I
>believe,
>should be aware that there are nit-pickers like myself who will squawk if
>they
>get a major component of the Mythos wrong. They ain't operating in a
vacuum
>any more, if they ever were.
Yet there doesn't really seem to be very much nit-picking going on. At
least not in any real sense. It seems to me that as long as people
continue to buy things regardless of how the creators 'respect the
sources', then there isn't really any incentive to do the research. Those
who make the true decisions as to what gets published or not is the
market-place. And most consumers are not of the nit-picker variety.
I'd be curious, Chris, if you have any opinions on this. Just how would
such a 'codified Mythos' be maintained?
Oh, and on a side note, why do you make a distinction of responsibilities
between the written fiction and other art forms? I'd be interested to
hear your reasoning.