Tolkien, Lovecraft, Derleth
Gregory Robert Benedicto
disturbing cosmology in his stories. Granted, HPL knew the difference
between reality and his nightmarish realm of alien intelligences -- and
yet, I think his created universe is a reflection of his philosophical
emptiness. For example, the idea of man's insignificance to the cosmos-
at-large, which he so often tried to convey in his fiction, is actually
symbolic of a search for meaning which, in HPL's case, turned out to be
fruitless. I'm sure that others have made the same observations.
When August Derleth started to meddle with HPL's cosmogony he made some
alterations which were drastic in terms of theme. When we look at the
Mythos as HPL intended it, we find a universe where everyone and every
Thing is out to get us, eat us, or just blindly crush us. When we add
Derleth's Elder Gods into the mix, we feel a little safer, a little more
secure that the big bad Old Ones are not going to eradicate us any time
soon. Derleth makes the Mythos polar for us, adds that hackneyed element
of Light versus Darkness. Why? I would say that it is because
Derleth was a Christian.
Christianity, while it was originally intended to be a monotheistic faith,
has transformed into a very Zoroastrian form of dualism over the last
couple millennia of its existence. With the incorporation of a Heaven and
a Hell, of the Adversary and the Anti-Christ, the theology becomes very
polar. Derleth was of the Christian faith, and I think his take on the
Mythos reflects this. Was it intentional? I don't know. Author's
Intention is sort of a gray area anyway.
Note the similarities between Derleth's vision of the Mythos and the
cosmology of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: We've got the Good vs. Evil,
the Bad Gods being punished and imprisoned (Tolkien's Melkor [aka Morgoth]
was put in chains, just as Derleth pictured the Old Ones being locked up
by his Elder Gods), and the notion of the the Imbalanced Struggle (found
in Christianity, as well) in which the Good God(s) has always got a
handle on the Bad Ones. As was stated earlier in the Tolkien/Lovecraft
discussion, JRRT was a Christian. Perhaps their (AD's and JRRT's) common
faith accounts for the similarities in their invented worlds stated above
and the dissimilarities with Lovecraft's vision.
Personally, I think Derleth's additions marr the philosophical horrors of
HPL's Mythos. HPL was the first 'thinking man's horror' writer I was
exposed to, and I think a major factor in my initial attraction to his
works was their singular, dismal take on the universe. Kafka, Robert W.
Chambers (his King in Yellow, of course), and Thomas Ligotti are other
good examples of writers who lead you down into dark places from which
there are no ladders or ropes to aid your escape. They are very modern in
their approach to horror fiction, where Derleth and his ilk utilize
classic elements, elements which, as a reader, I tend to get rather bored
with.
--
Gregory
The 13th Floor
just being butthead. I agree with you. All of these authors
worldview affected their fantasy worlds.
Another issue for Derleth is that, plain and simple, the guy just
didn't have that kind of creative imagination. His own horror stories
are mostly very standard-issue ghost/vampire/werewolf stories (not all
are bad --- he wrote a couple I consider quite excellent).
I agree that his view of the Mythos is limited and that the whole
"Elder Gods will save the day thing" totally undercuts the real
interesting part of the mythos. It seems he (and other later
mythos-users) seem to have picked up only the trappings, and not the
meanings, of Lovecraft's stuff.
In Derleth's defense, though, I think he really did write his Cthulhu
stories for fun more than anything else.
Karen Crocker
My opinions on the Elder Gods,
The collective supposedly "good" gods incorporated into HPL's Mythos by
August Derleth and his good guy-bad guy adversarial roles in my opinion, was
an attempt by Derleth to make Lovecraft more acceptable to the main stream
horror/sci-fi crowd. If you look at most of the similar stories and
mythology of the previous time from other authors you will see what I mean.
Bram Stoker's Dracula: a pre-medieval holy knight is excommunicated from
the church and forced into a nightmarish undead state to live out eternity
on the blood of the living (taken from the local superstitions of
Transylvania and Romania on vampires). Dracula, no matter how powerful he
was there was always something that would effect his weaknesses. Through the
insights of Dr. Abraham Vanhelsing (the resident horror movie/story "expert"
of the supernatural setting) a brave band of everday persons involved take
on Dracula and his forces of darkness (his followers and minions) to defeat
him in a spectacular showdown (though actually it was his eternal wife
reincarnated in the form of Mrs. Mina Harker who killed him in symbolic
"love conquers all" fashion in the latest movie adaption). This basic
element of the "powers of God" to first create and then destroy Dracula was
indeed an ironic ending and shows a consistant ethic of the "good guys
always win" moral of the story. The good guys on God's side must endure-
this was most indictative of the times previous to HPL and of author writing
styles on the fields of popular ethics. In the mind of most everday people
(even today) you must have good guy creations or characters to battle the
bad guy creations or else there is no plot.
Marry Shelley's Frankenstine: A "mad" scientist tampers in god's domain
and wishes to create a human being (the worlds first test tube baby- a
little joke) that as a result the doctor is shunned and dispelled from the
everyday medical community and forced into hiding. When he creates the
monster, his mortal feelings of shame or else because of his personal
ethics, he cannot face his creation and leaves it to its fate alone. Again
we see that morals and ethics must come into play as the story quickly goes
from mearly macabre to outright horrible. Victorians, in the time were
outraged and disgusted at first (or else they would have been even more
shocked if that was where the story ended) but again the ending shows that
God and the good old Cristian ethic has the last laugh and is finally
victorious. The creature finds the doctor after killing all that the doctor
holds dear (his family, friends, ect.) and eventually after a showdown the
creature and the doctor is vanquished. If the doctor was not the one to kill
the monster, there would have been no irony and not as great of a plot. And
if the good guy had not killed the (though somewhat "misunderstood") bad guy
again the ethics of the time would not have been filled and justice would
not have been served to meet the public's general demand. Even though you
may feel simpathy for the creature (this was indeed something new to
readers) and the doctor who created it upon their deaths, in the end "alls
well that ends well" the subject is mearly exstiguished and the reader is
satisfied.
The creation of the Elder Gods were an attempt by Derleth to make an equal
and opposite set of beings to help out humanity by keeping the Great Old
Ones in check.
Yet with a "non-caring" attitude towards humanity as a whole, HPL's views
are still kept as before. With equal and opposite good forces to counter
the bad, humanity could defeat the evils of the galaxy and save the day-
clearly an author writing more to serve the majority of readers than the
minority of the time. Though, in the 20's and 30's morality was not on the
high in the majority of average persons (just see prohibition), the average
intellectual reader of mystery or horror/sci-fi still cherished the old
style values. This was shown in most authors and was the norm of human
psychology. Does this mean that lovers of Lovecraft's nihlistic views and
stories have different values? Well look at it this way, in the times of
Lovecraft's original works he wasn't well known nor was he seen as a modern
"Edgar Allen Poe". At most he was unkown and ignorred by simple "common"
folk. Today he is known by most of the best authors, as well as by history
as "The Father of Modern Horror". It took some time for the tastes of
America and the world to come to the liking of Lovecraft. And still he is
relatively unkown to most persons except through poor excuses of movie
adaptions. And there the stories were tripe to say the least.
Patrick Crocker
pcd
> Christianity, while it was originally intended to be a monotheistic faith,
> has transformed into a very Zoroastrian form of dualism over the last
> couple millennia of its existence. With the incorporation of a Heaven and
> Note the similarities between Derleth's vision of the Mythos and the
> cosmology of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: We've got the Good vs. Evil,
> the Bad Gods being punished and imprisoned (Tolkien's Melkor [aka Morgoth]
> was put in chains, just as Derleth pictured the Old Ones being locked up
> by his Elder Gods), and the notion of the the Imbalanced Struggle (found
> in Christianity, as well) in which the Good God(s) has always got a
Not very zoroastrian then, huh?
Paul duggan
email me at siam.org, not MAIS.org
Gregory Robert Benedicto
: The collective supposedly "good" gods incorporated into HPL's Mythos by
: August Derleth and his good guy-bad guy adversarial roles in my opinion, was
: an attempt by Derleth to make Lovecraft more acceptable to the main stream
But at what cost? HPL had passed away before Derleth started
making modifications to the Mythos. He had nothing to gain from Derleth's
modifications. Granted, Derleth took it to be his mission to not allow
HPL and his writings be forgotten -- Arkham House being a major part of
his success. But Derleth did not understand that, unknown as he was to
the masses, HPL was an artist. Immediatly after his death, many writers
who had formerly dabbled in the Mythos left it well alone, but Derleth
continued with his pastiches -- which, as you and I agree, were not
pastiches at all. They were popularizations.
In his stories, I see a blatant disregard for the many elements
which have come to be known as Lovecraftian. Yes, he was having fun, but
he was also turning a lonely man's artwork into hokey, throw-away pulp
trash. I am glad that I was able to read HPL before reading Derleth, as I
would have had less esteem for the former's work as a whole. For some,
Derleth's popular remoldings are unfortunately intertwined with what was
uniquely Lovecraft.
HPL was always ranting about certain "hacks" at Weird Tales
and how much he despised the unimaginative, mainstream qualities of their
work. I think he would object to Derleth's alterations. I think he
would find the changes way too drab to be tolerated. Sure, he liked
the group-effort that was going on at WT, but up until Derleth, no one
contributed any piece that was 'heretical' to the nihilistic theme. [OK,
so maybe Clark Ashton Smith went a little crazy with the Family Tree of
the Gods thing, but, correct me if I'm wrong, that wasn't published until
after Lovecraft's death.] Robert E. Howard, not surprisingly (if one is
to examine his personal life), was the truest to HPL's format, and is, in
my opinion, representative of the writers who understood and deeply
respected Lovecraft-the-man and Lovecraft-the-writer.
I think the Mythos should be fun, just as everybody else here
does. But 'Outerspace aliens coming to earth to eat us!' -- that isn't
all there is to Lovecraft's work. Simply having the Mythos-trappings
present in a story no longer does it for me. As a mature reader, I need
substance now. I need innovation.
--
Gregory
Gregory Robert Benedicto
: > Christianity, while it was originally intended to be a monotheistic faith,
: > has transformed into a very Zoroastrian form of dualism over the last
: > couple millennia of its existence. With the incorporation of a Heaven and
: > ...the notion of the the Imbalanced Struggle (found in Christianity,
: > as well) in which the Good God(s) has...
: Not very zoroastrian then, huh?
: Paul duggan
Don't you think it possible for a dualistic faith to have an
imbalanced power struggle, Mr Duggan? Two forces which oppose
each other do not neccessarily have to be equal. Theologies
tend to favor their own side. I simply mentioned Zoroastrianism
because I thought it a good example of a dualistic religion.
Shameless name-throwing, I know.
--
Gregory
Sophia
<kcr...@zoomnet.net> writes
>
> Bram Stoker's Dracula: a pre-medieval holy knight is excommunicated from
>the church and forced into a nightmarish undead state to live out eternity
>on the blood of the living (taken from the local superstitions of
>Transylvania and Romania on vampires). Dracula, no matter how powerful he
>was there was always something that would effect his weaknesses. Through the
>insights of Dr. Abraham Vanhelsing (the resident horror movie/story "expert"
>of the supernatural setting) a brave band of everday persons involved take
>on Dracula and his forces of darkness (his followers and minions) to defeat
>him in a spectacular showdown (though actually it was his eternal wife
>reincarnated in the form of Mrs. Mina Harker who killed him in symbolic
>"love conquers all" fashion in the latest movie adaption). This basic
>element of the "powers of God" to first create and then destroy Dracula was
>indeed an ironic ending and shows a consistant ethic of the "good guys
>always win" moral of the story. The good guys on God's side must endure-
>this was most indictative of the times previous to HPL and of author writing
>styles on the fields of popular ethics. In the mind of most everday people
>(even today) you must have good guy creations or characters to battle the
>bad guy creations or else there is no plot.
Sorry to be picky, but the plot of the book Dracula is very different
to that of Coppola's film given above. Many elements, the
reincarnation material in particular are the invention of the director
and the ending of the film save for the fact that Dracula dies, is
almost unrecognisable.
In the novel good does not achieve an absolute victory, only a
bitter, qualified one at the cost of great mental and physical
suffering. There is no sense that the victory of good is inevitable.
Van Helsing certainly isn't the later omniscient horror movie 'expert',
he's driven, sometimes verging on the edge of madness and very,
very fallible.
Mary Shelley wasn't Victorian either, in any sense of the word.
>
>
Sophia:
Faith in fabulousness
dab...@my-dejanews.com
dug...@MAIS.org wrote:
> Not very zoroastrian then, huh?
Would you mind qualifying your statement? Mr. Benedicto makes his point
quite clear and draws very legitimate parallels between Derleth’s work,
Christianity and the Zoroastrian belief. Derleth’s codicil to the
established Lovecraftian cosmology creates a duality, between the “old ones”
and the “elder gods”. This resembles the antipodal nature of Christianity:
the “eternal struggle” between good and evil. They are also analogous to
each other in that these struggles are imbalanced in favor of good. Just as
God keeps an empyreal check on Satan, the elder gods do the same for the old
ones. Mr. Benedicto deftly parallels this with Zoroaster’s doctrine in which
the good spirits (Ahuras), led by Ahura Mazdah, are in a constant struggle
with the opposing evil spirits (daevas). Again, there is a polarity, the
classic good vs. evil. What is most important, according to the Zend Avesta,
is that the war between these supernatural hosts will result in the ultimate
triumph of Ahura Mazdah. It is a dualistic struggle, essentially imbalanced
in favor of good. Sound familiar?
Dabb
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
GoffsCA
>From: dab...@my-dejanews.com
>Date: 10/19/98 6:01 PM MDT
>This resembles the antipodal nature of Christianity:
>the “eternal struggle” between good and evil.
Except that in Christianity there is no eternal struggle. God created Satan -
who was not originally evil - and will ultimately defeat him. Dualilsm holds
that there are equally powerful and eternal forces neither of which will
triumph; Christianity rejects this and proclaims an omnipotent, sovereign God
who will defeat Satan in His own time and without there being anything Satan
can do about it.
Robert McKay
AOL - GoffsCA/AOL Instant Messenger - Goffs CA
Internet e-mail - gof...@aol.com/thir...@juno.com
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
dab...@my-dejanews.com
gof...@aol.com (GoffsCA) wrote:
> Except that in Christianity there is no eternal struggle. God created Satan -
> who was not originally evil - and will ultimately defeat him. Dualilsm holds
> that there are equally powerful and eternal forces neither of which will
> triumph; Christianity rejects this and proclaims an omnipotent, sovereign God
> who will defeat Satan in His own time and without there being anything Satan
> can do about it.
>
There is an inherent misunderstanding and I feel the need to clarify.
Dualism, as I define it, is the doctrine that there exists two opposing
forces (characterized here as good and evil). I do not hold that these
forces are equal! Quite the contrary. These forces, while opposing, do not
necessarily have to be equal in nature. As I said, Christianity, as does
Zoroastrianism, holds that good will eventually triumph over evil.
PS: My only defense for the use of the phrase "eternal struggle" is that I
meant to put the word apparent in front of it. Hence the quotation marks.
D.E. Kesler
everyone needs to read.:
[snip]
> and how much he despised the unimaginative, mainstream qualities of > their work. I think he would object to Derleth's alterations.
> --
> Gregory
>
Hello Mr. Benedicto,
I hate to nit pick, but there is one small error in your otherwise fine
post. Lovecraft was well aware of August Derleth and Mark Schorer's
"Lair of the Star Spawn." This tale is the very first Mythos Story
which features the concept of the Elder Gods versus the Old Ones.
Lovecraft himself was the one who suggested the title, and He even
alludes to this tale in his revisionist story "The Horror in the
Museum." I gleaned this little bit of information from Robert M.
Price's introduction to his collection _Tales of the Lovecraft Mythos_.
So, I don't think Lovecraft would object at all to the alterations
rendered to his fictional mythology. After all, the tale in question
did not bear his name. It bore the name August "Earth-gazer" Derleth.
However, the "so-called" collaborations written after his death do bear
his name. I think he would find this objectionable.
Also, Derleth misrepresented Lovecraft's intent by introducing every
collection with the spurious Black Magic Quote. A statement that could
very well be apllied to Derleth, but not to Lovecraft. I think he would
object to this as well.
I think it all goes something like this. Derleth set about redefining
Lovecraft and his fiction so that both moved quite a few steps closer to
Derleth and his fiction. I do not know if this was intentional, but it
resulted in immeasurable harm to Lovecraft's credability as a literary
figure. This is the issue that I find the most objectionable. I can
not imagine how Lovecraft would feel.
In closing, I fully agree with your conclusions even though one of your
points was in error.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
Gregory Robert Benedicto
: I hate to nit pick, but there is one small error in your otherwise fine
: post. Lovecraft was well aware of August Derleth and Mark Schorer's
: "Lair of the Star Spawn." This tale is the very first Mythos Story
: which features the concept of the Elder Gods versus the Old Ones.
Hmm...That's what I get for not doing my research.
: Lovecraft himself was the one who suggested the title, and He even
: alludes to this tale in his revisionist story "The Horror in the
: Museum"
: So, I don't think Lovecraft would object at all to the alterations
: rendered to his fictional mythology. After all, the tale in question
: did not bear his name. It bore the name August "Earth-gazer" Derleth.
: However, the "so-called" collaborations written after his death do bear
: his name. I think he would find this objectionable.
Remember that HPL's ghost-writing and revisions were sort of a
waste-depository for Mythos entities and elements which he
rarely featured in work which bore his own name (Shub-Niggurath
being a large exception.) While CAS's Tsathoggua was mentioned
in 'The Mountains of Madness' and other important works of HPL,
I don't find any allusions to Derleth's Elder Gods among them,
which just makes me wonder: If it's true that HPL knew about the
Elder Gods, what were his thought on them? [There has to be a
letter concerning them somewhere (hint, hint, archivists.)] I
am willing to wager that HPL did not care for them -- for all the
reasons I shot my big mouth off about earlier in this thread.
And the Derleth/Lovecraft collaborations are indeed hideous. I'm
sure HPL would not approve, as well.
--
Gregory
vonj...@hotmail.com
bene...@news.oswego.edu (Gregory Robert Benedicto ) wrote:
> D.E. Kesler (er...@fantasm.org) wrote:
> While CAS's Tsathoggua was mentioned
> in 'The Mountains of Madness' and other important works of HPL,
> I don't find any allusions to Derleth's Elder Gods among them,
> which just makes me wonder: If it's true that HPL knew about the
> Elder Gods, what were his thought on them? [There has to be a
> letter concerning them somewhere (hint, hint, archivists.)] I
> am willing to wager that HPL did not care for them -- for all the
> reasons I shot my big mouth off about earlier in this thread.
I pestered Donovan into looking into this a little while ago.
The following is from a letter written on August 26, 1931 to Derleth:
"Eric Marsh" [Derleth's working title - Daniel] is great -- do
you mean to tell me seriously that that ass Wright rejected it?
Good god! What in hades can he pretend to himself that his standard
of judgment is? The tale has careless linguistic spots -- the non-
existent word _onto_ for _upon_, the use of _inconsiderate_ where
_inconsiderable_ is meant, the use of _similar_ (adj.) for
_similarly_ (adv.), &c., &c. -- but in general is a really notable
piece of work with a genuine kick to it. As for a new title -- how
would "The City of Elder Evil" do? Or "The Lair of the Star-
Spawn"? I'm not much for fancy titles, but I presume something on
this order is what you're looking for. I shall undoubtedly use the
Tcho-Tchos in some later story -- let Wright say what he pleases!
To me, the crucial sentence is the last one. As those who've read
the story know, there's five or six new beings mentioned therein. The
fact that Lovecraft passes them all over to fasten on the relatively
minor Tcho-Tchos suggests that he didn't approve of the other creations
in the story, including the Elder Gods (which I believe originally
appeared in the tale's first printing as the "Great Old Ones", oddly
enough). Still, Lovecraft is so polite here it's hard to tell what he
really thought.
Yrs.,
Daniel Harms
http://members.tripod.com/~danharms/
kt...@my-dejanews.com
"As those who've read ['The Lair of the Star-Spawn'] know, there's five
or six new beings mentioned therein. The fact that Lovecraft passes
them all over to fasten on the relatively minor Tcho-Tchos suggests that
he didn't approve of the other creations in the story, including the
Elder Gods (which I believe originally appeared in the tale's first
printing as the "Great Old Ones", oddly enough). Still, Lovecraft is
so polite here it's hard to tell what he really thought."
HPL was indeed very selective when it came to including other authors'
Mythos creations in his work. Of course, there were droves of these
even before Lovecraft's death, yet aside from the use CAS's Tsathoggua,
and of Bierce's Hastur (which, by Lovecraft's use of the name in
'Whisperer' may not be an entity at all), how many creatures
contributed to the Mythos by the First Circle and taken from elsewhere
do we really hear about in HPL's own stories? [Maybe the list is
longer, but I don't recall any more at the moment.] One could make
the argument that HPL left his contemporaries' spawn alone so that
they could develop their beasties without his interference, but then
why did he use their tomes and their Tcho-Tchos and other bits?
I think his choices were calculated. The names featured in Lovecraft's
tales are, in his opinion, those which best-represented the grand theme
of interstellar darkness and alien doom that is the Mythos. And if
this is the case, many of the First Circle writers didn't pick up on
the hints (that were in the stories as well as the letters) -- they
went in their own directions, taking the trappings but abandoning
most everything else. And, in a way, this is understandable and quite
predictably human. But it makes things kind of tough when one is
looking for the Canonical Mythos due to of all the inconsistencies.
REH was usually pretty close to the Master in terms of atmosphere,
theme, and use of HPL-patent elements when he penned a Mythos tale
(and there was a lot of Lovecraft that filtered into his Conan saga,
as well.) On the other end of the spectrum, we have Derleth,
who missed the point entirely, and CAS (who I admire just as much as
HPL), who used the mythos as comic (ironic?) relief in his Hyperborean
cycle.
Eh, that was quite the tangent.
--
Gregory
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
KAYVEN
>As those who've read
>the story know, there's five or six new beings mentioned therein. The
>fact that Lovecraft passes them all over to fasten on the relatively
>minor Tcho-Tchos suggests that he didn't approve of the other creations
>in the story, including the Elder Gods (which I believe originally
>appeared in the tale's first printing as the "Great Old Ones", oddly
>enough). Still, Lovecraft is so polite here it's hard to tell what he
>really thought.
It is indeed hard to tell what Lovecraft thought from his letter, which is why
I'm not so sure that Lovecraft's praise of the Tcho-Tchos instead of any of the
other entities mentioned in the story indicates disapproval of the other
concepts. As StoOdin101 has pointed out, Lovecraft seemed to have given little
thought to creating a substantial coherent framework for the plot devices that
later writers have constructed into the Mythos. If such is the case, the
notion that Lovecraft would be considering what is "acceptable" or
"unacceptable" to be included in such a framework is unlikely. I think it is
just as probable that Lovecraft made mention of the Tcho-Tchos as being
something he would use because he already had an idea which presented an
opportunity to use them.
As a side note, I can't help but wonder why some of the other posters wish to
stereotype Lovecraft's work as being the opposite of Derleth's. The fact of
the matter is that Lovecraft didn't always write about a universe that didn't
care about humanity, or monsters that can't be stopped. Lovecraft wrote
stories that he felt carried with them a certain mood or atmosphere that he
admired and aimed for. If we try to force Lovecraft to fit our idea of what
Lovecraft is supposed to be about, then we will only find ourselves
disappointed in the long run. Lovecraft had his Good Gods (or at least deities
that were concerned enough about human beings to interact with them) in the
personage of Nodens in the Carter Dream stories and certain 'acts of God' (or
at least a universe that doesn't seem to be completely disinterested in
humanity) show up in such stories as The Transition of Juan Romero and The
Picture in the
House. And there is also the theme in some of his stories of certain segments
of humanity (namely the educated man, i.e. Armitage) who are able to keep back
the forces of the Great Old Ones for a little while. And those nasty
star-stones show up in Lovecraft's The Shadow Over Innsmouth (though not in
quite the detail that Derleth later made of them).
What Lovecraft will be remembered for is his stories that fit the cosmic
horror that we associate with his name. But trying to make him out to have
only written these types of stories or to use him as some kind of authority in
putting down stories that don't fit that mold, is to my mind turning Lovecraft
into a caricature.
------ Steven Marc Harris
StoOdin101
>star-stones show up in Lovecraft's The Shadow Over Innsmouth (though not in
>quite the detail that Derleth later made of them).
Nope, those are swastikas. And they are signs "of the Old Ones", not the Elder
Gods. Price postulates that they are the signs of the crinoids at Antarctica,
and makes a good case for that, but I don't really think so. Not least because
the crinoids DID use star-signs, not swastikas.
However, we know that not all of HPL's tales show man at a loss against the
supernatural. Certainly Willett, Armitage and the narrator of THE SHUNNED HOUSE
dwelt with the boogiemen in a way that left no doubt of their victory. Randolph
Carter defeated Nyarlathotep, though helped by Nodens and S'ngac the violet gas
(whoever that entity may be). And, though Thomas Olney hardly escapes
unscathed, it is obvious that the entities of STRANGE HIGH HOUSE are not
without some affinity to men. (When I was much younger I thought that first
sinister shadow was probably Cthulhu, and could understand why the old man
wouldn't open the door to HIM. Nothing like a visit from Cthulhu to put a
damper on the party. )
"It is said that Music is a universal language, crossing the barriers of
culture, age, and language. Perhaps, eventually, we will learn that it also
spans those of time... and space."
D.E. Kesler
[snip]
>
> I pestered Donovan into looking into this a little while ago.
> The following is from a letter written on August 26, 1931 to Derleth:
>
> "Eric Marsh" [Derleth's working title - Daniel] is great -- do
> you mean to tell me seriously that that ass Wright rejected it?
> Good god! What in hades can he pretend to himself that his standard
> of judgment is? The tale has careless linguistic spots -- the non-
> existent word _onto_ for _upon_, the use of _inconsiderate_ where
> _inconsiderable_ is meant, the use of _similar_ (adj.) for
> _similarly_ (adv.), &c., &c. -- but in general is a really notable
> piece of work with a genuine kick to it. As for a new title -- how
> would "The City of Elder Evil" do? Or "The Lair of the Star-
> Spawn"? I'm not much for fancy titles, but I presume something on
> this order is what you're looking for. I shall undoubtedly use the
> Tcho-Tchos in some later story -- let Wright say what he pleases!
>
> the story know, there's five or six new beings mentioned therein. The
> fact that Lovecraft passes them all over to fasten on the relatively
> minor Tcho-Tchos suggests that he didn't approve of the other creations
> in the story, including the Elder Gods (which I believe originally
> appeared in the tale's first printing as the "Great Old Ones", oddly
> enough). Still, Lovecraft is so polite here it's hard to tell what he
> really thought.
>
>
> Daniel Harms
Hello Mr. Harms,
I've scrounged up a couple of quotable quotes to add fuel to this
dialouge. The first offering reveals who amongst his peers Lovecraft
felt possessed a cosmic quality.
"In literature we can easily see the cosmic quality in Poe, Maturin,
Dunsany, de la Mare, & Blackwood, but I profoundly suspect the cosmicism
of Bierce, James & even Machen. It is not every macabre writer who feel
poignantly & almost intolerably the pressure of cryptic and unbound
outer space... [I deleted this section because it has no bearing on the
current dialogue. It features Lovecraft extolling the inherent
cosmicism of the Nordic race.] ...Among the individuals of my
acquantince, it [cosmicism] is rarer than hen's teeth. You [Clark
Ashton Smith] have it yourself to a supreme degree, & so have Wandrei &
Bernard Dwyer; but I'm hanged if I can carry the list any farther.
Loveman's sense of the unreal is a strictly human, classical, &
traditional one - albeit exquisitely developed - & Long's is precisely
the same at an earlier stage of developement. Munn & Talman & Derleth
simply don't know what it's all about. (SL III, 196)
The second quote for your consideration specifically singles out Derleth
as one who lacks in cosmic vision.
"A great part of religion is merely a childish & diluted
psuedo-gratification of this perpetual gnawing toward the ultimate
illimatable void. Superadded to this simple curiosity is the galling
sense of _intolerable restraint_ which all sensitive people (except
self-blinded earth-gazers like little Augie Derleth) feel as they survey
their natural limitations in time & space as scaled against the freedoms
& expansions & comprehensions & adventurous expectancies which the mind
can formulate as abstract conceptions. Only a perfect clod can fail to
discern these irritant feelings in the greater part of mankind" (SL III,
295).
The same letter also contains the following sentence.
"Don't let little Augie sidetrack you." (SL III, 295)
Gregory Robert Benedicto
: "Munn & Talman & Derleth simply don't know what it[cosmicism]'s all
: about. (SL III, 196)
: "Superadded to this simple curiosity is the galling sense of
: _intolerable restraint_ which all sensitive people (except self-blinded
: earth-gazers like little Augie Derleth) feel as they survey their
: natural limitations in time & space as scaled against the freedoms
: & expansions & comprehensions & adventurous expectancies which the mind
: can formulate as abstract conceptions. Only a perfect clod can fail to
: discern these irritant feelings in the greater part of mankind" (SL III,
: 295).
: "Don't let little Augie sidetrack you." (SL III, 295)
Let it be known: HPL thought Derleth was a hack when it came
to writing Mythos tales. The proof is in the post. (I chuckled
heartily upon reading the above. Thank you, Mr. Kesler.)
NEW BUSINESS:
A few posts back, Mr. Steven Marc Harris made the argument that
by characterizing HPL's writing as solely dealing with cosmic
horror and doomed protagonists, we make a charicature out of the
man himself. Mr. Harris cited several HPL stories in which the
humans triumph over their mounstrous foes, and also mentioned the
Dreamlands cycle for its inclusion of good deities.
I agree with Mr. Harris to an extent. Not all HPL stories are
doom and gloom, it is true. But, with the exception of rare
oddities like 'The Dunwich Horror', HPL was fairly consistent
when it came to his Mythos tales. [Those who consider Lovecraft's
Dunsanyian stories to be Mythos tales may disagree with me on
that point -- I have always made a clear division between the
two.] And the Mythos was what, I think, this thread is focusing
on. But Mr. Harris is right, the evidence shows that HPL was
not all about nihilism.
--
Gregory
vonj...@hotmail.com
kay...@aol.com (KAYVEN) wrote:
>
> In article <70je3r$2e4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vonj...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >the story know, there's five or six new beings mentioned therein. The
> >fact that Lovecraft passes them all over to fasten on the relatively
> >minor Tcho-Tchos suggests that he didn't approve of the other creations
> >in the story, including the Elder Gods (which I believe originally
> >appeared in the tale's first printing as the "Great Old Ones", oddly
> >enough). Still, Lovecraft is so polite here it's hard to tell what he
> >really thought.
>
> which is why I'm not so sure that Lovecraft's praise of the Tcho-Tchos
> instead of any of the other entities mentioned in the story indicates
> disapproval of the other concepts. As StoOdin101 has pointed out,
> Lovecraft seemed to have given little thought to creating a substantial
> coherent framework for the plot devices that later writers have
> constructed into the Mythos. If such is the case, the notion that
> Lovecraft would be considering what is "acceptable" or "unacceptable"
> to be included in such a framework is unlikely.
This is undoubtedly true, but I think we must distinguish between
Lovecraft deciding what is right for everyone and what was right for him.
He wasn't about to tell people about how to write their stories, but
he could control how they were presented in his own work. Thus, when
taken in conjunction with the HPL quotes on Derleth quoted by Mr. Kessler,
I think it is telling that Lovecraft passes over what are arguably the
more important creations in the story and fastens on the relatively
minor Tcho-tchos for inclusion.
> I think it is just as probable that Lovecraft made mention of the
> Tcho-Tchos as being something he would use because he already had
> an idea which presented an opportunity to use them.
My argument against this is that it doesn't seem borne out by the
evidence. HPL doesn't use the Tcho-tchos until a year later in the
Heald "revision" "Out of the Aeons", and since he didn't meet Heald until
the spring or summer of 1932, he probably wasn't thinking of any
particular project at the time. (There might have been another he
didn't complete, but I don't see any particular evidence for one that
fits the bill.)
> As a side note, I can't help but wonder why some of the other posters wish to
> stereotype Lovecraft's work as being the opposite of Derleth's. The fact of
> the matter is that Lovecraft didn't always write about a universe that didn't
> care about humanity, or monsters that can't be stopped. Lovecraft wrote
> stories that he felt carried with them a certain mood or atmosphere that he
> admired and aimed for. If we try to force Lovecraft to fit our idea of what
> Lovecraft is supposed to be about, then we will only find ourselves
> disappointed in the long run.
Absolutely.
D.E. Kesler
>
[snip]
>
> It is indeed hard to tell what Lovecraft thought from his letter, which is why
> I'm not so sure that Lovecraft's praise of the Tcho-Tchos instead of any of the
> other entities mentioned in the story indicates disapproval of the other
> concepts. As StoOdin101 has pointed out, Lovecraft seemed to have given little
> thought to creating a substantial coherent framework for the plot devices that
> later writers have constructed into the Mythos. If such is the case, the
> notion that Lovecraft would be considering what is "acceptable" or
> just as probable that Lovecraft made mention of the Tcho-Tchos as being
> something he would use because he already had an idea which presented an
> opportunity to use them.
> ------ Steven Marc Harris
Hello Mr. Harris,
Based on the letter presented by Mr. Harms and my own reseach, I don't
really think Lovecraft was overly concerned with what Derleth did in his
own fictional efforts. I'm quite sure that Lovecraft never in his
wildest dreams (and he did have quite a few wild ones) imagined that we
would be discussing Derleth's efforts at weird fiction. Lovecraft
always expected Derleth to achieve lasting recognition for his regional
efforts, not his poor attempts at writing weird fiction.
In my opinion, this explains why Lovecraft did not care what became of
his fictional creations in "The Lair of the Star Spawn."
D.E. Kesler
[snip]
> But Mr. Harris is right, the evidence shows that HPL was
> not all about nihilism.
>
> --
> Gregory
>
I agree. Hell, I think the man wrote comedy. :]
D.E. Kesler
[snip]
> >
> > It is indeed hard to tell what Lovecraft thought from his letter,
> > which is why I'm not so sure that Lovecraft's praise of the Tcho-Tchos
> > instead of any of the other entities mentioned in the story indicates
> > disapproval of the other concepts. As StoOdin101 has pointed out,
> > Lovecraft seemed to have given little thought to creating a substantial
> > coherent framework for the plot devices that later writers have
> > constructed into the Mythos. If such is the case, the notion that
> > Lovecraft would be considering what is "acceptable" or "unacceptable"
> > to be included in such a framework is unlikely.
>
> Lovecraft deciding what is right for everyone and what was right for him.
> He wasn't about to tell people about how to write their stories, but
> he could control how they were presented in his own work. Thus, when
> taken in conjunction with the HPL quotes on Derleth quoted by Mr. Kessler,
> I think it is telling that Lovecraft passes over what are arguably the
> more important creations in the story and fastens on the relatively
> minor Tcho-tchos for inclusion.
>
> Yrs.,
>
> Daniel Harms
Mr. Harms,
This is indeed the point I was attempting to make in my initial post on
this thread. You stated it quite nicely.
Also, it should be mentioned that it is a well documant fact that
Lovecraft admired both Loveman' classical work and Derleth's regional
efforts. He simply felt that both writers lacked cosmic vision.
The 13th Floor
references to Tsathoggua or the Tcho-Tcho's, and other people's
inventions, as a kind of in-joke more than anything else.
I don't think he was ever trying to create a coherent "mythos," and
probably wasn't terribly concerned whether his friends created things
he liked or not.
Karen Crocker
and the
Coppola movie. I withdraw that part of my previous posting.
Sophia wrote in message ...
>In article <362ac...@news.zoomnet.net>, Karen Crocker
><kcr...@zoomnet.net> writes
>>
>> Bram Stoker's Dracula: a pre-medieval holy knight is excommunicated from
>>the church and forced into a nightmarish undead state to live out eternity
>>on the blood of the living (taken from the local superstitions of
>>Transylvania and Romania on vampires). Dracula, no matter how powerful he
>>was there was always something that would effect his weaknesses. Through
the
>>insights of Dr. Abraham Vanhelsing (the resident horror movie/story
"expert"
>>of the supernatural setting) a brave band of everday persons involved take
>>on Dracula and his forces of darkness (his followers and minions) to
defeat
>>him in a spectacular showdown (though actually it was his eternal wife
>>reincarnated in the form of Mrs. Mina Harker who killed him in symbolic
>>"love conquers all" fashion in the latest movie adaption). This basic
>>element of the "powers of God" to first create and then destroy Dracula
was
>>indeed an ironic ending and shows a consistant ethic of the "good guys
>>always win" moral of the story. The good guys on God's side must endure-
>>this was most indictative of the times previous to HPL and of author
writing
>>styles on the fields of popular ethics. In the mind of most everday people
>>(even today) you must have good guy creations or characters to battle the
>>bad guy creations or else there is no plot.
>
drlo...@longshadows.com
"D.E. Kesler" <er...@fantasm.org> wrote:
> "A great part of religion is merely a childish & diluted
> psuedo-gratification of this perpetual gnawing toward the ultimate
> illimatable void. Superadded to this simple curiosity is the galling
> sense of _intolerable restraint_ which all sensitive people (except
> self-blinded earth-gazers like little Augie Derleth) feel as they survey
> their natural limitations in time & space as scaled against the freedoms
> & expansions & comprehensions & adventurous expectancies which the mind
> can formulate as abstract conceptions. Only a perfect clod can fail to
> discern these irritant feelings in the greater part of mankind" (SL III,
> 295).
>
> The same letter also contains the following sentence.
>
> "Don't let little Augie sidetrack you." (SL III, 295)
>
> Regards and Best Wishes,
>
> Donald Eric Kesler
Mr. Kesler,
Thank you for essentially answering the basic question as to whether or not
Lovecraft cared for "Augie's" sense (or lack thereof) of the Cosmic.
Sure desn't sound like the same guy who supposedly gave the "Black Magic"
quote to that friend of Derleth (in fact, if HPL said anything like that
at all, it is most likely that this person misunderstood and got it
backwards -- I *can* imagine Lovecraft saying, "Now all my stories are *not*
based on the premise that.." etc etc -- snip alot of garbage about Great
Old Ones and Outer Gods dabbling in Black Magic and getting banished by
the Jehovah-like Elder Gods for their "evil ways". That "quote" has always
annoyed me).
Again, thank you. "Self-blinded earth gazer"; I love it.
And, ok, thanks, Mr. Derleth (wherever you are, if anywhere), for keeping
HPL in print (but, man, you just didn't get it).
Dr. Locrian
(Thomas Ligotti Online)
http://www.longshadows.com/ligotti/
rbmoney
>
> Hello Mr. Harris,
>
> Based on the letter presented by Mr. Harms and my own reseach, I don't
> really think Lovecraft was overly concerned with what Derleth did in
> his own fictional efforts. I'm quite sure that Lovecraft never in his
> wildest dreams (and he did have quite a few wild ones) imagined that
> we would be discussing Derleth's efforts at weird fiction.
Just caught up on this thread, and i admit I laughed at this. It struck
me, Mr. Kesler, that I doubt Lovecraft ever, in his wildest dreams,
imagined we would be discussing his efforts at weird fiction, either.
I expect Lovecraft had aspirations, but I doubt he expected his work
salvaged from the dust-in-embryo of pulp paper, reprinted in thousands
(if not millions) of copies, translated into a few dozen languages,
annotated, and even collected and introduced by a respected mainstream,
mostly-realist writer like Joyce Carol Oates. If he were to
miraculously be resurrected today and glimpse what has happened to his
reputation and works, he'd probably figured he'd stumbled into some sort
of alternate reality. Talk about a fantasy story!
Randy
Azrael
> HPL), who used the mythos as comic (ironic?) relief in his Hyperborean
> cycle.
That is not to say however that Smith's tales lacked cosmic horror. Though
at times he can be flippant when mentioning the mythos deites and they may
not carry with them the same sense of awe and gravitas as one might see in
HPL's work.
But this all adds to the ironic twist, though I would not go so far as to
say 'comic'. "The Seven Geases" is hillarious, but also very dark,
malevolent and twisted, unlike, say, Prattchet (the closest example I can
bring to mind) who merely uses the fantasy elements in the story as one huge
send-up of the genre.
Sorry if my ramblings are somewhat incoherent - its getting late.
Yrs.,
Mark.
D.E. Kesler
I am pleased that you appreciated my post. I gather that you are
unaware of the research conducted by David E. Schultz. His essay "The
Origin of Lovecraft's Black Magic Quote" pretty much destroys
credability of that Quote.
Schultz does a fine job of reconstructing events. Essentially, Derleth
wrote to Harold Farnese, former editor of Weird Tales, in order to
borrow whatever Lovecraft letters he had. Farnese wrote back, stating
that he had about three letters and maybe a post card from Lovecraft.
Some time later Farnese sent two letters and the post card. So what
became of the third letter?
Farnese wrote, "If there was another letter, it has been destoyed, for I
have recorded the salient points in my scrap-book." (THOIA, 33)
So, the next question that needs to be addressed is how well did Farnese
transcribe this missing letter. Well, The evidence presented by Schultz
suggests that Farnese's notes where simply paraphrased versions of
Lovecraft's actual letters. They were written as direct quotes, but
they were not really quotes at all. Worse still, these paraphrases
where often heavily influenced by Farnese's personal facination with
Black Magic.
In any event, Derleth probably honestly mistook Farnese's paraphrase as
a direction transcription from a letter. It also appears that Derleth
could not recall where he found the quote some thirty years latter.
This explains why he became very angry with Tierney when the later asked
to see the original letter.
So, unless an original letter from Lovecraft turns up with the quote,
I'm sticking with the theory that this whole mess was started by Farnese
misquoting Lovecraft.
The entire essay may be found in Robert M. Price's "The Horror of it
All." I can't exactly recall who I bought this book from. I'm sure I
found the store on eithier the MX Bookfinder or Interloc. In any event,
he told me when I ordered this book that he had multiple copies
available.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
D.E. Kesler
>
> Just caught up on this thread, and i admit I laughed at this. It struck
> me, Mr. Kesler, that I doubt Lovecraft ever, in his wildest dreams,
> imagined we would be discussing his efforts at weird fiction, either.
>
> I expect Lovecraft had aspirations, but I doubt he expected his work
> salvaged from the dust-in-embryo of pulp paper, reprinted in thousands
> (if not millions) of copies, translated into a few dozen languages,
> annotated, and even collected and introduced by a respected mainstream,
> mostly-realist writer like Joyce Carol Oates. If he were to
> miraculously be resurrected today and glimpse what has happened to his
> reputation and works, he'd probably figured he'd stumbled into some sort
> of alternate reality. Talk about a fantasy story!
>
> Randy
Hello Randy,
I quess I'm going to half to agree with you on this. I am sure that
Lovecraft believed no one would remember his or Derleth's efforts at
weird fiction.
The point I was trying to make is that Lovecraft really did think that
August Derleth would one day become a noted and respected regionalist
writer. That was the aspect of this discussion that I think would have
astounded Lovecraft. We are all talking about Derleth the fantasist,
not Derleth the regionalist.
D.E. Kesler
>
> Actually, Derleth was a Catholic (he said, nit-picking). Anyway, I'm
> just being butthead. I agree with you. All of these authors
> worldview affected their fantasy worlds.
>
> Another issue for Derleth is that, plain and simple, the guy just
> didn't have that kind of creative imagination. His own horror stories
> are mostly very standard-issue ghost/vampire/werewolf stories (not all
> are bad --- he wrote a couple I consider quite excellent).
>
drlo...@longshadows.com
"D.E. Kesler" <er...@fantasm.org> wrote:
> Hello Dr. Locrian,
>
> I am pleased that you appreciated my post. I gather that you are
> unaware of the research conducted by David E. Schultz. His essay "The
> Origin of Lovecraft's Black Magic Quote" pretty much destroys
> credability of that Quote.
>
Mr. Kesler,
Thanks for the enlightening message! I had heard something about that
previously, but I have never read it in such detail... I must look that
Shultz essay up.
Again, many thanks.
-Dr. Locrian
epber...@my-dejanews.com
drlo...@longshadows.com wrote:
> In article <36302B...@fantasm.org>,
> "D.E. Kesler" <er...@fantasm.org> wrote:
> > Hello Dr. Locrian,
> >
> > I am pleased that you appreciated my post. I gather that you are
> > unaware of the research conducted by David E. Schultz. His essay "The
> > Origin of Lovecraft's Black Magic Quote" pretty much destroys
> > credability of that Quote.
> >
>
> Mr. Kesler,
>
> Thanks for the enlightening message! I had heard something about that
> previously, but I have never read it in such detail... I must look that
> Shultz essay up.
>
> Again, many thanks.
>
> -Dr. Locrian
> (Thomas Ligotti Online)
> http://www.longshadows.com/ligotti/
The Schultz article is online at http://www.toddalan.com/~berglund/ns8nf2.htm
Edward P. Berglund
Keeper of the Information
http://www.toddalan.com/~berglund/
james ambuehl
Tribute anthology to CAS (THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICES: NEW TALES IN THE
TRADITION OF CLARK ASHTON SMITH, available very soon!) I feel that maybe
I should step in and say something about CAS and his relation to HPL.
However, you all are doing such a fine job without me -- and anyway, I
think our book will speak for itself on Smith when it is released!
However, I must say, I find it truly amazing when painstakingly
examining Smith's work that he didn't really consider himself much of a
fictioneer -- and indeed gave up writing fiction for some time! His
stuff is masterful!
-- Jim
PS -- I would love to see a movie based on CAS' works someday: but his
work is so detailed and so alien that in many cases animation would
surely have to suffice? I could actually see the merits of a
CGI-produced "The City of the Singing Flame" however . . .
Sigs.? Sigs.? We don't need no stinkin' sigs.!
jpe...@cnw.com
jamesa...@webtv.net (james ambuehl) wrote:
> As co-editor and co-publisher (with Ron Shiflet) of a forthcoming
> Tribute anthology to CAS (THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICES: NEW TALES IN THE
> TRADITION OF CLARK ASHTON SMITH, available very soon!)
A most worthwhile project!
A visit to www.bereshith.com will provide information on another
Smith-inspired anthology scheduled for release in 1999. This volume is
more narrowly focused on the milieu of Zothique.
>
> However, I must say, I find it truly amazing when painstakingly
> examining Smith's work that he didn't really consider himself much of a
> fictioneer -- and indeed gave up writing fiction for some time!
Smith wrote prose primarily due to financial necessity, when the necessity
was no longer present he pretty much stopped writing fiction and concentrated
on his sculpting and poetry.
> PS -- I would love to see a movie based on CAS' works someday: but his
> work is so detailed and so alien that in many cases animation would
> surely have to suffice? I could actually see the merits of a
> CGI-produced "The City of the Singing Flame" however . . .
>
I'd love to see "The Dark Eidolon" or "The Seven Geases"; but I doubt that
anyone would undertake such an ambitious project...
John Pelan
StoOdin101
>anyone would undertake such an ambitious project..
Seven Geases would lend itself more to animation than any other form of film
making, although it would certainly be a departure from form for that genre.
Boyd Pearson
>> work is so detailed and so alien that in many cases animation would
>> surely have to suffice? I could actually see the merits of a
>> CGI-produced "The City of the Singing Flame" however . . .
Rod Serlings's Night Gallery (1960-70's) did an adaption of "The Return of the
Sorcerer"
**************************************
The Eldritch Dark:
Dedicated to Clark Ashton Smith
http://members.xoom.com/eldritchdark/
drlo...@longshadows.com
epber...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> The Schultz article is online at http://www.toddalan.com/~berglund/ns8nf2.htm
>
> Edward P. Berglund
> Keeper of the Information
> http://www.toddalan.com/~berglund/
Thanks a million, Edward!
DL
Mik Clarke
>>I'd love to see "The Dark Eidolon" or "The Seven Geases"; but I doubt that
>>anyone would undertake such an ambitious project..
>
>Seven Geases would lend itself more to animation than any other form of film
>making, although it would certainly be a departure from form for that genre.
Hmmm. Maybe. There have been some pretty strange animated films in the
past (mainly french) and the Japanese do some fairly different ones as
well. Have you had a look at the Black Dahlia computer game?
Any thoughts on medium - hand drawn, ray traced, painted live action?
Expected duration? Different scenes? Would it be amienable to
chopping up and handling geas by geas?
StoOdin101
>Expected duration? Different scenes? Would it be amienable to
>chopping up and handling geas by geas?
Hand drawn, certainly, though probably with some computer aid. I sure dont want
it looking like that New Adventures of Jonny Quest stuff! I figure 60 minutes,
I figure all in one piece, since the ending is a downer. Boy is it a downer.
Mik Clarke
>>Any thoughts on medium - hand drawn, ray traced, painted live action?
>>Expected duration? Different scenes? Would it be amienable to
>>chopping up and handling geas by geas?
>
>Hand drawn, certainly, though probably with some computer aid. I sure dont want
>it looking like that New Adventures of Jonny Quest stuff! I figure 60 minutes,
>I figure all in one piece, since the ending is a downer. Boy is it a downer.
Hmmm. The best bet is probably a japanese Animee house. While a lot
of their stuff is in the Jonny Quest category, they do make a few
films that are a lot more artistic - Wings of Homenaise, Toro no
Totaro (?sp) etc...
Alternatively, if we can agree on a format and find a few artists we
could have a go over the web...
J Adam Jurkowski
> and how much he despised the unimaginative, mainstream qualities of their
> work. I think he would object to Derleth's alterations. I think he
> would find the changes way too drab to be tolerated. Sure, he liked
> the group-effort that was going on at WT, but up until Derleth, no one
> contributed any piece that was 'heretical' to the nihilistic theme. [OK,
> so maybe Clark Ashton Smith went a little crazy with the Family Tree of
> the Gods thing, but, correct me if I'm wrong, that wasn't published until
> after Lovecraft's death.] Robert E. Howard, not surprisingly (if one is
> to examine his personal life), was the truest to HPL's format, and is, in
> my opinion, representative of the writers who understood and deeply
> respected Lovecraft-the-man and Lovecraft-the-writer.
What about Brian Lumley (steps back in case he opened a big can of worms)? While
not exactly Lovecraft adaptations, the Necroscope series wasn't bad, and had a
certain Lovecraftian flavor to it, especially the third volume...
Adam
--
Please visit my black and white photography page -
D.E. Kesler
[snip]
>
> What about Brian Lumley (steps back in case he opened a big can of worms)? While
> not exactly Lovecraft adaptations, the Necroscope series wasn't bad, and had a
> certain Lovecraftian flavor to it, especially the third volume...
>
> Adam
>
> --
Are you familiar with Lumley's earlier mythos fiction? I'm going to be
very nice and simply say that the best of these stories were collected
in _The Complete Crow_ and published by W. Paul Ganley.
Regarding these early, short tales, yes, I think Lumley had some inkling
of what Lovecraft cosmicism was all about; however, I don't think this
theme suited eithier Mr. Lumley's temperment or his interests. So, he
soon abandoned brooding cosmicism in favor of pulpish action in a series
of novels. These novels still featured Lovecraft's creations, but not
Lovecraft's cosmic perspective. I can write no more.
Trudy Eden
>
> Karen Crocker (kcr...@zoomnet.net) wrote:
>
> : The collective supposedly "good" gods incorporated into HPL's Mythos by
> : August Derleth and his good guy-bad guy adversarial roles in my opinion, was
> : an attempt by Derleth to make Lovecraft more acceptable to the main stream
>
> But at what cost? HPL had passed away before Derleth started
> making modifications to the Mythos. He had nothing to gain from Derleth's
> modifications. Granted, Derleth took it to be his mission to not allow
> HPL and his writings be forgotten -- Arkham House being a major part of
> his success. But Derleth did not understand that, unknown as he was to
> the masses, HPL was an artist. Immediatly after his death, many writers
> who had formerly dabbled in the Mythos left it well alone, but Derleth
> continued with his pastiches -- which, as you and I agree, were not
> pastiches at all. They were popularizations.
>
> In his stories, I see a blatant disregard for the many elements
> which have come to be known as Lovecraftian. Yes, he was having fun, but
> he was also turning a lonely man's artwork into hokey, throw-away pulp
> trash. I am glad that I was able to read HPL before reading Derleth, as I
> would have had less esteem for the former's work as a whole. For some,
> Derleth's popular remoldings are unfortunately intertwined with what was
> uniquely Lovecraft.
>
> HPL was always ranting about certain "hacks" at Weird Tales
> and how much he despised the unimaginative, mainstream qualities of their
> work. I think he would object to Derleth's alterations. I think he
> would find the changes way too drab to be tolerated. Sure, he liked
> the group-effort that was going on at WT, but up until Derleth, no one
> contributed any piece that was 'heretical' to the nihilistic theme. [OK,
> so maybe Clark Ashton Smith went a little crazy with the Family Tree of
> the Gods thing, but, correct me if I'm wrong, that wasn't published until
> after Lovecraft's death.] Robert E. Howard, not surprisingly (if one is
> to examine his personal life), was the truest to HPL's format, and is, in
> my opinion, representative of the writers who understood and deeply
> respected Lovecraft-the-man and Lovecraft-the-writer.
>
> does. But 'Outerspace aliens coming to earth to eat us!' -- that isn't
> all there is to Lovecraft's work. Simply having the Mythos-trappings
> present in a story no longer does it for me. As a mature reader, I need
> substance now. I need innovation.
>
> --
> Gregory
>
I very much agree. In fact, I think that the Mythos has lost something
by becoming a sub-genre.
HPL's vision was a weird, edgy thing. Not only are we alone (and yet
horribly not alone) in the universe, but we are completely helpless. If
the Old Ones gave even the slightest damn about our existence, they'd
come and waste us now (or as soon as they woke up) But we're just an
ant-hill to their great and unconceivable worlds, and that's how we're
bound to stay.
But then you add in the good-evil elements, and it isn't so weird and
edgy any more. Think about Cthulhu for awhile, and what a strange and
frightening idea that is. And then imagine Lumley's Kthanid, and it
doesn't seem so scary. If they've got a Cthulhu on their side, what
does it matter? We've got one too. Then when you bog down the vision
with all the rest of the Derleth, Lumley, and various assorted writers'
add-ons, it's just another comic book-type series.
I wouldn't put Lovecraft in a class with a writer like John Steinbeck,
but I do think he is somewhat classical. The sheer scope of his vision,
particularly in stories like "The Colour Out of Space" continues to blow
me away. To draw a parallel, though, imagine if a bunch of writers
started adding on to "Tortilla Flat." After enough writing went by,
we'd get the same formulaic stuff we're getting in Lovecraft's
imitators. Most of the new Mythos tales follow the same basic style:
Someone finds an evil book and dies because of X-Ritual inscribed in the
book.
In Tolkien, though, I admire different things than in Lovecraft. I
don't mind the good vs. evil because it seems very epic and convincing,
not half-baked and intended to be comforting.
Hunter
Remove tezcatlipoca from my address to reply.
J Adam Jurkowski
is that I am glad I have read Lovecraft extensively first. Otherwise I'd think HPL
was a loser, starting this rubbish... The stories are pretty much the same lame
theme - someone disappears and reappears in a horribly disfigured state, Ithaqua is
on his way but the humans summon Cthugha to repel him... end of story. I'm only
going to finish the book because I always finish what I start... and that's the only
reason.
Adam
> But then you add in the good-evil elements, and it isn't so weird and
> edgy any more. Think about Cthulhu for awhile, and what a strange and
> frightening idea that is. And then imagine Lumley's Kthanid, and it
> doesn't seem so scary. If they've got a Cthulhu on their side, what
> does it matter? We've got one too. Then when you bog down the vision
> with all the rest of the Derleth, Lumley, and various assorted writers'
> add-ons, it's just another comic book-type series.
>
> I wouldn't put Lovecraft in a class with a writer like John Steinbeck,
> but I do think he is somewhat classical. The sheer scope of his vision,
> particularly in stories like "The Colour Out of Space" continues to blow
> me away. To draw a parallel, though, imagine if a bunch of writers
> started adding on to "Tortilla Flat." After enough writing went by,
> we'd get the same formulaic stuff we're getting in Lovecraft's
> imitators. Most of the new Mythos tales follow the same basic style:
> Someone finds an evil book and dies because of X-Ritual inscribed in the
> book.
>
> In Tolkien, though, I admire different things than in Lovecraft. I
> don't mind the good vs. evil because it seems very epic and convincing,
> not half-baked and intended to be comforting.
>
> Hunter
>
> Remove tezcatlipoca from my address to reply.
--