_Necronomicon_ not inspired by _King in Yellow_
T. Kurt Bond
eldritch tome, _Necronomicon_, from Chambers' _The King in Yellow. There
is, however, some evidence that contradicts this: Donald R. Burleson, in
_H.P. Lovecraft, A Critical Study_ (page 158, note 36), has this to say on the
matter:
Lin Carter has claimed (see his edition of Lovecraft et al., _The
Spawn of Cthulhu_, p. 101) that Lovecraft himself ``quite likely''
derived the idea for his _Necronomicon_ from reading Chambers' _The
King in Yellow_; this is chronologically impossible, for Lovecraft's
letters (see _Selected Letters_, II, 127, 12 May 1927, to Clark Ashton
Smith) clearly show that he did not discover Chambers' horror fiction
until six years after his first use of the idea of the _Necronomicon_.
Amusingly, Lovecraft's own "History of the Necronomicon" ends with the
observation ``It was from rumors of this book (of which relatively few of the
general public know) that R. W. Chambers is said to have derived the idea of
his early novel "THE KING IN YELLOW".'' S.T. Joshi's Afterword in the
Necronomicon Press edition of the "History" points out that the _Necronomicon_
first shows up in "The Hound" (1922) while Lovecraft didn't read Chambers' work
until 1927.
I'm curious: do many people who read Lovecraft also read things like Burleson's
study, or S.T. Joshi's _H.P. Lovecraft: Four Decades of Criticism_ (in which
there is an interesting short article on Lovecraftian Pseudobiblia)? Or are
they more likely to have read Phileus P. Sadowsky's "Notes on a Fragment of the
Necronomicon" and "Further Notes on the Necronomicon" (the later published
postumously and unfortunately unfinished)?
--
T. Kurt Bond, t...@mtnet2.wvnet.edu or os36...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
m_maxwell
(T. Kurt Bond) writes:
(interesting stuff deleted)
>I'm curious: do many people who read Lovecraft also read things like
Burleson's
>study, or S.T. Joshi's _H.P. Lovecraft: Four Decades of Criticism_ (in which
>there is an interesting short article on Lovecraftian Pseudobiblia)? Or are
>they more likely to have read Phileus P. Sadowsky's "Notes on a Fragment of
the
>Necronomicon" and "Further Notes on the Necronomicon" (the later published
>postumously and unfortunately unfinished)?
>
>--
>T. Kurt Bond, t...@mtnet2.wvnet.edu or os36...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
>
I usually read whatever i can get my hands on in terms of fiction by Lovecraft
and the circle of writers he inspired. The other things (ie Joshi's criticism,
and various small press Lovecraftania) are difficult enough to find that i
haven't been able to read much. The works published under the name Sadowsky
were published in Chaosium's "Call of Cthulhu" gaming materials previously,
and i had thought that they were only published there and written specifically
for the game. Confirmation anyone?
-------------------
Matt Maxwell
mmax...@ucsd.edu
Hey you kids! Don't touch that, it's ART!
KYLE CASSIDY
>I'm curious: do many people who read Lovecraft also read things like Burleson's
>study, or S.T. Joshi's _H.P. Lovecraft: Four Decades of Criticism_ (in which
>there is an interesting short article on Lovecraftian Pseudobiblia)? Or are
>they more likely to have read Phileus P. Sadowsky's "Notes on a Fragment of the
>Necronomicon" and "Further Notes on the Necronomicon" (the later published
>postumously and unfortunately unfinished)?
i've read l. sprague de camp's wonderful biography "h.p. lovecraft: a
biography", which apparantly can no longer be got for love nor money. though
i did work in a walden books once and there are people who actually believe
that thing put out by (is it del rey? maybe) is the actual "necronomocon"
and that one actually exists and that children are being converted to devil
worshippers left and right. what a sad state of affairs we have come to.
kc
Fiona Webster
>I'm curious: do many people who read Lovecraft also read things like Burleson's
>study, or S.T. Joshi's _H.P. Lovecraft: Four Decades of Criticism_ (in which
>there is an interesting short article on Lovecraftian Pseudobiblia)? Or are
>they more likely to have read Phileus P. Sadowsky's "Notes on a Fragment of the
>Necronomicon" and "Further Notes on the Necronomicon" (the later published
>postumously and unfortunately unfinished)?
Burleson and Joshi are just about the only Lovecraft scholars that I
read. I enjoyed Burleson's book on deconstructing HPL in particular.
As for _The_King_in_Yellow_, that book is currently in my top spot for
weird tale acquisitions, so if anyone knows of a source for a cheap
(preferably paperback) edition, let me know. I've just about bought
all the Machen and Smith I'm going to buy, but there's still a lot
of weirdness out there that I haven't found yet.
--Fiona Webster
KYLE CASSIDY
>T. Kurt Bond writes:
>As for _The_King_in_Yellow_, that book is currently in my top spot for
>weird tale acquisitions, so if anyone knows of a source for a cheap
>(preferably paperback) edition, let me know. I've just about bought
when i was working in the aforementioned crappy bookstore, a book came out
called "the 100 best books of horror" and i tried to order every one of
them -- only about 15 or 20 are still in print. the only way (that i know)
you'll be able to find a copy of "the king in yellow" is used. (i did find
too copys of lord dunsany's "book of wonder" like that.)
Hoffman Naty
"Call of Cthulhu" rulebooks than the serious criticism published.
I'de have to admit that I'd read neither of the books you mentioned, and I
have read Call of Cthulhu.
But... I'd love to get my hands on them! They just aren't very easy to find.
Re Lovecraft - does anyone know if/where it is possible to find the "notes by
Lovecraft" on which Derleth claims he based his horrible pastiches?
Naty Hoffman
hn...@iil.intel.com
Darin M. Powell
>I'm curious: do many people who read Lovecraft also read things like Burleson's
>study, or S.T. Joshi's _H.P. Lovecraft: Four Decades of Criticism_ (in which
>there is an interesting short article on Lovecraftian Pseudobiblia)? Or are
>they more likely to have read Phileus P. Sadowsky's "Notes on a Fragment of the
>Necronomicon" and "Further Notes on the Necronomicon" (the later published
>postumously and unfortunately unfinished)?
I enjoy Joshi's work. He's knowledgable and has done much to
elevate Lovecraft's reputation. Burleson's book is good, too,
but not as good as Joshi's in my opinon. I really wish there
was a better biograpy --- L. Sprauge De Camp was clueless when
it came to the philosophy behind Lovecraft's fiction, and Joshi
savages both De Camp and Derleth pretty well.
I might have been the one who stated _The King In Yellow_ was the
basis for _The Necronomicon_. It would probabably be more accurate
to say _King_ influenced Lovecraft's use of _The Necronomicon_ as
a fictional device.
I have never read the Sadowsky articles. Where can they be
found?
Darin Powell
Syracuse University -- Ninth Circle of Hell
T. Kurt Bond
> Well... you're actually asking how many more Lovecraft fans read the
> "Call of Cthulhu" rulebooks than the serious criticism published.
Yes. :-)
> I'de have to admit that I'd read neither of the books you mentioned, and I
> have read Call of Cthulhu.
>
> But... I'd love to get my hands on them! They just aren't very easy to find.
I bought mine used; I suspect that the university in the town where I bought
them had a class that required them, because there were several copies of each
spread out amongst the used bookstores in town, along with the Arkham House
editions of Lovecraft.
> Re Lovecraft - does anyone know if/where it is possible to find the "notes by
> Lovecraft" on which Derleth claims he based his horrible pastiches?
I've seen refences to HPL's notebooks in other sources than Derleth; I don't
remember seeing any references to a published version. Some of the stories
that Derleth listed Lovecraft as a co-author on seemed to be completely written
by Derleth inspired by a sentence or two of HPL's.
> Naty Hoffman
> hn...@iil.intel.com
Darin M. Powell
>> Re Lovecraft - does anyone know if/where it is possible to find the "notes by
>> Lovecraft" on which Derleth claims he based his horrible pastiches?
T. Kurt Bond writes:
>I've seen refences to HPL's notebooks in other sources than Derleth; I don't
>remember seeing any references to a published version. Some of the stories
>that Derleth listed Lovecraft as a co-author on seemed to be completely written
>by Derleth inspired by a sentence or two of HPL's.
Ramsey Campbell, in is introduction to "Cold Print", mentions
Lovecraft's "commonplace book" or notebook, which he used to
draw inspiration for his mythos tales. But I've never seen it --
I don't know if its published (like the letters) or not.
The Derleth/Lovecraft "posthumous collaborations" (and Derleth
pastiches) are particularly troubling for serious weird fiction
readers and those who take Lovecraft seriously. Most of the
Derleth-Lovecraft stories are mostly Derleth. Derleth would
use one line from Lovecraft's notebook and justify that as a
"collaboration."
The biggest problem with this is Derleth's distortion and
bastardization of Lovecraft's underlying philosopy. As
disscussed by both Donald Burleson and S.T. Joshi, Lovecrafts
mature works were based on a philosophy of cosmicism, where
human beings were mere flyspecks in the great ointment of time.
Lovecraft's "outer gods" were not really gods...just creatures
from another time, and the actual true inhabitants of the earth.
They were not out to destory humans, or eat them, or scare them.
To Cthulhu and Yog-Soggoth, humans were no more than ants.
"They do not care," Lovecraft wrote, "and that explains the
universe."
But Derleth changed all that, dividing up the outer gods into
good guys and bad guys, battling for control of the earth, with
humans actually fighting back and (sometimes) winning. In essence,
it became a space-opera. Lovecraft, in one of his letters, remarked
that Derleth was not a deep thinker..."Little earth-gazing
Augie Derleth" he wrote. (I'm paraphrasing from memory here)
Derleth just didn't get it.
Lovecraft also left details in his story purpously vague. He
did not sit down and plot out all the connections between the
"outer gods", throwing in just enough references to tip off
the reader and imply the connection (the repeated names and
_The Necronomicon_ being the main device for this). Derleth
(and other later writers, like Brian Lumley) filled in all
the little details, transforming it into a galatic soap opera.
Derleth had nothing but good intentions; and his efforts on
behalf of Lovecraft, founding Arkham House, etc. are one of
the main reasons Lovecraft is still around. But it terms of
his own written contributions, he helped to build a distorted
image of Lovecraft's work and altered the philosophical
grounding of HPL's writing.
Darin Powell
Syracuse University
"I think its time to have a talk with my kids
I'll just tell 'em what my daddy told me:
You'll never amount to nothing."
-- Faith No More
Hoffman Naty
:
:
: >> Re Lovecraft - does anyone know if/where it is possible to find the "notes by
: >> Lovecraft" on which Derleth claims he based his horrible pastiches?
:
: T. Kurt Bond writes:
:
: >I've seen refences to HPL's notebooks in other sources than Derleth; I don't
: >remember seeing any references to a published version. Some of the stories
: >that Derleth listed Lovecraft as a co-author on seemed to be completely written
: >by Derleth inspired by a sentence or two of HPL's.
:
:
: Ramsey Campbell, in is introduction to "Cold Print", mentions
: Lovecraft's "commonplace book" or notebook, which he used to
: draw inspiration for his mythos tales. But I've never seen it --
: I don't know if its published (like the letters) or not.
I feel a bit silly answering my own question, but I recently went over parts
of HPL's biography by De Camp, and (I think in the last chapter, which
covers the publication of HPL's works after his death) it says there that
HPL's "commonplace book" was published, I think under a title like
("Lovecraft's Notes and Commonplace Book"), by some amateur publisher (I don't
have the biography here).
Now the question is, how to find it, and how much would it be worth ;-).
A related question - the same biography claims that some of HPL's work is in
the public domain, either due to being published first in amateur magazines,
or due to expiration. Now THIS is interesting - if anyone knows exactly what
works are in public domain, and what the legal status of "publishing" them on
the net would be, we`de have a nice little net.project on our hands.
This is especially attractive for those "rare gems" that are almost impossible
to find, being out of print for a long time.
Comments, anyone?
Naty Hoffman
hn...@iil.intel.com
Roger Squires
>
>A related question - the same biography claims that some of HPL's work is in
>the public domain, either due to being published first in amateur magazines,
>or due to expiration. Now THIS is interesting - if anyone knows exactly what
>works are in public domain, and what the legal status of "publishing" them on
>the net would be, we`de have a nice little net.project on our hands.
>
>This is especially attractive for those "rare gems" that are almost impossible
>to find, being out of print for a long time.
>
You have just restated the purpose of the Gutenberg Project.
If you contact HA...@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (the administrator)
or FTP to mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (or numeric 128.174.201.12)
you can look at the various readme files that explain the
details of contributing to the Project. There is also a
Usenet list you can look at (search for "gutn" at the
newsgroup level). There is also a listserv you may subscribe to.
One of these readme files states that
the Project will assist with hardware (scanner) use, but
you will probably have to acquire a scanner yourself.
I was conversing with a person who is scanning and proofreading
Bibles for the Online Bible project, and he tells me that
a SoundBlaster board makes proofreading a snap (use an editor
to replace punctuation with words).
As for copyrights, here is the PG guideline:
"Copyright considerations: easiest rule of thumb is printed in the US,
and over 74 years ago. However, we will do more extensive searches in
cases where such an edition is not available."
You have to mail copies of copyright statements from the book
to various people, etc., which is all explained in one of
the readmes.
I hope you do actually have the gumption to start this project.
It is a good idea.
Roger Squires
rsqu...@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
IDC C.E.C Team Ext-5980
: In article <1992Jul28.0...@ilx018.intel.com> you write:
: >
: >A related question - the same biography claims that some of HPL's work is in
: >the public domain, either due to being published first in amateur magazines,
: >or due to expiration. Now THIS is interesting - if anyone knows exactly what
: >works are in public domain, and what the legal status of "publishing" them on
: >the net would be, we`de have a nice little net.project on our hands.
: >
: >This is especially attractive for those "rare gems" that are almost impossible
: >to find, being out of print for a long time.
: >
:
: You have just restated the purpose of the Gutenberg Project.
I am aware of the Gutenberg project - but I didn't know how to contact them
- thanks!
But before I contact them, I need something to go on. I don't know which of
HPL's work is in the public domain, and I doubt that the Gutenberg Project is
the right place to ask. After I have the names of a few uncopyrighted stories -
then I plan to contact them.
The question is, if anyone knows which of HPL's work is in the public domain.
:
:
: As for copyrights, here is the PG guideline:
: "Copyright considerations: easiest rule of thumb is printed in the US,
: and over 74 years ago. However, we will do more extensive searches in
: cases where such an edition is not available."
Well - I don't think anything of HPL's was actually published before 1918 - and
does this mean I have to have the edition which was published then, to do the
copying from, or if the work is in public domain can I use a more recently
published copy?
Naty Hoffman
EMAIL: hn...@iil.intel.com
Roger Squires
>
>Well - I don't think anything of HPL's was actually published before 1918 - and
>does this mean I have to have the edition which was published then, to do the
>copying from, or if the work is in public domain can I use a more recently
>published copy?
>
My understanding is that yes, you have to possess an edition
older than 1918. Now, if you can demonstrate that the work
is in the public domain, this would be another story.
And here is where you need more knowledge than I have about
coyprights...
>Naty Hoffman
>
>EMAIL: hn...@iil.intel.com
Roger
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
>As for _The_King_in_Yellow_, that book is currently in my top spot for
>weird tale acquisitions, so if anyone knows of a source for a cheap
>(preferably paperback) edition, let me know.
Good luck, Fiona. As far as I know, THE KING IN YELLOW was reprinted in
two paperback editions, one by Ace, and the other a "trade" pb by Dover. I've
never seen either one in all my used book store hauntings.
--
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
Chris Jarocha-Ernst Rutgers University Computing Services
Internet: c...@gandalf.rutgers.edu BITnet: JAROCHAERNST@ZODIAC
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
[about some critical books on Lovecraft]
>I bought mine used; I suspect that the university in the town where I bought
>them had a class that required them, because there were several copies of each
>spread out amongst the used bookstores in town, along with the Arkham House
>editions of Lovecraft.
Ah. And which town was that, Kurt. Coincidentally, I happen to be taking an
impropmtu vacation in that vicinity...
>> Re Lovecraft - does anyone know if/where it is possible to find the "notes
>> by Lovecraft" on which Derleth claims he based his horrible pastiches?
>I've seen refences to HPL's notebooks in other sources than Derleth; I don't
>remember seeing any references to a published version. Some of the stories
>that Derleth listed Lovecraft as a co-author on seemed to be completely
>written by Derleth inspired by a sentence or two of HPL's.
That's precisely the case. In SOME NOTES ON H. P. LOVECRAFT, for example,
Derleth spells out exactly which fragments he based THE LURKER AT THE
THRESHHOLD on. There've been a couple of editions of HPL's "Commonplace Book"
(his idea book) that have shown which ideas inspired which stories (both
pastiches and The Real Thing). Necronomicon Press had an edition of the
Commonplace Book most recently; I don't know if it's still in print. An
earlier, incomplete version can be found in an article in one of Derleth's
anthologies of Lovecraftiana: MARGINALIA or SOMETHING ABOUT CATS or one of
those.
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
>Necronomicon Press listed _The Notes and Commonplace Book_ by H.P.
>Lovecraft (number 28) in catalogs they sent out in 1984. It sold for
>$2.95. A catalog from 1985 no longer lists this book, though.
>The last address I have for them is:
> Necronomicon Press
> 101 Lockwood Street
> West Warwick, Rhode Island 02893
The address is correct.
The '90-'91 BOOKS IN PRINT (the only one I have access to at the moment)
lists the Commonplace Book as being in print. The particulars:
Commonplace Book. Schultz, David E., ed. 116 p. (Orig.) 1987. pap. 9.95
(ISBN 0-940884-05-4). Necronomicon.
Nec Press is really a small-time operation, run out the house of Marc Michaud's
parents. They collate the pamphlets on the living room floor (or at least did
the last I'd heard). You should send an extra $1 or so along with your order
for postage and handling.
I'll have to bring a copy of their latest catalog in to work. I seem to get a
number of requests for info on them.
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
>A related question - the same biography claims that some of HPL's work is in
>the public domain, either due to being published first in amateur magazines,
>or due to expiration. Now THIS is interesting - if anyone knows exactly what
>works are in public domain, and what the legal status of "publishing" them on
>the net would be, we`de have a nice little net.project on our hands.
I suspect that part of the reason Arkham House agreed to let S. T. Joshi
develop a "definitive" Lovecraft corpus, based on the manuscripts, was that
these would in effect be "new" Lovecraft stories, and their copyrights could
thus be held by Arkham House for the next 50-75 years.
I would also suspect that the issue of what of HPL's was in PD would have come
up in LOVECRAFT STUDIES, Necronomicon Press's scholarly journal on HPL.
However, as I have but one issue of LS, and it's not in Rutgers's holdings, I
can't point to a definitive source.
Susan W. Stockwell
Speaking of _Necronomicon_'s floating around, I came across a comic
book version once. It was an oversized, hard cover bound black
book and cost 95 bucks. It was sealed in plastic, so you couldn't
look in.
My understanding was that Lovecraft referred to the hideous writings
of the Necronomicon, but never actually wrote it. Just as well; who
wants to go insane?
--
| |_| _ _ ____ /\_/\ Susan Winifred "Tattoo Me" Stockwell
\ \ | | | | || = o o = <<Los buhos no son como parecen>>
| | | | |_| | |== /^\ 650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu Ham: N6IDC
\_/ \___/ ||__| KITTENS FOR WORLD DOMINATION!!
Mika O. Latokartano
>
>Speaking of _Necronomicon_'s floating around, I came across a comic
>book version once. It was an oversized, hard cover bound black
>book and cost 95 bucks. It was sealed in plastic, so you couldn't
>look in.
Hmmm... You're sure it wasn't "Giger's Necronomicon", H.R. Giger's portfolio
of some of his art. The price would seem to fit...
>--
>| |_| _ _ ____ /\_/\ Susan Winifred "Tattoo Me" Stockwell
> \ \ | | | | || = o o = <<Los buhos no son como parecen>>
>| | | | |_| | |== /^\ 650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu Ham: N6IDC
> \_/ \___/ ||__| KITTENS FOR WORLD DOMINATION!!
- Mika
--
[ Mika O. Latokartano Internet : m...@jyu.fi m...@vipunen.hut.fi ]
[ m...@puukko.hut.fi Decnet : m...@jylk.decnet Bitnet : m...@finjyu.bitnet ]
Ken Alexander
>Good luck, Fiona. As far as I know, THE KING IN YELLOW was reprinted in
>two paperback editions, one by Ace, and the other a "trade" pb by Dover. I've
>never seen either one in all my used book store hauntings.
THE KING IN YELLOW is extremely hard to find. I've only seen it twice in
all of the used bookstores that I've been to. The first copy I found was
an original from the 18th century, which I promptly bought. :-)
The other was a more recent hardcover reprint (with each page identical
to the ones in the earlier edition, rather than reset in new type),
but this second one promptly vanished.
intr...@cats.ucsc.edu
> Speaking of _Necronomicon_'s floating around, I came across a comic
> book version once. It was an oversized, hard cover bound black
> book and cost 95 bucks. It was sealed in plastic, so you couldn't
> look in.
>
> writings of the Necronomicon, but never actually wrote it.
> Just as well; who wants to go insane?
H.R. Giger, the artist who designed the Alien and some of the sets for
the movie "Alien". A lot of his art looks like the Alien looks, but
picture that combined with lots of rotting genitalia. It's really
great horror art. Unfortunately, unlike Lovecraft to all accounts,
Giger seems to take his work a little too seriously, and seems like
something of a kook.
Personally, I find this speculation on where the Necronomicon came
from a little offensive to the ear. Even Giger himself babbles on in
one of his books about how Lovecraft "had friends who were versed in
the occult," so he "surely had access to a copy of the original
Necronomicon". I find that so ridiculous as to be completely
absurd, and anybody who goes around saying the Necronomicon is a real
book complete with references to the Mad Arab is either pulling your
leg or is possessed of an extremely immature mind. Even if Lovecraft
were the type of character who would go poring through books of occult
literature, the type of sorcery and alien beings mentioned in his
stories has absolutely nothing to do with legitimate occult science.
What it had to do with, is fantastic fiction. I don't know anybody
who goes around looking for spiritual enlightnment in a copy of
Weird Tales.
Any publisher, BTW, who publishes a book called "Necronomicon" is well
aware of the audience they'll be cashing into with the title.
Azathoth the Mad
Personally, I find this speculation on where the Necronomicon came
from a little offensive to the ear. Even Giger himself babbles on in
one of his books about how Lovecraft "had friends who were versed in
the occult," so he "surely had access to a copy of the original
Necronomicon". I find that so ridiculous as to be completely
absurd, and anybody who goes around saying the Necronomicon is a real
book complete with references to the Mad Arab is either pulling your
leg or is possessed of an extremely immature mind. Even if Lovecraft
were the type of character who would go poring through books of occult
literature, the type of sorcery and alien beings mentioned in his
stories has absolutely nothing to do with legitimate occult science.
What it had to do with, is fantastic fiction. I don't know anybody
who goes around looking for spiritual enlightnment in a copy of
Weird Tales.
Any publisher, BTW, who publishes a book called "Necronomicon" is well
aware of the audience they'll be cashing into with the title.
it's true. actually, while reading a collection of hpl's letters i found
a passage where he specifically blows to hell the whole necronomicon-as-fact
theory. there was somthing about the name "abdul al-hazred" or whatever
being a character from his childhood, like children playing cowboys and
indians want to be billy the kid or something, hpl made up this arabic guise.
--
Azathoth the Mad };>
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
and with strange eons even Death may die..." -H.P. Lovecraft
gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
>Lovecraft's "outer gods" were not really gods...just creatures
> from another time, and the actual true inhabitants of the earth.
> They were not out to destory humans, or eat them, or scare them.
> To Cthulhu and Yog-Soggoth, humans were no more than ants.
> "They do not care," Lovecraft wrote, "and that explains the
> universe."
I agree that this seems to be an underlying theme in Lovecraft's work: the
meaninglessness of existence and the lack of any special meaning to the human
race, particularly vis-a-vis the Cthulhu Mythos gods.
__But__, one thing has always bothered me: if the Mythos gods are, by and
large, totally unconcerned with humans, in what way do they interact with them,
e.g. Mythos cult followers? That is, I've been under the impression that the
gods can be summoned, that the gods can be worshipped, that the gods can be
contacted. Aren't human followers supposed to initiate the raising of Cthulhu
himself from beneath the waves? I admit it's been a few months since I've read
HPL stuff, and I may in fact be getting some of my impressions for the 'Call of
Cthulhu' RPG, but I've gotten the impression that the gods are in _some_ way
conscious of humans, not just completely ignorant or inattentive to them.
Anyone care to elucidate?
Robert
KYLE CASSIDY
>In article <1992Aug4...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu> gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:
concerning lovecrafts deities:
[some things deleted in the interest of space]
>The Old Ones treat us as a curiosity, nothing more. The point is they don't
>care if we live or die. This is in contrast to human gods who are either
>angry and destructive or loving. The Old Ones are neither, they're indifferent. Also, the raising of R'leyh is not necessarily by human followers. Human cultists are just the most currently active because we are currently the
>dominant species on earth and cultists hope to garner Cthulhu's favor by such
>an action. I believe that only Nyarlathotep has a direct interest in human
>activities and that is only for his own amusement.
> None of this is quoted from any single source, just the general feeling
>and ideas I got from reading Lovecraft. Any other opinions out there?
a case in point comes to mind from "mountians of madness" where the old
ones, upon being woken up, disect one of the men and one of the dogs --
thereby demonstrating (in my mind) a curiosity about humans -- similar to
the way the humans had treated them.
however -- i think that the most important thing to keep in mind, is that
lovecraft himself was not a god and was subject to the same falabilities
that we all have (actulally, he was more prone to falability than most of
us) and not all of his works really HAVE to "fit" into whatever idea we have
of his mythos. he used what worked and he was an excellent story teller.
that's all that should really matter.
kyle cassidy
Jamey Jacob
the reader beleive that mankind's (and womankind's) laws and
cultures had no signifigance or relevance in the greater cosmos.
That's where his "gods" come in, i.e. godzillas that would
crush you like we would grapes. This probably stemmed from
HP's own personality since he was pretty much an atheist.
Bob Cannard @ PCB x5565
In article <cass88...@elan.glassboro.edu>, cass...@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
... stuff deleted ...
|> ones, upon being woken up, disect one of the men and one of the dogs --
|> thereby demonstrating (in my mind) a curiosity about humans -- similar to
|> the way the humans had treated them.
Take care, the "old ones" of "At the Mountains of Madness" are quite distinct
from the "Great Old Ones" of popular conception. At various points in their
history they were at war with just about every race of beings in existence,
in particular with Cthulhu and his (its?) Star-spawn.
*** spoilers ***
The Elder Things (as I prefer to call them) were rather startled, to put it
mildly, on being awakened by this bunch of odd bipedal creatures - a race of
beings that didn't even exist when the Elder Things were deep frozen - and
their quadrapedal slaves (the dogs). So they fought (in self defence; the
dogs attacked them on sight), won the battle, dissected a few of the bodies
(as any self-respecting scientist would, and as the humans had done to them),
found them good to eat and carted a few off as rations. You'd be pretty
hungry after being asleep for a few million years, too.
Lovecraft makes some important points about these creatures. Firstly, their
race was responsible, directly or indirectly, for the creation of virtually
all life on Earth. Secondly, the very matter of which they are composed is
similar to our own, unlike the Star-spawn of Cthulhu. And finally, "they were
*men*" - our ancestors, with an attitude to life not that far removed from
our own. All this is chronicled in depth in ATMOM. There is reason to believe
that HPL had a soft spot for these things (see de Camp's biography). So do I.
By contrast, Cthulhu and the Great Old Ones are totally alien and don't give
a stuff about us.
--
bob_c...@mentorg.com "Mr. Cthulhu? This is your wake-up call..."
Exprssed opinions are not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corporation.
marc.colten
I think it's tough to say they "don't care". Read "The Call Of Cthulhu"
and see what happened to the sailors who accidentally woke him up, and
waht have happened to the whole world. Read The Dunwich Horror and
see what might have happened if his followers had their way. Strong
stuff.
marc colten
Darin M. Powell
>>Lovecraft's "outer gods" were not really gods...just creatures
>> from another time, and the actual true inhabitants of the earth.
>> They were not out to destory humans, or eat them, or scare them.
>> To Cthulhu and Yog-Soggoth, humans were no more than ants.
>> "They do not care," Lovecraft wrote, "and that explains the
>> universe."
Robert replies:
>I agree that this seems to be an underlying theme in Lovecraft's work: the
>meaninglessness of existence and the lack of any special meaning to the human
>race, particularly vis-a-vis the Cthulhu Mythos gods.
>
>__But__, one thing has always bothered me: if the Mythos gods are, by and
>large, totally unconcerned with humans, in what way do they interact with them,
>e.g. Mythos cult followers? That is, I've been under the impression that the
>gods can be summoned, that the gods can be worshipped, that the gods can be
>contacted. Aren't human followers supposed to initiate the raising of Cthulhu
>himself from beneath the waves? I admit it's been a few months since I've read
>HPL stuff, and I may in fact be getting some of my impressions for the 'Call of
>Cthulhu' RPG, but I've gotten the impression that the gods are in _some_ way
>conscious of humans, not just completely ignorant or inattentive to them.
>
>Anyone care to elucidate?
Sure. The human worshippers of the gods are merely tools. They
are not necessary to the return of the gods...Cthulhu will rise
again when "the stars are right." Humans who worship Cthulhu
et. al. are like the primitive people who worshipped the sun:
They are awed by it, pray to it, and believe their prayers affect
it...But they are only fooling themselves.
Human beings will collect bugs or have ant farms; but that doesn't
mean that they regard the ants as worthy of great concern.
Now, some of the lesser creatures do have contact with humans,
as with the "Deep Ones" of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" or the
creatures from Yuggoth in "The Whisperer In The Darkness." But
these creatures are not the "gods." The actual "gods": Azathoth,
Yog-Sotthoth, Cthulhu, Shub-Niggurath and to a lesser extent
Narylathotep don't really _care_ what happens to humans. They'll
use them, allow humans to worship them, but they really don't
care what happens to them. Human beings are just pawns, useful
in bringing the gods back but not important.
The later pastiches by August Derleth and others distorted this.
With Lovecrafat, this philosphy behind the "gods" was a well-
thought out belief, developed in the stories over time and
culminating in his later works, and based on his disbelief in
God and fascintation for the depth of space. Derleth, on the
other hand (like man readers who disaprage Lovecraft) saw
only humans battling bad monsters from space.
Darin Powell
Syracuse University
The Land Of Ice And Snow
Otis Howard Viles
explanation of it, seems to be highly nihilistic, maybe the gods pay some
attention to their worshippers just to break the boredom. If I were
immortal, or damn near so, I'd certainly need something to break the tedium.
Anything can get tiresome after eternity.
--
===============================================================================
vi...@matt.alma.edu "The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm
vi...@crs.cl.msu.edu is Data, and the Data is Life."
"Hammersmith" -- The Player's Litany
steve hick
Anyone out there at UCLA or in LA willing to check this citation out? John
Dee was a renowned bibliophile, occultist and orientalist, and I have seen a
bibliography of his personnal collection of MSS which indicates he was into
some wierd stuff. I suspect though all this indicates is that Lovecraft was
an excellent researcher.
Steve
Author: Hazred, Abdul.
Title: Al Azif, or the Necronomicon, translated from the Arab by Dr.
John Dee, being the text recovered from antique lands, with
some annotations by divers hands. London, John Dee, 1589.
Description: 544 leaves illus. 26 cm.
Subjects: Spirit writings.
Irem (Ruins)
Saudi Arabia -- Description and travel.
Other entries: Dee, John, 1527-1608.
Call numbers: UCLA URL BF 1598 H21aE
Jamey Jacob
There are several out there, and I've checked out all
of them that were listed in UC campuses on-line catalogue [sic].
I'd have to check my references to see which one this is exactly,
but most weren't bothering with. There was one that was called
"Al Azif: The Necronomicon" with a forward by L. Sprague de Camp
with the main text written in the original Duriac script (which
of course is now extinct except for the small Iraqi village of
Duria). He had an interesting and amusing story about how this
was smuggled out of Iraq by the government as a plot to destroy
all of our esteemed archeologists, since any of theirs who examined
the manuscript disappeared in mysterious circumstances }->.
BTW, I don't think Duria or Duriac exists, but it was a nice
attempt. I didn't see if anyone who could read Arabic could make
sense of it. (Has anyone out there who knows what I'm talking
about tried?) Just in case you want the info, I think this
one was from UCR or UCSB. They did have a copy of the Cthaat
Aquadingenb by G. Wertz circa. 1890? at UCLA, but it has been "missing"
for quite some time.
I did ask for this one on interlibrary loan, but I would have
to check to see what I got. I'm not sure if I got a response
on this request. I'm not postive about this fact, but the
biography on John Dee I've read didn't ever mention that he
knew Arabic.
____________________________________________________________________
"common human laws and interests "I wouldn't exactly call it a
and emotions have no validity a happy dogma, but it makes me
or signifigance in the vast feel better about not
cosmos-at-large..." getting laid..."
-HP Lovecraft -R. Carter
____________________________________________________________________
steve hick
I did ask for this one on interlibrary loan, but I would have
to check to see what I got. I'm not sure if I got a response
on this request. I'm not postive about this fact, but the
biography on John Dee I've read didn't ever mention that he
knew Arabic.
As the citation indicates the book is 400 years old, I doubt if you could ILL it, as it would be kept in the
rare book room. Either that, or it is an artifact created by an amused bibliographer. Also Dee
probably knew Arabic, as some of his most noteworth works were the translations of Arabic
mathematical treatises (see 3rd below).
Dee would have been a good choice for Lovecraft - an important figure in the scientific revolution,
translator of Arabic treatises, and occultist.
However, as no graduate students at UCLA have gone mad, probably an artifact.
Steve
Bibliography of Dee's MSS:
Author: Dee, John, 1527-1608.
Title: List of manuscripts formerly owned by Dr. John Dee, with preface
and identifications by M. R. James ... [Oxford] Printed at the
Oxford university press for the Bibliographical society, 1921.
Description: 2 p. l., [3]-39, [1] p.
Series: Supplement to the Bibliographical Society's Transactions ; no.
1.
Notes: Reprint of the catalogue of Dee's manuscript library, taken from
an autograph manuscript made in 1583, now in the Gale
collection at Trinity college, Cambridge, and published in The
diary of Dr. John Dee, edited for the Camden society by J. O.
Halliwell-Phillipps, 1842. cf. Pref.
Other entries: James, Montague Rhodes, 1862-1936.
Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. (James Orchard), 1820-1889.
CUDGW2C.D900530.T100941-0106.
Bibliographical society, London. Transactions. Suppl.
Call numbers: UCD Main Lib Z671.L48 suppl.no.1
UCD Main Lib Z671.L48 suppl.no.1 Spec Coll: Rare
These include many occult works, and Arabic works on mathematics!
Interest in the occult:
20.
Author: Dee, John, 1527-1608.
Title: A true & faithful relation of what passed for many years between
Dr. John Dee ... and some spirits : tending ... to a general
alteration of most states and kingdomes in the world ... As
also the letters of sundry great men ... to the said D. Dee ;
with a pref. ... / by Meric Casaubon. Glasgow : Antonine
Publishing Co. ; Portmeirion, North Wales : Golden Dragon
Press, 1974.
Description: [76], 448, 45 p., [3] leaves of plates : ports. ; 33 cm.
Notes: "... an edition bound in cloth and jacketed, limited to one
thousand copies."
Facsimile of the original ed. printed by D. Maxwell for T.
Garthwait, London, 1659.
Reports of seances in collaboration with Edward Kelley who
professed to be able to raise spirits.
Subjects: Spiritualism.
Psychical research.
Other entries: Kelley, Edward, 1555-1595.
Casaubon, Meric, 1599-1671.
Call numbers: UCSB Library BF1601 .D4 1659a Special Coll
Note: UCSB owns no. 20.
Translation of Arabic work on Mathematics:
25.
Author: Euclides.
Title: Euclid's Elements of geometry. In XV. books: with a supplement
of divers propositions and corollaries. To which is added, a
treatise of regular solids, by Campane and Flussas. Likewise
Euclid's data: and Marinus his preface thereunto annexed. Also
a treatise of the divisions of superficies, ascribed to
Machomet Bagdedine, but published by Commandine, at the
request of John Dee of London; whose preface to the said
treatise declares it to be the worke of Euclide, the author of
these Elements. Published by the care and industry of John
Leeke and George Serle, students in the mathematicks. London:
Printed, by R. & W. Leybourn, for George Sawbridge ... 1661.
Description: [50], 650 (i.e. 680), [1] p. front. (port.), illus. (diagrs.),
fold. table. 31 cm.
Notes: Signatures: *2, A3, a-e4, A-Z4, (A)-(C)4, Aa-Yy4, Zz1, Aaa-Zzz4,
Aaaa-Iiii4, Kkkk-Tttt2.
Numbers 177-208 repeated, no. 611-612 omitted in the paging.
Title within double line border; text within line border.
Marginal notes.
"John Dee, his mathematical preface": p. [11-50]
"A book of the divisions of superficies" has special title-page,
dated 1660.
Subjects: Geometry -- Early works to 1800.
Classification of sciences.
Other entries: Leake, John, ed.
Serle, George, ed.
Dee, John, 1527-1608.
Foix, Francois de, comte de Candale, 1502-1594.
Muhammad, al-Baghdadi.
Commandino, Federico, 1509-1575.
Call numbers: UCLA Clark * QA 31 E86 1661 f
Ken Alexander
Try looking up all of the other "books" that Lovecraft mentions in
various stories. The UCLA catalog lists lots of them, but of course
they're all "missing".
Bob Cannard @ PCB x5565
In article <166etq...@agate.berkeley.edu>, ja...@plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu (Jamey Jacob) writes:
|> About that Necronomicon book:
|> ...
|> biography on John Dee I've read didn't ever mention that he
|> knew Arabic.
Of course not. Dee translated from Olaus Wormius' Latin translation, as any
ful no...
--
bob_c...@mentorg.com "Human beings? ... Well, I suppose they are a
form of life, even if they are unspeakable"
intr...@cats.ucsc.edu
> As the citation indicates the book is 400 years old, I doubt if you
> translations of Arabic
> mathematical treatises (see 3rd below).
Seeing as this bibliography includes his translations as MSS. of his, then
if this supposed "Necronomicon" was not included in the bibliography, it
is more than likely one form or another of B.S.
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- be very certain about this --
any publisher which even would BOTHER to print books on the occult and
"magic" is well aware of the various sources of interest in that subject,
including the popularity of horror literature. Any publisher, then, who
publishes a book entitled "Necronomicon" is ALL TOO AWARE of what that
title implies, and what audience they are buying into when they slap that
title on the cover of their book.
And think about it... if there was really a MS. available which seemed as
credible a "Necronomicon" as this library reference would imply, the copy-
right has LONG since run out on it. Hell, August Derleth couldn't have
ever even nagged you about this one! Don't you think that any publishing
house who was EVER interested in Lovecraft's stories would have printed a
copy of this MS. by now, in the attempt to catch at least a couple of
bucks from the market for Lovecraftiana?
But suppose -- just suppose -- that John Dee really DID translate a book
by an Abdul Alhazred. Does anyone here really think it would bear any
resemblance at all to the types of things Lovecraft talked about in his
fiction? John Dee was an occult scientist, and as such was not at all
interested in the type of things that go on in the kind of pseudo-
satanic rituals popularized by fantastic fiction.
One more thing -- it seems unlikely that there would be an author by
the name of Abdul Alhazred in the first place, unless the mistake was
made by John Dee as a product of his upbringing and prejudices. In the
"Call of Cthulhu" role-playing game they have a little article which
attempts, in an amusing way, to foster the belief that there may well
be a "Necronomicon" somewhere in the world. In this article, the author
explained how "Abdul Alhazred" was not in reality an Arabic name, and
they concocted a feasible-enough sounding work-around as to what the
actual Arabic name would be. They explained that whoever first wrote
down "Abdul Alhazred" was "mistaken", and just "heard it wrong".
Joe Pfeiffer
Steve
Somebody on the net did in fact check it out; the librarians deny they
have the book. After all, having something like that imposes a duty
that they not allow the information out...
-Joe.
Sean Erwin
---Sean
--
"I believe in the rights of people to own firearms.... Private guns makes
every person equal, no matter what/who he/she is." ---Lu Gang, post-
doctoral student in Physics at the University of Iowa, who shot and killed two
of his professors, a rival post-doc, two staff, and then himself in 1991.
Ken Alexander
>Does UCLA have _Unaussprechliche Texte_ (or whatever it is called) as well?
Lovecraft's mixture of real books and fictional books has caused a lot
of confusion. The Golden Bough, for example, is a real anthropology book
about magic. Most of the other books are just made up, and so no one
(including UCLA) has them.
The UCLA *library catalog*, on the other hand, contains lots of
fictional books mentioned in Lovecraft. Obviously some library
catalog administrator was having a bit too much fun wondering how many
wide-eyed weenies would get all excited upon finding his fake entries.
If you're on the internet, you can look them up yourself. Do this:
telnet melvyl.ucop.edu
vt100
<return>
start cat com
set libraries ucla
At this point, you can do your searching.
Examples of title word searches that turn up interesting results:
find tw necronomicon (2 results: one real, one fake)
find tw vermiis
find tw unaussprechlichen
You can also search by personal author:
find pa von junzt
Have fun.
Darin M. Powell
>Author: Hazred, Abdul.
>Title: Al Azif, or the Necronomicon, translated from the Arab by Dr.
> John Dee, being the text recovered from antique lands, with
> some annotations by divers hands. London, John Dee, 1589.
>Description: 544 leaves illus. 26 cm.
>
>Subjects: Spirit writings.
> Irem (Ruins)
> Saudi Arabia -- Description and travel.
>
>Other entries: Dee, John, 1527-1608.
>
>Call numbers: UCLA URL BF 1598 H21aE
This is bogus. Trust me. Somone in that library is having a
little bit of fun.
"Saudi Arabia -- Description and travel" ... I'm on the
floor, broken up with laghter. Someone has a very sick
sense of humor
Darin Powell
Syracuse University
Darin M. Powell
>
>Of course not. Dee translated from Olaus Wormius' Latin translation, as any
>ful no...
Heh, heh, heh, heh. Too much. Watch out, you're gonna
warp some impressionable minds with this Necronomicon
stuff.
Darin Powell
Syracuse University
P.S. My edition of the original Latin translation is for sale.
Only $100. I can't keep lugging it around. Too heavy. Plus,
for all you who are interested, I've also got this chinese
puzzle box I can't seem to open. It's yours, cheap...
Your Heinous
I am so glad to see this. I am very tired of seeing trashy garbage
published as "The REAL" necronomicon.
Al-Hazred is indeed a made up character from HPL's childhood. Lin Carter's
biography said that it was a pun on Hazard, which was the name of some
of his relatives, or something.
As for the "rituals" that Anton LaVey includes in his books, to summon
Lovecraftian entities, etc..., He invented them in his own mind.
BTW, if you believe the Necronomicon is real, I have a copy of
"The Pnakotic Fragments" I want to sell you...
--Judex--