The Sword and Laser discussion

So I just read "Call of Cthulhu" and I found it reads like a non-writer-non-storyteller had a brilliant concept for a mythos and wrote a basic framework upon which to hang his concept. Lovecraft seems to spend most of his time telling us how scary a thing is, very little time showing us how scary it is, and when he does attempt to show us it's actually not scary at all. Are there any Cthulhu books with compelling stories and well-developed characters that I should read?

I think it's hard for people of this time period to understand the horror that Lovecraft was trying to capture. Back then, many more people than now were religious, and the sciences were not as advanced as they are now. The concepts he hinges his story on are familiar and thus not incredibly frightening.

Moreover, being as he wrote in short story format most of the time, it's difficult to flesh out characters in short, tight spaces...particularly when it's not the characters being featured so much as the dread of realizing that the universe is filled with titanic things we have difficulty conceptualizing and which have no care about humanity at all. He was a mood-setter...not a plot-pusher.

All that being said, the stories of Lovecraft's I like the best are the ones which don't deal with the Cthulhu mythos at all, really. I loved "The Lurking Fear" and "The Rats in the Walls."

"At the Mountains of Madness" develops things a lot more. You might find it beneficial to check out the HP Lovecraft Literary Podcast's backlog of episodes - having to Lovecraft aficionados break things down and introduce you to his body of work as well as mention or suggest other writers who played in the mythos while they corresponded with Lovecraft really helped me appreciate WHY he was so influential and important.

For me the 'Lovecraftian Horror' is this monolithic thing that is beyond comprehension. Its mere existence destroys all rational understanding of the universe and our place in it. To know it is madness. So I think Lovecraft is best when you never see anything. You get it secondhand from poets and madmen. That being said I haven't read any of his longer works and I do like modern works that are more graphic.

Matthew wrote: "For me the 'Lovecraftian Horror' is this monolithic thing that is beyond comprehension. Its mere existence destroys all rational understanding of the universe and our place in it..."

So it's basically the Total Perspective Vortex. Hmmm...

Charles Stross recently came up with a possible explanation for the source of Lovecraft's horror on his blog. Basically, advances in astronomy and physics over a short period meant:

"the universe had expanded by two orders of magnitude in age and nine orders of magnitude in size (as measured by the number of stars) during Lovecraft's life...Lovecraft interpreted the expansion of his universe as a thing of horror, a changing cosmic scale factor that ground humanity down into insignificance."

This isn't as overwhelming to those of us who were born into a 10-15 billion year old universe with thousands of galaxies and billions and billions of stars. But I find in general, a lot of horror fiction doesn't age well.

If most horror fiction is metaphors for the fears of an age, older horror isn't going to be as frightening as cultural sensitivities change--not without some updating. I've noticed a lot of current-day fiction described as "Lovecraftian" is usually not about cosmic horror and existential dread, but instead plucky genre heroes fighting Cthulhu-esque beasties in lieu of vampires, zombies, or whatever. I.e., the works of Lovecraft as a Monster Manual for genre authors.

We have to remember to the social upheaval that was going on - first WWI, then the Jazz age, then the Depression...I think of this period of the beginning of the ever-increasing fast pace of advancing technology. Pretty much everyone at that point was having to come to terms with the 'unknown'. Nowadays, it's not so much the unknown that scares us, but the ways that people might manipulate known factors. We're frightened more by the Frankensteins than the ever-expanding cosmos.

Love the historical context stuff, especially:

""the universe had expanded by two orders of magnitude in age and nine orders of magnitude in size (as measured by the number of stars) during Lovecraft's life".

Does understanding the historical context ever make you enjoy a book more than you would have otherwise?

Katherine wrote: "Does understanding the historical context ever make you enjoy a book more than you would have otherwise"

Yes. Definitely with Lovecraft. I studied it in an English course and it forever explained to my why I stopped reading horror.

For movies at least modern horror is often disgusting but it doesn't terrify me the way Lovecraft does. I don't know what that says about me. But my professor described Lovecraft as "anti-enlightenment" in the sense that in Lovecraft any kind of ultimate knowledge is horrifying and maddening. Now I can't look at it any other way and that notion is what has always terrified me and is one of few things that does so to this day.

Joe Informatico wrote: This isn't as overwhelming to those of us who were born into a 10-15 billion year old universe with thousands of galaxies and billions and billions of stars.

My counter argument to that would be that we all start as children with a limited (and ultimately (unless I'm particularly egotistic)) self centered view of the world. As we grow our worldview expands and gains complexity. However, one common point is that we all must gain a view that is generally optomistic (the world and people are generally good and everything will be okay as long as we don't screw it up) or pessimistic (the world as we know it is a thin veneer on a terrible and horrific ultimate realtiy that will kill you if you know to much about it). Or somewhere inbetween. Lovecraft embodies the uber-pessimistic in a way that challenges everything I hold dear. By comparison a scary aristocratic dude who wants to drink my blood or snuff films like Saw, Hostel, etc. just seem quaint.

Rachel wrote: We're frightened more by the Frankensteins than the ever-expanding cosmos.

That's very interesting but I think I'm just too optimistic. I think all the Frankensteins and Fausts of this world are redeemable. They are ultimately just people. The idea that everything that human civilization is built on is just insignificant and powerless against the onslaught of a cruel and malevolent universe is something I can never have any possible hope of changing. It's super subjective and personal but Lovecraft redefined the word horrific for me and I have yet to come across anything that changes that.

I think that Lovecraft is a better writer than people here are giving him credit for. I agree with many of the points about putting him in chronological context. An important part of that is his interest in the psuedo science and creative history of the Spiritualism movement of the early 20th Century, a good example is Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Much of the same writings that influenced Lovecraft and Robert E Howard also influenced the early Nazi thinking, and for many of the same reasons, such as reduced economic status, social upheaval, and a general sense of entitlement.

You could spend years trying to untangle the psychological Goirdion knot that was H.P. Lovecraft, but I think the great thing about "The Call of Cthulhu" is the story structure.

First off, this is an epistolary short story, much like Dracula. This is a great tool in psychological horror because it dribbles out second hand information, and builds suspense towards the big reveal at the end.

These narratives are pieced together over the course of the story from all over the world, from different times in history. This is a great way to give dimensionality to the story, now the threat has context through space and time.

The cult is a fun addition to the story because not only do you have a supernatural threat, but a good old fashioned conspiracy to silence those that stumble upon the truth.

I don't think this is Lovecraft's best story. I am always a little surprised that the Mythos has gotten the attention that it has. "The Rats in the Walls" is much better, without so much as a tentacle. And yet, I have a little stuffed Cthulhu above my desk. In any case, I think "Shadow Over Innsmouth" is a much better horror story, while "At the Mountains of Maddness feels more like an adventure.

Clark Ashton Smith is the author who took over the Elder Gods after Lovecraft's death. He expanded it greatly. though even during his lifetime Lovecraft encourages other pulp writers to use his creations, such as Cthulhu and the Necronomicon in their stories because he thought it added an air of continuity and mystery to the Mythos.

If only authors today were so generous.

Matthew wrote: "I think all the Frankensteins and Fausts of this world are redeemable. "

That's true enough, but I meant more that the things they build/create might not be so friendly towards us. I see now a trend for the "unnatural" scaring the shit out of people - and by unnatural I mean "man made" and not something that's a product of nature or the cosmos. I think this is a byproduct of the insistence on organics vs GMO's. Things like super viruses or zombie apocalypses brought on by man's actions and that sort of thing.

Daran wrote: "I am always a little surprised that the Mythos has gotten the attention that it has...[Clark Ashton Smith] expanded it greatly. though even during his lifetime Lovecraft encourages other pulp writers to use his creations, such as Cthulhu and the Necronomicon in their stories because he thought it added an air of continuity and mystery to the Mythos."

I think these two things are related--the Mythos is remembered more because it was a big sandbox Lovecraft invited a bunch of his pulp writer friends to play in. It was like the Pulp Era version of George R. R. Martin's Wild Cards series.

Joe Informatico wrote: "I've noticed a lot of current-day fiction described as "Lovecraftian" is usually not about cosmic horror and existential dread, but instead plucky genre heroes fighting Cthulhu-esque beasties in lieu of vampires, zombies, or whatever. I.e., the works of Lovecraft as a Monster Manual for genre authors. "

This. A thousand times this. Tentacles, crumbling tomes and the use of the words "squamous" or "rugose" do not a truly Lovecraftian story make. (Not that I haven't enjoyed my fair share of those.)

My favorite Lovecraft horror story might be The Colour Out of Space -- it really nails that existential dread thing.

Books that take a modern spin on the Lovecraftian "Old Ones/Elder Gods" that I've enjoyed are Charles Stross "Laundry" series, Ian Tregillis "Milkweed Triptich" and The Six-Gun Tarot

At The Mountains of Madness is quite creepy. We know now that there aren't 40,000ft mountains in Antarctica, but recent discoveries re: potential anoxic life and fossil life are relevant and scary.

I think if you really want the kind of horror Lovecraft kept trying to evoke, you should try The Music of Erich Zann. It doesn't go much into character development (it's only about 3.5k words long), but it also doesn't kill the fear by over explaining why the scary thing is so scary. Even Lovecraft thought it was one of his best stories.

You have to meet Lovecraft partway, and be willing to accept what terrifies him is to you, if not terrifying, at least interesting to read about. If you can't or won't do that, then Lovecraft will never really click for you. He works for me, even though I am not nearly as scared of gambrel rooftops as he seems to be, but I also grew up in a remote, wooded rural part of the country and read horror stories from the 19th and early 20th century at an early age, so I got used to them before realizing there was anything that needed to be gotten used to, if that makes any sense.

In terms of stories that rely a little less on the "I swear it was super terrifying, guys" -- give a try to "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" or "The Strange Case of Charles Dexter Ward." I think they have some solid chills beyond the existential.

I tried Lovecraft a while back but it just couldn't capture my interest. I remember it as too slow and too ambiguous.

On a related note, does anyone else listen to the Welcome to Night Vale podcast? It doesn't inspire horror, but it is based in lovecraftian imagery. It is absolutely hilarious, I highly recommend checking it out.

Night Vale is AWESOME.

For me anyway, precise description of the monster is bad. It detracts from the mystery and creepiness.

Ambiguity is an asset in horror writing, and often forgotten in this age of terrible "YA" and "paranormal" trash.

I definitely think that when it comes to horror the "show don't tell" rule is reversed.