|
Post by andydecker on Aug 6, 2010 10:22:45 GMT
S.T. Joshi - The Rise and Fall of the Cthulhu Mythos (Mythos Books, 2008, 322 pages)
"... working in the Lovecraft vein is by no means a recipe for aesthetic disaster. In the youthful writer, sedulous imitation can serve as a valuable steppingstone to the develpment of literary skills that can be put to better use elsewhere; for the experienced writer who seeks to mine Lovecraftian conceptions in a work purporting to have independent aestetic value, the exercise can result in an augementation of power and distinctiveness if those conceptions are used within the framework of the author´s own aestethic vision. Samuel Johnson´s blunt axiom, ´No man ever became great by imitation`remains true more than two centuries after its utterance. But those writers who do something more than mere imitation of Lovecraft have a chance to produce work that will live, and deserve to live."From The Rise and Fall if the Cthulhu MythosAt 323 pages this is a sometimes dense nevertheless interesting take on the history of the mythos and its evolution. Now Joshi has strong opinions about what is good and what not, so it is no surprise that you read familiar names if you know something about Mythos fiction. From HPL to Derleth to Bloch to Price to Lumley to Jeffrey Thomas. Of course this is sometimes downright nitpicky when lines from Lovecraft´s letters are presented as evidence where his literary heirs strayed from the path. I guess if you look at the whole Derleth debate as a serious academic topic this has merit, on the other hand, sometimes I asked myself who cares. Still, Joshi does an interesting job in sperating the different takes on Mythos fiction; he differentiates between the Lovecraft Mythos and the Derleth Mythos, as according to him there is a fundamental difference between the two. Which he backs up with evidence. I guess it is a matter of taste which version you like better: HPLs idea of powerful space aliens who just don´t give a damn if mankind exists or Derleth´s idea of "good" and "evil" gods who the hero can fight with a prayer and a starstone. Unfortunatly the latter idea has become the basis how all things Cthulhu are mostly seen today. Even if the casual interested reader will likely be bored to tears when when some letters are quoted again and again, this book is an interesting overview of Mythos fiction, and Joshi presents a lot of writers and their work. And of course it is fun when he disects some works. If he thinks Derleth as a not very good writer, he really can´t stand Lumley. "It is difficult to describe, short of profanity, the extreme incompetence of Beneath the Moors. "
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Aug 6, 2010 12:01:38 GMT
That looks a book I must get. Sadly, I would probably find it fascinating! In the scheme of things, I most definitely prefer HPL's version of the Mythos. I have little time for this "good" gods, "evil" gods stuff. As for Lumley, though I don't ever see him as a "great" writer, I think he can be massive amounts of fun to read in a purely pulpy way - and what's wrong with that? Now, just have to get out of the habit of using quotation marks.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Aug 6, 2010 12:25:45 GMT
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Clark Ashton Smith had a large part to play in the development of the idea of "good" and "bad" gods after Lovecraft's death. I've never had that much of an interest to follow up on that - but I think it may be something that comes out of letters between CAS and Derleth? Is there anything in the Joshi book on that?
For the record, I much prefer the idea that none of them could give a toss about humans - more than anything else, I think that's what made Lovecraft's "vision" so different from anyone else's. And I've got to agree with that assessment of Lumley - in a horror sub-genre that is by necessity going to be somewhat formulaic, he manages to out-formulaic everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 6, 2010 17:25:35 GMT
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Clark Ashton Smith had a large part to play in the development of the idea of "good" and "bad" gods after Lovecraft's death. I've never had that much of an interest to follow up on that - but I think it may be something that comes out of letters between CAS and Derleth? Is there anything in the Joshi book on that? Actually, Joshi writes a lot about Smith´ contributions to the Mythos, both in his stories and in his letters. In 1937 Derleth wrote to Smith about his idea of classifying the Old Ones. Smith responded: ... I shouldn´t class any of the Old Ones as evil: they are plainly beyond all limitary human conceptions of either ill or good." Seems he wasn´t wild about the idea. There are a lot of similar tidbits in the book. I never knew that there is a debate about the authencity of the Lovecraft quote "All my stories are based on one fundamental lore", which Derleth used as a basis for his idea what the Mythos was about.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 6, 2010 17:45:07 GMT
That looks a book I must get. Sadly, I would probably find it fascinating! In the scheme of things, I most definitely prefer HPL's version of the Mythos. I have little time for this "good" gods, "evil" gods stuff. As for Lumley, though I don't ever see him as a "great" writer, I think he can be massive amounts of fun to read in a purely pulpy way - and what's wrong with that? Basically I like Lumley, his first Necroscope novels were a lot of fun. (His Dreamworld novels bored me silly, though) But I don´t share his fascination for the Innsmouth people, which he wrote a lot about. What is supposed to be so terrifying into changing into the Creature of the Black Lagoon? You are a good swimmer and can eat all the fish you want.
|
|
|
Post by marksamuels on Aug 7, 2010 12:18:08 GMT
I first read this online article when it turned up in the "Crypt of Cthulhu" zine, and it seems to have cleared up the whole "Black Magic" HPL quote www.epberglund.com/RGttCM/nightscapes/NS08/ns8nf2.htmMind you, the legend goes on. Steve Jones still dropped it into the Gollancz HPL compendium, Necronomicon, which I was a little surprised at. Mark S.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Aug 7, 2010 15:23:23 GMT
What is supposed to be so terrifying about changing into the Creature of the Black Lagoon? Having to eat sushi for every meal?
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Jun 22, 2019 21:27:34 GMT
ST Joshi is in Australia and I saw him last night at the Aus National University here in Canberra give a great paper on the Necronomicon. There was also a performance of Larry Sitsky's Necronomicon, and other presentations by Leigh Blackmore and Ellen Greenham. He signed a pile of books I brought along, which was good of him. Couple of snaps: Here's Leigh: And the panel of presenters (and the composer) answering questions:
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jun 23, 2019 21:34:24 GMT
This is great. I only know Joshi from his writings but I imagine that he is much fun in person.
Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jul 11, 2020 6:30:53 GMT
That looks a book I must get. Sadly, I would probably find it fascinating! In the scheme of things, I most definitely prefer HPL's version of the Mythos. I have little time for this "good" gods, "evil" gods stuff. As for Lumley, though I don't ever see him as a "great" writer, I think he can be massive amounts of fun to read in a purely pulpy way - and what's wrong with that? Now, just have to get out of the habit of using quotation marks. I'm just reading the book now. While I think Joshi is bending over backwards to find a "philosophy" in the Mythos, the book is fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jul 11, 2020 9:56:16 GMT
I'm just reading the book now. While I think Joshi is bending over backwards to find a "philosophy" in the Mythos, the book is fascinating. I also wondered about this. Lovecraft is like the character in Karl Edward Wagner's Neither Brute nor Human. For more than 90 years people are busy sucking him dry, finding context and topics in his work the man himself never articulated in that way. He has been made the protagonist in more mostly lousy tales than any writer in history, which in itself is strange. Of course it is possible that horror critics and some writers are so desparate to find some meaning in the literature. And the Mythos is a perfect and adaptable mirror for this. On the other hand, maybe the fact that these activities are possible is the evidence that there is indeed more about these tales.
|
|
drauch
Crab On The Rampage
Posts: 56
|
Post by drauch on Jul 19, 2021 17:18:46 GMT
I can kind of see this both ways. I get being a bit critical of Joshi for trying to create a definitive philosophy behind Lovecraft's cosmic horror, but at the same time Lovecraft's world and pastiche works is so rampant now with drudgery that the mythos and the idea of cosmic horror hardly seems to have a definition, with all the board/video games and TV/films that feature period protagonists fighting lurking beasts with tommy-guns and spells and such, instead of nigh-incomprehensible fear of the unknown and powerful. It's funny how often I see 'Lovecraftian' in various fiction, especially modern video games, which mainly implies a 20's-30's setting and/or an inclusion of something with tentacles.
|
|