H.P. LoveCraft i don't get it

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

i don't get this guy his work reads like a transcript of a british radio show,i mean i just can't get into his work.heres in example of what i'm talking about


"i was walking down in the desolate darkness that consumed the hallways of a empty hollow building as i ranned from an inevitable doom that brought down such a gloom that resonated through these dark tombs,where i forever shall loom"..........

WTF!!!!!!! does that mean?.............. he seems more like he's trying to impress me with his broad vocabulary then story telling.i don't see what people see in him. and wtf is with all the got damn adjetives?!

[Perry Holley]

Lovecraft's definately not for everybody.

To be honest, a lot of his earlier work is excessively wordy, and even his later stuff can be, as well. HPL loved language, and he loved playing with it in his writing. It isn't always natural-sounding, especially when heard and not just read (my personal theory is that much of this comes from the fact that Lovecraft didn't interact with people much, and that his style comes from mimicing other writers, most notably Poe).

Mind you, while it's really easy to have fun with HPL's purple prose, Lovecraft's appeal isn't so much in his writing style, but in his ideas. He didn't exactly invent the concept of 'cosmic horror', but he did pretty much codify and define it.

Out of curiousity, which story of his did you read?

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

Lovecraft's appeal isn't so much in his writing style, but in his ideas. i already know that much.

Out of curiousity, which story of his did you read?
various stories off the net and some old books i camed across

[CHEYENNE-BLACKBIRD]

(my personal theory is that much of this comes from the fact that Lovecraft didn't interact with people much, and that his style comes from mimicing other writers, most notably Poe).


thats been my theory as well i started reading lovecraft when i was 12 or 13 i'm 25 now,at the time my reading was advanced enough for me to read his work.because i was reading at a high school level. but even still i thought he was being too wordy for no real reason.........

there should be more of a translation,of his books more so then a adaptation.like a HPL for dummies,(when i say dummies i don't mean it in a litteral sense) just to put all his works in lamens terms.

[blackdragon6]

^ i wish they wood cause i really like his ideas

[Arvandor]

Well I like his stories the way they are. Very creepy, at least to me. Hell, even his nonfiction could send chills down my spine.

I only wish he'd found time to write at least two or three full length novels.

[Alex]

"i was walking down in the desolate darkness that consumed the hallways of a empty hollow building as as i ranned from an enevitable doom that brought down such a gloom that resonated through these dark tombs,where i foever shall loom"..........
!
That was an exagerated example right?
I've never read any of the guys work, but if he wrote that, its friggen horrible.

[discostu]

The reason alot of lovecrafts stuff sounds cliched is because he did it first. His stories are full of unspeakable horror and great twist endings, but they've been copied so much that alot of the twist endings you can see coming.

[Doodle Bob]

That was an exagerated example right?
I've never read any of the guys work, but if he wrote that, its friggen horrible.

Oh, brother, nothing like dismissing a lifetime's worth of work by reading a handful of sentences he wrote. Every author -- even the best -- have some off days. One of my literature professors used to say that Leaves of Grass is both one of the best written poems in American literature and one of the worst, and then would proceed to find examples illustrating both points of view.

Lovecraft was no Shakespeare. But, he produced some great stories like The Dunwich Horror, The Call of Cthulhu, Pickman's Model, Shadow over Innsmouth, etc. However, I've considered the Dream-quest of Unknown Kadath (is that right?) to be incredibly boring and overwritten.

Anyway, compared to the huge amount of homogeneous, forgettable, lukewarm, written-at-the-5th-grade-level-so-that-you-don't-have-to-think-too-much prose that comprises most of today's fantasy and horror writing (rule of thumb: the thicker the book and the quicker it comes out, the worse the quality of the writing), I'll take Lovecraft's overwriting anyday.

[Arvandor]

Here's a quality example of Lovecraft's writing.

(and how can you not a love a pulp horror writer with a name like Lovecraft?)

"And then there came to me the crowning horror of all - the unbelievable, unthinkable, almost unmentionable thing. I have said that eons seemed to elapse after Warren shrieked forth his last despairing warning, and that only my own cries now broke the hideous silence. But after a while there was a further clicking in the receiver, and I strained my ears to listen. Again I called down, 'Warren, are you there? and in answer heard the thing which has brought this cloud over my mind. I do not try, gentlemen, to account for that thing - that voice - nor can I venture to describe it in detail, since the first words took away my consciousness and created a mental blank which reachs to the time of my awakening in the hospital. Shall I say that the voice was deep; hollow; gelatinous; remote; unearthly; inhuman; disembodied? What shall I say? It was the end of my experience, and the end of my story. I heard it, and knew no more - heard it as I sat petrified in that unknown cemetary in the hollow, amidst the crumbling stones and the falling tombs, the rank vegetation and the miasmic vapors - heard it well up from the innermost depths of that damnable open sepulcher as I watched amorphous, necrophagous shadows dance beneath an accursed waning moon.
"And this is what it said:
"'You fool, Warren is DEAD!'"

[Draconomicon]

Lovercraft
A genius like not many others.

I love his writing and stories, for in those, the hero does not stand in glory and bright light at the end of the day and the horrors are not always defeated and ended, they are just stopped for a moment.

For a very creepy and very dark book, read "The haunter in the dark". It's kinda like "Alien" moved to the paranormal (in suspense and horror, not in gore).

"I have seen the dark universe yawning
Where the black planets roll without aim
Where they roll in their horror unheed
Without knowledge or lustre or aim"

His work is great at making your mind soar, seeking out ancient cities, inhabited by dark, unbelievable creatures, guarded only by the fear of humanity itself, which will prevent one from disturbing those who sleep since millions of years and shall continue to do so, for if they awake, we will die.

If you have a light interest in nihilistic stories, then the books of lovecraft are for you. Its necessary to have a fine taste for things left unexplained, and a large fantasy to see in your mind what he left undescribed.

Then you can shudder and feel chill running down your spine...

The moment in "Rats in the wall" when they find ancient stairs in the cellar, and then find out the stairs were actually been chiselled from beneath, Goosebumps run all over your body, and you have to wonder which forgotten beings might have been the architects.

Later the giant, vast caves, and the old buildings, hundreds of years untended to, filled with cage in which bones of humans and something else were found, and your mind runs wild.

Lovecraft is special, his work is trying to break down the bounds of what ones phantasy can produce and even today, if you have time to read his books at night, being alone with your mind and yourself, it does succeed in pushing the boundaries...

Of course, it *IS* not for everyone, and many might even find his books boring, considering we have the most gorey stuff on TV and film one can imagine, so it might not be *scary* to some who enjoy this kind of visuell horror more, but his works still have their place in literature, and they still inspire me to look up to the skies and wonder what nightmares may walk around the edge of our existance, our solar system, our very reality and what they would do if they found a way in.

[zombie]

I love Lovecraft. His ideas are so mad, and so much fun to imagine what he was creating in his writing. I read one of his early stories, about some human-like creature in a cave that a lost hiker comes across (I think that's how the story went), and the atmosphere and detail and writing style creeped me out so much. If someone else had written the story, I doubt it would've been as frightening. That's the point I fell in love with his writing I think.

I also like pretending that Lovecraft was really channelling these evils he wrote about, but then I'm a little strange myself.

[ghostrider666]

He was brilliant. He used language to build the story. For example, words with Sss sounds to express the evil of a situation.
Sure he could be wordy at times, but that's the fun of reading.
He is the master of American horror. Not Poe, not King, Lovecraft.

[blackdragon6]

though i can't speak for everybody i believe what *some* people hated in his work was not so much his ideas but the way he writes his story and the structure of his stories.make no mistakes the stories i was able to understand i enjoyed emensly.

[zombie]

though i can't speak for everybody i believe what *some* people hated in his work was not so much his ideas but the way he writes his story and the structure of his stories.make no mistakes the stories i was able to understand i enjoyed emensly.

Keep a dictionary nearby, you'll be entertained and educated.

[Alex]

Oh, brother, nothing like dismissing a lifetime's worth of work by reading a handful of sentences he wrote.
You should probably read what i said.
It wasn't shakespear, but i never said anything about his work as a whole, i spoke on one sentence, even said i never read anything of his.
Thing of it is, there weren't even any big words in that piece, it was just poorly written.

[zombie]

You should probably read what i said.
It wasn't shakespear, but i never said anything about his work as a whole, i spoke on one sentence, even said i never read anything of his.
Thing of it is, there weren't even any big words in that piece, it was just poorly written.

I'm pretty sure the sentence quoted in the first post of this thread isn't even a real quote from one of his stories, since there are mass spelling mistakes and lack of punctuation. Lovecraft may be a dense read at times, but he at least knew how to use the English language.

[Jman999]

i don't get this guy his work reads like a transcript of a british radio show,i mean i just can't get into his work.heres in example of what i'm talking about


"i was walking down in the desolate darkness that consumed the hallways of a empty hollow building as as i ranned from an enevitable doom that brought down such a gloom that resonated through these dark tombs,where i foever shall loom"..........

WTF!!!!!!! does that mean?.............. he seems more like he's trying to impress me with his broad vocabulary then story telling.i don't see what people see in him. and wtf is with all the got damn adjetives?!

Tish-the-Scorpion, is English a second language or are you just not at all proficient in English spelling and grammar? It's no wonder you're having so much trouble understanding lovecraft judging by the sheer number of grammatical and spelling errors in your post. This post is not meant to be insulting, and and if English is not your native language I can definitely understand where you are coming from.

Sincerely,
-Jonathan.

[Alex]

I'm pretty sure the sentence quoted in the first post of this thread isn't even a real quote from one of his stories, since there are mass spelling mistakes and lack of punctuation. Lovecraft may be a dense read at times, but he at least knew how to use the English language.
Well, no one told me that!

[Shellhead]

Well, no one told me that!

To put it more clearly, Lovecraft tends to write like a very uptight professor.

And really, that's a big part of his appeal. With few exceptions, his typical narrator tends to be an introverted, skeptical academic type, a man who is hardly prone to believe in any sort of supernatural occurences or pay heed to those who do. And yet this archetypal man of science narrator finds himself confronted with strange, alien or supernatural phenomena, and struggles to cling to his sanity in the face of something that violates everything that he knows or believes.

Except for her gender and her religious convictions, Agent Scully of the X-Files was definitely a Lovecraft-type character.

It's disappointing, but Lovecraft's style seems to be too subtle for many modern horror fans. They like big, loud, obvious mayhem, and they don't like uptight scholars. For similar reasons, most movie treatments of his work completely fail to convey the shuddering horror of his stories.

[blackdragon6]

Tish-the-Scorpion, is English a second language or are you just not at all proficient in English spelling and grammar? no that belongs to chou blaster LMAO!

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

Tish-the-Scorpion, is English a second language or are you just not at all proficient in English spelling and grammar?

Sincerely,
-Jonathan.
Nope only on message boards,if this had been a essay it would be different.

Sincerely,
-Tishauna Starr

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

I'm pretty sure the sentence quoted in the first post of this thread isn't even a real quote from one of his stories, since there are mass spelling mistakes and lack of punctuation. Lovecraft may be a dense read at times, but he at least knew how to use the English language.*cough* Sarcasim *cough*

[zombie]

*cough* Sarcasim *cough*

You can't quote something as an example of a person's writing style that you make up on your own.

And it's "sarcasm."

[blackdragon6]

You can't quote something as an example of a person's writing style that you make up on your own.

And it's "sarcasm."the i was a typo probably



unless she really miss spelled it

[CHEYENNE-BLACKBIRD]

jesus christ people correcting spelling should only be applied to Chou Blaster

[CHEYENNE-BLACKBIRD]

the i was a typo probably
I hope your being sarcastic


EDIT: Wait never mind i get it.....................

[CHEYENNE-BLACKBIRD]

To put it more clearly, Lovecraft tends to write like a very uptight professor.
I'm sure thats what tish meant.

[CHEYENNE-BLACKBIRD]

Except for her gender and her religious convictions, Agent Scully of the X-Files was definitely a Lovecraft-type character.

Interesting observation,i always saw her as a Lovecraft-type character.


It's disappointing, but Lovecraft's style seems to be too subtle for many modern horror fans. They like big, loud, obvious mayhem, and they don't like uptight scholars. For similar reasons, most movie treatments of his work completely fail to convey the shuddering horror of his stories.

I would not be that harsh and judgemental.Sure some horror fans like big, loud, obvious mayhem, and they don't like uptight scholars.But they can enjoy good horror.As a matter of fact horror fans are verry genre starved and deprived.(when it comes to film anyway)

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

not to mention i've been struggling with diyslexia (sp?) sense i was like what?........6 or something. not that its anybody buissness,but people can still understand me and the point i was trying to make.everybody else is just being cynical jack asses.but such cynisim is beneath me anyway so no sweat off my nose

[Roquefort Raider]

...and the subject of the thread was what, again?

Let's refrain from calling others by unpleasant names, friends.

[Chou Blaster]

no that belongs to chou blaster LMAO!


Um I do not make typos in everything I type.

For the record: I enjoy Lovecraft's work. Truely scary stuff going on there.

As God, or what appears to be God does not give a damn.

Edit: Yep, whoever speaks of me, I end up on said forum. I am Lovecraftian in that respect.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

Um I do not make typos in everything I type.

For the record: I enjoy Lovecraft's work. Truely scary stuff going on there.

As God, or what appears to be God does not give a damn.

Edit: Yep, whoever speaks of me, I end up on said forum. I am Lovecraftian in that respect.don't worry we love you chou :)

[Brannon]

I adore Lovecraft. It's hard to pick a favorite, however "At The Mountains of Madness", one of his few novelettes, is really a masterpiece of the form and genre. I particularly admire the short stories; "Pickman's Model", "The Thing at the Doorstep", "The Dunwhich Horror", “The Color Out of Space” and, of course, "The Call of Cthulhu".

The key to appreciating Lovecraft, I think, is to understand that his tastes combined the controlled logician with the wild fantasist. His short story "The Silver Key" is one of the most brilliant, and honest, commentaries on the faults of theologians AND atheists (being that he was one adds even more depth to the tale) that I’ve ever read. The story made it clear to me that Lovecraft was far more complex than even many of his staunchest supporters realize. His stories, as someone mentioned, usually start from a basis of rational normalcy and slowly unravel to show the protagonist that the universe is not based on, or cares about, his own belief system. Lovecraft summed up his favored theme with his comments; “The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown”. If more modern horror writers and filmmakers understood this, or at least practiced it, perhaps we would get stories/films that where actually scary for a change…

Lovecraft, like all great horror writers (though he was as much a fantasist really), wrote about the things that scared him personally. He loved science and was very systematic and logical in the way he organized his thoughts and ideas. However, he was honest enough as a storyteller to show his readers his deepest, darkest, personal and professional fears.

[Perry Holley]

Lovecraft adopted by Library Of America (http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=223)

Salon's 3-part article on Lovecraft (http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2005/02/12/lovecraft/)

[Solaris]

...and the subject of the thread was what, again?

Let's refrain from calling others by unpleasant names, friends.


Ditto, and thanks for the catch, RR! Books is normally a pleasant forum, and we try to keep it that way, and be respectful of one another, guys. :)


As to Lovecraft, I'm not a big fan simply because his stuff gives me the willies. I will occasionally read his stuff, but his darkness is so surreal and my imagination so vivid... I just don't read him much. He was definitely "prosey," but did a good job in getting into fears of the unknown and supernatural that most of us have, tucked away in our subconsious somewhere. :)

[Headhunter]

Salon's 3-part article on Lovecraft (http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2005/02/12/lovecraft/)
Beat me to it! I've never read Lovecraft's work, but after reading this article...I'm in no rush.

[Shellhead]

not to mention i've been struggling with diyslexia (sp?) sense i was like what?........6 or something. not that its anybody buissness,but people can still understand me and the point i was trying to make.everybody else is just being cynical jack asses.but such cynisim is beneath me anyway so no sweat off my nose

It's unfortunate that you have dyslexia, but it's just plain wrong for you to slander a dead man's writing style by misquoting him so badly. Alex hadn't read any Lovercraft stories before, but based on your misquote, he believed that Lovecraft was such an atrocious writer that he would use the word "ranned." If your dyslexia is so bad, maybe you should steer clear of "quoting" and then criticizing famous writers. Or you could compose your posts in Word and spellcheck them before you post. You can at least try to acknowledge and overcome your disadvantage.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

You can at least try to acknowledge and overcome your disadvantage.
what the hell makes you think i havent?! :mad: just because i didn't go out my way to dot every i and cross every damn t.what the fuck makes you think i havent acknowledge or overcome my "disadvantage"?


you don't know me like that man to be making condecending remarks like that.....................

[Shellhead]

what the hell makes you think i havent?! :mad: just because i didn't go out my way to dot every i and cross every damn t.what the fuck makes you think i havent acknowledge or overcome my "disadvantage"?


you don't know me like that man to be making condecending remarks like that.....................

How do I know? Because a spellchecker will catch the word "ranned." I just tried it out with Word, and Word suggested a whole list of alternative words that actually exist, starting with "rained."

Mistakes are normal. I make them, too. Probably at least 10% of my posts in this forum have at least one grammatical or spelling error.

But when I quote other people, I at least owe them the decency of quoting them accurately, or else not claiming that I'm quoting them. You did neither. Your misquote of Lovecraft made him seem completely illiterate. To those familiar with his writing, the obvious misquote completely discredited the points that you wanted to make. To those unfamiliar with his writing, like Alex, that misquote caused him to think that Lovecraft was an incompetent writer.

You're right, I don't know you. What I do know is how you have chosen to present yourself here with your posts. I don't why you would choose to slander a dead man by misquoting him, and I don't why you feel a need to call people names when they point out your error. Maybe you had a bad day.

[sheets]

Salon's 3-part article on Lovecraft (http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2005/02/12/lovecraft/)

Somewhat interesting article. I think it would have been more convincing if they had tried for a broader view of Lovecraft's career than just picking on The Lurking Fear, which is after all only one story and like most short story writers, especially pulp writers, Lovecraft's quality could be inconsistent :)

It's sad, though, to see Stephen King, after worshipping at Lovecraft's altar for his whole career, suddenly turning around and calling him a juvenile writer. Maybe King is just in his advancing age anxious that despite his colossal sales, he doesn't seem to be eclipsing Lovecraft from the standpoint of influence. It's kind of like Tolkien: he didn't write in a Slick Professional Style that's supposed to get you good reviews, but he's somehow managed to overshadow almost everyone who has followed him, many of whom would be considered "better" writers by your average publisher or creative writing professor...

[Solaris]

Okay, folks. Tish attempted to quote Lovecraft, and used a lot of misspellings and errors. Alex took it as a direct, exact quote, which it was not. All of that has been corrected, and further examples of his work (which *do* typify his writing quite nicely, I think) have been shown. THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESOLVED. LET'S DROP IT NOW.

As to Lovecraft's work, some of the other examples of his work reminded me of something:

Lovecraft is like a really bad, paranoid acid trip, but without the acid. His characters see things so horrifying, and so warped from reality---things that their senses are SCREAMING are real but the mind keeps trying to reject out of sheer horror---that it makes you start wondering if there aren't some really creepy nasty things sharing our space that we just can't see... and that thankfully, can't see us.

[CHEYENNE-BLACKBIRD]

Okay, folks. Tish attempted to quote Lovecraft, and used a lot of misspellings and errors. Alex took it as a direct, exact quote, which it was not. .
yeah but i already knew that,and perry holley probably did too.this has been blown way out of paportion.and even with the misspellings and errors we still understood her point.everybody else dragged it out cause they felt theire favorite writer was missrepresented :rolleyes:

[berk]

Tish and Cheyenne: you have to remember that Lovecraft was a man who felt out of place in his own time. Mentally, in some ways, he was living in an era about a hundred years earlier than his own. There are exceptions to this statement among the elements of his thought (e.g. his interest in science & space, his Nietzschean philiosphical outlook), but it is definitely reflected in his literary style. So not only are you reading something written almost a hundred years before our own very different era, you're reading something by a man who was stylistically dwelling in an era about another 75 years or so before that. Hence the wordiness, the slow build up of trension, the tendency to suggest and hint at horrific events and creatures rather than describe them explicitly, etc, etc. All of which I think are actually strengths not weaknesses - if you as a reader can get yourself used to accepting these new rules. The best way to do this is just to read a lot of stuff written in this style, all the while keeping in mind that it's meant to be wordy, carfefully paced, etc, etc, and that all this contributes to the effect once you get accustomed to it.

I'd recommend going back to some of the classic 19th century horror, stuff written long before Lovecraft, but to which his writing sometimes looked back, stylisitically, if not thematically:

E.T.A. Hoffman (Tales of Hoffman)
Mary Shelley (Frankenstein)
Edgar Allen Poe (various stories)
Charles Maturin (Melmoth the Wanderer)
Sheridan LeFanu (Carmilla)
Bram Stoker (Dracula)
...

Maybe you've already read some of these - you might have had to read some Poe in school, for example. If so, keep that stuff in mind when you read Lovecraft, try to transport yourself mentally to an era in which there were different expectations on the part of readers in regard to the stuff they read. If not, I'd recommend starting with some of the short stories - Hoffman, Poe, and LeFanu especially. They're easier to get into, require less of an investment in time and mental energy, and give a good indication of how different our contemporary literary expectations are from those of that time. It does take some effort, because it isn't always natural or easy for someone who grew up in our time and hasn't been exposed to this stuff to develop a feel for it right away. But I think if you give it a chance, you'll find the effort pays off in the end. You'll discover a whole new way of appreciating stories and an entire new world of fiction to read, one that has its own pleasures and interests and can offer a lot that our own era doesn't. And when you go back to Lovecraft after reading some of this stuff his style won't seem so jarring.

And don't be discouraged of you have to look up a lot of words. I'm reading a book right now where I've had to look up several words per page in some sections (and often haven't even been able to find them in the dictionary), but it hasn't kept me from enjoying the reading experience. Plus, just think how you can annoy your friends when you casually drop these obscurities on them in conversation.

[pirulaso]

i enjoyed his work

[CHEYENNE-BLACKBIRD]

Tish and Cheyenne: you have to remember that Lovecraft was a man who felt out of place in his own time. Mentally, in some ways, he was living in an era about a hundred years earlier than his own.
uh....yeah i understand lovecraft i was just saying i understand the point tish was making

[Sadyv]

Lovecraft is like a really bad, paranoid acid trip, but without the acid. His characters see things so horrifying, and so warped from reality---things that their senses are SCREAMING are real but the mind keeps trying to reject out of sheer horror---that it makes you start wondering if there aren't some really creepy nasty things sharing our space that we just can't see... and that thankfully, can't see us.

Solaris, have read Lovecraft's From Beyond? It is based on just that set up, that the supposedly empty spaces all around us are teeming with bizzare life forms, living on a plane of existance just slightly different from ours.

[Perry Holley]

*bumpity-bump-bump*

WSJ article on Lovecraft (http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006424)

[G. Wayne]

the consitency leaves a lot to be desired, i think. for every insanely detailed description you get of some horrible monstrosity or landscape, you get a "the thing came towards me."

agreed though with what some have said that appreciation for lovecraft comes more from the ideas than the presentation itself.

[sheets]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/285tmhfa.asp?pg=1

A Lovecraft overview from Michael Dirda.

[Solaris]

Solaris, have read Lovecraft's From Beyond? It is based on just that set up, that the supposedly empty spaces all around us are teeming with bizzare life forms, living on a plane of existance just slightly different from ours.


I seem to recall a movie based on it, of which I watched a bit one afternoon (caught it near the end, IIRC). What I remember was that some scientist (dead, of course) had created a machine that would allow access into those spaces... and found them occupied by living horrors. There was something about some other people in the house (of course the machine was in the basement/cellar!), and getting caught in its effect, and trying to turn it off before the things chewed them up or something. Definitely off the creepy scale.

Haven't read the story, but I'll bet it's what they based the movie on. :)

[CaptMagellan]

"Haven't read the story, but I'll bet it's what they based the movie on."

Pretty much. But in a weird sort of way. The story is exceptionally short and the 'adaptation' of the story aspect of the movie is the intro before the credits begin.

After the credits it's all original pastiche. I still liked the film though. I've liked most of the films from the Re-Animator/From Beyond/Dagon team (except for the Re-Animator sequels... I haven't liked those).

[Arvandor]

I seem to recall a movie based on it, of which I watched a bit one afternoon (caught it near the end, IIRC). What I remember was that some scientist (dead, of course) had created a machine that would allow access into those spaces... and found them occupied by living horrors. There was something about some other people in the house (of course the machine was in the basement/cellar!), and getting caught in its effect, and trying to turn it off before the things chewed them up or something. Definitely off the creepy scale.

Haven't read the story, but I'll bet it's what they based the movie on. :)

Only in a very loose sense.

Nonoe of the Lovecraft adaptations have been in any way faithful. Especially Re-Animator, which has alsmot nothing to do with Lovecraft's story.


The closest thing to a successful Lovecraft adaptation is 'The Mouth of Madness'. Even though it's not based on an actual Lovecraft story, it is clearly a Lovecraft film in all but name. It has the right theme, the right atmosphere. It even has the Mi-Go.
And it's a good film. Genuinely creepy.

[Shellhead]

The closest thing to a successful Lovecraft adaptation is 'The Mouth of Madness'. Even though it's not based on an actual Lovecraft story, it is clearly a Lovecraft film in all but name. It has the right theme, the right atmosphere. It even has the Mi-Go.
And it's a good film. Genuinely creepy.

That's what a close friend told me before I rented the movie and watched it for myself. I disagree strongly with the "Lovecraft film in all but name" label. The atmosphere was creepy, but the plot had large, gaping holes that left me too irritated to enjoy the show. Lovecraft's plots were solid, at least up until the last page or two of insane babbling from the main character. No, The Mouth of Madness was one of those all too common horror movies that consist of a loosely-connected series of disturbing scenes that showcase the director's technique but fail to tell a story.

[sheets]

In the Mouth of Madness reminded me less of a Lovecraft story and more of a Lovecraftian pastiche that someone like Stephen King might write. It has some Lovecraftian themes but the actual style of the film is not very similar at all to Lovecraft - too self-reflexive and ironic. It's kind of a fun movie, though. Probably the last thing Carpenter directed that wasn't total crap.

For "Lovecraft movies in all but name" I would point to Alien (only the first movie) and The Thing. Not very similar to what Lovecraft would have actually written, but the vibe of those movies is right.

[Shellhead]

In the Mouth of Madness reminded me less of a Lovecraft story and more of a Lovecraftian pastiche that someone like Stephen King might write. It has some Lovecraftian themes but the actual style of the film is not very similar at all to Lovecraft - too self-reflexive and ironic. It's kind of a fun movie, though. Probably the last thing Carpenter directed that wasn't total crap.

For "Lovecraft movies in all but name" I would point to Alien (only the first movie) and The Thing. Not very similar to what Lovecraft would have actually written, but the vibe of those movies is right.

Agreed, on all counts. I guess In the Mouth of Madness was kind of fun, but I was just so disappointed when my friend promised me Lovecraft-style scariness.

[CaptMagellan]

"In the Mouth of Madness", while inspired by Lovecraft really dealt more with meta-textual ideas and post-modern 'magical' theory.

I liked it ok when I first saw it but was disappointed.

I saw it a year or so ago after reading articles about William S. Burrough's "cut-up" style of writing/magic, Austin Osmin Spare, and the entire run of Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles" and I enjoyed it a whole lot more.

Hell, I might do it again, this time after 3 or 4 shots of Mezcal. Just for fun. ;)

As for Lovecraft adaptations, I still think "Dagon" is pretty good. And while "The Dunwich Horror" with Sandra Dee is laughable, there are some interesting inner political stuff about the making of it that is talked about in the excellent book "The Necronomicon Files" by Daniel Harms and John Wisdom.

I highly recommend the above book on anyone who wants to know how little Lovecraft thought about the occult and how people have capitalized on the mystique of the Mythos to make a lot of money off the naive.

[Perry Holley]

Although it makes quite a few changes to the original story, I very much enjoy The Haunted Palace, which is an adaptation of 'The Case of Charles Dexter Ward'.

[Rob Allen]

They're somewhat hard to find, but the Skywald black & white horror comics magazines of the early 70s had their own Lovecraft pastiche series. It featured actual Skywald staffers getting involved in a conflict with the Shoggoths. For a while the publisher ran a promotion where readers could send in 15 cents to register for an upcoming expedition to Antarctica to confront the Shoggoths in their home base at the Mountains of Madness. They'd mail you a "Skywald Anti-Shoggoth Crusade" certificate for your 15 cents, and a promise that when the ship sailed for Antarctica, there'd be a place for you on board. I'd sure love to find one of those certificates... in the meantime I keep looking for old issues of Psycho and Nightmare.

[Shellhead]

They're somewhat hard to find, but the Skywald black & white horror comics magazines of the early 70s had their own Lovecraft pastiche series. It featured actual Skywald staffers getting involved in a conflict with the Shoggoths. For a while the publisher ran a promotion where readers could send in 15 cents to register for an upcoming expedition to Antarctica to confront the Shoggoths in their home base at the Mountains of Madness. They'd mail you a "Skywald Anti-Shoggoth Crusade" certificate for your 15 cents, and a promise that when the ship sailed for Antarctica, there'd be a place for you on board. I'd sure love to find one of those certificates... in the meantime I keep looking for old issues of Psycho and Nightmare.

Since about 1980, there has been a Call of Cthulhu role-playing game, published by Chaosium, and that game is now on it's 6th edition rulebook, available in several languages. One of the greatest adventures ever published was a return expedition to the Mountains of Madness in Antarctica. It was huge, like the size of a phonebook for a small city, at least 10 times bigger than a lot of role-playing game supplements. Anyway, there was a special promo pack sold to the Gamemaster who runs the adventure for a group of players, and that included some fun items like passports for all the players to fill out. I played in that adventure, and my character went quite insane before it was all over. It was a blast.

[discostu]

In the Mouth of Madness reminded me less of a Lovecraft story and more of a Lovecraftian pastiche that someone like Stephen King might write. It has some Lovecraftian themes but the actual style of the film is not very similar at all to Lovecraft - too self-reflexive and ironic. It's kind of a fun movie, though. Probably the last thing Carpenter directed that wasn't total crap.

For "Lovecraft movies in all but name" I would point to Alien (only the first movie) and The Thing. Not very similar to what Lovecraft would have actually written, but the vibe of those movies is right.
Stephen King wrote a Lovecraftian story called Crouch End. Absolutely Terrifying! I think it's in Nightmares and Dreamscapes.

[Perry Holley]

Stephen King wrote a Lovecraftian story called Crouch End. Absolutely Terrifying! I think it's in Nightmares and Dreamscapes.King's short story "Jerusalem's Lot" (not the same as the novel "Salem's Lot") is also a Lovecraft pastiche.

[discostu]

King's short story "Jerusalem's Lot" (not the same as the novel "Salem's Lot") is also a Lovecraft pastiche.
yeah, the f'in rats in the walls.... terrifying!