HP Lovecraft isn't all that good - General

[QUOTE=Nerdeboy;17065868]As did most of society.[/QUOTE] That's not a good excuse

[QUOTE=Lankist;17065841]You're shrugging it off. I can understand exploring the concept of the incomprehensible, but there are plenty of things that are incomprehensible that actually exist. There are plenty of realities to integrate into a story about insanity, but Lovecraft rarely did that. I could understand using made-up words if he were a bad sci-fi writer but he was a horror writer. Horror only works when it's steeped in reality, even if the premise is wacky it can be scary provided it is even a barely plausible story. Lovecraft didn't use reality, though. He tried to scare people with what is the equivalent of pseudo-religious entities. Anyone who's ever read the Bible wouldn't be scared of the concept of some cookie-cutter malevolent entity destroying the world.[/QUOTE] What sort of incomprehensible things are there that are real? Also: Not malevolent. Don't want to destroy the world.

[QUOTE=Nerdeboy;17065708]Insanity isn't a disease. It's not something that you can catch by licking doorknobs or by being in a doctor's office too long. Insanity is a psychological condition. People don't wake up one day and are suddenly insane. It takes its roots in the person's mind, but the degree at which the person acts with his insanity is determined by his environment and other people's reactions to him. But generally, people that appear to become insane have been insane their entire lives.[/QUOTE] It's cool because that has nothing to do with what I said. Insanity ISN'T a disease. It rarely just appears, it almost always has a real reason for being there.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17065858]That is a root.[/QUOTE] srs

[QUOTE=Rigged237;17065833]He pretty much hated anyone who wasn't a white Protestant male[/QUOTE]Yeah, civil rights was on the top of the national agenda in 1890. He was just one of those old geezers who didn't want to see change.

Slender Man scares me more then Cthulu I'm being completely honest.

[QUOTE=Doug52392;17065887]Yeah, civil rights was on the top of the national agenda in 1890.[/QUOTE] Lovecraft was BORN in 1890. I don't think he was a racist right out of the womb.

In the best supernatural horror stores, the supernatural elements are downplayed, contrasted against a backdrop of normality. Lovecraft's work has no backdrop of normality, therefore the paranormal stuff doesn't stand out.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17065858]That is a root.[/QUOTE] Well, yes, yes it is, but... eh. My intelligence is inadequate Fuck it, I'm gonna enjoy the show. [img]http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd264/thebitterlegion/Macros/Gifs/Jackson_popcorn.gif[/img]

this is the only thread not beaten by mister anderson I want your guyses help. I made 4 shanks ready to stab him. All I need is 3 men willing to stab him and his alts.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17065841]Lovecraft didn't use reality, though. He tried to scare people with what is the equivalent of pseudo-religious entities. Anyone who's ever read the Bible wouldn't be scared of the concept of some cookie-cutter malevolent entity destroying the world.[/QUOTE] Anyone who's ever read the Bible is scared of guys in robes and beards that rise from the dead every so often and guys dressed in red with pitchforks. So here's my question to you: have you seen a manifestation of your insanity? Because you can't say you wouldn't be afraid of something that is made of your fears.

I'm currently reading "The shadow of Innsmouth" and it's actually quite good... it's all personal opinion really...

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17065878]What sort of incomprehensible things are there that are real?[/QUOTE] Let's go with that argument. Let's say there is NOTHING incomprehensible in the world. Then how the fuck is it scary to begin with? If rape didn't exist, rape wouldn't be scary and therefore nobody would ever write about rape. If incomprehensibility is an entirely fictional concept, it isn't scary to begin with.

[QUOTE=redback3;17065910]I'm currently reading "The shadow of Innsmouth" and it's actually quite good... it's all personal opinion really...[/QUOTE] Nice, it's my favorite story.

[QUOTE=Nerdeboy;17065907]Anyone who's ever read the Bible is scared of guys in robes and beards that rise from the dead every so often and guys dressed in red with pitchforks. So here's my question to you: have you seen a manifestation of your insanity? Because you can't say you wouldn't be afraid of something that is made of your fears.[/QUOTE] That's not how insanity in fiction works if you want to scare people. The second you realize the insanity, the chills are over. Insanity is scary when it is indistinguishable from reality. Recognizing a manifestation of your own psychosis is a sign of sanity, not insanity.

I bought a compilation of all of his most famous books and loved them. Yes, some of his writings to begin with were somehat uninspired, though his later works were terrific. Personally I found that "The Color Out of Space" was his best writing yet, as did he. As for those who think his stories need more of a physical basis the fact of the matter is that the best monster in horror is the one that your imagination concocts. The only reason you're really noticing his lack of any description is because of his general lean towards the more antiquated form of writing as apposed to the more modern style of direct writing. He describes many of these ethereal beings as being in a somehwat hazy environment, within a dream, or in the madness of a man gone insane. This is most of the time due to one of the characters spotting one of the horrible creatures, and yes, it is a common theme. Yet you have to keep in mind the fact that you wouldn't velieve [b]your[/b] eyes if you saw something like Cthulhu rising out of the deep on a fishing trip, now would you?

[QUOTE=Lankist;17065939]That's not how insanity in fiction works if you want to scare people. The second you realize the insanity, the chills are over. Insanity is scary when it is indistinguishable from reality. Recognizing a manifestation of your own psychosis is a sign of sanity, not insanity.[/QUOTE] But you wouldn't recognize it because you're insane.

Guys, I'm going to hide in this thread since it seems to be the only safe haven from the blood-curdling spam topics outside in GD. I should probably read some H.P. Lovecraft. Edit : These spam topics do not abide by the rules. They are terrifying and unnatural, not to mention unexplainable.

[QUOTE=Negrul1;17065898]In the best supernatural horror stores, the supernatural elements are downplayed, contrasted against a backdrop of normality. Lovecraft's work has no backdrop of normality, therefore the paranormal stuff doesn't stand out.[/QUOTE] Eh, yes he does. Basically every single Lovecraft protagonist is a professor or scientist who thinks, "Oooh, the world is so wonderful and logical. I love it so much," and when they discover the otherworldly shit, they try to rationalize it, only to they can't and it fucks up their shit. It's like backwards Scooby-Doo. They always freak the fuck out until they realize it's a dude in a mask. In this case, they think it's a dude in a mask and realize it's a real fucking monster. And he doesn't play by the rules. Meaning physics. [editline]01:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;17065913]Let's go with that argument. Let's say there is NOTHING incomprehensible in the world. Then how the fuck is it scary to begin with? If rape didn't exist, rape wouldn't be scary and therefore nobody would ever write about rape. If incomprehensibility is an entirely fictional concept, it isn't scary to begin with.[/QUOTE] I still take issue with the notion that rape is scary. Genocide is horrible and still goes on today, but I don't look out the window, thinking someone's gonna ethnically cleanse my ass.

[QUOTE=Gorgonoth;17065940]As for those who think his stories need more of a physical basis the fact of the matter is that the best monster in horror is the one that your imagination concocts. The only reason you're really noticing his lack of any description is because of his general lean towards the more antiquated form of writing as apposed to the more modern style of direct, verbose writing.?[/QUOTE] Verbose writing is antiquated. Verbose = wordy. Lovecraft is verbose.

Lankist, you're reading horror books wrong. Unless you've been previously truly frightened by a horror book and are unable to get over a previous fear and never want to relive that feeling, you shouldn't be reading books by thinking, "Everything in this book is fictional and nothing can hurt me."

[QUOTE=Negrul1;17065998]Verbose writing is antiquated. Verbose = wordy. Lovecraft is verbose.[/QUOTE] EVERYTHING Lovecraft did was antiquated. Like using the word antiquarian about 7,000 times per story.

[QUOTE=Nerdeboy;17065956]But you wouldn't recognize it because you're insane.[/QUOTE] Exactly. That's what makes it so horrifying, the idea that insanity and sanity are one in the same. Lovecraft rarely played with that idea. All too often the loss of sanity was immediately recognizable. Fiction writing is all about subtlety, with that you can properly pull off even the most insane of ideas. Lovecraft didn't know the meaning of the word. In between the long, rambling rants about his fictitious creatures there was rarely an exploration of real-world concepts.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17065968]I still take issue with the notion that rape is scary. Genocide is horrible and still goes on today, but I don't look out the window, thinking someone's gonna ethnically cleanse my ass.[/QUOTE] If you thought someone was going to rape you, you would be fucking scared.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17065968]I still take issue with the notion that rape is scary. Genocide is horrible and still goes on today, but I don't look out the window, thinking someone's gonna ethnically cleanse my ass.[/QUOTE] And you DO look out your window thinking a giant tentacle monster is going to eat your soul?

[QUOTE=Negrul1;17065998]Verbose writing is antiquated. Verbose = wordy. Lovecraft is verbose.[/QUOTE] There's a difference though between verbose and indirect and verbose and going straight into the meat of the story.

[QUOTE=Nerdeboy;17066001]Lankist, you're reading horror books wrong. Unless you've been previously truly frightened by a horror book and are unable to get over a previous fear and never want to relive that feeling, you shouldn't be reading books by thinking, "Everything in this book is fictional and nothing can hurt me."[/QUOTE] I'm reading books wrong. No.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17066013]EVERYTHING Lovecraft did was antiquated. Like using the word antiquarian about 7,000 times per story.[/QUOTE] I was objecting to him saying that modern writing is more verbose than 1920s writing.

[QUOTE=Negrul1;17065998]Verbose writing is antiquated. Verbose = wordy. Lovecraft is verbose.[/QUOTE] Verbose literature is by no means antiquated. Darkly Dreaming Dexter was an extremely verbose piece of literature, and it was entirely capable of making the reader question the concepts of sanity. The third one sucked major balls though.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17066021]Exactly. That's what makes it so horrifying, the idea that insanity and sanity are one in the same. Lovecraft rarely played with that idea. All too often the loss of sanity was immediately recognizable. Fiction writing is all about subtlety, with that you can properly pull off even the most insane of ideas. Lovecraft didn't know the meaning of the word. In between the long, rambling rants about his fictitious creatures there was rarely an exploration of real-world concepts.[/QUOTE] You're walking into every Lovecraftian novel knowing the character is going to go insane at one point or another, and there's your problem. It's subtle enough that if you've never read Lovecraft's works before, you'll not be able to recognize the insanity until later. But when you approach it as a story where some nutty professor flips out, you'll see the character become mentally unstable the second it happens. Of course it's a bit of a curse of knowledge with his books, but you need to approach each of his stories as a new experience instead of "just another Lovecraft."