derivations from hp lovecraft

[loc.cit]

It seems to me that contemporary authors like Stephen King and Peter Straub, to name only two, draw heavily on Lovecraft, in a positive way and using their own imaginitive takes of course. This is not a criticism but merely a reminder of how much is owed to ideas mooted several decades ago.

 

[Curt Chiarelli]

So very true. Not only King and Straub, but a whole slew of other third rate authors churn out derivative, fourth rate Lovecraftian pastiches, creative typists like Poppy Z. Brite and Brian Lumley, etc. It just goes to show you just how creatively bankrupt the arts have become. The irony is all the more stinging when you realize how unsuccessful and unappreciated H.P.L. was in his own lifetime, yet how wealthy our modern authors have become cribbing from his notes. This will not be the first - nor the last - example of a man who was too far ahead of his own time and paid a steep price for it. However, like Nicola Tesla, Lovecraft is a prime example of latterday looting by lesser talents who have have cashed in on his ideas and made a fortune.

 

[Pyan]

So very true. Not only King and Straub, but a whole slew of other third rate authors

King "third-rate", Curt? Really?

 

[Curt Chiarelli]

King "third-rate", Curt? Really?

King the institution as well as King the writer can be quite the hack. Especially during his free-wheeling days as a coke addict. During the 1980s the man was churning out doorstops once a month for a decade.

As a prime example, I'd like to examine 'Salem's Lot. There are passages in which the cadences, lyricism and penetrating insight into the human condition will take you breath away, paragraphs where the man's prose transcends and elevates the book above the ghetto of its genre.

And then, what does he do? He'll revert right back to a gossipy soap opera tone and content, of which the sordid details do not help propel the story forward nor enhance it in any way (who's cheating on whose wife, who's the town drunkard, etc). It's tasteless populism taken to its picayune depths.

Reading 'Salem's Lot is a lot like watching Puccini's La Boheme devolve into Peyton Place bitchiness before your very eyes. Moments of sheer brilliance floating in a sea of raw sewage. No Stevie, no!

The man's talent and high level of intelligence is clearly apparent. He has more money than the damned Vatican. We're thus assured that he and his family won't starve waiting for his next book deal to go through. He should cast aside his folksy workman attitude, hunker down and create something that's worthy of his gifts. He not only owes it to himself, he owes it to his art.

 

[Pyan]

Hmm..
Now, I'd never read any of his work before a couple of months ago, when I was "persuaded" to do so, so I'm certainly no expert on the man - but I must say I've been very impressed with the Dark Tower sequence. Have you read this? Perhaps it's the story he always should have written...............

 

[GOLLUM]

Hmm..
Now, I'd never read any of his work before a couple of months ago, when I was "persuaded" to do so, so I'm certainly no expert on the man - but I must say I've been very impressed with the Dark Tower sequence. Have you read this? Perhaps it's the story he always should have written...............

Dark Tower series is good and now I have the Graphic novel to boot!!...

 

[j d worthington]

In one way or another, Lovecraft has influenced the vast majority of writers in the field since his day. With most, they've either written Lovecraftian pieces of their own, or studiously avoided anything they felt smacked of the man and his work in any way; much like Poe after his death, Lovecraft has had perhaps more influence on the genre than anyone of the past century (including King, who most definitely has been influenced by him in many tales... not just overt pastiches, but in other, more subtle ways).

Nor are some of these either third- (or fourth-) raters, nor hacks, but genuine talents either serving their apprenticeship or paying hommage to the man. These would include Ramsey Campbell, Robert Bloch, T. E. D. Klein, Thomas Ligotti, Willum H. Pugmire, W. Paul Wilson, Joanna Russ, Phillip José Farmer, Gary Myers, Caitlin R. Kiernan, Fritz Leiber, Roger Zelazny.....

Simply put, Lovecraft was (and, like Poe or Mary Shelley or M. R. James or Arthur Machen, etc., remains) a seminal influence. It isn't so much being ahead of his time as being a distinctly individual voice with a very unique approach to life and the world that could not help but be reflected in his work (both fiction and non-fiction). Love him or hate him, to deny his importance to the fields of horror, fantasy, and science fiction is to completely ignore the facts of the matter. And while the bulk of Lovecraftian pastiche (or even work influenced by) may be quite easy to dismiss, there are always those which, for one reason or another, do haunt the reader long afterward... usually because they combine the Lovecraftian influence with a unique vision of their own.

 

[brsrkrkomdy]

I'd dispute that notion Poppy Z. Brite as being a second and third rate writer. She's a first rate writer, and always will be, IMNSHO.

 

[sacateca]

i have to say that i'm at a loss to see what interesting King has said about the human condition, ever. To me he's always been a hack and will always remain so. Which goes to show how much everything depends on the reader. i think Lovecraft is not great because of his influence over the genre or future writers, or because serious critics are starting to understand his importance, or because he was ahead of his time, i think he's great because his writings have touched me deeply, as has his life and what he's had to say about things, and only because of that - in a word, i think he was sensitive and intelligent and wrote what he wanted the way he wanted, and his character touches me. And whilst i don't appreciate King at all, his writing style or his insights (my worldview is obviously entirely different from his - i would even call his insights 'cheap sentimentality'), it shouldn't take anything away from anyone whom he has touched. i guess my point is, i would deny any objective definition of greatness, and would retain the right for everyone to define their own hacks and masters, according to their own standards. The majority count makes a bad standard for art. Only good thing about being universally hailed as great is that one's works are then readily available and those whom one admires more or less alone are more difficult to come by.

 

[Lobolover]

Uhm,I'd just like to note that I kinda dislike some taking over the best stu,copying it and puting it into setings never meant for it to apear in.Pastiches to Chambers in "Rehersals for Oblivon" is one particular example o what I mean.

 

[w h pugmire esq]

Lovecraft was also an author who borrowed heavily from other writers, and yet he was so original in his imagination that he, like Shakespeare, improved on what he stole and made it unique. Lovecraft's case is wonderfully special in that no other fantasy writer--perhaps not even Tolkien--has had this effect on modern genre writers, who follow doggedly in his footsteps. It goes beyond Lovecraft, of course, to the thing we call the Cthulhu Mythos, which was not entirely the invention of H. P. Lovecraft. In his brilliant study, The Rise and Fall of the Cthulhu Mythos, Joshi divided things into the Lovecraft Mythos (Works by H. P. Lovecraft) and the Cthulhu Mythos (works inspir'd by HPL), and this seems exactly right.

I can speak intimately as one who is obsess'd with writing Lovecraft horror and tales of ye Cthulhu Mythos, one who is obsess'd with searching Lovecraft's Tales with the hope to find those wee mentions, those little gems that I can bring into my own fiction and expand upon. This entire practice may seem to some like madness, like laziness, a sign of unoriginality--but it is my hope that it can lead to personal growth as a writer of Lovecraftian horror. Much of what I write still seems, to me, to have a fannish nature that I associate with amateurs who try to "write like Lovecraft," and that is a stigma I do not relish. I strive to have my fiction Lovecraftian-to-ye-max and yet perversely mine own. But I am determined to write fiction that is utterly & obviously inspir'd by HPL. It's what I live for, and I shall never stop. Lovecraft haunts me as mightily as Shakespeare does, and I need to exorcise that influence in the only way I know how, the writing of Cthulhu Mythos fiction. At the moment I am outlining my first novelette set in Innsmouth, for which I will bring in elements of "He," "The Shadow over Innsmouth," and "The Thing on the Doorstep." Writing such fiction means that I am aiming for an exclusive readership of persons who are dead familiar with Lovecraft's weird fiction. I write exclusively for Lovecraftians and no other. The writing of my Lovecraftian fiction gives me more pleasure that I have ever imagined it would, it has brought me great friends and comrades. It has given me the supreme gift of seeing my name on the covers of books. I owe it all to Lovecraft, and it is to him that I give credit and pay tribute.

 

[nigourath]

Well,i wish that i could end this ...fairytale, about original writers ,that influence others and others ,that consistently borrow elements from others..There is no "Parthenogenesis" in literature ,and Every writer or artist has been influenced by the works of someone else ,consciously or not ,in a way that he himself cannot describe.In that influence,i conclude literature ,that he also may despise-a negative influence,that he wishes to avoid...(even jules vern was influenced from older alexander Dumas,for just an example).This can be verified by the writers themselves only(as W.H.Pugmire ,here in our forum).But please,don"t say that fairytale,about some being original and some not being as such,it's really creating a wrong sense of euphemism.It would be more usefull,if we dig out the influences of each one ,and evaluate the direction he gave them,what new elements he added and how "original" was the result.

Stephen King on the other hand ,has officially accepted the influence that HPL had on him,yet, at the same time prided at the reacher characterization of his own heroes in his books.I believe, that, Stephen King offered a more "Americanized" version of Lovecraftian literature,yet in an intelligent way , and adding his own "twists" and elements-which ,by the way i don"t sympathize with....He is interesting and well readable,with elements,that conjure up HPL,like the "time-space-other dimension" strangeness,but without HPL"s elegant style and deep-multilevel writing.As far as characterization goes,yes he fleshes out his characters lively,but he misses in my opinion to deliver the utter-feeling of the Lovecraftian literature(but the effort counts...hehe).Anyway,the reach characterization of his characters,is what ensured this man"s commercial success-as it would with any writer-and,i think he knew that along from the very beginning.....

 

[w h pugmire esq]

Instead of using the word "original," perhaps it would be more correct to say "personal." Derleth wrote a lot of rather unoriginal Mythos fiction, but he wrote what he wanted to write, he did his own thing (and then stupidly conjoined Lovecraft's name to ye byline). Poppy's "His Mouth Will Taste of Wormwood" is a personal success in that it is very much a Poppy Z. Brite tale, deliciously and effectively so. Laird Barron uses the Lovecraft influence in a manner that is exclusively his own, as does Michael Shea.

 

[J Riff]

I was stuch with nothing to read but Christine , by S. King recently, and it's like Willum says: good passages that get you interested, then pfft, back to the dumbed-down-for-the-masses over-descriptive page-flipping stuff.
Then I read most E.A. Poe, yet again. Scary and funny. Some people can just flat-out write.