Did he fail?

[Tinsel]

If H.P. Lovecraft failed than it is because he wasted 2/3 of his life writing letters instead of only writing short stories and perhaps a novel. Next time we see this, we must work fast!

 

[j d worthington]

If H.P. Lovecraft failed than it is because he wasted 2/3 of his life writing letters instead of only writing short stories and perhaps a novel. Next time we see this, we must work fast!

Errr... who on earth said he failed? He has become the most influential writer in the weird field since Poe, and some observers say he is even surpassing his mentor at this point.

Failed financially? Lovecraft never wished (save for a very brief flirtation with the idea) to be a "professional" writer. He had no desire to sacrifice his art to the commercial demands of the marketplace. That he found himself sometimes succumbing to the demand for less subtle, more obvious writing was always a pain to him, and something he strove desperately to excise from his work. And even at his most prolific, Lovecraft was never a consistent writer who could (or would) churn out work; save for his professional revision work, he tended to write only when he felt a story or an idea demanded to be put on paper.

As his ever-growing critical acclaim would indicate, the result of this stance meant that, while he never produced a large body of material, what he did produce was head-and-shoulders above the vast majority even of good writers in the field. He wrote what interested him; and, as he noted in one of those letters with which he "wasted" his time, "without interest there can be no art".

As for whether or not he did waste his time with his correspondence... I'd say that's a mighty big assumption, for a number of reasons:

1) By his very nature, Lovecraft was a man who needed a great deal of time to himself. This meant that, while he could be and indeed often was a very sociable person, the majority of his social life was on paper rather than in person. It was this correspondence which allowed him to grow from the rather insular, dogmatic, and antiquated opinions of his early years to the amazingly versatile, erudite, and very warm human being he became later on; this was by dint of being in frequent touch with people of differing backgrounds and opinions who could challenge his views and introduce him to ever-widening realms of intellectual and artistic interest; something which was, to him, the very spice of life.

2) He himself mentioned that he never felt he really knew someone until he had corresponded with them, no matter how often he may have spoken with them face-to-face. It was through correspondence -- because correspondence with Lovecraft was almost never a simple thing, but would become lengthy conversations or debates on paper -- that he learned about the inner life of those with whom he was in contact, and vice versa. All of his closest friendships (outside of one from his childhood) were the result of his letter-writing. His epistolarian endeavors are what truly opened up the world to him, and him to the world.

3) As an growing number of people are coming to feel (and, despite my love for his weird work, I am finding myself increasingly inclined to agree), it may well be that Lovecraft's greatest contribution to literature is not his fiction, verse, or essays, but his letters. These are truly amazing documents, the like of which have seldom been seen since the eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries. Unless you have read a representative sampling of them, you aren't likely to understand what they are like, but they are some of the most engaging, thought-provoking, surprising, touching, and richest written documents there are; and it is largely through his correspondence that the critical and popular reassessment of Lovecraft's fictional endeavors has come about, as they have helped us to understand the serious intent behind so much of his work, and the depth and richness which lies within the seemingly simple tales he told. It is only through his correspondence that we are just beginning to get a glimmering of what a fine mind the man had, how wide-ranging his interests, and how analytical and yet genuinely artistic he was as a person. If anything, the case can easily be made that his letters are his greatest triumph.

These are only a very, very few of the reasons why I think such an assumption is unwarranted and completely misguided. There is also one other, more important, to Lovecraft himself if not to the fans of his fiction: This is what he wished to do with his life, with his time. It was often what he found most fulfilling; and even from the viewpoint of his fiction itself, it was often what provided the spur for his creative endeavors or helped him refine the final product; without his correspondence, it is unlikely that there would be any fiction from the pen of H. P. Lovecraft, as it was his correspondents who got him to taking up the writing of fiction after a nine-year hiatus following the early tale "The Alchemist"; and it was frequently something said by a friend in a letter, or a dream about such a friend based on something happening in the correspondence, which gave him the germ from which various pieces he wrote emerged ("Nyarlathotep" and "The Statement of Randolph Carter" being only two of the most obvious examples).

I think, before passing judgment on this correspondence as a waste of the man's time, perhaps it would be a good idea to investigate these writings first, and see what they amount to. But in any event, I don't see where Lovecraft, ultimately, failed in any sense; but I think he well might have, had it not been for his writing of these letters, and the life he gained because of them....

 

[w h pugmire esq]

Yes -- many serious scholars regard Lovecraft's letters as his greatest Literary legacy. S. T. Joshi and David E. Schultz have labored to find every extant letter and are working to have all of these letters published in handsome hardcover editions from Hippocampus Press. If Lovecraft failed in any aspect, it was in neglecting his health -- for it is my fantasy that had he taken better care of himself he would have lived many additional years. But would he have written much more? You forget, Tinsel, that he wrote less and less because of editorial indifference from his main market, Weird Tales. This did not stop him, when he wrote, to write the tales that he wanted to write. He lived his life, exactly as he wished -- and it is an example that I hope, now, to emulate, if not excel.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

We will always wonder what more might have been achieved by artists who died prematurely. If Mahler had access to penicillin, if Van Gogh had not chosen to take his life, if Caravaggio had caught that ship...who knows what further masterpieces they may have created? The fact remains that each of their lives was curtailed at a time when their creative development was far from over, and we'll never know what the future might have held for them. However, this doesn't mean that what they did live to create is any the less, and this certainly is not true in the case of Lovecraft. His stories are still being read and discussed, and not only did he become the most influential horror writer of his generation, his influence is still a vital source of inspiration for horror practitioners in the literary, graphic novel and cinematic formats, to say nothing of the numerous metal bands who write songs based on his concepts.

So no, not a failure, although we can be excused for regretting that he could not have lived longer and achieved more.

 

[Tinsel]

Just imagine if he wrote four or five full length novels, how good they would be. I have not ready any of his stories for a month, and now I am going to head back and read the next few on the list. I watched a few movies recently and now I am needing to return to H.P. Lovecraft otherwise I'll fail, never mind H.P. Lovecraft. Those movies can not hold my attention, never mind my imagination.

 

[dask]

Just think what have happened if HPL had access to the internet. WOW!

 

[nigourath]

I think ,Tinsel,that your emphatic question (namely: "did he fail?") could be transcribed to two main queries...First of all,how was it possible for a man to become so well known and heavily influential, with a comparably small literature volume (compared to other writers generally) and secondly, why did he never write a "big novelle", lengthy and widely known ,like julius vern or mary shelley or even bram stoker did-a great masterpiece ,which would force everyone to recognize him, as the talent that he was,yet now he remains by some under the shade of question for the character of his works (or even if it was literature at all...)

So, i find two questions here:1)Why did he not fail ,as he was expected too...?....and 2)Was he a great writer or a writer at all?...

As for the value of his letters ,i cannot speak of it ,since my knowledge of them is little ,but they definitely played a key role into the evolution of the so called "cthulhu mythos" ,not only for other writers, but at the same level for him too.So ,tinsel, you understand, how important they were..we wouldn"t speak about him now maybe{Yet here we are.... }.As for the first query,why he did not fail -when he should to some:
it was the transcendence of his writing ,the uncompromising urge to escape every "writing norm",to grant the sense of unknown as nobody else managed to accomplish (will someone else hopefully "succeed in that??") ,and overall to break the cliches and create even a wave of an " alternative thought" ,if we could describe it as such and attribute it largely to him....

Now ,about the second :was he a writer (and a great one)? I have heard many people challenging this- in written or in discussion...especially the second part...well,this is again just my opinion ,at first i believed he was no Ordinary writer,the kind that could not be compared to the general lot of the writing scene ,simply because there was no common ground (question this for yourself for example is heavy metal a "real" music or a golfer a "real" athlete?).But now, after reading much more of him, my opinion is a little different:i believe, he did intend to create something different, than common literature ,something that involves significantly the reader into a writing multi-level and deeply sensible "project",that defied the literature standards ...he definitely seeked to give a more artistic form to the fantasy/horror literature ,but that was only the very start ,since i think he wanted the reader, totally immersed and open to other realities and almost to ascend above the meanings and goals of "standard literature".
I believe he accomplished that ,i believe he was the only one who tried and succeeded......

 

[Tinsel]

His writing is a little bit shocking since it is hard core in terms of evil, yet you would not believe it. One of the areas where he failed was to set a contrast because what happens is that you have nothing to compare the characters against in order to have a greater sense of the situation, but where he does focus, he does it well. What he is talking about is sometimes pure hell evil, and there is a strong sense of age, yet people have turned it into a game in the light of today's standards which has its own new hidden dangers.

I read everyone's opinion. There isn't anything that I have to disagree with. People can think whatever they want as well, but can anyone think as well as they need to? I don't mind reading some Lovecraft stories and than go and look at something else, before continuing on with Lovecraft. He does have something interesting to say. I want to get into the next book in the series, although this book looks like it still has something to it.

 

[w h pugmire esq]

I have just discovered a download for David McCallum's reading of "The Haunter of the Dark," to which I am now listening. The reading is superb -- and the story -- a Gothic triumph in every way. I'm taking notes as one of the original tales that I am going to write for my collection of tales concerning Nyarlathotep will be a sequel of sorts to "The Haunter of the Dark." Even in those tales that are considered minor or not-quite-successful, I find so much to admire, so much that fires my imagination and overwhelms me with that burning ache to pen Lovecraftian horror. I also found a dramatic reading/performance of "Pickman's Model" that has inspir'd many touches to The Fabulous Darkness--A Novel of Richard Upton Pickman, the first chapter of which is near completion. This is one way in which H. P. Lovecraft is absolutely a success--the way he inspires art, in all mediums. He is my Eternal Muse! Ia!

 

[j d worthington]

Just think what have happened if HPL had access to the internet. WOW!

It is, of course, impossible to say with 100% certainty but, given his loathing of the typewriter, it is unlikely HPL would have ever even given the even less organic keyboard his time. He simply found writing anything with such methods to be stultifying, whereas writing longhand was both soothing and stimulating to him....

Tinsel -- on the idea of HPL writing a "full-length" novel... I suppose it depends on what you consider such to be. By the standards of his own day, he wrote three which might be considered such: The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath (1926-1927), The Case of Charles Dexter Ward (1927) and At the Mountains of Madness (1931). I don't think Lovecraft would ever have been quite comfortable with a lengthy novel; his sort of writing would be made too diffuse with such length, I think... though for quite some time he did go to longer and longer lengths; the longest being Ward, after which he remained (with a single exception) with the novella length works, as they were perfect for what he was attempting to do.

Still, those three novels pack more into their relatively short space than most "full-length" novels in the field do with much more room... though there are, of course, exceptions....

nigourath: I think that what I've said above partly responds to your own posing of the second question, but in response to the "Was he a great writer or a writer at all...":

First, I don't think there has ever been a question about him being a writer. The man wrote. He wrote copiously. Beyond his fiction, he wrote enormous amounts of essays, a large volume of poetry, and somewhere between 70,000 to 100,000 letters, often of tremendous length. No one I've ever seen has denied he was a writer, though there have been those who denied he was a good (let alone great) writer.

However, the judgment on that seems to be in at this point, and the answer is: not among the very greatest, perhaps, but a "minor great"... yes. The general critical position seems to be leaning that way more and more, and such stalwarts as the Library of America (which tends to only publish major American writers or documents) issued a sizable volume of his work a few years ago, as well as Penguin issuing his work in three volumes marketed not as horror, but as literature... even modern classics. This is a tremendous change from even the time when I discovered his work; even more so since his own time; fittingly, it seems to have followed a not-very-dissimilar pattern to that of his idol and mentor, Edgar Allan Poe, who took quite a long time to receive general acclaim critically as well.

As for the idea of his transcending "standard literature"... I'm not quite certain what you mean by that, but I think there is some truth to the idea (as I understand it), as well as it being in some ways misleading. The truth is he did (as Peter Straub noted) essentially invent his own genre; he extended what could be done with themes, ideas, and even (to some degree) text when it came to weird literature... but he was also one guided by his views on and appreciation for "standard literature"; it informed his own writing to an immense degree, as can be seen if one looks at his own influences with any care. So, at least as far as wishing to transcend standard literature, I rather doubt that is the case; whether he did so in some ways or not is debatable, but I'd say there is at least some merit to the claim. I would argue, however, that he was not alone in his success here, as some of the writers in the field whom he most admired, and even more whom he mentioned in his seminal essay Supernatural Horror in Literature, also did much in that regard. (And it is a genuine pity that so few modern readers are familiar with many of these works; they certainly beat the hell out of the bulk of writing in the field of the past 40-50 years, with some quite notable exceptions....)

His writing is a little bit shocking since it is hard core in terms of evil, yet you would not believe it. One of the areas where he failed was to set a contrast because what happens is that you have nothing to compare the characters against in order to have a greater sense of the situation, but where he does focus, he does it well. What he is talking about is sometimes pure hell evil, and there is a strong sense of age, yet people have turned it into a game in the light of today's standards which has its own new hidden dangers.

I'm not entirely following you here, so I'll ask for a little clarification on some points, and take a certain amount of issue with some others.

1) I have trouble seeing Lovecraft's work as "hard core in terms of evil", really, given that he seldom deals with genuine "good" or "evil" (which he felt were strictly local human values and had no reality beyond that very limited sphere), though his narrators, naturally enough, use the term "evil" fairly frequently by dint of being human and facing something which is inimical to human welfare.

However, if you are meaning that he conveys a sense of what has been called the "dark numinous", an inverted awe and frisson of terror or menace that transcends the physical... I am with you there. Matthew H. Onderdonk once wrote a very good essay on this subject, "Charon -- in Reverse; or, H. P. Lovecraft versus the 'Realists' of Fantasy", originally published in the Fantasy Commentator for Spring 1948 and later reprinted in issue #3 of Lovecraft Studies (Fall 1980). I think you might find this of great interest, if you can track down a copy.

2) I am not at all sure what you mean by "One of the areas where he failed was to set a contrast because what happens is that you have nothing to compare the characters against in order to have a greater sense of the situation". Could you perhaps explain a bit more, or give an example or two as an indication?

3) Another which I find interesting is: "there is a strong sense of age, yet people have turned it into a game in the light of today's standards which has its own new hidden dangers". I would entirely agree that there is that "strong sense of age", or what is often called "a feeling of historical depth" to his work, and that there has been a tendency by many, at least since Derleth, to "turn it into a game" (if by "it" you mean the worldview propagated by Lovecraft's fiction), and that this is a grave mistake and disservice to HPL. But I'm curious as to what you mean by it having "its own new hidden dangers". I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm by no means certain; and I would like to know. I'm inclined to agree with you if I understand you correctly, but either way it would be interesting to have some clarification on the topic.

4) I'm also a little confused by "People can think whatever they want as well, but can anyone think as well as they need to?" That sounds like an opening for a discussion on epistemology, that is: "The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity". Is this what you were getting at, or did you mean it specifically in relation to Lovecraft and his works?

At any rate, you've started an interesting discussion, and it is good to see some others' thoughts on this point.

Oh, and Wilum: Yes, that rendition of "The Haunter of the Dark" is an excellent reading. My only complaint about it was that a tiny bit of the text had to be cut due to time constraints when it was originally released as a vinyl recording. Otherwise, it is simply marvelous. I've always wanted to hear the recordings of "The Rats in the Walls" and "The Dunwich Horror" as well....

 

[Tinsel]

All I know is this. That I am starting to read Lovecraft again. The current story is "The Rats in the Walls", which I have already read, but I have never read it with a lighted candle in the room, even a scented candle, and I intend to shower with some of these "The Body Shop" products. I still need to figure out where to read, and that remains a mystery that is unsolved as of now. The important thing here though is that I think that I would rather spend time with this than with movies or video games or even a women. I read a bit of that story today and it felt good in my hand using the Reader. it felt great, but I wasn't exactly able to concentrate at the level that the story required, but somehow the words were relaxing and I only needed to read a few pages, and it set me up in a more positive direction. All of these things are extremely important.

Now, I did raise a few points but I am not in a condition to elaborate on them, however as I start up here again, than I might be able to begin to debate these insights, in about a weeks time.

 

[dask]

It is, of course, impossible to say with 100% certainty but, given his loathing of the typewriter, it is unlikely HPL would have ever even given the even less organic keyboard his time. He simply found writing anything with such methods to be stultifying, whereas writing longhand was both soothing and stimulating to him....

Yeah, but if he liked to correspond as much as you said, he may have reconsidered given the ease and magic of the internet and forums such as the Chrons. If he did change his mind and got into it, then just imagine....

 

[j d worthington]

Yeah, but if he liked to correspond as much as you said, he may have reconsidered given the ease and magic of the internet and forums such as the Chrons. If he did change his mind and got into it, then just imagine....

In such a case... yes, it would have been something to see! Considering no few of his essays in the amateur journals of the period, once he got over the idea of using the 'net, he might well have begun a blog, or an online journal, not to mention engaging in forum discussions such as these... and oh, what that might have led to......

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Basically, 'the friendly hand of amateurism' was Lovecraft's equivalent of the internet. Those round-robin letters circulated amongst several correspondents were equivalent to what we're doing today with discussion forums like this.

 

[nigourath]

"His writing is a little bit shocking since it is hard core in terms of evil, yet you would not believe it. "

Tinsel,evil is a very unclear- if not humanely plain and inadequate...- situation in Lovecraft"s work and i agree with j.d at that point.Now ,about the part being ...not believable,that ,my friend, depends on the reader...My impression is quite the opposite, that situations are lively fleshed out.Maybe you need to get back to that reading ,since many admit, that re-reading Lovecraft ,helps them to accomodate to the atmosphere.

j.D ,i find HPL"s literature extremely transcending ,even when he is treating with common terms like time ,space,morality and more...I have read similar writing efforts -and very worthwhile at reading them-but still not achieving that great Lovecraftian effect...From that lot,i especially liked, "the great god pan" and "the white people" by arthur machen ,in which i found some writing style similarities with HPL.HPL was certainly influenced by him ,as by lord dunsany as well(i liked him too, with a great connection to the "dream cycle" works by lovecraft).Ofcourse , main influence was edgar alan poe ,who was greatly influenced by the medieval and renesaince lore ans material(dance macabre for examble).Yet ,i cant locate inside hpl"s literature an appreciation towards the classical literature or mainstream writing(but certainly you have something in mind?).


Very acurrate remark byformerly knivesout(can"t write the new one i am sorry hehe..).The Lovecraft cycle was in its essence a forum ,but instead of mind -nubbing readers,was comprised by writers and artists mainly....(not that we don"t have artists here...hehe)..

 

[j d worthington]

j.D ,i find HPL"s literature extremely transcending ,even when he is treating with common terms like time ,space,morality and more...I have read similar writing efforts -and very worthwhile at reading them-but still not achieving that great Lovecraftian effect...From that lot,i especially liked, "the great god pan" and "the white people" by arthur machen ,in which i found some writing style similarities with HPL.HPL was certainly influenced by him ,as by lord dunsany as well(i liked him too, with a great connection to the "dream cycle" works by lovecraft).Ofcourse , main influence was edgar alan poe ,who was greatly influenced by the medieval and renesaince lore ans material(dance macabre for examble).Yet ,i cant locate inside hpl"s literature an appreciation towards the classical literature or mainstream writing(but certainly you have something in mind?).

Well, yes, several things really. I think a deeper reading of not only the weird writings of those who influenced him, or even of the weird field in general, but also of the writers who genuinely influenced his writing per se most would be helpful here; especially such writers as Samuel Johnson, Joseph Addison and Richard Steele (especially Addison), Alexander Pope, Jonathan Swift (especially his more pungent satires, beyond Gulliver), the classical writers of the Roman period (Juvenal was an especial favorite) -- about which, in fact, he wrote a rather lengthy survey that should be a guide to anyone interested in those writers who helped form Lovecraft's style and manner -- etc., etc., etc. And, of course, there were the standard classic tellings of the Graeco-Roman myths, including his early childhood favorite (about which he remained enthusiastic the remainder of his life), Thomas Bulfinch....

There are also Lovecraft's numerous efforts at criticism and critical aid for young or aspiring writers (of any age), such as he indulged in not only in his letters, but for many years in the "Department of Public Criticism" column for the United Amateur Press Association, or essays in his own Conservative, or various venues in the National Amateur Press Association as well. Over and over in these, he reiterates the importance of learning from the standard classics of literature, and cites numerous instances which also informed his own writing.

Actually, I would argue that the influence of Machen was less stylistically -- Lovecraft's own style and manner having been well determined by the time he first read Machen -- than conceptually. And, for all his admiration of Machen, he also expressed how alien he found Machen's extreme emotionalism and other aspects of his approach, whereas Dunsany he found much more congenial to his own Weltanschauung and approach to writing. Yes, Poe was his "God of Fiction" -- but Poe himself was also heavily influenced by his own contemporaries (such as Bulwer, Irving, etc.) and by the Gothic writers who preceded him by only a very short span. And, in the case of both Lovecraft and Poe, the poets had an enormous influence on their writing, both stylistically and structurally (as Joshi has pointed out, Lovecraft's style is a fascinating blend of the classic essay form and prose-poetic techniques).

But in reference to those mentioned in his Supernatural Horror in Literature... there are several which come to mind who influenced HPL in one way or another, many of whom have become rather obscure now (though seem to currently be going through a bit of a revival, in part because of the connection to Lovecraft... much as happened with Machen and Dunsany 30-40 years ago). These writers should, also, be investigated.

(While not meaning it as a plug, you might want to look at the thread about online resources for Supernatural Horror in Literature which I started. There I give online links to all the works I could find mentioned in his essay, as well as to the essay itself....)

 

[J Riff]

Lordy. Yes, he failed to reach the mainstream. Thank GhOd/ Can u imagine HPL going after the bux like King or Barker ...writing 300+ pages of drivel just to satisfy a huge mainstream audience ? That would have been total failure.

 

[w h pugmire esq]

He failed in some ways, certainly, as a writer who wanted to have a book of his weird tales published. He tried over and again to place a collection with publishers. My impression, though, is that he did so usually (only?) when a publisher shew'd interest and contacted him. One of the most frustrating things in HPL's biography is that Farnsworth Wright never published a proposed collection of Lovecraft's works (see S. T. Joshi, H. P. Lovecraft: A Life, page 431). He would never have sold his soul to the market, never. Have any of you read Peter Cannon's novel, The Lovecraft Chronicles? It tells the tale of Lovecraft surviving his death and becoming a successful and well-off writer. Quite entertaining except for the very depression picture it paints of Frank Belknap Long (which is an accurate portrayal, alas).

 

[Tinsel]

He didn't kill himself, but if he didn't take care of his health what difference does it make. Anyway, this week I plan to tackle "The Rats in the Walls". It looks a little bit complicated. It will be a pleasure to read it. I have read it before but I will pay new attention to it. I will read it as if for the fist time. Perhaps to a certain extent I will be there with the narrator. In a way, why should he have been successful since that means that he wouldn't feel the same afterward. What is successful when you don't need anyone but the next story and the next, for I would burn all the books of this world except for these possibly, and than I would read them again in order to prove their worth in order to see if they failed. He did fail, and that is his salvation. He wrote a dozen pages and it was more than enough to fill two decades worth of study time.

 

[dask]

He didn't kill himself, but if he didn't take care of his health what difference does it make. Anyway, this week I plan to tackle "The Rats in the Walls". It looks a little bit complicated. It will be a pleasure to read it. I have read it before but I will pay new attention to it. I will read it as if for the fist time. Perhaps to a certain extent I will be there with the narrator. In a way, why should he have been successful since that means that he wouldn't feel the same afterward. What is successful when you don't need anyone but the next story and the next, for I would burn all the books of this world except for these possibly, and than I would read them again in order to prove their worth in order to see if they failed. He did fail, and that is his salvation. He wrote a dozen pages and it was more than enough to fill two decades worth of study time.

Consider this for just a moment: "...indeed, it seems to me that it [THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE] and James's THE TURN OF THE SCREW are the only two great novels of the supernatural in the last hundred years (although we might add two long novellas: Machen's "The Great God Pan" and Lovecraft's "At The Mountains Of Madness"). Stephen King, DANSE MACABRE. With all the horror written and published in the 20th Century, to be recognized as one of these four is quite an achievement and hardly qualifies as failing.