/lit/ - Literature

>>15717262
Since you've perfectly described Brian Lumley, I strongly recommend him to you. Hope, humour, competent heroes, even sex, but all the Lovecraftian elements and star-spawn intact (along with his own rewrites of some traditional critters like vampires).

>>11574099
Can I still read Lumley?

>>11220766
I agree, the original texts are more accurate, but they aren't the original published ones, so it's a matter of preference (and these are easier/cheaper to pick up). The Joshi-edited HPL is far superior for textual accuracy as well, but there's no harm in starting with a collection of the pulp versions.

>>10740968
No idea. It's not really my picture. Maybe it's Lewis Wallace's library.

You need good, violent, crazy paranormal spy/rewriting of vampire mythos pulp. Here.

Oh, and Brian Lumley's Necroscope series.

>>8431435
"Noble"? That's the modern YA deconstruction. Stoker and earlier already went the sickness route (and as anon said, all earlier folk tales). Also, pic related--if you want real bastard vampires with no fucking sparkles.

Embrace the juicy pulp of Lumley.

>>6850273
Hey there. I know, same old pic, but those four White Wolf paperbacks stuffed up there have all the F & GM stories in them. They did a fifth volume where Robin Wayne Bailey tried to write like Leiber (Swords Against the Shadowland) but I didn't get much from it. If you like Lankhmar, better to hunt up some Clark Ashton Smith, who was his other big influence.

Also if you like Lovecraft but wish his protagonists kicked more ass and went insane and wet their pants a bit less, try Lumley some time.

I always enjoy Lumley, especially Titus Crow and the related stories. He's good solid pulp, and if he's an HPL rip-off, at least his protagonists are more satisfying than Lovecraft's useless neurotics (not that I don't love Lovecraft, but you know what I mean).

All right, you asked for it. This is my Brian Lumley collection. Necroscope up the ass, kids.