/lit/ - Literature

>>18048645
*Overrated

>>18048645
I think the main criticism is his occasional purple prose and sentences too heavy in adjectives, and you end up rereading the sentence again because of the descriptive overload.

This doesn't happen nearly often enough to make him unreadable though.

On a different note, I think I prefer Clark Ashton Smith (which is underrated) to Lovecraft.

>>18048645
He himself acknowledges that his descriptions of things suck.

>>18048645
I wouldn't say he is not a good writer but desu every other of his contemporaries I read after him were better: Blackwood, Machen and MR James

>>18049169
he was comparing himself to clark ashton smith

>>18048645
what do you gain by posting a lovecraft thread every day

>>18049212
>what do you gain by posting one of the like 5 threads actually discussing literature and not /pol/ 2.0 topics

because he just sucks. his faux poetics are turgid and rambling, and the only fortune we have is he transferred his "talent" to pulp books instead. he's inferior to both his inspirations and his contemporaries (such as clark ashton smith and robert e. howard).

He wrote pulpy tales about space squids but with purple prose.

>>18049169
>it was indescribable
genius

American "weird fiction" is a disease upon literature.

*dragon ball z teleports behind u sound*

>>18048645
because they are women virtually signalling to other women about how virtuous they are for hating a racist white man

who the fuck is out there reading Lovecraft for the prose anyway? I swear this board is overflowing with pretentious pseuds

>>18049292
stupid argument, lovecraft's purple prose is inseparable from his work as a whole. actually i'll go a step further and say this is a moronic argument by any other criteria too.

>>18049320
you do that, kiddo. if you're reading pulpy atmospheric horror like lovecraft and your first instinct is to gripe about the prose you might be genuinely autistic

>>18049350
begging for your idol to not be criticized is pretty pathetic.

>”Lovecraft bad”
>”Lovecraft prose bad”

>>18049363
hes not my "idol" and im not even trying to say he was a technically great writer you pseud retard, I just dont understand how you can come away from pulpy writing that exists to effectively create a spooky atmosphere autistically ranting about how the prose are sub standard

>>18049375
>"Lovecraft good"
>"Lovecraft prose bad"

>>18049453
It’s not that bad. I really never understood this criticism levelled at him. It’s conventional if a bit dated but it truly befits a guy who taught himself everything he knew and read through the classics without a disciplined university education.

You guys just parrot what other people say to make yourselves feel intelligent haha. If you think his prose is bad then you have never seen truly bad prose.

>>18048645
He has absolutely no substance to any of his work, it's just bargain bin pathos accompanied by clumsy prose. It's like kafka or faulkner without any of the craftmenship, purpose, or talent. Asking why people don't like him is like asking why people don't like YA or genre fiction. There's just nothing there

>>18049521
>It’s conventional if a bit dated but it truly befits a guy who taught himself everything he knew and read through the classics without a disciplined university education.
That's not an excuse. That's not an excuse at all. Plenty of authors have never even set foot in university and are miles ahead of him

>>18049521
I'm not parroting what anyone says, his prose just isn't fun to read, and he constantly uses "incomprehensible" or " "indescribable", which is a pretty cheap effect.

>>18049535
>There's just nothing there
Nothing for a brainlet sure

Because he had a cat named "Nigger-man" and wrote about Asians being fish people.

Say what you want about purple prose...but his short stories work really well in audio format.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDbyS4oOCWo

>>18049587
Now you've abandoned the platform of 'pseuds' for that of 'brainlets': you have declared your position untenable to the entire thread and now retreat to feigned superiority to defend yourself. You have lost, and I have won. Thank you for your concession

>>18048645
why are you making the same threads over and over? Are you trying to get people to dislike him?

>>18049551
Melville is cheating

>>18049152
>Be Dickens.
>Make convoluted sentences of descriptive overload.
>"Wow, he's so talented at setting a scene and describing everything! He might be the greatest novelist ever!"

>Be Lovecraft.
>Make convoluted sentences of descriptive overload.
>"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE..."

>>18049535
>There's just nothing there
do you have no imagination? are a you a literal god damn NPC?

>>18048645
I don’t understand how you can like horror but not like Lovecraft. He is so significant in the genre. Of course if you don’t like horror you’ll hate him for the prose or whatever. which is fine but why read him in the first place then?

>>18049877
>BUT WHATABOUT
yawn

>>18049897
Because critics need something to criticize.
>>18049899
Are you denying that critics behave this way? Or just being a faggot for the sake of it?