/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17057514]

How great is his literature, really?

[Anonymous No.17057548]

>>17057514
He was very talentless as a writer but had a lot of interesting and original ideas which one could argue is the most important virtue for a writer.

[Anonymous No.17057553]

[Anonymous No.17057555]

>>17057514
>now how will i describe this?
>nah fuck that
he's a hack. if you wanna spook yourself just do some nightshades

[Anonymous No.17057560]

>>17057514
The man knows way more big words than me and also he very accurate you get the sense that he himself is very familiar with how most of the things in the world work, giving you details only people with firsthand knowledge should know

[Anonymous No.17057952]

>>17057548
>a lot of interesting and original ideas which one could argue is the most important virtue for a writer.
You could argue that but you'd be wrong, the most important virtue for a writer is being a good writer.

[Anonymous No.17057988]

>>17057548
I thought he was pretty good.

[Anonymous No.17058007]

>>17057514
"Rats in the Walls" and "Shadow over Innsmouth" are short story masterpieces imo.

[Anonymous No.17058137]

>>17057548
>LE BAD WRITER BUT IDEAS MAN

is there a more npc take? A lot his ideas are basic and shit like some guy who needs lots of ice to not decompose

[Anonymous No.17058142]

>>17057514
Some of its pretty good, plenty of it is middling. For someone writing to sell short stories to pulps what he managed is pretty admirable.

[Anonymous No.17058170]

>>17057514
The quality of his stories varys a lot but overall I think he's pretty good. His themes about scientific progress, about knowing too much and what that does to humans, are pretty interesting. Nyarlhotep for example is great in this regard.

[Anonymous No.17058251]

Pretty based if you ask me

[Anonymous No.17058346]

>>17057514
I've never read anything by Lovecraft but recently I've become interested in him. The general consensus is that he's a hack and a terrible writer, but his writing is very influential despite that. I've heard people say the only reason he's influential is because some guy made an rpg loosely based on his ideas, can't say whether that's true or not.

When I was younger I thought lovecraft was cringe because the people in my high school who liked him liked him for cringe reasons and were themselves cringe. So by association I disliked him without having read any of his work, which I still haven't.

From browsing lit a while I learned more about him and I think he's more nuanced than people give credit for. One of the reasons his writing is so 'bad' is because the magazines he wrote for paid by the word, so his writing reflects that. I can't say whether its good or not but most people say it's bad, however he's great at description.

I learned from lit that a lot of his work and mythos is influenced by Islamic culture and orientalism because he was an orientalist, which was news to me. And that's honestly what made me interested in him. If anyone has more information on his Islamic influences I'd be fascinated to hear more about that. A quick google search did show me that there are some academic articles written about the influence of Islam on his work, which I haven't read yet but I will sometime.

Another issue that inevitably comes up in discussions of lovecraft are his racism and xenophobia. I honestly don't care that he was racist, a lot of people dismiss him entirely for that reason, which I think is dumb. Practically everyone has some unsavory aspects to their personality or lives and to dismiss them entirely for it is hypocritical I think. King described him as a galloping racist, verbatim. I can't say whether it's true or not but supposedly his xenophobia abated later in life somewhat because he found a girlfriend or something like that.

Anyway, take what I've got to say with a grain of salt since I haven't read him, but I've read about him. Interesting fella considering we still discuss him today. He's gotta be worth something for his influence to last this long if you ask me

[Anonymous No.17058412]

>>17058346
>The general consensus is that he's a hack and a terrible writer
Really? Where did you hear that?
I only recently started reading him and so far I have only finished some of his short, 5-10 pages long stories, but up to now his writing didn't strike me as exceptionally terrible. It doesn't blow you away either but it serves the purpose, supports the atmosphere and aesthetic he's building. Just overall solid.
Could it be that his writing falls apart and the weaknesses show in his longer stories?

[Anonymous No.17058425]

Decent but he is a pulp writer and does not deserve anywhere near the praise he gets. He's almost Tolkien tier popular but his stuff is nowhere near that level, let alone being put with actual literary greats

[Anonymous No.17058451]

>>17058412
It's certainly possible that his longer stories are the worse ones overall, especially considering that the short stories are what's often discussed and recommended

>Really? Where did you hear that?
Literally everywhere. On 4chan any thread about Lovecraft there's people saying he's a terrible writer. Other writers consider him a terrible writer, including Stephen King who I quoted earlier. I think academics also say he's a bad writer, but I don't have enough familiarity with him in academic settings. Even in this thread most people are saying he's a bad writer.

I can't comment on whether his writing is or isn't bad, because I haven't read his work yet. But everyone I've heard or read that talks about him is unanimous that he's not a good writer

[Anonymous No.17058499]

>>17057514
Alright, but there is little alternative in his kind of writing ("serious" horror not relying on gothic or exotic picturesque). That elevates him above what his style would warrant in terms of both mass and scholarly interest. When the competition is Steven King, you easily appear a genius.
Where he excels is setting atmospheres. Definitely a situation focused writer rather than a character based one. If you're the type to read books "for the characters", you won't like him.

[Anonymous No.17058516]

>>17057514
His stories were really well done, but the prose wasn't that great.

[Anonymous No.17058521]

dry prose isnt necessarily a negative but i did found them pretty boring
still would not call him a bad writer

[Anonymous No.17058530]

Both overrated and overhated.

[Anonymous No.17058552]

>>17057548
Idk why people think he’s a bad writer. He pretty perfectly sets a certain mood and hits his desired themes perfectly.
Don’t be a redditor crying that there’s no quips or character development

[Anonymous No.17058561]

>>17058552
>MY QUIPS!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.17058595]

>>17057514
Not great and only few stories are actually good, but I think Lovecraft was way ahead of his time.

[Anonymous No.17058675]

>>17058346
>From browsing lit a while I learned more about him
No you didn't.

[Anonymous No.17058679]

>>17058451
If we're talking literary merit, I'm sure he's far from the likes of Tolstoy or Poe or other authors that are generally discussed in academic settings. If you try to evaluate his work outside of his particular lane, he has no place in the great literary canon. But I don't think anybody ever claimed that. I know I'm just stating obvious facts but people like his aesthetic and as a genre writer, for what he's trying to achieve he is certainly not bad. Judging from what I've read, i'd even claim he is above average if you compare him to the majority of the books that are being sold today.
Also, I get what you're trying to say and you're certainly not wrong or anything but Stephen King called him a hack? Seriously? King is probably the hackiest writer I ever read. This criticism means nothing, coming from him. His books are absolutely ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.17058687]

>>17057514
Best bad writer there is

[Anonymous No.17058701]

>>17058451
the consensus is he's a good but not great writer

[Anonymous No.17058702]

>>17058675
Fair point.

>>17058679
I mostly agree with what you said I'm just telling you what I've heard. Also the point about King being he's the only popular writer I've heard make a statement about Lovecraft. But generally yeah I agree with you

[Anonymous No.17058703]

>>17058346
>the magazines he wrote for paid by the word

citation needed

>he was an orientalist
pretty sure he wasn't

[Anonymous No.17058712]

>>17058703
He was an orientalist. You're obtuse if you deny that much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuesIw-OZA4&t=2s

I don't have a source that his magazines paid by the word, it's just something I heard at a talk some guy gave about him

[Anonymous No.17058719]

>>17058701
The consensus is that he's bad

[Anonymous No.17058721]

>>17057514
Only the pseuds don't recognize his genius.

[Anonymous No.17058736]

>>17058721
this, but not literary genius - imaginary genius rather

[Anonymous No.17058737]

>>17058702
I know. I just thought it was funny, hearing this criticism from Stephen King. Among popular writers, just to highlight some opposite opinions, I also know of Houellebecq who regards Lovecraft very highly. He even wrote an essay about him. That's also how I got the idea of reading lovecraft.

[Anonymous No.17058756]

He wrote in a way that didn’t challenge the reader but evoked their imagination - you are always guessing, anticipating and for most readers, who are used to episodic media content, this is perfect - but eventually you will read something better that has more emotional and philosophical depth, something that resonates with how you feel about society or someone and you’ll look back on Lovecraft and feel a bit silly about how you used to read to get that same episodic thrill that modern media is obsessed with.
This all happens generally before your mid-twenties, I would not recommend Lovecraft to anyone older than that.

[Anonymous No.17058922]

>>17058679
I agree with this post.

>>17058756
Will I ever grow out of Poe? I don’t want to. I’m afraid of re-reading some books because of this fear..

[Anonymous No.17058949]

>>17058552
Ligotti is a better writer but his characters have even lesser development, if at all. It's not that, Lovecraft often comes across as that one guy trying too hard to be scary and mysterious at camp bonfires.

[Anonymous No.17058954]

>>17058736
>Imaginary genius
This one's open to interpretation.

[Anonymous No.17058965]

>>17057514
Shitty novelist
Excellent poet

[Anonymous No.17059131]

>>17058679
I heard King once say "Lovecraft isnt as good as I used to think, his scenes are very static."

[Anonymous No.17059160]

>>17057553
Shut up Niggerman i'm working !

[Anonymous No.17059161]

>>17059131
Ok, that's more justified than an outright dismissal.

[Anonymous No.17059530]

>>17058756
>emotional and philosophical depth
>muh society
so, you stopped being a dreamer and turned into a pseud

[Anonymous No.17059599]

>>17058922
>Will I ever grow out of Poe? I don’t want to. I’m afraid of re-reading some books because of this fear..

BABOON!!!! BABOON BABOON BABOON!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.17059618]

People that dislike him simply have no taste you cannot provide a single example of poor writing.

[Anonymous No.17059682]

>>17057514
Terrific premises, not too much craft. Lots of pointy headed and arcane words, practically no dialogue. Maybe the best worst writer in history.

[Anonymous No.17060704]

>>17059682
Not that bad, you should read it to make your own opinion, everyone has different tastes and the style that might marvel one might bore the other, he has good ideas and not bad prose, it also depends on the story, I personally like all of them but some are better than others, such as reanimator.
Basically disregard everyone's opinions here, including mine, and just make your own mind, find a couple of stories online and read them, see if you like the style.

[Anonymous No.17060725]

>>17060704
How do you know that he hasn't read Lovecraft? He could be critical despite having read him.

[Anonymous No.17060748]

What's the essential Lovecraft ouevre? I read Shadow and adored his writing style even though I'm not one to be vicariously effected by horror writing.
I don't really care about his extended mythos and all that Hot Topic crap, I just want his best writings, or preferably a definitive anthology.

[Anonymous No.17060990]

>>17057514
Not so great. I don't think any sort of praise towards him is really warranted despite his influence on pop culture.

[Anonymous No.17061002]

>>17058922
>Will I ever grow out of Poe?
Preferably when you're in your 20s. Fuck Poe.

[Anonymous No.17061018]

>>17059618
>People that dislike him simply have no taste

[Anonymous No.17061063]

>>17060725
Why would he be asking us, if he read it? Wouldn't he just judge the quality by himself and moved on?

[Anonymous No.17061116]

>>17061063
Did you reply to the wrong guy, telling him to form his own opinion? That guy isn't asking anything.>>17059682

[Anonymous No.17061129]

before reading Lovecraft i thought i knew close to perfect English but it turns out my vocabulary is extremely poor. I have to look up a lot of words which kills my flow and annoys me. Other than that the atmosphere he creates is amazing

[Anonymous No.17061133]

>>17061129
Holy...

[Anonymous No.17061136]

>>17061133
?

[Anonymous No.17061400]

>>17061116
Yes, I am a retard, I though that was OP. I apologize.

[Anonymous No.17061406]

>>17057514

[Anonymous No.17061425]

>>17061400
No need for that, fren.

[Anonymous No.17061447]

>>17057514
>True art is obtainable only by rejecting normality and conventionality in toto, and approaching a theme purged utterly of any usual or preconceived point of view.

>It must, if it is to be authentic art, form primarily the crystallization or symbolization of a definite human mood—not the attempted delineation of events, since the 'events' involved are of course largely fictitious and impossible. These events should figure secondarily—atmosphere being first.

Yeah I'm thinking 140iq based genius

[Anonymous No.17061537]

>>17058679
I think At the Mountains of Madness can stand alone in the actual literary canon. I basically see it as a modernist novella, not a horror story really

[Anonymous No.17061569]

great but not all of his works

[Anonymous No.17061571]

>>17061406
hello, based department?

[Anonymous No.17061574]

For some reason /lit/ hates his prose a lot. His writing style is a little peculiar, but once you can look past that he is pretty solid. His worldbuilding is very good and personally I want to stress the fact that most of his protagonists are actually written as rather sensible and rational, which is somewhat rare in horror fiction. Thus most of his main characters are very relatable, even to a modern audience.

Only criticisms I can give is that he never managed to deliver a single major coherent work, which can be considered his magnum opus, like Tolkien did with LotR. All we are left with is a loose collection of vaguely connected short stories. Which is somewhat ironic, because it reflects his approach on horror.

[Anonymous No.17061740]

He was a good writer, niggers just don't want to give credit to pulp fiction being decent.

[Anonymous No.17061846]

"The Temple" is great

[Anonymous No.17062197]

>>17061740
For the record the majority of mainstream critics that call him a shit writer are doing so because they want to distance themselves from the evil racist while stealing his ideas at the same time
See Jeff Vandermeer

[Anonymous No.17062333]

>>17057514
I liked it

[Anonymous No.17062478]

>>17061447
>>True art is obtainable only by rejecting normality and conventionality in toto, and approaching a theme purged utterly of any usual or preconceived point of view.
retarded
>>It must, if it is to be authentic art, form primarily the crystallization or symbolization of a definite human mood—not the attempted delineation of events, since the 'events' involved are of course largely fictitious and impossible. These events should figure secondarily—atmosphere being first.
correct

[Anonymous No.17062555]

>>17058346
>The general consensus is that he's a hack and a terrible writer, but his writing is very influential despite that.
Pure cope from moderns who are upset about his racism but not upset enough to stop stealing his ideas left and right. They justify it by claiming his writing was lnt very good anyway.

[Anonymous No.17062834]

>>17061574
>never managed to deliver a single major coherent work, which can be considered his magnum opus
You mean a novel? You could say that he has several opuses, or that his best stories put together formed an opus. I don't think the content of what he wrote would work in a longer format, and it doesn't need it.

I think his prose style is great – he has a unique and consistent voice and the style complements the stories perfectly. I wouldn't want to read these stories in some mundane common language, or without that cold detachment from the human world coupled with a sense of mystery and awe for the imagined. It's sometimes unpolished, which is the only unfortunate thing about it as far as I can tell. There are moments when he lacks taste or doesn't quite pull it off with something purple, but his imagination alone more than makes up for those mistakes

[Anonymous No.17062872]

>>17058949
Using a modern lense

[Anonymous No.17062883]

Lens

[Anonymous No.17064570]

>>17057548
this, basically.

[Anonymous No.17064576]

>>17057555
the thing with lovecraft is not that the creatures aren't described, it's that what the characters perceive is far from their absolute true image, so they try time and time again to describe what they've experienced, only to realize that they can't.

[Anonymous No.17064773]

>>17064576
horse shit