Kipling Wrote:
------------------------
> The distinctive
> of HPL's story (which he wrote almost entirely
> despite what Platypus avers) ....

I'm not sure this entirely contrary to what I averred, depending on what is meant by "wrote almost entirely". But even if it were, I am not familiar with the evidence that would induce me to reconsider. Is Sterling's original draft available, for instance, so we could compare it?

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have you read Edmund Hamilton's invisible
> labyrinth fantasy, "The Monster-God of Mamurth",

No, I haven't. I shall!

> or Smith's "The Invisible City"?

Yes, but it was many years ago. I don't remember the details. I will reread it!

I'm shocked no one nominated "The Horror at Red Hook", considering it is completely nonsensical and is very badly composed even from a narrative perspective.

Ashurabani Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm shocked no one nominated "The Horror at Red
> Hook", considering it is completely nonsensical
> and is very badly composed even from a narrative
> perspective.


I certainly tend to agree that it's somehow not a good story, Anshurabani, but what specifically do you mean about "nonsensical", and also "badly composed"?

I think you have something interesting in mind and I'm eager to read it, and I'll prime the ol' analytical pump--so to speak--by saying up front:

1) My first thought is that once you accept that an author's output will routine treat seriously, in the context of the narrative, an octopus-headed alien entity who lies in a dormant state in a sunken city, or others of his ilk, pretty much anything goes. The reader has basically accepted that normal rules of reality don't apply, that it's OK, and so long as the narrative both forms its own rules--by implication or directly--and doesn't violate *its own rules*, it's at least minimally acceptable.

So the basic premise will likely be acceptable, but perhaps the way the plot is structured--manipulated artificial, etc.--this, too, might be nonsensical.

2) My overall impression of Lovecraft's published output is that he was a competent storyteller and his composition (POV, narrative sequence, resolution, etc.) was solid if not artistic. But I can easily be convinced otherwise.

3) Yep. It's definitely not a good story, so far as my recollection of it, but I'm uncertain of the specific reasons why.

It would be fun to kick this around in the group, if you are OK with it. ED is developing to be a lot like the upper division Lit seminars I attended way back when when Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth--stimulating, enjoyable, collegial.

Hope to hear from you!!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ashurabani Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm shocked no one nominated "The Horror at Red
> Hook", considering it is completely nonsensical
> and is very badly composed even from a narrative
> perspective.

The stigma of racism that attaches to it will make many reluctant to defend it. But apart from that, I do not agree with your statement and, like Sawfish, I am uncertain exactly what you mean by it. Your dismissal of the plot as "completely nonsensical" seems over-the-top, and suggests to me that you did not fully understand the story. But if you merely mean that you did not enjoy the story, that is something no-one can argue with.