I'm confident that Lovecraft wanted to belittle humanity. (He would have said, "Specifically, I want to show that humanity is very little indeed over against a vast universe that knows nothing of humanity's wishes hopes morals dreams achievements.") He did, in a way, balance that with a desire to exalt a version of traditional British culture -- one from which the (historically huge) element of Christianity was absent; his notion of a dignified, learned Anglo-Saxon gentleman standing above the brood of vulgar mongrels. But this element in his outlook was not (as I recall) prominent in his major fiction, where the belittling agenda was overt or implied.

But someone here might qualify these sentences on HPL. And what about the other two? Did they have this belittlement agenda, and how and why did they express it?

Perhaps this would be worth discussing.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm confident that Lovecraft wanted to belittle
> humanity. (He would have said, "Specifically, I
> want to show that humanity is very little indeed
> over against a vast universe that knows nothing of
> humanity's wishes hopes morals dreams
> achievements.") He did, in a way, balance that
> with a desire to exalt a version of traditional
> British culture -- one from which the
> (historically huge) element of Christianity was
> absent; his notion of a dignified, learned
> Anglo-Saxon gentleman standing above the brood of
> vulgar mongrels. But this element in his outlook
> was not (as I recall) prominent in his major
> fiction, where the belittling agenda was overt or
> implied.
>
> But someone here might qualify these sentences on
> HPL. And what about the other two? Did they have
> this belittlement agenda, and how and why did they
> express it?
>
> Perhaps this would be worth discussing.

Let's see...

To try to engage on this topic, I'd like to think that HPL's version of evil was "cosmic evil". This is outside of any normal theology. It exists before humanity, and it is evil because from humanity's POV, humanity is not recognized by this evil as anything other than insignificant chattel...at best. Ot simple vermin to torment, like a kid with a magnifying glass at an anthill.

CAS's evil seemed based on human shortcomings: hubris, greed, lust, cowardice, etc. Every now and then you get a direct impingement by a non-human, like in The Weird of Avoosl Wuthoqquan, where greed is used to trap provender. And even in The Dark Eidolon the involved god, Thasaidon, is motivated by a sort of revenge for Namirrah acting like a big shot. Thasaidon acts like an offended human tyrant might.

So CAS's evil is usually a lot like bad Greek gods, at the most. Simply superhumans.

I'd say that HPL belittled humanity from "above", from the implied perspective of the unfathomable cosmos peopled by superior and completely alien beings, as he construes it. CAS sort of mocks human nature, rather than truly belittles humanity.

Certainly I can be convinced otherwise.

--Sawfish

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

That's the sort of discussion I hoped this thread might attract, Sawfish. I thought Kipling's postings on August 7 invited wide-ranging and interesting discussion about these three authors, and the "belittlement" idea might indeed be a way to get at their differences. I haven't read a lot of CAS, though, and of what I have read, a fair bit was quite a while ago, so I don't have much to contribute, myself. But what you wrote sounds spot-on to me.

Now a related question might be -- what is the attitude(s) one typically sees in each author's "belittling" stories? With Lovecraft, it seems to me, the agenda of evoking literary (not literal) supernatural terror/horror is emphasized. Lovecraft maybe balances two things as he writes his stories. On the one hand he wants to evoke the cosmic evil you have identified, which makes humankind "small" in his view, and on the other hand he wants the reader to "sympathize" with (often) a first-person narrator who gets into a nasty predicament, or with at least an obvious protagonist (in At the Mountains of Madness the members of the exploring group together are "the protagonist"). Otherwise, he'd likely figure, the reader would feel less horror/terror.

But with Smith, it seems to me that in some of his stories at least there's a kind of sardonic glee, as if the reader is invited to enjoy the spectacle of the appalling fates meted out to the victims.

There's a satirical glee in Swift, but I don't think I'd say it is sardonic.

I completely agree with you that HPL's belittling of humanity was at the core of his cosmic horror. I also appreciate the differentiation that was made between the ways in which HPL belittled humankind, and how CAS illustrated our place in the cosmos. However, I don't feel that Robert E Howard did this as often, or that was central to his work. Conan, Solomon Kane and other human heroes in Howard's writings face evil forces from beyond head on and would usually triumph. His tale: The Thing On The Roof in particular comes to mind, when an everyman meets a Lovecraftian evil but summons the courage to destroy it. Overall his work was about the strength of humankind when facing larger and more powerful cosmic forces. I know I've read his horror tales that end in doom, but I still feel that his theme of the strength of man and woman is more central to his work.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's the sort of discussion I hoped this thread
> might attract, Sawfish. I thought Kipling's
> postings on August 7 invited wide-ranging and
> interesting discussion about these three authors,
> and the "belittlement" idea might indeed be a way
> to get at their differences. I haven't read a lot
> of CAS, though, and of what I have read, a fair
> bit was quite a while ago, so I don't have much to
> contribute, myself. But what you wrote sounds
> spot-on to me.
>
> Now a related question might be -- what is the
> attitude(s) one typically sees in each author's
> "belittling" stories? With Lovecraft, it seems to
> me, the agenda of evoking literary (not literal)
> supernatural terror/horror is emphasized.
> Lovecraft maybe balances two things as he writes
> his stories. On the one hand he wants to evoke
> the cosmic evil you have identified, which makes
> humankind "small" in his view,

Yes.

> and on the other
> hand he wants the reader to "sympathize" with
> (often) a first-person narrator who gets into a
> nasty predicament, or with at least an obvious
> protagonist (in At the Mountains of Madness the
> members of the exploring group together are "the
> protagonist"). Otherwise, he'd likely figure, the
> reader would feel less horror/terror.

Yes, and this is pure pencraft, admirable. I know that you full well understand the
nuances of the art, Dale, from my past experiences.

Maybe it's of significance that his "protagonists" are not sympathetic--it's difficult to attach to them as admirable individuals--but they are *human* and usually well-educated, so there is that commonality with the readers.

>
> But with Smith, it seems to me that in some of his
> stories at least there's a kind of sardonic glee,
> as if the reader is invited to enjoy the spectacle
> of the appalling fates meted out to the victims.

Yes, indeed, and for certain kinds of readers, whom I'll leave unidentified, it's the hot sauce on the enchilada... :^)
>
>
> There's a satirical glee in Swift, but I don't
> think I'd say it is sardonic.

Trying hard to remember, it seemed humorous, but less nuanced with gleeful irony than CAS.

CAS could sometimes come off as very worldly--the authorial voice (if i'm using this correctly) behind the POV. He can actually sense the attractions of succubi, I get the feeling...

Try The Witchcraft of Ulloa, or something like that. I enjoyed it as a sort of worldly morality tale. People very often get their comeuppance in his stories, all right. But sometimes it's devoid of this sort of conventional morality, too, which is refreshing.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish, a quick comment on your remark about Lovecraft's protagonists, that they "are not sympathetic--it's difficult to attach to them as admirable individuals--but they are *human* and usually well-educated, so there is that commonality with the readers."

But my memory is that quite a few of the protagonists are, at first, attractive figures to identify with: well-educated, as you say, and of comfortable means, probably respected by their peers, with curiosity that we find appealing (i.e. it's not mostly a matter of personal ambition to become famous that moves them to their explorations).I think the protagonists are an important factor in the way that, for readers, Lovecraft's world is a comfortable one.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, a quick comment on your remark about
> Lovecraft's protagonists, that they "are not
> sympathetic--it's difficult to attach to them as
> admirable individuals--but they are *human* and
> usually well-educated, so there is that
> commonality with the readers."
>
> But my memory is that quite a few of the
> protagonists are, at first, attractive figures to
> identify with: well-educated, as you say, and of
> comfortable means, probably respected by their
> peers, with curiosity that we find appealing (i.e.
> it's not mostly a matter of personal ambition to
> become famous that moves them to their
> explorations).I think the protagonists are an
> important factor in the way that, for readers,
> Lovecraft's world is a comfortable one.

It is a comfortable one and I wholeheartedly agree with that observation you developed in the past. It is comfortable in the same sense that Doyle's Holmes series is. Would you agree?

To me, the characters seem--owing to their education and comfortable means--above all *complacent*. This of course sorta unappealing--I believe that the current Gen Z would use the term "privileged" and it carries a certain negativity even to me, who has made it his life's work to amass whatever concrete assets of value that I could for the benefit of my bloodline.

So that when they get utterly gobsmacked by the cosmos, as in that one where a smart-alec goes into a tomb with a telephone (calls out to the POV) so as to prove he was right about something, and down there apparently goes thru many changes of the sort best left unsaid.

Fun discussion.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish asks, "It is comfortable in the same sense that Doyle's Holmes series is. Would you agree?"

Pretty much, yes -- and the test goes like this: Suppose I were out in a cabin in the woods and found myself to be in the mood for a Lovecraft story, but none were to be had. On the little shelf, though, I saw some books including The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Sure -- that would do.

Holmes, like some of those Lovecraft scholar-protagonists, doesn't have to worry about meals, or the obligations of marriage and family, etc. He lives largely to exercise his abilities and to satisfy his curiosity, like some of them.

I have the impression that a number of fan writers have written "Lovecraftian" stories with Sherlock Holmes as a character.

But Holmes is never overwhelmed at the end by some ghastly fate. He always does more than escape by the skin of his teeth. I like it, though, that early on at least Doyle had Holmes fail to pull off a complete victory. He was outwitted by Irene Adler ("A Scandal in Bohemia") and was a day late and a dollar short in connection with a forgery gang ("The Engineer's Thumb").

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish asks, "It is comfortable in the same sense
> that Doyle's Holmes series is. Would you agree?"
>
> Pretty much, yes -- and the test goes like this:
> Suppose I were out in a cabin in the woods and
> found myself to be in the mood for a Lovecraft
> story, but none were to be had. On the little
> shelf, though, I saw some books including The
> Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Sure -- that would
> do.
>
> Holmes, like some of those Lovecraft
> scholar-protagonists, doesn't have to worry about
> meals, or the obligations of marriage and family,
> etc. He lives largely to exercise his abilities
> and to satisfy his curiosity, like some of them.
>
> I have the impression that a number of fan writers
> have written "Lovecraftian" stories with Sherlock
> Holmes as a character.
>
> But Holmes is never overwhelmed at the end by some
> ghastly fate. He always does more than escape by
> the skin of his teeth. I like it, though, that
> early on at least Doyle had Holmes fail to pull
> off a complete victory. He was outwitted by Irene
> Adler ("A Scandal in Bohemia") and was a day late
> and a dollar short in connection with a forgery
> gang ("The Engineer's Thumb").

Here's a thought...

Following up on the idea of creating a "comfortable story"--and I'm not even sure that what we're talking about is truly a discrete element of the stylistic toolkit, like setting, tone, voice--Dunsany's "The Jorkens Stories" also shares this characteristic we're talking about. There's no wife or domestic duties, there are stable and somewhat enriched surroundings (a British gentleman's club of lesser status), and the form is that one of the members--the vaguely disreputable Jorkins--conveys humorous and fantastic recollections as a means to obtain a free drink.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish, I haven't read more than maybe two or three of these and none recently, but it sounds like there's a kinship. Lovecraft didn't use the social setting, so far as I remember, except maybe in "Pickman's Model" (not one of his better stories), right? In that one, as I recall, a rather keyed-up narrator is holding his captive audience Eliot or Elliott (I forget the spelling) and telling the story. They both knew the artist Pickman, right? I don't remember if it is specified, how they became acquainted, but a club setting would make sense. Perhaps the next sentence after the end of the story as Lovecraft wrote it was a reply: "Well, if what you're saying is true, there's no question but that Pickman will have to be blackballed!"

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, I haven't read more than maybe two or
> three of these and none recently, but it sounds
> like there's a kinship. Lovecraft didn't use the
> social setting, so far as I remember, except maybe
> in "Pickman's Model" (not one of his better
> stories), right? In that one, as I recall, a
> rather keyed-up narrator is holding his captive
> audience Eliot or Elliott (I forget the spelling)
> and telling the story. They both knew the artist
> Pickman, right? I don't remember if it is
> specified, how they became acquainted, but a club
> setting would make sense. Perhaps the next
> sentence after the end of the story as Lovecraft
> wrote it was a reply: "Well, if what you're saying
> is true, there's no question but that Pickman will
> have to be blackballed!"

Hah! Canceled, huh? ;^)

Seriously, I cannot recall the story in detail well enough to comment intelligently, so...

I know you've done some thinking on the "comfortable narratives" topic (which I thought about quite a bit, tested to my satisfaction, and unreservedly agreed with), and you may have categorized it attributes, but if not it would be interesting to compile an organized list, maybe.

What attributes are absolutely essential?

What lesser attributes contribute to narratives we classify as "comfortable"?

E.g., a club is not essential, as the HPL stories demonstrate, but it can cumulatively add to the feeling. In Holmes it's their apartment; maybe smoking and violin-playing. In something as superficially unlikely as Mountains of Madness, it is that the expedition is a superbly well-funded college research expedition.

The whole idea is, to me, very interesting.

Also, this comfortable feeling, to what part of the stylistic vocabulary (mood, setting, characterization, theme, etc.) does it relate? Is it wholly within a single stylistic element, is it an oddball hybrid, or is it something else?

There is, however, none of this in CAS that I can recall.

--Sawfish

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Aug 23 | 11:34AM by Sawfish.

Sawfish, I haven't read CAS lately, but I don't remember the "comfortable" elements as typical of his writing. This might mean that Lovecraft was more susceptible to influence from Doyle and other authors who used that approach.

Lovecraft used it less when he was writing in the manner of Poe. I see Lovecraft as writing Poe- or Dunsany-type stories early on (and the Dunsany stories being the dream-stories or myth pantheon-stories, not Jorkens), but later writing stories with more of an element of quasi-detection and/or adventure. Can ED folk verify that impression?

I wrote "comfortable elements," plural.

There's the comfortableness experienced by the reader. The reader (1) identifies with characters in comfortable circumstances and (2) reads a story of events and entities too bizarre and extreme to be really unsettling to him. Agreed? A test of this is the type of appreciation that the reader feels, for example, when he reads the description of Wilbur Whateley in "The Dunwich Horror." I think Lovecraft wanted the reader to feel horrified and even nauseated, but the Lovecraft fan more likely, if he accurately reported what he felt, would say, "Cool!" It's like the kid I knew when I taught high school who drew the creature from the then-new Alien movie. The creature is cool!

There's the comfortableness of characters in the story, who are in easy circumstances (like the guy in "The Call of Cthulhu" who could just take off on a 'round-the-world trip to satisfy his curiosity -- where does his money come from? Answer: he just has it). They have no families or others to whom they feel obligations, or at least that seems often to be the case. They enjoy what (I believe) Lovecraft yearned for: not vast wealth, but INDEPENDENCE. They can buy the books they want, travel as they want, enjoy a household in a nice and quiet neighborhood, and so on. I think the love of independence was one of the defining characteristics of Lovecraft's personality (and that it has a lot to do with his militant atheism). He imparts the independence he didn't fully enjoy to such characters, who don't have to work for a living or, if they are employees, it;s probably something like a well-endowed university's faculty position.

Sherlock Holmes likewise doesn't have to worry about money. Like Lovecraft's characters, he doesn't worry about meals, but they are there when they are wanted, it seems. Am I remembering fairly well?

So I see this comfort-business, Sawfish, primarily as a matter of circumstances in the story rather than style. It is largely implied rather than being lavishly described.

Just to add to that, Dale, what you've described relates to Robert E. Howard's concern with historical adventure fiction, and Lovecraft's concept of BACKGROUND as an essential, and we might say comfortable element. Smith's fiction is in contrast. We are thrown headlong into his narratives more often than not.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to add to that, Dale, what you've described
> relates to Robert E. Howard's concern with
> historical adventure fiction, and Lovecraft's
> concept of BACKGROUND as an essential, and we
> might say comfortable element. Smith's fiction is
> in contrast. We are thrown headlong into his
> narratives more often than not.


I agree, about CAS, Kipling, and diverging somewhat here, it dawned on me this morning that very often in CAS stories, the terrible events described happen to a character who, in some sense, deserves it.

This is seldom, if ever, the case with HPL. It is a blind collision with circumstance. The character might "deserve" it, or not, but this is unimportant.

--Sawfish

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

Quote:

Dale:
There's the comfortableness experienced by the reader. The reader (1) identifies with characters in comfortable circumstances and (2) reads a story of events and entities too bizarre and extreme to be really unsettling to him. Agreed?

Now that you bring this up, I don't think that such stories are unsettling as, for example, McCarthy's The Road. Very often I am far, far above the action--a 40k foot view. Godlike, I suppose. This goes for such tales as Dreams in the Witch House. The ones I've connected to the character--the object of the terror--enough to be a bit effected --are things like The Outsider (dead person comes to life with incomplete memory and attempts to interact with living humans, not realizing he is not like them, but dead) and Nyarlahotep--which is basically an apocalyptic nightmare, with no possible escape.

Quote:

Dale:
A test of this is the type of appreciation that the reader feels, for example, when he reads the description of Wilbur Whateley in "The Dunwich Horror." I think Lovecraft wanted the reader to feel horrified and even nauseated, but the Lovecraft fan more likely, if he accurately reported what he felt, would say, "Cool!" It's like the kid I knew when I taught high school who drew the creature from the then-new Alien movie. The creature is cool!

I seldom react that way. Maybe the Call of Cthulu ("flabby claws"!!!--wow, this is a purposeful and masterly non-sequitur that highlights alienness). All those implied non-Euclidian angles....

Quote:

Dale:
There's the comfortableness of characters in the story, who are in easy circumstances (like the guy in "The Call of Cthulhu" who could just take off on a 'round-the-world trip to satisfy his curiosity -- where does his money come from? Answer: he just has it).

Yes.

Quote:

Dale:
They have no families or others to whom they feel obligations, or at least that seems often to be the case.

Yes.

Quote:

Dale:
They enjoy what (I believe) Lovecraft yearned for: not vast wealth, but INDEPENDENCE. They can buy the books they want, travel as they want, enjoy a household in a nice and quiet neighborhood, and so on. I think the love of independence was one of the defining characteristics of Lovecraft's personality (and that it has a lot to do with his militant atheism). He imparts the independence he didn't fully enjoy to such characters, who don't have to work for a living or, if they are employees, it;s probably something like a well-endowed university's faculty position.

Seems to me it's likely that he felt this way.

Quote:

Dale:
Sherlock Holmes likewise doesn't have to worry about money. Like Lovecraft's characters, he doesn't worry about meals, but they are there when they are wanted, it seems. Am I remembering fairly well?

I don't recall. I *do* recall the comfortable feeling in Holmes when the story would start in their shared apartment, furnished in the style of an eccentric bachelor, and the housekeeper/landlady was bringing them something to eat or drink.

Quote:

Dale:
So I see this comfort-business, Sawfish, primarily as a matter of circumstances in the story rather than style. It is largely implied rather than being lavishly described.

If so, I'd see it as an aspect of setting. Sound about right?

--Sawfish

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20 Aug 23 | 10:07AM by Sawfish.