I'm nearing the end of the enjoyable Darkly Bright Press collection of "Queer Things" columns from The Observer in the 1920s.

In the 13 Feb. 1927 entry, Machen writes about the development of the Arthurian mythos. Then he adds: "But the only myths we can devise are squalid, malevolent, crazy."

He was premature in that judgement, as we known from the publication in years following of Tolkien's Middle-earth books.

But I wondered what Machen had in mind, about "squalid, malevolent, crazy" myths.


Naturally I thought of Lovecraft, but I doubt Machen ever saw an issue of Weird Tales and, in any event, Lovecraft didn't hit his stride on the "Cthulhu Mythos" (to use a term I don't believe he used himself) later than when Machen was writing.

So I wondered what Machen might have said if he had been asked for examples. He might have been using "myths" rather broadly and not even necessarily referring to written work, but in context he must have been thinking of published work. He might have been using "myths" broadly enough to include written work dealing with non-supernatural beings, as when people refer to Robinson Crusoe as a myth.

People here have read more supernatural horror fiction than I, perhaps even more fantasy than I --though I've read a lot, much of it not very good and being things I would find it hard to finish now. But, again, most of that would be too late for Machen.

So what might Machen have had in mind?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm nearing the end of the enjoyable Darkly Bright
> Press collection of "Queer Things" columns from
> The Observer in the 1920s.
>
> In the 13 Feb. 1927 entry, Machen writes about the
> development of the Arthurian mythos. Then he
> adds: "But the only myths we can devise are
> squalid, malevolent, crazy."
>
> He was premature in that judgement, as we known
> from the publication in years following of
> Tolkien's Middle-earth books.
>
> But I wondered what Machen had in mind, about
> "squalid, malevolent, crazy" myths.
>
>
> Naturally I thought of Lovecraft, but I doubt
> Machen ever saw an issue of Weird Tales and, in
> any event, Lovecraft didn't hit his stride on the
> "Cthulhu Mythos" (to use a term I don't believe he
> used himself) later than when Machen was writing.
>
> So I wondered what Machen might have said if he
> had been asked for examples. He might have been
> using "myths" rather broadly and not even
> necessarily referring to written work, but in
> context he must have been thinking of published
> work. He might have been using "myths" broadly
> enough to include written work dealing with
> non-supernatural beings, as when people refer to
> Robinson Crusoe as a myth.
>
> People here have read more supernatural horror
> fiction than I, perhaps even more fantasy than I
> --though I've read a lot, much of it not very good
> and being things I would find it hard to finish
> now. But, again, most of that would be too late
> for Machen.
>
> So what might Machen have had in mind?

Would you think that Stevenson's "The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" or Stoker's "Dracula", or Shelley's "Frankenstein" might fit his allusion?

These are all less than ennobling when compared to Arthurian myth.

--Sawfish

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

Interesting speculations, Sawfish, and I could see Dracula in particular as being what he had in mind. Machen is on record somewhere about Jekyll/Hyde and not in a negative way.

Dale

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting speculations, Sawfish, and I could see
> Dracula in particular as being what he had in
> mind. Machen is on record somewhere about
> Jekyll/Hyde and not in a negative way.
>
> Dale


E.g., The Worm Ouroboros "myth" is not tawdry like any of the others I mentioned. These others lack any sense of nobility, in my opinion. They are at best tragic, like Faust, and their narrative details and implications seem purposely unsettling, like Ellroy's Black Dahlia.

In a way, there is a fair amount of titillation in these works.

--Sawfish

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

I really wonder what Machen had in mind. If he included not just "myths" but popular "legends," that could open up some possibilities. There was something about the Kitchener legend in the book -- I'd have to look it up -- but Machen seemed to dissent, as I recall. But I don't think THAT was something "squalid, malevolent, crazy."