Lovecraft, paradoxically, devoted an enormous amount of thinking to the craft of writing, yet none of it seems to have had any effect on his own, which strikes me as completely intuitive.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> K_A_:
>
> I should have been clearer in my original remark.
> My objection was specifically to the
> characterization of Poe's style as "overly
> florid". Poe was a consummately conscious artist,
> and I am convinced that he had a reason for
> everything he did. Poe essentially wrote up to
> whatever level of hysteria his macabre situations
> required.

Agreed!

>
> Other than that, I just found it ironic that
> someone in a CAS forum would find any other writer
> "overly florid". Really, it all depends upon one's
> comfort level with the heat and humidity of the
> greenhouse, where orchids and other exotica grow.
> Some flourish in that atmosphere; others wilt in
> the heat.

Yes, there may have been a dash of irony. I, for one, flourish in the greenhouse, and make a habit of inhaling long draughts of the more lethal flora that abide therein, fanning their grossly luxuriant petals, shivering their garishly pied petals like the squamose, mottled skin of strange ophidians, swaying hypnotically to the shrill flutes of unseen star-descended daemons--those thralls of Azathoth, which descend unto the world when cometh Nyarlathotep, the Messenger....

>
> As to the Poe influence, that remark was really
> directed more at some of the other commentators,
> who seemed to me to be implying that Dunsany was
> the major influence on Lovecraft. I may have been
> misreading, but I still thought it worthwhile to
> interject a reminder of Poe's primacy, here.

An apt reminder. I really need to read some Poe--have only read most of the more famous tales, tho' I've had his Complete Fiction on the shelf for years! I deserve to be locked in the Pit, really....

>
> Dunsany: I have found that pro-Plunkettists here
> out-number their opposites by a large margin. I,
> too, would like at least to raise the possibility
> that Lovecraft may have been a better or more
> interesting writer if he'd never read Dunsany,
> regardless of the "sacrifices" we may have had to
> make in other parts of Lovecraft's oeuvre, as a
> result.

I'm not anti-Dunsany--I just can't handle too much of it at once; it grows tedious for me, personally--a matter of taste. For the record, I have a book of Dunsany, and have read several of the tales with enjoyment. The issue I have is that I like my Dunsany confined to Dunsany himself--with Lovecraft, I read him primarily for his more horror-oriented, 'real-world' (Arkham and Innsmouth count) works. As a metaphor, I could say I like my ice-cream (HPL) plain , rather than with chocolate sauce (Dun)...mmmm, ice-cream.... Yes, it is absurd to talk of subtracting influences from authors, but I can't help wondering.... Glad someone sees where I'm coming from!

OConnor,CD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> K_A_, I completely agree with you about an artist
> being overly florid in their works. This is a
> habit, as an amateur, that I'm trying to break.

How long have you been writing? The problem plagued me when I was reading a lot of Lovecraft and Poe, and had no other influences to balance out my style. I still write floridly--but with far more control, and a better sense of when to tone things down a bit. Funnily enough, now that I'm rereading Lovecraft (who made me a writer to begin with), my floridity has made a resurgence in full force--I'm consciously emulating HPL, and paying close attention to his style as I read. Ultimately, I've come to realize that--especially since I'm a poet--I'm much happier building a story word by word, rather than scene by scene. I've realized--took me long enough!--that I'd much prefer to read a very short story that is superbly written than a long one whose prose is uninteresting and sterile. And now I'm writing to reflect that outlook.

> Even Lovecraft himself later said something to the
> extent of "Save the weird words for when they are
> absolutely necessary or else they won't have the
> intended effect".

He's right--if you're going to use a word, do it wisely, and with purpose. Of course, in weird fiction, moments when such words are appropriate abound--hence the verbosity of weird ficion (yeah, if only it were that simple....)

It's recorded in one of the
> selected letters series. Lovecraft even gave an
> opinion of his tale "The Festival" as being
> "overly colorful and verbose". On the pro side it
> read beautifully to me. However, on the con side
> when it came for the climax I was so used to the
> beautiful and horrid language that I became immune
> to the climax.

The Festival is one of my favorites!--superbly written. Very atmospheric. It is the embodiment, in some ways, of what I aim for in my own fiction.

Right now I'm working on a tale
> called "A Visitation". I resisted the urge to
> overly colorize my language and instead, used them
> only to slightly enhance the scene. Of course when
> the reader approaches the climax I will go all
> out. But now I'm beginning to see why an author
> should only use colorful language when it's
> absolutely necessary.

I'm working on one called either "The Dream-Labyrinth" or "The Nameless Tome." Obviously, very Lovecraftian--there is a rotting decadent town, witchcraft, garret rooms, evil books, a weird maze.... It's supposed to be short, but pack a weird wallop. I'm probably a bit less than halfway done (1,500 words or so). I'd like to read your story if you'd like to share it--my email is visible in my profile--if you care to share. I, of course, would return the favor. Perhaps in sharing, we would spur each other on to finish our respective tales...?

Please note that I said "and at times overly florid". That Poe's work was generally highly-colored, I don't think anyone would disagree (save for some of his sketches); but Poe himself realized he went "over the top" on occasion, and strove to tone down such excesses. He was, in most instances, a consummate artist, but Poe was not always stable, and that can sometimes play hob with getting enough distance to judge whether one is being colorful to just the proper degree to achieve the desired effect, or overshooting the mark. Having reread the entirety of Poe's work (along with Prof. Mabbott's annotations and commentary) just about a year ago, I make the distinction given above. I agree, however, that it is ironic that such a phrase would be used on a board devoted to CAS... although, again, Smith could be very controlled in his voice and, however highly colored his work is, he was by no means always shading into the ultraviolet....

On the subject of "florid" writing in general... there is, of course, nothing wrong with such lapidary prose, should it suit the subject and mood, flowing naturally from these. On the other hand, when one uses such words where they simply don't belong, or where they give an erroneous or jarring impression (one which goes against the grain of the general tone), then that is, to my mind, more in the nature of true "purple prose" -- the sort of thing which Merritt did at times; certainly the sort of thing one runs into with the penny dreadfuls and modern best-sellers in the "horror" genre a great deal. Such handling tends not to add to the nuance and complexity of the associations evoked, but reduce them to burlesque or even unconscious self-parody. Poe never went to this extent, but there were times when he did veer a little close to it; though it must also be said that most of these were in his earlier works. By his full maturity, he very seldom made such errors in judgment; and would often go back and revise his earlier works to tone down such excesses as he had committed in his youth.

My Poe comment was really just to highlight the irony of its appearing in the CAS forum.

For the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree. Also, I wasn't really thinking of Poe's earliest works. I don't find that point especially relevant, because nearly every writer finds aspects of his first efforts wanting, to varying degrees, and learns as he goes. Even CAS revised his early poetry for inclusion in the Selected Poems.

I would add semi-tangentially that debates and distinctions about the simpler versus the more ornate rhetorical styles reach back to Antiquity. See, for instance, discussions of the Attic versus the Asiatic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10 Oct 11 | 08:08PM by Absquatch.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My Poe comment was really just to highlight the
> irony of its appearing in the CAS forum.
>
> For the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree.
> Also, I wasn't really thinking of Poe's earliest
> works. I don't find that point especially
> relevant, because nearly every writer finds
> aspects of his first efforts wanting, to varying
> degrees, and learns as he goes. Even CAS revised
> his early poetry for inclusion in the Selected
> Poems.
>
> I would add semi-tangentially that debates and
> distinctions about the simpler versus the more
> ornate rhetorical styles reach back to Antiquity.
> See, for instance, discussions of the Attic versus
> the Asiatic.


Glad to see you mention that, as it is a fascinating sidelight when it comes to approaches in literature. For myself, I see advantages to both, and I suppose if I had to voice a preference, it would probably be for the Asiatic (or Asianic, I have seen it both ways), with its verbal color and often bejewelled quality.

My point about Poe, which I agree is minor overall, is that he did at times lean toward such excess -- not always in his earlier works (cf. the changes he made to "The Oval Portrait", which originally, as "Life in Death", appeared in 1842, for instance; but also changes to "The Fall of the House of Usher", etc.), and Lovecraft did follow this tendency in some of his works as well (such as "The Outsider"), but when it came to this aspect of his writing, he (wisely, I think), chose the relatively simple manner of Dunsany instead, thus expanding his range. This is the major point I was making; and I certainly do not wish to either dismiss or denigrate the valuable influence Poe had on his development... nor do I wish to appear as one who views Poe with less than the proper respect; he is one of the greatest literary voices America has ever produced, and I have always returned to his work with the greatest of pleasure (save for a very few exceptions) -- and am likely to continue to do so. Like Lovecraft, I first encountered his work at a very early age; I was six at the time, and found a book my older sister had and devoured it avidly... I by no means understood it all, but I immediately fell in love with the man's work, nor have I ever fallen out since. But reading Poe now, I am more able to see both his strengths and his flaws than I have when younger, hence my comments above.

On Dunsany's influence on Lovecraft, though... I think that this, too had both its good and bad points; for a time it subsumed Lovecraft's own natural idiom into something quite different -- a point he raised many years later; but it also, I think, taught him how to get away from both the Georgian and Poe influences in addressing certain things, thus allowing him to eventually make his own unique synthesis; and from both his own comments and studying the development of his work overall, not just the fiction, I would say that he really wouldn't have been either as versatile or as polished a writer had it not been for his exposure to Dunsany. Nor, given his output before and after, would he likely have written nearly as much; and his growth would at the very least have been much retarded, given that he did find Dunsany an immensely motivating influence when it came to his own writing, both in that idiom and in others.

Apropos of Poe, that's interesting. Does Mabbott merely discuss in his notes/annotations the changes you mention, or are you using a variorum edition, where you can actually see the changes? I ask, because I wonder whether the revisions were a pruning of rhetorical excess, or merely the sorts of alterations any writer might make, for various reasons.

At any rate, I ought to get Mabbott's edition, myself, or at least have a look at it in the library. My complete tales volume is the one edited by the Levines. It's scholarly, annotated, etc., but it is still a "student" edition.

Just to be clear, I am not by any means implying that Poe is flawless; merely that he is more in control of his style--whether one likes that style or not--than his detractors are usually wont to admit. (And I realize that you aren't among the latter, obviously).

Anyway, as we agree, that's a minor matter. As to Dunsany's influence upon Lovecraft, your speculations are eloquently pleaded, and could well be right, but they remain speculations. As someone who is not a great admirer of Dunsany's, I cannot help wondering in turn, as I've mentioned, whether Lovecraft would have been a better writer without that influence, or, at the least, if the influence had been muted. Certainly Lovecraft could have derived the "Attic" facets of his style from other sources, even non-fictional ones, such as his beloved Addison.

Thank you very much for the kind words!

The edition I was referring to is the trade paperback publication from the University of Illinois, a reprinting of the three-volume Harvard edition (1 of the complete poetry, 2 of the tales and sketches) and yes, it is at least in part a variorum edition, which shows the alterations. Most are indeed minor (including typographical errors and the like), but some, such as those with "The Oval Portrait", are quite extensive. Originally, that tale had a very lengthy first paragraph (in this edition it is nearly a full page, double-column, 8-point type), which he removed later; and the ending was altered as well, removing some extra material which rather deflated the effect by overdoing it (although I can see why he would have originally written it that way). It's fascinating to see Poe through a combination of this, the majority of his criticism, and a large selection of his letters. Whatever his flaws, he was one of the major voices in world literature, and we would all -- even his detractors -- be a damned sight poorer had he never lived.

Not to drag this out unduly but, for those who may be interested in a couple of specifics of why I feel Dunsany was such an important force for Lovecraft... For one thing, I would say that he was exposed to him at exactly the right time for it to "take". He had written "Polaris", and it was this which prompted others to remark how similar the two were. At that point, I would argue that the sort of artistic vision he was developing had many affinities for Dunsany, but it was not quite natural to HPL as a mode of expression; so when he actually did read Dunsany, it is not surprising that, as he put it, "[t]he first paragraph arrested me as with an electric shock" (SLII.328), nor that "About 1919 the discovery of Lord Dunsany -- from whom I got the idea of the artificial pantheon and myth-background represented by "Cthulhu", "Yog-Sothoth", "Yuggoth", etc. -- gave a vast impetus to my weird writing; and I turned out material in greater volume than ever before or since" ("Some Notes on a Nonentity", CE5.209-10). As he wrote to Richard Ely Morse in 1932: "[Dunsany] has certainly influenced me more than any other living writer" (I Am Providence, p. 335), and I think this is because Dunsany showed him how the very sorts of things he was contemplating could prove viable in literature at that period, thus providing him with an incitement to create not only writings of that nature, but a greater variety of fantastic writings, period.

I would agree that this cannot be definitely proved, but given Lovecraft's own views on the matter (and he was, by and large, a very self-aware individual when it came to the forces behind his writing), I would argue that it is highly likely, especially in light of the fact that, until his reading of Dunsany, he had written less than ten tales in eleven years:

1917

"The Tomb" (June)
"Dagon" (July)
"A Reminiscence of Dr. Samuel Johnson" (pub. Sept.)

1918

"Polaris" (circa May)
"The Green Meadow" (with W. V. Jackson; 1918? 1919?)

1919

"Beyond the Wall of Sleep" (Spring?)
"Memory" (early? 1919)
"Old Bugs" (ca. July)

Whereas immediately following his exposure to Dunsany, he wrote the following:

1919

"The Transition of Juan Romero" (Sept. 16)
"The White Ship" (Nov.)
"The Statement of Randolph Carter" (Dec.)
"The Doom That Came to Sarnath" (Dec. 3)
"The Street" (late 1919)

1920

"The Terrible Old Man" (Jan. 28)
"The Tree" (early 1920)
"The Cats of Ulthar" (June 15)
"The Temple" (mid- or late 1920 -- no later than early Nov.)
"Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family" (ditto)
"Poetry and the Gods" (with Anna Helen Crofts; by Sept.)
"Celephais" (early Nov.)
"From Beyond" (Nov. 16)
"Nyarlathotep" (early Dec.)
"The Picture in the House" (Dec. 12)
"Life and Death" (non-extant; 1920?)
"The Crawling Chaos" (with W. V. Jackson; 1920? 1921?)
"Ex Oblivione" (1920? 1921?)

1921

"The Nameless City" (Jan.)
"The Quest of Iranon" (Feb. 28)
"The Moon-Bog" (circa Mar. 10)
"The Outsider" (Spring? Summer?)
"The Other Gods" (Aug. 14)

finishing out the year with work on "Herbert West -- Reanimator" and writing (in December) "The Music of Erich Zann", and establishing at least semi-professional publication via Houtain's Home Brew....

There really are no other notable influences at this time; even the influence of Bierce (which I don't think has received nearly enough attention) doesn't seem to have inspired him to write anything in particular for some time, the most likely story to be directly influenced by him (if that) being "In the Vault", written much later. A rereading of Hawthorne taught him to use New England's topography (rather than the extremely vague New England of, say, "The Tomb", which could have been set practically anywhere)... but it was Dunsany who prompted him to write and let his imagination flow. The direct stylistic influence of Dunsany may or may not have been beneficial -- that one is easily arguable -- but the more general importance of Dunsany's influence in sparking Lovecraft's imagination and rousing him to experiment with his writing is, I would say, fairly well documented, and on this level I think his discovery of Dunsany was a very good thing.

On the Attic elements... yes, I agree; Wilde's fairy tales being a good possibility, for example. But for the reason given above, I think it was important for him to have come across Dunsany at this point, even where this is concerned; as those elements (which he had long been exposed to in the case of such writers as Joseph Addison -- another influence too often neglected) didn't seem to "take" with him. I really think it was a case of this being the right time in his development for such a spark to get the fires really roaring, and as far as expanding his range is concerned, Dunsany provided that impetus quite handily.

At any rate, Absquatch, I appreciate your ponits, and thank you for the thoughtful nature of your responses to mine....

Quote:

jdworth
The direct stylistic influence of Dunsany may or may not have been beneficial -- that one is easily arguable -- but the more general importance of Dunsany's influence in sparking Lovecraft's imagination and rousing him to experiment with his writing is, I would say, fairly well documented, and on this level I think his discovery of Dunsany was a very good thing.

Well said, my friend--I agree.

I think Lovecraft influences me similarly. His stories really got me into writing, and sparked a mind already leaning in a similar direction. His ornate prose style also helped to shape my own, which has always tended toward mild to moderate--and rarely extreme, in which I usually tone down--floridity. Just as Lovecraft was somewhat 'dominated' by Dunsany for a time, so too is Lovecraft currently--and consciously--my highest influence. I just hope I will be able to 'emerge from his shadow' someday. --It's just so much fun writing Lovecraftian stories! In my defence--not that I need to defend myself--I never mention anything specifically Lovecraftian; but the parallels are there, and obvious....

Moral of the story--I think every writer has to go through the 'Dunsanian' phase--if I may use Lovecraft's experience in a broader sense. In Lovecraft's case, the influence was extreme--but he did eventually 'come out of the shadow,' and become an original force in fantastic literature.

Excellent post, jd.

Quote:

but the more general importance of Dunsany's influence in sparking Lovecraft's imagination and rousing him to experiment with his writing is, I would say, fairly well documented, and on this level I think his discovery of Dunsany was a very good thing.

The first point was never at issue, with me, only the second.

Few of the tales you list as springing from "Dunsany fever" are ones for which Lovecraft is remembered today, so I see their value as mainly propaedeutic. I believe that even Joshi writes that, had Lovecraft perished or ceased to write to write in the early 1920's, he would have likely have remained unknown.

At any rate, as you say, enough is enough. Poe and Dunsany, in that order, are far and away the two greatest literary influences on Lovecraft, along with some vaguely assimilated Augustan-era mannerisms; on that, we can likely agree. Whether Dunsany's influence was beneficial is less easily resolved.

To K. A. and Jim: Thank you.

To Absquatch: Again, thank you for the thoughtful response, and I would agree that, had he ceased there, HPL would have remained a minor figure in the literature of weird fiction (though I also think a few of those stories are quite suggestive, myself) -- along the lines of, say, Caldicott, Braddon, Riddell, etc., in the history of the ghostly tale. And I also think your use of that particular term is very appropriate....

Thanks,in turn, jd, for the detailed and extensively documented material in your replies; all that must have taken a while to compile.

A couple of side notes. It's always interested me how Lovecraft could be so interested in dreams, and yet so--it would seem--uninterested in the English Romantic poets and others of that time for whom dreams were such an important subject. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, then I'd be interested to see it. Of course, Lovecraft paid the usual lip service to Keats, Shelley, et al., but I've never had the sense that he deeply engaged with them in any way.

My theory to explain this is that Lovecraft did not appreciate dream-like and imaginative literature deeply unless there was a strong component of fantasy involved--hence, his love of Dunsany. Keats was imaginative and very concerned with dreams, but he was no fantasist. (I realize that comparison is not ideal, but it serves its purpose).

Finally, here's an excerpt from Strachey's essay on Sir Thomas Browne, which contains a sentence occasionally paraphrased by CAS. It is a nice thumbnail illustration of the difference between the Attic and the Asiatic, as it relates to the English language.

Quote:

Not only is the Saxon form of speech devoid of splendour and suggestiveness; its simplicity is still further emphasised by a spondaic rhythm which seems to produce (by some mysterious rhythmic law) an atmosphere of ordinary life, where, though the pathetic may be present, there is no place for the complex or the remote. To understand how unsuitable such conditions would be for the highly subtle and rarefied art of Sir Thomas Browne, it is only necessary to compare one of his periods with a typical passage of Saxon prose.

'Then they brought a faggot, kindled with fire, and laid the same down at Doctor Ridley's feet. To whom Master Latimer spake in this manner: 'Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.'


Nothing could be better adapted to the meaning and sentiment of this passage than the limpid, even flow of its rhythm. But who could conceive of such a rhythm being ever applicable to the meaning and sentiment of these sentences from the Hydriotaphia?

To extend our memories by monuments, whose death we daily pray for, and whose duration we cannot hope without injury to our expectations in the advent of the last day, were a contradiction to our beliefs. We, whose generations are ordained in this setting part of time, are providentially taken off from such imaginations; and, being necessitated to eye the remaining particle of futurity, are naturally constituted unto thoughts of the next world, and cannot excusably decline the consideration of that duration, which maketh pyramids pillars of snow, and all that's past a moment.

I'm very glad to see I've started a topic which has actually attracted interest and sparked some meaningful discussion--a first for me here. I have been finding all of your comments very interesting, and I'm definitely reconsidering my views of the importance--and even great benefit--of Dunsany's influence on Lovecraft. When I started the topic, I was leaning toward Dunsany being slightly detrimental to Lovecraft (for my taste); but I now see how complex the issue really is, and am now--thanks to the great comments here--leaning in the opposite direction. Good stuff here, fellas!

Quote:

thanks to the great comments here--leaning in the opposite direction.

*chuckles* Must not be as a result my "great comments", then, since I am in the "critics of Dunsany" camp, but I am sure others here will be glad to see you out of my evil ambit. No worries, though, as I am quite used to being completely alone here in holding any given view; that's part of the fun of contributing. ;-)