K_A_Opperman wrote:

*** Well said, Gavin. I can perfectly understand what you're saying--which is paramount in effective scholarly writing; and what's more, you've made a valid point--in a perfectly dignified, unhostile, uncondescending way, in proper English, which causes me no pain whatever to read, though I also enjoy CAS's ornate style, and tend to write in one myself. TE, I think, places an undue amount of importance on his own tastes and opinions. ***

Yup. Don't rock the flock -- bleat to the beat. Y'know, over Halloween a v. disturbing thought occurred to me. I spend almost all my online-time surfin' for rare coins, gay porn and über-extreme expressions of abhumanity (e.g. beheading videos, Mexican crime pics, Hilary C. speeches). So I'm not-'t'all familiar with the various online literary communities. The thought that occurred to me over Halloween was: If members of the CAS community are THIS free-thinking, non-comformist and resistant to the Zeitgeist, what about...

...members of the Tolkien community? (gulp)

...members of the J.K. Rowling community? (double-gulp)

...members of the Ursula Le Guim community? (googol-gulp)

---

“The true independent is he who dwells detached and remote from the little herds as well as from the big herd. Affiliating with no group or cabal of mice or monkeys, he is of course universally suspect.” — The Black Book of Gore Vidal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 9 Nov 11 | 05:50AM by treycelement.

I love HP Lovecraft!

Horror Stories

Well, a forum is not the ideal place to read such an in-depth and analytical essay - but I struggled through. I'd say in its defence that attacks on its literary merits seem harsh to me... It suffers from the same problems that all academic/pseudo-academic writings suffer from: overt-wordiness, a certain dryness of tone and a mind-numbing attention to detail, but this is a fault of the 'genre' (if genre it is) rather than Gavin's, whose post are always highly readable, witty and urbane... But in fairness the problem is more likely to be mine than Gavin's, I just don't like academic writing, especially as all critical theory has basically evolved from the duel cognitive straight jackets of Freud and Marx.

However I do totally disagree with the thrust of the piece (excluding the obvious influence that dreams/nightmares had on Lovecraft and his fiction - which is unarguably correct). While its refreshing to read a piece on HPL that doesn't focus specifically on his cosmicness, I have to concur with Absquatch (not something that I'm in a habit of doing) that to suggest that HP's cosmic perspective is less important to his interests in the macabre is highly flawed. Indeed, I have a problem with the idea that the two are in anyway mutually exclusive... There is a terrible dogma and inexcusable lack of understanding in modern liberal thinking that fails to grasp that every human mind, and therefore Lovecraft's mind, is highly capable of compartmentalization; that it is possible to hold two apparently opposing beliefs or perspectives simultaneously; that we can double-think without Big Brother. Indeed, we are more than capable, it is ubiquitous in all humans all the time! Therefore Lovecraft'ss love of tradition and his racism, etc... (both intrinsically un-cosmic perspectives) can all be part of Lovecraft's philosophy while not undermining his cosmicism in anyway. There is absolutely no conflict whatsoever. Just as it is possible to lie The Beatles and the Stones or be pro-choice and be a vegan or believe that murder is wrong and fight in wars... Human's are inconsistent and compartmentalize all the time over more fundamental and banal things than liking tradition and believing that human's are insignificant specks of nothing... The lack of liberal understanding of compartmentalization is no doubt supported by the mistaken belief that the Self is a consistent and unique thing. Recent advances in neuro-science suggests that the Self is at best highly modular, thus in effect that the unified Self doesn't really exist. At least not as is traditionally assumed. Accepting the absence of Self, basically this leaves Freudian psychoanalytical readings of authors by their texts redundant (if they weren't anyway).

While psychoanalysing authors through there texts is fun and can, upon occasions, might lead to a greater understanding of their work (and some authors are more prone to this sort of analysis - I'd argue that HPL is one of these authors who it is hard not to put on the couch), however I'd suggest that it is always fraught with danger to apply a reading of a text to the inner workings of the author. To my mind the only critical theory text, or anti-crit theory text, worth considering is Death of the Author, because once the authors job is done then the only relationship that matters is that between the reader and the text. I'm not going to fall into the Freudian trap of suggesting Gavin's slanders against Lovecraft are really an admission of his own infantile psycho-sexual hang-ups, but I will suggest that I'd sooner read a less academic and more personal account of what Lovecraft's tales mean to him that his splicing of psychoanalytical texts with Lovecrafts fictions to ridicule him.

Again, I'd like to say that this is not meant as an attack on Gavin per se, but just my personal opinion of this style of criticism.

Absquatch wrote:

*** There are exceptions, but most contemporary literary critics seem to me to be passive-aggressive egotists who exist in a parasitic relation to their betters; i.e., those who actually create. Authors and their works are nowadays merely grist in the mill for some personal or ideological agenda. ***

Meanwhile, in a galaxy right here...

Abstract: In this essay I propose that both Charlotte Perkins Gilman's system of androcentric commerce and Luce Irigaray's "hom(m)o-sexual monopoly" are elements as pervasive as the dying star trope in Clark Ashton Smith's "Zothique Cycle" through a feminist critique of "The Black Abbot of Puthuum," "Morthylla," "The Charnel God" and "Necromancy in Naat." To this end, I expose the materialistic foundations of Clark Ashton Smith's "Zothique Cycle" by re-examining the author's claim that cosmicism is the predominant literary philosophy at work in his short stories, and by raising issues of racial hybridity and female otherness throughout the cycle. Finally, I consider the Freudian death anxiety in "The Weaver in the Vault" and "The Last Hieroglyph" to demonstrate the means by which Smith transcends his material foundations in order to achieve the cosmic otherness of the genre.

[www.eldritchdark.com]

Abstract shmabstract -- 'I wanna be subjugated!' sums up PERfectly what the parasite/Procrustes wanted to say. Was the feminist agenda so slavishly adopted in hopes of getting L**D? If so, I could understand, tho' not excuse. If not, I could neither understand NOR excuse. See also 'The Call of Cthulhooh.'

[www.eldritchdark.com]

---

“The true independent is he who dwells detached and remote from the little herds as well as from the big herd. Affiliating with no group or cabal of mice or monkeys, he is of course universally suspect.” — The Black Book of Gore Vidal.

Absquatch: I don't know whether or not you (or anyone else, for the matter of that) would be interested in my responses, but foolhardiness has always been my besetting sin, so (as the saying goes) for what it's worth....



Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jdworth:
>
> As I mentioned, I really had not intended to
> comment further on this subject, but it would be
> churlish to overlook completely your carefully
> considered and thoughtful rejoinder.
>
> 1. Callaghan's Lovecraft criticism. Let's start
> with a few choice, and highly representative,
> excerpts (emphasis in capitals is mine):
>
> "That these multiple depictions of squatting look
> back to the period of Lovecraft’s earlier
> toilet-training definitely seems possible -SURELY
> a troublesome period in a household as inhibited
> and fastidious as Lovecraft’s."
>
> "One immediately thinks here of the marked
> excremental aspects of Lovecraft’s fiction: the
> subterranean (anal) vaults explored by his
> protagonists and inhabited by his monsters, the
> excremental Shoggoths, the frequent and flatulent
> blasts of wind and thunder, and the necrophilic
> behaviors and cannibalistic eating habits of
> Lovecraft’s creatures- habits which are
> essentially anal-sadistic in nature. [...]
> gathering unholy speed and driving before it a
> spiral, re-thickening cloud of the pallid abyss
> vapor (MM 101) (flatulence?)."
>
> "hile Greene was SEVEN years older, thus
> reflecting a transference or a continuation of the
> maternal role."
>
> You might wish to re-read these passages
> carefully, and then ask yourself again, "Do I
> really want to defend this?"

In my responses to Gavin's essay, I tackled some of this, calling attention to the dogmatism of certain aspects of it and expressing my concern that such a firm approach was not really supportable, at least on the evidence at hand. I especially took exception to the second passage you quote which, though I agree that such an interpretation is possible and even perhaps (given a Freudian framework) reasonable, far too limiting. On the bit about Sonia... while I agree that this sentence, in itself, is no indication of such, taken in conjunction with a number of other known factors about Lovecraft's life, it is not a terribly far-fetched concept. He did tend to surround himself with mother-substitutes a fair amount of his life, and his own views about his mother, though of course changing over time, always remained quite ambiguous... yet he never let go of the (in general terms) somewhat excessive attachment.

As for "defending"... I'm not at all sure that such needs defending, if posited less dogmatically. At any rate, given a Freudian-based analysis, Gavin has not done badly in general, though I do think there are some problems to be addressed.

>
> That said, I would agree that this latest
> contribution is less directly disparaging of
> Lovecraft than Callaghan's past offerings, but
> that isn't much of an improvement. Wholly apart
> from the usual endeavor to reduce Lovecraft, and
> even apart from the barefaced dementia of
> Callaghan's choice of archaic sources and
> perspectives, such as Sabine Baring-Gould, and, my
> personal favorite, the sleazy, limelight-seeking
> police psychiatrist J. Paul de River, the method
> is risible: The theories of archaic, highly
> dubious sources (Freud, Jones) are treated as
> bearing unimpeachable truth, then incidents and
> themes from Lovecraft's tales and biography are
> dutifully cherry-picked to fit the theory, and the
> only tie holding this farrago of circumstantial
> nonsense together is Callaghan's particular idée
> fixe.
>

I know nothing about de River or Jones aside from the essay itself, so cannot comment there; but -- despite challenges (which, again, I mention in my responses) -- I would hesitate to label Freud as "archaic" or "highly dubious" quite so casually. Personally, as I said in those comments, I find Freud tends to ben too limiting, too dogmatic, too fixated on certain aspects to the exclusion of others which are equally deserving of notice... and these aspects of his work don't (from my understanding) fare too well in light of recent findings, especially with what we are learning via such fields as neurology working in combination with psychiatry and the like. Still, there is a good deal of Freud which remains rather strongly supported (again, as I understand it) by some of the leading figures in the therapeutic fields, albeit often modified.

The upshot here being that, while not "up-to-date" on current theoretical models, such a Freudian look at the work is by no means outside the bounds of acceptable criticism.

> jdworth: "As I say, I don't see an attempt to
> 'explain' Lovecraft, but rather to view his work
> through a certain lens in this instance."
>
> Honestly, this is sophistical, to me. The "lens"
> through which Callaghan has viewed Lovecraft, as
> evidenced in this forum, is always the same: A
> racist, fear-driven, over-privileged New England
> WASP aristocrat whose writings and perspectives
> can be reduced to nothing more than than the sum
> of his alleged phobias and biases. Now, instead of
> the perspective of self-righteous class warfare,
> the assault comes via Freudianism. The chords and
> the tempo may vary, but the song remains the same.
> I am not worried, though, because attacking
> Lovecraft with Freud is the equivalent of
> assaulting a modern army with catapults and
> halberds.
>

I am sorry you find this to be sophistical. To me, it is a rather strong distinction between "explaining", "reducing", or "attacking", and bringing a certain perspective to bear on the works to see what (if anything) of value may be gathered in the process. The fact that he states in his response to my comments that this is only one of a variety of perspectives he uses in a much larger work, combined with some of his other postings I've seen here and there, leads me to see this as examining different facets of Lovecraft's work, much like looking through a prism (hence my use of "lens"), turning it different ways for different essays, to provide in the end a larger, more searching view of the whole. To me, this is an interesting, perhaps even admirable, approach... provided that the person
doing the analysis is careful to not violate known facts about the subject. While I may disagree -- even strongly disagree -- with certain portions of what he has to say, or feel a lack of sympathy for the particular perspective in question, this is a personal preference of my own, and in no way invalidates such an approach.

As I said above, my sympathy with a Freudian perspective is limited, but not entirely absent. I have seen some fascinating work done using such a perspective, work which tends to leave me with a greater admiration for the artist in question than I had before. I think Gavin's work has the potential, at least, for this as well. (I will admit, though, that I never thought I'd be speaking up for an analysis from this angle, given my relative coldness to such an approach!)

> jdworth: " also makes it quite evident that he
> finds much to admire in HPL as well."
>
> "Quite evident"? You and I have a very different
> lexicon, it seems. Anyway, I freely admit that I
> have missed that particular needle in the
> haystack. I would enjoy seeing examples, and, in
> particular, I would like to see a totting up of
> the positive references versus the negative ones.
> I'll wager that the latter will outnumber the
> former by at least a factor of ten.
>

It is true that I have not had a chance to go back through the essay in its entirety to do this, but I do recall -- and, if memory serves, even commented on -- passages where Gavin spoke with a certain degree of respect and perhaps even admiration concerning Lovecraft's abilities to turn such original material into truly effective, even grand, works of weird art, as well as several where he comments favorably on Lovecraft's intellect and courage. As for the "negative" aspects here... given the nature of the analysis, I'm not sure that is a just description. Such tendencies as he posits don't tend to carry such moral characterizations in such a framework; they are more fairly common primal experiences and associations we all tend to have to one degree or another. What is interesting is how something which, at base, is often seen (again, in such theories) as so common, can be used by an individual like Lovecraft to create work which not only has such resonance with others, but manages to be unique and individual.

At any rate, I was struck by the degree to which Gavin -- who has, at times, been a bit more censorious of HPL than I feel merited -- presented his utilizing such material in such a way not as something "wrong" or "morbid", but actually as therapeutic and creative. Such is my impression from the essay, anyhow.


> jdworth: "There is a world of difference between
> noting psychological and emotional traits which
> are strongly indicated (if not necessarily
> proven)."
>
> There is an even greater world of difference
> between, on the one hand, proving that these
> emotional traits exist in Lovecraft--no reputable
> psychologist would ever analyze a patient in
> absentia--and that the theory Callaghan invokes to
> interpret them has even a remote basis in reality,
> and, on the other, what Callaghan has done in this
> essay: To assume the validity of his theoretical
> framework, and then to draw "logical" inferences
> from his application of them to certain
> cherry-picked themes, creatures, and incidents in
> Lovecraft's fiction.
>

You are quite correct in stating that no therapist would undertake to make such an analysis... but the intent there (and the significance of such an analysis, if accepted, on the field) would be quite a different thing than what we have here, which is utilizing a (rather broad) Freudian lens to look at certain traits in Lovecraft's work and life. Again, I have expressed my own reservations about the "certainty" at times expressed in the essay, but in general I would argue that the procedure remains relatively sound, within the context.


> jdworth: "Again, whether or not CAS would approve
> of such an examination of his friend is beside the
> point."
>
> It's not beside the point I was trying to make,
> whose context I'll leave you to re-examine, if you
> wish.
>
> jdworth: "or, if memory serves, was CAS entirely
> dismissive of (Freud), though he approached him
> with greater caution than most."
>
> I beg your pardon, but CAS really was dismissive
> of Freud. If the multiple pejorative references in
> the letters and the essays don't convince you,
> then ask calonlan, if you doubt my word.
>

My memory, obviously, did not serve.... Yes, I'd say he was dismissive of Freud's theories, though I think he recognized his significance historically -- that is, as an influence. He did not, however, apparently agree with it at all. (I could have sworn I saw some statement from him, a long time ago, which indicated he wasn't entirely dismissive, but apparently I am quite mistaken. At least, I've not been able to track it down.)

> 2. CAS and literary criticism: As I mentioned, if
> we broaden the term to the point of absurdity, to
> include opinions, short personal essays, brief
> book introductions, etc., then you are correct,
> CAS engaged in literary criticism. My point is
> that I do not accept that broad a definition.
>
> More specifically, I am trying to compare apples
> to apples: In other words, the formal, lengthy and
> (superficially) scholarly study, theory driven and
> laden with footnotes, such as Callaghan is
> endeavoring to produce, versus CAS's quite brief
> personal essays, bits of puffery for friends, and
> his book review. I don't want to argue about the
> definition of the term, but, to me, "literary
> criticism" in the professional sense is what we
> are describing here, and CAS had little to no
> truck with it.
>

Given the qualifications above, I stand properly rebuked. We differ on this, but as for comparing like to like... you are indubitably correct.

> 3. Science: No, I am afraid I understood you
> perfectly. When you write, "I find that science
> offers the best course we have (so far) evolved to
> come to a genuine understanding of how the
> universe (including ourselves) works", that is
> exactly the perspective that I (and CAS) oppose.
> Those who believe that science provides a
> "genuine" (whatever that may mean) understanding
> are welcome to believe that. Again, though, I do
> not want to argue about this subject. The last
> time I did so, I was quickly surrounded by hyenas,
> a fiasco that ended in my having my previous
> account banned. To suggest among educated people
> today that science does not offer the final word
> on a given subject, as I learned the hard way, is
> the equivalent of advocating for heliocentrism in
> the 13th Century. You're welcome to disagree with
> CAS wherever you wish, of course, but I am happy
> to have him on my side, in this instance.
>

It is a pity that a disagreement about this should take such an acrimonious turn. I still feel that science remains the best tool we have so far evolved to find the truth behind such questions, but would like to hear a good deal more on the reasons behind your disagreement with that view.

> Now, let us, as usual, agree to disagree for the
> most part, and turn to more important and
> interesting things. I, for one, do not want to
> promote Callaghan, or offer him any more attention
> than I feel he deserves, which is very little. By
> that criterion, I have already spent far too much
> time here.

As I said at the beginning, I don't know whether my responses to your points will be of any interest to you, but if so, I at least hope that I have clarified a point or two....

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The lack of liberal understanding of compartmentalization is
> no doubt supported by the mistaken belief that the
> Self is a consistent and unique thing. Recent
> advances in neuro-science suggests that the Self
> is at best highly modular, thus in effect that the
> unified Self doesn't really exist. At least not as
> is traditionally assumed. Accepting the absence of
> Self, basically this leaves Freudian
> psychoanalytical readings of authors by their
> texts redundant (if they weren't anyway).
>

I'm not at all sure I agree with that conclusion, though I do tend to agree with the rest of this statement. Certainly, the indications that the "Cartesian Theatre" (as Daniel Dennett has expressed it) is a myth, and that what we are dealing with is an extremely complex set of "mechanical" processes producing an "I" which is problematic at best, opens up a great deal of controversy on the subject; but I will venture to express the opinion that the two aren't quite as incompatible, in many ways, as the above statement assumes.


> While psychoanalysing authors through there texts
> is fun and can, upon occasions, might lead to a
> greater understanding of their work (and some
> authors are more prone to this sort of analysis -
> I'd argue that HPL is one of these authors who it
> is hard not to put on the couch), however I'd
> suggest that it is always fraught with danger to
> apply a reading of a text to the inner workings of
> the author.

In this I am in agreement. I don't think the risk is in positing such things tentatively, given evidence to support them; but rather in taking a dogmatic approach that such things are self-evident and irrefutably so. They are possibilities, perhaps even very likely possibilities, and may be considered as such in looking at the works; but should never -- without a genuine therapeutic history to rely on -- be stated as fact.


> To my mind the only critical theory
> text, or anti-crit theory text, worth considering
> is Death of the Author, because once the authors
> job is done then the only relationship that
> matters is that between the reader and the text.

To me, this is one of the things which makes such analyses (generally speaking -- again, I am only intermittentl impressed with the Freudian approach) fascinating: the sharing of different perspectives, which gives me a wider range of ways to look at or think about a work. When done well, so that they provoke thought, discussion, debate, I find such works themselves to be texts worth returning to over the years. On occasion, I come across those which are themselves works of art in the beauty of their language, the crispness of their thought, the sharpness of their insight, and the breadth (and depth) of the knowledge they bring to bear on the matter. Fortunately, I have encountered enough of these last -- both from academics and non-academics -- to leave me with a rather better view of them than some here have expressed; certainly there are some of these which have enriched my life and broadened (and deepened) my own appreciation of various works of art... not only the specific ones which they addressed, but in general.

jdworth:

I am always interested in what you have to say, but this particular thread is not an ideal one for extended dialogue, in my view. We see eye to eye on some issues discussed here, and will have to agree to disagree on others.

To be clear, I do have great respect for Freud, though it may not seem so. He was a brave pioneer, a profound thinker, and he did the best he could with the materials and knowledge available to him. I despise people who take cheap shots at Freud, or at individuals such as Marx, for that matter--especially when such types haven't read either writer, which is more often than not the case. Both men may have had a deleterious effect on our civilization, as a whole, but they were brilliant individuals who were not by any means wrong about everything. That said, I see little reason to pretend that it's still 1917, and Freudian or Marxist analyses purs et durs are woefully anachronistic, to me.

As for the science comments, you can, if you are brave and diligent, unearth the previous thread, which the site owner locked after taking the last word in the debate. He has made clear that he will not tolerate any questioning of the "religion of Science" in this forum, even though the very subject of this site was a great skeptic of the scientific method as the final arbiter of reality. As a guest here, I must (grudgingly) honor that dictate.

Again, thank you for the courteous nature of your response, and the kind comments. I've been short on time, so haven't had a chance to look up the older thread (which I recall, somewhat vaguely), but will endeavor to do so when I have a chance to do so....

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Gavin Callaghan wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>I have yet to come across an opponent of Rand’s
> who is able counter her views without either
> name-calling or emotive, non-rational arguments.
>
> I suspect that that says more about the limits of
> Gavin's reading than it does about the opponents
> of Rand.

I meant in my personal life. It were better if I had written, “I have yet to encounter, in my personal life, an opponent of Rand’s who is able counter her views without either name-calling or emotive, non-rational arguments.”

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>I'd actually love to see some of his stuff
>published, so as to enjoy the spectacle
>of real scholars ripping in to him.

My essay, “HPL & Boxers”, is currently available in Lovecraft Annual #5, just out now from Hippocampus Press. My book on HPL, barring the unforeseen, should be out sometime in 2013 from McFarland/Scarecrow.

I would infinitely prefer professional criticisms to Absquatch’s amateur vituperations, too.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> even apart from the barefaced dementia of
> Callaghan's choice of archaic sources and
> perspectives, such as Sabine Baring-Gould, and, my
> personal favorite, the sleazy, limelight-seeking
> police psychiatrist J. Paul de River, the method
> is risible:

I’ve found the observations and conclusions of Baring-Gould, de River, Robert Eisler, and Ernest Jones to have been more than confirmed by the modern day observations of Robert Ressler. Even Montague Summers has pertinent things to say about sadism.

One notes that a use of "archaic sources and perspectives" has done nothing to dim Absquatch's ardor for HPL himself.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>I am not worried, though, because attacking
>Lovecraft with Freud is the equivalent of
>assaulting a modern army with catapults and halberds.

If there was an “attack” on HPL (and why this possibility should make Absquatch worry is a matter for someone else, more patient than I, to unravel), it was an attack by HPL upon himself.

When HPL leapt up from his desk in his school classroom in a chorea-like fit, his face a mass of uncontrollable tics, and had to be removed from school, he was revealing a very real, and very important, mental conflict in his life, a conflict which would come to color both the trajectory of his personal life, and the peculiar contours of his weird-fiction. HPL’s nihilism and pessimism were self-inflicted, and did a far greater injury to himself than my poor observations could ever have done.

I wonder if what happened to HPL in the classroom was the germ for what happened to Nathaniel Wingate Peaslee in "The Shadow out of Time" when the latter was taken over by a memberof the Great race of Yith.

Gavin Callaghan Wrote:

> When HPL leapt up from his desk in his school
> classroom in a chorea-like fit, his face a mass of
> uncontrollable tics, and had to be removed from
> school, he was revealing a very real, and very
> important, mental conflict in his life, a conflict
> which would come to color both the trajectory of
> his personal life, and the peculiar contours of
> his weird-fiction.

Really? He told you so? Is it a verified fact that the causes weren't physiological?

On this one I'm afraid I have to agree. Whilst the condition may have been psychosomatic, even de Camp has noted that there is no way of knowing whether Lovecraft's was of this nature, or had genuine physiological causes. To flatly state that it was psychological, as above, is frankly foolhardy in the extreme. One can posit it as likely, even the most probable, given the information we have, but certainty (and hence such a dogmatic stance) on such a matter is simply showing a strong confirmation bias, rather than having reached measured, deliberate conclusions. It is like the difference between saying (as the recent phrase is) "There is probably no God" and "There is no God". Though in my own beliefs I tend toward the latter, we cannot know, for we simply don't have all the relevant facts... and are likely never to, really.

I would also have to say that the rather loaded terminology used above also indicates just such a bias, and a choice of more neutral phrasing would carry the point better and with less of the appearance of having an axe to grind.

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

There is a terrible dogma and inexcusable lack of understanding in modern liberal thinking that fails to grasp that every human mind, and therefore Lovecraft's mind, is highly capable of compartmentalization; that it is possible to hold two apparently opposing beliefs or perspectives simultaneously; that we can double-think without Big Brother. Indeed, we are more than capable, it is ubiquitous in all humans all the time! Therefore Lovecraft'ss love of tradition and his racism, etc... (both intrinsically un-cosmic perspectives) can all be part of Lovecraft's philosophy while not undermining his cosmicism in anyway. There is absolutely no conflict whatsoever.

If I have a quarrel, it is certainly not with HPL (who is, after all, long dead), but rather with certain aspects of current Lovecraft scholarship. It's all well and good for HPL himself to have been a mainly mundane writer in his weird-fiction, and an exponent of cosmicism in his correspondence. But when the echo chamber of Lovecraftian fandom starts repeating the notion that HPL was a purely cosmic writer and a staunch rationalist, then an objective reassessment, in my view, becomes necessary. The truth is, I really like HPL's work, and I cannot stand to see it misrepresented.

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? He told you so? Is it a verified fact that
> the causes weren't physiological?

Obviously, I am speaking from my point of view, and the point of view of my theory. If Martinus has evidence to the contrary (i.e., that the causes were purely physiological), let him advance it. Surely I have adduced enough evidence for my point of view in the above essay.

Gavin Callaghan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> When HPL leapt up from his desk in his school
> classroom in a chorea-like fit, his face a mass of
> uncontrollable tics, and had to be removed from
> school, he was revealing a very real, and very
> important, mental conflict in his life, a conflict
> which would come to color both the trajectory of
> his personal life, and the peculiar contours of
> his weird-fiction. HPL’s nihilism and pessimism
> were self-inflicted, and did a far greater injury
> to himself than my poor observations could ever
> have done.

There's definitely a lot of extrapolation going on here... Ignoring the point about the harm your own observations (poor or otherwise),
I see no certainty to your diagnosis, nor am I sure that HP's nihilism and pessimism were a) avoidable (let's make no assumption about free will), and b) harmful. It seems to me that HP's found a certain affirmation and even, to some extent, comfort in his philosophy without resorting to the delusions of the ant hill. They might not have bought him an easy happiness, but I've heard nothing of his existence that doesn't suggest that he faced the disappointments of life and the agonise of a prolonged death with anything less than fortitude and dignity. Lovecraft may have had problems (don't we all), but he certainly wasn't a basket case.

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would also have to say that the rather loaded
> terminology used above also indicates just such a
> bias, and a choice of more neutral phrasing would
> carry the point better and with less of the
> appearance of having an axe to grind.

At what point in any matter (evolution, economic theory, politics?) can certitude ever be said to be reached? On this matter, I have great confidence in the general outlines of my theory. Objectivity in matters of truth should never be mistaken for neutrality; in matters of truth, one is allowed to be positive. I am a proponent of my theory.

This, of course, is why there are disagreements between people of opposing viewpoints: as there should be.